#and how the government should not be included in those decisions

[stephobrien]

Is your pro-Palestine activism hurting innocent people? Here's how to avoid that.

Note: If you prefer plain text, you can read the plain text version here.

Over the last few days, I’ve had conversations with several Jewish people who told me how hurt and scared they are right now.

To my great regret, some of that pain came from a poorly-thought-out post of mine, which – while not ill-intentioned – WAS hurtful.

And a lot of it came from cruelty they’d experienced at the hands of people who claim to be advocating for Palestine, but are using the very real plight of innocent Palestinians to harm equally innocent Jewish people.

Y’all, we need to do better. (Yes, “we” definitely includes me; this is in no small part a “learn from my fail” post, and also a “making amends” post. Some of these are mistakes I’ve made in the past.)

So if you’re an advocate for Palestine who wants to make sure that your defense of one group of vulnerable people doesn’t harm another, here are some important things to do or keep in mind:

Ask yourself if you’re applying a standard to one group that you aren’t applying to another.

Would you want all white Americans or Canadians to be expelled from America or Canada?

Do you want all Jewish people to be expelled from Israel, as opposed to finding a way to live alongside Palestinian Arabs in peace?

If the answer to those two questions is different, ask yourself WHY.

Do you want to be held responsible for the actions of your nation’s army or government? No? Then don’t hold innocent Jewish people, or Israelis in general (whether Jewish or otherwise), responsible for the actions of the Israeli army and government.

On that subject, be wary of condemning all Israeli people for the actions of the IDF. Large-scale tactical decisions are made by the top brass. Service is compulsory, and very few can reasonably get out of service.

Blaming all Israelis for the military’s actions is like blaming all Vietnam vets for the horrors in Vietnam. They’re not calling the shots. They aren’t Nazis running concentration camps. They are carrying out military operations that SHOULD be criticized.

And do not compare them or ANY JEWISH PERSON to Nazis in general. It is Jewish cultural trauma and not outsiders’ to use against them.

Don’t infuse legitimate criticism with antisemitism.

By all means, spread the word about the crimes committed by the Israeli army and government, and the complicity of their allies. Criticize the people responsible for committing and enabling atrocities.

But if you imply that they’re committing those crimes because they’re Jewish, or because Jewish people have special privileges, then you’re straying into antisemitic territory.

Criticize the crime, not the group. If you believe that collective punishment is wrong, don’t do it yourself.

And do your best to use words that apply directly to the situation, rather than the historical terms for situations with similar features. For example, use “segregation,” “oppression,” or “subjugation,” not “Holocaust” or “Jim Crow.” These other historical events are not the cultural property of Jews OR Palestinians, but also have their own nuances and struggles and historical contexts.

Also, blaming other world events on Jewish people or making Jewish people associated with them (for instance, some people falsely blame Jewish people for the African slave trade) is a key feature of how antisemitism functions.

Please, by all means, be specific and detailed in your critiques. But keep them focused on the current political actors – not other peoples’ or nations’ political or cultural histories and traumas.

Be prepared to accept criticism.

You probably already know that society is infused with a wide array of bigotries, and that people growing up in that environment tend to absorb those beliefs without even realizing it. Antisemitism is no exception.

What that means is, there’s a very real chance that you will screw up, and get called out on it, as I so recently did.

If that happens, please be willing to learn and adapt. If you can educate yourself about the suffering and needs of Palestinians, you can do the same for Jewish people.

Understand that the people you hurt aren’t obligated to baby you. Give them room to be angry.

After I made a post that inadvertently hurt people, some were nice about it, and others weren’t. Some outright insulted my morals and intelligence.

And I had to accept that I’d earned that from them.

I’d hurt them, and they weren’t obligated to be more careful with my feelings than I had been with theirs.

They weren’t obligated to forgive me, trust me, or stop being mad at me right away.

I’ll admit, there were moments when I got defensive. I shouldn’t have. And I encourage you to try not to, if you screw up and hurt people.

I know that’s hard, but it’s important. Getting defensive only tells people you care more about doubling down on your mistake than you do about healing the hurt it caused.

Instead, acknowledge that they have a right to be angry, apologize for the way you hurt them, and try to make amends, while understanding that they don’t owe you trust or forgiveness.

Be aware that some antisemites are using legitimate complaints to “Trojan horse” antisemitism into leftist spaces.

This is a really easy stumbling block to trip over, because most people probably don’t look at every post a creator makes before sharing the one they’re looking at right now.

I recently shared a video that called out some of the Likud and IDF’s atrocities and hypocrisy, and that also noted that many Jewish people are wonderful members of their communities.

I was later informed that, while that video in particular seemed reasonable, the creator behind it is frequently antisemitic.

I deleted the post, and blocked the creator. I encourage you to do the same if it’s brought to your attention that you’ve been ‘Trojan horse’d.

EDIT: Important note about antisemitism in leftist spaces:

While it's true that some blatant antisemites are using seemingly reasonable posts to get their foot in the door of leftist spaces, it's also true that a lot of antisemitism already exists inside those spaces.

This antisemitism is often dressed up in progressive-sounding language, but nonetheless singles Jewish people and places out in ways that aren't applied equally to other groups, or that label Jewish people in ways that portray them as acceptable targets.

If you want to see some specific examples, so you can have a better idea of what to keep an eye out for, I suggest reading this excellent reblog of this post.

Fact-check your doubts about antisemitism.

Depending on which parts of the internet you look at, you’ve probably seen people accused of antisemitism because they complained about the Likud and/or IDF’s actions. So you might be primed to be wary, or feel unsure of how to tell what counts as real antisemitism.

But that doesn’t mean antisemitism isn’t a very real, widespread, and harmful problem. And it doesn’t mean many or even most Jewish people are lying to you or being overly sensitive.

So if someone says something is antisemitic, and you aren’t sure, I encourage you to:

A. Look up the action or thing in question, including its history. Is there an antisemitic history or connotation you aren’t aware of? For best results, include “antisemitic” in your search query, in quotes.

B. Understand that some things, while not inherently antisemitic, have been used by antisemites often enough that Jewish people are understandably wary of them. Schrodinger’s antisemitism, if you will.

C. Ask Jewish people WHO HAVE OFFERED TO HELP EDUCATE YOU. Emphasis on WHO HAVE OFFERED. Random Jewish people aren’t obligated to give you their time and emotional energy, or to educate you – especially on subjects that are scary or painful for them.

@edenfenixblogs has kindly offered her inbox to those who are genuinely trying to learn and do better, and I’ve found her to be very kind, patient, reasonable, and fair-minded.

Understand that this is URGENTLY NEEDED.

In one of my conversations with a Jewish person who’d called me out, they said this was the most productive conversation they’d had with a person with a Palestinian flag in their profile.

THIS IS NOT OKAY.

I didn’t do anything special. All I did was listen, apologize for my mistakes, and learn.

Yes, it feels good to be acknowledged. But I feel like I’ve been praised for peeing IN the toilet, instead of beside it.

Apologizing, learning, and making amends after you hurt people shouldn’t be “the most reasonable thing I’ve heard from a person with a Palestinian flag pfp.”

It should be BASIC DECENCY.

And the fact that it’s apparently so uncommon should tell you how much unnecessary stress and fear Jewish people have been living with because of people who consider themselves defenders of human rights.

By all means, be angry at the Likud, the IDF, and the politicians, reporters, and specific media outlets who choose to enable and cover up for them.

But direct that anger toward the people who deserve it and are in a position to do something about it, not random people who simply happen to be Jewish, or who don’t want millions of people to be turned into refugees when less violent methods of achieving freedom and rights for Palestinians are available.

Stop peeing beside the toilet, people.

[alexanderwales]

I've said that organizational dysfunction should be a villain more often, mostly because of my belief that we need stories that give us information about how to deal with the biggest actual problems we, as a society, face. It's just very hard to write a story about organizational dysfunction that includes actually beating the organizational dysfunction.

But there's one place where organizational dysfunction does have an opportunity to show its villainous nature: videogames. Specifically, management videogames, where making decisions about organizational goals and who to hire is already central to gameplay.

Now, the average "management" game is not really about management per se. Everything is hyper abstract, you have a god's eye view, and you have ultimate authority over everything that you do. You are still looking for weak links and problems to correct, but a lot of that is pathing issues (if the game has that) or restructuring physical space.

So a management game that's about organizational dysfunction would be one where you're the new boss, looking to right the ship, and it would need to be an opaque organization, one where you can't just look inside someone's mind and see the "takes credit for others' work" trait.

I guess when I put it like that, I'm imagining something that's more like a detective game, as you do interviews and comb through piles of documents. And it's not as simple as "fire the bad people", because often those people are pulling a lot of weight, that's one of the reasons they've stuck around for so long, and replacing them is genuinely a hit to the company's ability to do ... whatever it's trying to do.

(Definitely also possible to do this same thing set in a government agency, a non-profit, or any other organization, though the actual problems will look at least somewhat different.)

[amateurvoltaire]

Usually when an English speaker is getting into the history of the French Revolution and wants to go beyond Wikipedia, they stumble on The Twelve Who Ruled. It’s inevitable. Since 1941 it has been a staple of lecture halls and history aficionados alike.

For me it was one of the first things I read, many years ago, and it shaped, to some extent, how I approached the period. I read it again last year, expecting to see it differently. I didn’t. It’s an old book. But still, by the standards of 21st-century historiography, largely accurate.

So since it’s a book a lot of beginners encounter, and since I’ve had half a mind to review some of the dozens of books on the French Revolution I own, I thought it would be a good place to start.

I will be assessing this book (and all others I review) on a scale from 1 to 5 in eight categories:

Before we start, remember two things:

This is my review, which means it is, by definition, biased. I try to stay as neutral as possible, but no one is fully objective.

You should never take anything as fact. I research things. I enjoy researching things. I spend far too much time researching things. But I’m human, and that means I make mistakes. Challenge everything you read, including this.

Twelve Who Ruled: An In-depth Review

Historical Accuracy

For a book published in the 1940s, Twelve Who Ruled is remarkable in how much of it remains uncontested, especially given that archival access in France was impossible during the war. Using only the printed sources available to him, Palmer built a richly detailed narrative of Year II. He avoided major factual errors and did not indulge in the lurid exaggerations or mythologising that often plagued earlier accounts of the Revolution.

On the contrary, Palmer’s portraits of key figures and events have stood the test of time. His depiction of Robespierre, for example, was unmatched in its balance, nuance and restraint when the book was published. Subsequent scholarship has generally confirmed Palmer’s factual claims. Indeed, many of his interpretations have been validated by later evidence: for instance, he is one of the first to advance the argument that the Terror’s policies were reactive responses to severe crises, rather than a premeditated program of mass violence, and that Robespierre never exercised dictatorial authority.

Eighty years later, Twelve Who Ruled still holds up as a factually sound work. Far from perpetuating discredited myths, Palmer steered a middle course, avoiding both Thermidorian clichés about a “blood-mad” Committee and hagiographic Jacobin legends.

Historiographical Position

When situating The Twelve Who Ruled within the landscape of French Revolution historiography, it is important to remember that Palmer was writing in 1941, before most of the major scholarly camps had fully taken shape. His work does not fit neatly into the classic categories of Marxist, Revisionist, or post-Revisionist schools (1), though it engaged with and later influenced those debates.

Palmer’s approach was essentially a liberal narrative of the Revolution’s most turbulent phase. He focused on the pragmatic demands of governance during an existential crisis, rather than on class struggle or ideological abstraction. This already set him apart from the Marxist tradition. His attention remained squarely on the actions and dilemmas of the twelve men on the Committee of Public Safety, and on the political and military pressures that shaped their decisions.

He also diverged from what would later become the Revisionist school. While Palmer shared their scepticism of class determinism, he did not embrace their emphasis on ideology as the primary driver. His account treats the Terror less as a product of revolutionary rhetoric than as a contingent response to internal collapse and foreign invasion. He was wary of overly ideological explanations.

In short, The Twelve Who Ruled occupies a distinctive historiographical position. As the first serious monograph on the Committee of Public Safety, it predates the Cold War polarities that shaped later scholarship. In my opinion, Palmer might best be described as a pragmatic liberal historian of the French Revolution. He did not write in the Marxist tradition of Lefebvre or Soboul (though he admired Lefebvre enough to translate his work), nor did he share the iconoclastic edge of later revisionists like Cobban or Furet (2).

Use of Primary Sources

Writing during World War II from the United States, Palmer relied entirely on published primary sources available in America. These included a wide range of printed materials: the proceedings and debates of the National Convention, official documents and reports of the Committee of Public Safety, as well as memoirs, letters, and revolutionary newspapers.

This breadth of material allowed him to reconstruct the Committee’s decisions and actions almost day by day, giving his narrative credibility. Crucially, Palmer did not confine himself to Paris. Because he was interested in the representatives on mission and provincial enforcement of the Terror, he also consulted sources on events in Lyon, Alsace, and Brittany. For its time, the study had a notably wide geographic scope.

Even so, Palmer’s research was limited to what was in print. He lacked access to unpublished archives, local records, or police files that later historians would use to deepen the field of social history. His source base is political and governmental. It reflects the perspective of the revolutionary authorities, not that of ordinary people.

In short, Palmer worked almost entirely with documents written by the deputies and officials (all men) who “ruled.” As a result, the book pays less attention to marginal voices (3). The result is a body of sources broad in political scope, if limited in social depth.

Palmer’s use of sources is generally careful and even-handed. He provides context for the material he cites and avoids cherry-picking. His work relies on French-language sources, as expected for the subject (4). While not archive-based in the modern sense, the research was solid enough that the book’s factual foundation has remained largely intact even after eighy years of further research.

Methodological Rigor

The Twelve who Ruled is not overtly theoretical; its strength lies in a coherent narrative framework and a clear analytical focus. In an era when many academic historians were often abandoning narrative and turning to structural or conceptual models, Palmer resisted the trend. He showed that storytelling, when anchored in analysis, could still carry serious weight. He did not invoke grand theories (Marxist class theory, Tocquevillian social theory, etc.), nor did he fill the text with historiographical jargon. Instead, he focused on applying a steady interpretive lens to the events of 1793–1794.

The idea that the Revolution’s survival hinged on creating a unified, legitimate, and forceful authority during the crisis is the leitmotif of the book. Every chapter, whether addressing the war effort, economic controls, or factional purges, returns to this analytical core. In methodological terms, Palmer’s approach can be described as problem-driven narrative.He identifies the central issue (governing amid chaos) and examines how various factors (personalities, ideologies, circumstances) shaped the response attempted by the Committee of Public Safety. The result is a tightly focused analysis. Despite covering a tumultuous year, the reader always understands why events unfold as they do: because the revolutionaries were trying, with varying degrees of success and virtue, to resolve the Republic’s existential crisis.

In discussing key concepts such as “revolution,” “terror,” and “virtue,” Palmer adopts sensible, if traditional, definitions. He uses the term “Terror” in his title and narrative because it was (and remains) the conventional label for the period, but he is careful to unpack what it meant in practice. He does not treat “The Terror” as a monolithic or abstract force. Instead, he breaks it down into specific policies and events (the Law of Suspects, the Revolutionary Tribunal’s activities, pressure from the sans-culottes etc.) to show how violence was implemented pragmatically, not philosophically.

Notably, Palmer did not anachronistically impose the term “Reign of Terror” on everything, he knew that the term gained currency mainly after Robespierre’s fall. His narrative implies, in line with modern findings, that the revolutionary government itself did not treat “Terror” as a coherent policy slogan (5). Palmer’s treatment of terror as a concept is methodological. He presents it as an emergency government and analyses the mechanics and morality of state violence without becoming entangled in a semantic argument.

His treatment of “revolution” and “virtue” follows the same logic. He presents the Revolution as a struggle to preserve the Republic against its enemies, even at the cost of violating some of its founding principles. He regularly cites the ideals of liberty and equality, and the 1789 Constitution, not to celebrate them but to underline the irony of their suspension “until the peace.” The term “virtue” appears mainly in the context of revolutionary rhetoric, particularly Robespierre’s vision of republican virtue. Palmer does not deliver a philosophical essay on the term. He lets Robespierre and Saint-Just speak for themselves, then examines the consequences. His analysis makes it clear that he understands Jacobin virtue as a kind of austere civic morality, which he implicitly weighs against liberal values.

Methodologically, Palmer is rigorous and consistent. He poses an implicit question: how did twelve men govern a revolution in crisis?—and answers it through a chronological but analytical narrative. His framework is free of glaring contradictions. He weaves political, military, and economic history into a single, unified argument.

The clarity of Palmer’s conceptual handling is evident in how easily the argument can be distilled. Readers never wonder what Palmer thinks the Terror was. He sees it as a revolutionary dictatorship, a term he uses without apology. It was, in some respects, effective (securing military victory), in others, creative (experimenting with democratic forms and state control), and in many, morally troubling.

Narrative Style

This is a subjective category, but one of Palmer’s greatest strengths lies in his narrative style, which is both clear and engaging. Unlike some academic history books, Twelve Who Ruled reads almost like a story, albeit a richly documented one, of a dramatic year in French history. Palmer’s prose is accessible and relatively free of jargon. He was writing for an educated audience, but not exclusively for specialists, and this shows in the readability of the text.

The story is driven by the vivid personalities of the twelve Committee members and the high-stakes drama they lived through. At times, Palmer almost novelistically follows individual members into the provinces or captures the atmosphere in the Convention, which helps the reader visualise events. This blend of narrative colour and historical evidence keeps the text grounded.

That said, the book does not read like a novel throughout. Twelve Who Ruled is densely detailed, and Palmer does not simplify the complexity of Year II. Some sections, for example those on the organisation of war production or the Committee’s internal bureaucracy, are dry and require the reader to absorb a large amount of technical information. However, these are consistently interwoven with more dramatic material such as battles, trials, and political confrontations. The balance keeps the pacing steady across the text.

Palmer is particularly effective in his character sketches. Each of the twelve becomes memorable (Carnot the stern military organiser, Barère the silver-tongued pragmatist, Saint-Just the youthful ideologue etc.) without collapsing into cliché. These almost literary portraits make the reader more invested in the unfolding story.

Perhaps most striking is the absence of pretension in Palmer’s style.His prose has a classic literary quality: measured, erudite, but never self-important. Compared to many writers of historical research, Palmer’s style is disciplined. He doesn’t try to prove his intelligence with a flood of ornate language. He simply writes well.

Originality and Contribution

Upon publication, Twelve Who Ruled was an innovative and ground-breaking contribution to French Revolutionary studies. R. R. Palmer effectively pioneered the focused study of the Committee of Public Safety, a subject that, surprisingly, had never before been treated in a comprehensive monograph. In 1941, historiography on the French Revolution was rich in general narratives and class analyses of 1789 or the broader revolutionary period, but the intense year of the Terror and its governing body had received no sustained study. Palmer filled that gap brilliantly.

By focusing on the twelve men of the Committee and examining their rule as a collective, Palmer offered a new angle. Rather than writing a biography of Robespierre or a general history of the Revolution, he did something original: a group portrait of a revolutionary government in action. This approach yielded fresh insights by highlighting the role of less-famous figures like Billaud-Varene, Lindet, the two Prieur(s) or Saint-André in winning the war and running the country.

At the time, interpretations of the Terror tended to fall into polemical extremes, either apologetic or scathing. Palmer’s contribution was to demystify the Terror. He did not glorify it or denounce it in moral absolutes. He analysed it as a political and historical reality. That stance was unusual in 1941, especially for an American historian. His work managed to synthesise insights from competing schools: it acknowledged the Terror’s necessity in context, a point later taken up by leftist historians, while also recognising its moral and strategic failures, a view more often stressed by revisionists.

This balance gave the book lasting academic value. This synthesis gave the book a lasting academic impact, as it could be read profitably by people on different sides of the interpretive spectrum.

Authorial Bias and Political Agenda

Palmer’s personal values and context inevitably informed his work, yet Twelve Who Ruled is notably measured and fair-minded, without a heavy-handed political agenda. R. R. Palmer was a liberal-democratic American intellectual, and someone who valued the ideals of the Enlightenment and constitutional government. That perspective quietly shapes the book. Palmer clearly admires certain principles of 1789 and he often reminds the reader of what was lost when the Terror regime suspended civil liberties and elections. His sympathy for liberal democracy leads him to approach the Committee of Public Safety with a critical eye, especially regarding their use of coercion and violence. He does not defend the guillotine or the repression of dissent. On the contrary, he treats those as regrettable, if at times understandable, choices.

Crucially, Palmer’s liberalism does not reduce his book to a simple anti-revolutionary stance. If anything, there is a degree of admiration for the Committee’s sense of duty and purpose, even as he remains aware of the compromises they made. He describes the Committee’s rule as a “dictatorship,” but one born of necessity, reflecting a liberal’s reluctant concession that extreme times may call for extreme measures. His relief when the Terror ends is unmistakable. The tone around Thermidor suggests a welcome return to politics as usual, though he does not spare the Thermidorians from criticism either.

Throughout, Palmer shows a clear preference for moderation. He tends to praise figures like Barère or Carnot when they show pragmatism or hesitation toward the use of violence. Barère is labelled, for instance, a “reluctant terrorist,” someone who chose expediency over fanaticism. In contrast, Palmer is more critical of those he sees as driven by ideology. Figures such as Billaud-Varenne or Collot d’Herbois are portrayed less sympathetically, as hardliners whose insistence on revolutionary purity helped drive repression too far.

Even here, Palmer does not resort to caricature. He places the actions of extremists in context, explaining their behaviour as a product of pressure rather than inherent cruelty. His bias, to the extent that it appears, leans toward moderate, pragmatic politics. He gives implicit approval when the Committee acts with competence and restraint. He shows clear discomfort when ideological rigidity overrides practical judgment.

If anything, the book carries a mild Whiggish tone (6). Palmer seems to view the Terror as a detour from the path of democratic progress, a necessary detour but a detour nonetheless. This aligns with a classical liberal reading of the Revolution, where 1789 and 1793 are seen not as a permanent rupture, but as part of the long and painful emergence of liberal democracy. In the final chapters, Palmer’s relief at the Republic’s military victories and the subsiding of emergency measures feels almost celebratory, implying a return to the Revolution’s original liberal course. Yet, he also soberly concludes with the personal tragedies of the twelve, showing that history’s verdict is complicated.

It is also worth noting what Palmer does not do. Namely, propaganda.

Twelve Who Ruled is not a cautionary tale or propaganda tract. Given that it was written in 1941, with fascism on the rise, one might expect an American liberal to use the French Terror to denounce totalitarianism. But Palmer avoids crude analogies. He lets readers draw their own conclusions. A reader in 1941 might well think of Hitler or Stalin while reading about the dangers of concentrated power, but Palmer does not push that comparison. His portrait of the Committee, a dictatorial body that nevertheless saved France, complicates any simple moral about dictatorship. The lesson is not imposed.

Suitability for Teaching or Further Research

Over the years, Twelve Who Ruled has proven highly effective for teaching the French Revolution and remains a reliable point of entry for further research. Its structured narrative and wide scope make it a strong introduction for students and general readers, while its analytical precision offers more experienced readers material for reflection and debate. Within Anglophone historiography, few works cover Year II with the same aplomb.

The book’s focus on individual leaders and specific crises helps anchor the chronology of 1793 to 1794 in something tangible and humane. Because Palmer explains context as he goes, for example by giving background on the Vendée revolt, the Federalist insurrections, and the food shortages, it allows even newcomers to the topic to grasp the wider dynamics of the period.

Its limitations are those of its time. Now more than eighty years old, the book does not reflect more recent developments in the field. Questions of gender, global context, symbolic culture, and the experience of ordinary people are not part of Palmer’s framework.

Most importantly, the book is so well-written that even someone unaccustomed to reading non-fiction will find it engaging. It does not demand specialist knowledge, but it never talks down to the reader. As an introduction to the French Revolution, it is hard to beat. Few works manage to be this serious, this readable, and this enduring at the same time. It remains a book worth reading, not just for what it says about 1793, but for how well it says it.

Notes

(1) This is worth a post of its own, but in short—and this is an extremely simplified summary—the historiography of the French Revolution can be broadly outlined as follows:

Conservative reaction (1790s to 1890s): Sees the Revolution as a catastrophe that overturned legitimate order. Authors: Edmund Burke, Hippolyte Taine, Louis de Bonald.

Liberal narrative (1820s to 1910s): Praises the moderate reforms of 1789, condemns later extremism, and stresses continuity with the Old Regime. Authors: Adolphe Thiers, Alexis de Tocqueville, François Guizot.

Radical republican and proto-socialist (1840s to 1930s): Celebrates popular egalitarianism and defends Jacobin democracy. Authors: Jules Michelet, Louis Blanc, Jean Jaurès.

Marxist classical social school (1920s to mid-1960s): Frames the Revolution as a bourgeois class struggle that abolished feudalism and views the Terror as a necessary defence. Authors: Albert Mathiez, Georges Lefebvre, Albert Soboul, Michel Vovelle.

Revisionist critique (mid-1960s to late 1980s): Rejects the class model, emphasises political contingency and the culture of violence. Authors: Alfred Cobban, William Doyle, François Furet, Simon Schama, Patrice Gueniffey.

Post-revisionist and cultural turn (late 1980s to 2000s): Combines political and social analysis, focuses on language, symbols, and local experiences. Authors: Lynn Hunt, Timothy Tackett, Jean-Clément Martin, Mona Ozouf, Roger Chartier, Peter McPhee, Hervé Leuwers.

There are also several other areas of research like Gender History and Colonial Perspectives which emerged in the 1980s and 1990s.

(2) It goes without saying that recent post-revisionist trends, including cultural and gender-focused approaches, lie outside Palmer’s scope. These methodologies only emerged decades after 1941. Palmer does not, for example, examine revolutionary festivals, political symbols, or the “culture of citizenship” as later cultural historians would.

(3) This is not unique to Palmer. Most scholarship of his time ignores marginalised groups, including women, the poor, enslaved people, and colonial subjects.

(4) PSA: if you are reading a history book on a specific country or event, and most of its sources are not in that country’s language, stop reading.

(5) Palmer does recount the demand of 5 September 1793 to make terror “the order of the day,” but he treats it as a historical moment rather than an ideological programme.

(6) Whiggish refers to a teleological view of history, typically associated with 19th-century liberal thought. It sees the past as a steady march toward progress, constitutional government, and political liberty. A “Whiggish” historian tends to interpret events as steps on the road to modern democracy, even when those steps include violent detours.

[tanadrin]

So like, given that the judiciary is useless and the legislature is useless, what do you recommend Americans do? What mechanism do you think protest will be able to activate, other than starting a violent rebellion?

"constitutional government is in the process of breaking down" does not mean "there is nothing the legislature and judiciary can do."

look, all rule of law is kayfabe to some extent, right? the reason it works is that the systems that operate according to its rules have legitimacy, some degree of abstract popular support that means that people broadly obey the decisions of institutions, and where there's strong disagreement about those decisions, the body of people empowered de jure or de facto to settle those disagreements (which includes, but is not limited to, the people with actual social sanction to use violence) care about upholding the system.

but politics did not begin in 1788 with the invention of modern constitutional government, it is not confined to republican systems of power, and it does not occur solely within the realms of electoral politics, judicial process, and legislative sessions. all these things proceed from politics, and did not create it. coalition-building, popular discontent, divisions among factions of elites, and all these other fuzzy things which are hard to pin down in hard data like approval poll numbers matter--they matter to the extent that they have overthrown kings and dictators throughout history, and are in fact responsible for the republican government under which you live.

the actions of the legislature and the judiciary still matter a lot, because they still have different degrees of legitimacy to different groups within the country. it sucks that decades of the convergence of various factors have hollowed out mass political organizing in the united states, so it's hard to mobilize people for substantive action (protests of the sort where you can actually demand things, instead of just vibe on the National Mall), but even though this shit is harder to do effectively, i think even protests still matter! calling your congresscritters to yell at them still matters--especially if they are a Republican member of the House.

and now i'm gonna get a little bit mean, and i apologize for this in advance, but here's the thing: i have been getting a lot of asks lately about "what should people do." and i am just some asshole on tumblr. this is not even an advice blog. at a certain point in life you have to acquire an orientation to the world which is "i may not know the answer to this question, but i i know i can find it out, or i know i can try to find it out, and if that doesn't work i can keep trying." lotta people online right now seem to have this attitude of helplessness. they are waiting for someone with authority to give them a definitive answer about what to do and how to fix things. these answers do not exist. all there is in this life is varying degrees of individuals deciding that they will try something, and hopefully in the process link up with other individuals who are also trying something and maybe have some advice to share.

this isn't just about politics, by the way; this is an attitude that i think it is necessary for all adults to acquire at some point, if they want to avoid feeling helpless and eventually resentful. the world is not a thing happening to you; it is a thing you are inside and can affect. i have my own opinions on what i'd like to see people doing right now, sure--and some of those things are things only, say, members of the house of representatives can do--but i'm not VI fuckin' Lenin here posting from Switzerland in anticipation of leading the revolution when i return. i don't know where you live or what your situation is or who you know. you must, at a certain point, feel a sense of responsibility and duty toward your own community and to your society, and act commensurately.

[reasonsforhope]

"The U.S. government is entering a new era of collaboration with Native American and Alaska Native leaders in managing public lands and other resources, with top federal officials saying that incorporating more Indigenous knowledge into decision-making can help spur conservation and combat climate change.

Federal emergency managers on Thursday also announced updates to recovery policies to aid tribal communities in the repair or rebuilding of traditional homes or ceremonial buildings after a series of wildfires, floods and other disasters around the country.

With hundreds of tribal leaders gathering in Washington this week for an annual summit, the Biden administration is celebrating nearly 200 new agreements that are designed to boost federal cooperation with tribes nationwide.

The agreements cover everything from fishery restoration projects in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest to management of new national monuments in the Southwestern U.S., seed collection work in Montana and plant restoration in the Great Smoky Mountains.

“The United States manages hundreds of millions of acres of what we call federal public lands. Why wouldn’t we want added capacity, added expertise, millennia of knowledge and understanding of how to manage those lands?” U.S. Interior Assistant Secretary Bryan Newland said during a panel discussion.

The new co-management and co-stewardship agreements announced this week mark a tenfold increase over what had been inked just a year earlier, and officials said more are in the pipeline.

Newland, a citizen of the Bay Mills Indian Community in northern Michigan, said each agreement is unique. He said each arrangement is tailored to a tribe’s needs and capacity for helping to manage public lands — and at the very least assures their presence at the table when decisions are made.

The federal government is not looking to dictate to tribal leaders what a partnership should look like, he said...

The U.S. government controls more than a quarter of the land in the United States, with much of that encompassing the ancestral homelands of federally recognized tribes...

Tribes and advocacy groups have been pushing for arrangements that go beyond the consultation requirements mandated by federal law.

Researchers at the University of Washington and legal experts with the Native American Rights Fund have put together a new clearinghouse on the topic. They point out that public lands now central to the country’s national heritage originated from the dispossession and displacement of Indigenous people and that co-management could present on opportunity for the U.S. to reckon with that complicated legacy...

In an attempt to address complaints about chronic underfunding across Indian Country, President Joe Biden on Wednesday signed an executive order on the first day of the summit that will make it easier for tribes to find and access grants.

Deanne Criswell, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, told tribal leaders Thursday that her agency [FEMA] began work this year to upgrade its disaster guidance particularly in response to tribal needs.

The Indigenous people of Hawaii have increasingly been under siege from disasters, most recently a devastating fire that killed dozens of people and leveled an entire town. Just last month, another blaze scorched a stretch of irreplaceable rainforest on Oahu.

Tribes in California and Oregon also were forced to seek disaster declarations earlier this year after severe storms resulted in flooding and mudslides...

Criswell said the new guidance includes a pathway for Native American, Alaska Native and Hawaiian communities to request presidential disaster declarations, providing them with access to emergency federal relief funding. [Note: This alone is potentially a huge deal. A presidential disaster declaration unlocks literally millions of dollars in federal aid and does a lot to speed up the response.]

The agency also is now accepting tribal self-certified damage assessments and cost estimates for restoring ceremonial buildings or traditional homes, while not requiring site inspections, maps or other details that might compromise culturally sensitive data."

-via AP, December 7, 2023

[misfitwashere]

ROBERT REICH

FEB 7

Friends,

I wanted to make sure you saw this piece by Lina Khan, who until a few days ago was chair of the Federal Trade Commission. IMHO — as someone who was once an official of the FTC — Khan was one of the wisest and most courageous of its leaders. She wrote the following in the February 4 edition of The New York Times.

Stop Worshiping the American Tech Giants

By Lina M. Khan

When Chinese artificial intelligence firm DeepSeek shocked Silicon Valley and Wall Street with its powerful new A.I. model, Marc Andreessen, the Silicon Valley investor, went so far as to describe it as “A.I.’s Sputnik moment.” Presumably, Mr. Andreessen wasn’t calling on the federal government to start a massive new program like NASA, which was our response to the Soviet Union’s Sputnik satellite launch; he wants the U.S. government to flood private industry with capital, to ensure that America remains technologically and economically dominant.

As an antitrust enforcer, I see a different metaphor. DeepSeek is the canary in the coal mine. It’s warning us that when there isn’t enough competition, our tech industry grows vulnerable to its Chinese rivals, threatening U.S. geopolitical power in the 21st century.

Although it’s unclear precisely how much more efficient DeepSeek’s models are than, say, ChatGPT, its innovations are real and undermine a core argument that America’s dominant technology firms have been pushing — namely, that they are developing the best artificial intelligence technology the world has to offer, and that technological advances can be achieved only with enormous investment — in computing power, energy generation and cutting-edge chips. For years now, these companies have been arguing that the government must protect them from competition to ensure that America stays ahead.

But let’s not forget that America’s tech giants are awash in cash, computing power and data capacity. They are headquartered in the world’s strongest economy and enjoy the advantages conferred by the rule of law and a free enterprise system. And yet, despite all those advantages — as well as a U.S. government ban on the sales of cutting-edge chips and chip-making equipment to Chinese firms — America’s tech giants have seemingly been challenged on the cheap.

It should be no surprise that our big tech firms are at risk of being surpassed in A.I. innovation by foreign competitors. After companies like Google, Apple and Amazon helped transform the American economy in the 2000s, they maintained their dominance primarily through buying out rivals and building anticompetitive moats around their businesses.

Over the last decade, big tech chief executives have seemed more adept at reinventing themselves to suit the politics of the moment — resistance sympathizers, social justice warriors, MAGA enthusiasts — than on pioneering new pathbreaking innovations and breakthrough technologies.

There have been times when Washington has embraced the argument that certain businesses deserve to be treated as national champions and, as such, to become monopolies with the expectation that they will represent America’s national interests. Those times serve as a cautionary tale.

Boeing was one such star — the aircraft manufacturer’s reputation was so sterling that a former White House adviser during the Clinton administration referred to it as a “de facto national champion,” so important that “you can be an out-and-out advocate for it” in government. This superstar status was such that it likely helped Boeing gain the regulatory green light to absorb its remaining U.S. rival McDonnell Douglas. That 1997 merger played a significant role in damaging Boeing’s culture, leaving it plagued with a host of problems, including safety concerns.

On the other hand, the government’s decision to enforce antitrust laws against what is now AT&T Inc., IBM and Microsoft in the 1970s through the 1990s helped create the market conditions that gave rise to Silicon Valley’s dynamism and America’s subsequent technological lead. America’s bipartisan commitment to maintaining open and competitive markets from the 1930s to the 1980s — a commitment that many European countries and Japan did not share — was critical for generating the broad-based economic growth and technological edge that catapulted the United States to the top of the world order.

While monopolies may offer periodic advances, breakthrough innovations have historically come from disruptive outsiders, in part because huge behemoths rarely want to advance technologies that could displace or cannibalize their own businesses. Mired in red tape and bureaucratic inertia, those companies usually aren’t set up to deliver the seismic efficiencies that hungry start-ups can generate.

The recent history of artificial intelligence demonstrates this pattern. Google developed the groundbreaking Transformer architecture that underlies today’s A.I. revolution in 2017, but the technology was largely underutilized until researchers left to join or to found new companies. It took these independent firms, not the tech giant, to realize the technology’s transformative potential.

At the Federal Trade Commission, I argued that in the arena of artificial intelligence, developers should release enough information about their models to allow smaller players and upstarts to bring their ideas to market without being beholden to dominant firms’ pricing or access restrictions. Competition and openness, not centralization, drive innovation.

In the coming weeks and months, U.S. tech giants may renew their calls for the government to grant them special protections that close off markets and lock in their dominance. Indeed, top executives from these firms appear eager to curry favor and cut deals, which could include asking the federal government to pare back sensible efforts to require adequate testing of models before they are released to the public, or to look the other way when a dominant firm seeks to acquire an upstart competitor.

Enforcers and policymakers should be wary. During the first Trump and then the Biden administrations, antitrust enforcers brought major monopolization lawsuits against those same companies — making the case that by unlawfully buying up or excluding their rivals, these companies had undermined innovation and deprived America of the benefits that free and fair competition delivers. Reversing course would be a mistake. The best way for the United States to stay ahead globally is by promoting competition at home.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Matt Davies

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

March 24, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

Mar 25, 2025

Today the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, dropped the story that senior members of the Trump administration planned the March 15 U.S. attack on the Houthis in Yemen over Signal, a widely available encrypted app that is most decidedly not part of the United States national security system. The decision to steer around government systems was possibly an attempt to hide conversations, since the app was set to erase some messages after a week and others after four weeks. By law, government communications must be archived.

According to Goldberg, the use of Signal may also have violated the Espionage Act, which establishes how officials must handle information about the national defense. The app is not approved for national security use, and officials are supposed either to discuss military activity in a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF, or to use approved government equipment.

The use of Signal to plan a military attack on Yemen was itself an astonishingly dangerous breach, but what comes next is simply mind-boggling: the reason Goldberg could report on the conversation is that the person setting it up included Goldberg—a reporter without security clearance—in it.

Goldberg reports that on March 11 he received a connection request from someone named Michael Waltz, although he did not believe the actual Michael Waltz, who is Trump’s national security advisor, would be writing to him. He thought it was likely someone trying to entrap him, although he thought perhaps it could be the real Waltz with some information. Two days later, he was included in the “Houthi PC small group,” along with a message that the chat would be for “a principles [sic] group for coordination on Houthis.”

As Goldberg reports, a “principals committee generally refers to a group of the senior-most national-security officials, including the secretaries of defense, state, and the treasury, as well as the director of the CIA. It should go without saying—but I’ll say it anyway—that I have never been invited to a White House principals-committee meeting, and that, in my many years of reporting on national-security matters, I had never heard of one being convened over a commercial messaging app.”

The other names on the app were those of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Brian McCormack from the National Security Council, Central Intelligence Director John Ratcliffe, Trump’s Middle East and Ukraine negotiator Steve Witkoff, White House chief of staff Suzy Wiles, perhaps White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, and Trump’s nominee for head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent.

Goldberg assumed the chat was fake, some sort of disinformation campaign, although he was concerned when Ratcliffe provided the full name of a CIA operative in this unsecure channel. But on March 14, as Vance, for example, took a strong stand against Europe—“I just hate bailing Europe out again”—and as Hegseth emphasized that their messaging must be that “Biden failed,” Goldberg started to think the chat might be real. Those in the chat talked of finding a way to make Europe pay the costs for the U.S. attack, and of “minimiz[ing] risk to Saudi oil facilities.”

And then, on March 15, the messages told of the forthcoming attack. “I will not quote from this update, or from certain other subsequent texts,” Goldberg writes. “The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility. What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.”

On the chat, reactions to the military strikes were emojis of a fist, an American flag, fire, praying hands, a flexed bicep, and “Good Job Pete and your team!!,” “Kudos to all…. Really great. God Bless,” and “Great work and effects!”

In the messages, with a reporter on the line, Hegseth promised his colleagues he would “do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC,” or operations security. In a message to the team outlining the forthcoming attack, Hegseth wrote: “We are currently clean on OPSEC.”

Two hours after Goldberg wrote to the officials on the chat and alerted them to his presence on it by asking questions about it, National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes responded: “The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials.”

When asked about the breach, Trump responded: “I don't know anything about it. I'm not a big fan of The Atlantic. To me, it's a magazine that's going out of business. I think it’s not much of a magazine. But I know nothing about it. You're saying that they had what?” There is nothing that the administration could say to make the situation better, but this made it worse. As national security specialist Tom Nichols noted: “If the President is telling the truth and no one’s briefed him about this yet, that’s another story in itself. In any other administration, [the chief of staff] would have been in the Oval [Office] within nanoseconds of learning about something like this.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is evidently going to try to bully his way out of this disaster. When asked about it, he began to yell at a reporter that Goldberg is a “deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who’s made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again.” Hegseth looked directly at the camera and said: “Nobody was texting war plans.” But Goldberg has receipts. The chat had “the specific time of a future attack. Specific targets, including human targets…weapons systems…precise detail…a long section on sequencing…. He can say that it wasn’t a war plan, but it was a minute-by-minute accounting of what was about to happen.”

Zachary B. Wolf of CNN noted that “Trump intentionally hired amateurs for top jobs. This is their most dramatic blunder.” Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA) told Brian Tyler Cohen: “My first reaction... was 'what absolute clowns.' Total amateur hour, reckless, dangerous…. [T]his is what happens when you have basically Fox News personalities cosplaying as government officials.” Foreign policy scholar Timothy Snyder posted: “These guys inherited one of the most functional state apparatus in the history of the world and they are inhabiting it like a crack house.”

Many observers have noted that all of these national security officials knew that using Signal in this way was against the law, and their comfort with jumping onto the commercial app to plan a military strike suggests they are using Signal more generally. “How many Signal chats with sensitive information about military operations are ongoing within the Pentagon right now?” Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) posted. “Where else are war plans being shared with such abject disregard for our national security? We need answers. Right now.”

National security journalists and officials are aghast. Former commanding general of United States Army Europe and the Seventh Army Mark Hertling called the story “staggering.” Former CIA officer Matt Castelli posted: “This is more than ‘loose lips sink ships’, this is a criminally negligent breach of classified information and war planning involving VP, SecDef, D[irector of the] CIA, National Security Advisor—all putting troops at risk. America is not safe.” Former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg, who spent seven years as an intelligence officer in the Navy Reserve, posted: “From an operational security perspective, this is the highest level of f**kup imaginable. These people cannot keep America safe.”

Rhode Island senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said: "If true, this story represents one of the most egregious failures of operational security and common sense I have ever seen. The carelessness shown by President Trump's cabinet is stunning and dangerous. I will be seeking answers from the Administration immediately." Armed Services Committee member Don Bacon (R-NE), a former Air Force brigadier general, told Axios that “sending this info over non-secure networks” was “unconscionable.” “Russia and China are surely monitoring his unclassified phone.”

That the most senior members of Trump’s administration were sharing national security secrets on unsecure channels is especially galling since the people on the call have used alleged breaches of national security to hammer Democrats. Sarah Longwell and J.V. Last of The Bulwark compiled a series of video clips of Marco Rubio, Stephen Miller, Tulsi Gabbard, John Ratcliffe, and especially Pete Hegseth talking about the seriousness of handling secret information and the need for accountability for those who mishandle it. When they were accusing then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton of such a breach, they called for firings, accountability, and perhaps criminal charges. Indeed, Trump rose to power in 2016 with the charge that Clinton should be sent to prison for using a private email server. “Lock her up!” became the chant at his rallies.

Today, for her part, Clinton posted a link to the story along with an eyes emoji and wrote: “You have got to be kidding me.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[brittanyearnestauthor]

Understanding and Effectively Writing About Character Beliefs

Human beliefs are deeply complex and shape the way we understand, interact with, and navigate the world. Beliefs form early in life—often during childhood—when we place full trust in those around us without the ability to distinguish what is objectively right or wrong. Over time, experiences, learning, and self-reflection refine or even completely alter those beliefs, making them a dynamic part of personal growth.

Beliefs influence relationships, careers, well-being, perceptions, decisions, values, and actions. They define how individuals view themselves and others, shaping social dynamics. Not only are beliefs intellectual, but they are also heavily impacted by emotions, making them an integral part of character development in storytelling.

How Beliefs Are Formed

Several aspects contribute to a person’s belief system:

- Cultural background: Traditions, societal norms, and family influence shape core beliefs.

- Religious upbringing: Faith can play a significant role in moral perspectives and life choices.

- Political ideologies: Government systems and social movements influence how individuals perceive fairness, justice, and societal order.

- Personal experiences: Life events—both positive and negative—shape unique perspectives and alter beliefs over time.

Since beliefs are rarely stagnant, they evolve as people grow, adapt, and respond to new circumstances. Some individuals modify or unlearn outdated beliefs as they gain new knowledge, while others double down on their convictions based on social influence or personal reasoning.

How Beliefs Influence Community Engagement

Beliefs guide the type of communities people choose to be part of—most people seek groups that align with their values, fostering stronger connections. Being part of a community that respects personal beliefs helps build trust, while conflict between opposing belief systems can lead to social tension and impact mental well-being.

In writing, these dynamics play an essential role in crafting realistic societies within stories. Whether your characters seek harmony within a group or struggle against societal norms, understanding how beliefs influence their sense of belonging can enhance depth and authenticity.

Types of Beliefs

Beliefs can take various forms depending on their source and level of influence:

- Core Beliefs: Deep-seated assumptions about oneself, others, and the world.

- Experiential Beliefs: Formed through personal experiences and observations.

- Influenced Beliefs: Shaped by social interactions, culture, and authority figures.

- Intuitive Beliefs: Developed from gut feelings or instincts.

- Preference-Based Beliefs: Reflecting personal values and individual choices.

- Religious Beliefs: Centered around faith, spirituality, or the supernatural.

- Political Beliefs: Opinions about governance, leadership, and societal structures.

- Scientific Beliefs: Based on empirical evidence and logical inquiry.

Belief Challenges

Beliefs can serve as a source of conflict, particularly when they clash with progress or differing perspectives. Some challenges include:

- Holding onto outdated beliefs that may hinder growth and development.

- Using beliefs to incite conflict, leading to mental distress, anxiety, or division.

To reduce negative effects, understanding and respecting differing beliefs can encourage coexistence, opening space for dialogue rather than confrontation.

Critical thinking also plays a significant role in evaluating personal and societal beliefs, allowing individuals—and characters in stories—to adapt and grow rather than being bound by rigid perspectives.

Applying Beliefs in Writing

When writing characters, belief systems should mimic real-world complexities to make them relatable, realistic, and engaging. Beliefs shape interactions, influence decision-making, and create tension or motivation within a narrative.

Showcasing a character’s evolving belief system, their struggles with moral dilemmas, or their efforts to reconcile conflicting views can help readers deeply connect with them. Stories that incorporate belief-driven conflicts allow readers to reflect on their own perspectives, making literature more impactful.

By following this guide, you’ll be equipped to weave compelling belief structures into your characters and stories, making them resonate more with audiences.

Conclusion

Developing a character requires attention to many details, and belief systems are among the most important factors that shape a well-rounded protagonist or antagonist. Whether faith-based, philosophical, or experiential, beliefs drive a character’s actions, emotions, and relationships, making them an essential element of storytelling.

As I continue covering different aspects of character development, I hope this post helps you create deep, realistic characters that keep your audience engaged and coming back for more!

Happy writing!

[callsign-rogueone]

what do you think Fen was like as a dad?

he must have been alright, considering Xaden's remark about "forgetting how it felt to be loved" after he died (bodhi and garrick would like to have a word with you about that, sir...) so clearly he wasn't as cold to his son as Col. Aetos or King Tauri (I know we don't have that much concrete evidence for how those guys were when their boys were young, but it's not looking good for either of them, tbh.)

we know Fen also despised his own dad, who apparently died before he could graduate from the rider's quadrant, so to me that means he never knew him, and would want to be a more active parent for Xaden. taking his son with him (and Mr. Tavis and Gare!!) whenever he had to travel (including Poromiel, I guess, where Xaden met Cat.)

I'm writing this response completely out of order, because my brain is always so disorganized, but now I'm mad again, because speaking of Cat... at exactly what age did their families decide to marry them off? Xaden says multiple times that he never loved her, so I really really doubt that this was his decision (it absolutely wasn't. no way.) and Fen was executed when Xaden was what... sixteen? seventeen? so it had to be earlier than that. and a teenager whose brain is literally still developing cannot and should not consent to a marriage contract that has political stakes this high.

moving on.

I'd think he had high expectations of his son, being a Duke and a general? (I don't remember his exact rank but I know he was up there, leadership wise), and taught Xaden a lot, about leadership and governing and also how to fight and all that. he gets some points in that category.

however, that business with Xaden's mother, and the relationship contract... that will mystify me forever, and also piss me off. I know it's a fantasy book, so the main characters have to be orphans (jokes) but I need a VERY compelling reason why Mama Riorson left, or why Fen made her leave, or I'll be mad at them forever. because how are you just going to up and fucking leave your ten year old son, knowing that will cause him irreparable emotional wounds, because he's a child, and can't understand why. he was ten. he'd be a fifth-grader. (maybe we'll get some clarity on that in onyx storm. I'm only 1/3 in. but again, I'm gonna need some this-was-the-only-way-to-prevent-the-end-of-the-world level excuse to even think about forgiving whichever of them's this idea was.)

anyway. on a fantasy dad scale of one to Darth Vader, I give him a solid three or four. there's some happy memories in there, and he grew up having all the necessities / obviously wasn't capital-N neglected and didn't go hungry, etc., but Fen gave his boy A Lot Of Psychological Issues that he is still dealing with, and will continue to for the rest of his life.

[comeonamericawakeup]

President Trump's decision to fire senior military leaders without cause is foolish and a disgrace. It politicizes our professional military in a dangerous and debilitating way.

What frightens me even more is the removal of three judge advocates general, the most senior uniformed legal authorities in the Defense Department. Their removal is one more element of this administration's attack on the rule of law, and an especially disturbing part.

...for the first time in my career, to see dedicated, apolitical military professionals being removed without cause. I am worried about political loyalty becoming a criterion to hold high military positions. For now, I have confidence that our professional military has nurtured dozens of highly qualified senior officers capable of holding positions of trust and responsibility, people who can provide leadership at the Pentagon and offer sound military advice to our civilian leaders.

But that optimism doesn't extend to the consequences of removing the JAGs, the senior military professionals who interpret and enforce the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the rules that guide troops in the field. They have the independent legal authority to tell any military commander or political appointee that an order from the president or the secretary of defense is unlawful, cannot be given and should not be obeyed.

If there is one characteristic of this president and this administration, it is the utter lack of respect for legal constraints…one of the most admirable characteristics of the American military is that all serving members are trained to understand that America stands for more than naked self-interest. Above all, it stands up for the Constitution and the rule of law, including the laws of armed conflict and those that restrict the use of the military against American citizens. Undermining those core principles is a disservice to our men and women in uniform and to everything America has stood for throughout my life.

Our country is in uncharted territory. We have an administration that is waging war against the rule of law. The evidence is everywhere.

We don't yet know how far it will go as it seeks to control, reinterpret, rewrite, ignore or defy legal constraints, including the Constitution itself. The replacement of the military JAG leadership is one skirmish in that war, but it's time for the American people, across the political spectrum, to recognize what is happening. America has a rogue president and a rogue administration, and we need to acknowledge that and respond.

☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

This is a 5-alarm summary of what 47 is doing with the firing of JAG attorneys. Another power grab. Another piece of fascism, abuse of power and corruption of government rule of law. This portends poorly of what is to come.

[quietstormxr]

Onyx Storm Spoilers....I need your thoughts.

Again, this is all because I'm trying to write in Xaden's POV.

In IF, Xaden tells Violet to stay away from the Marked Ones as they won't trust her and wouldn't mind seeing her dead. Clearly distrust outside of the tight-knit group of Xaden's found family runs high - not surprisingly so.

But, at the end of OS, one could argue that Xaden has broken his vow to the Navarrian government. Now we don't truly know all the details of what was negotiated. Therefore, forfeiting the lives of all of the Marked Ones, including the youngest who should be about 7/8 at this point.

Do we think Navarre has effectively just forgotten about the Marked altogether and just don't care? Would there be no backlash just because of the imminent venin threat?

Would those that had suffered from the rulings of Lilith Sorrengail follow Duchess Violet Sorrengail (easily or at all)? Sure, there is an Assembly, but does the populace of Tyrrendor know that? How was the Assembly put in place? Do they make the true decisions for the territory or just military operations?

From what we can tell Lewellen and Lindell aren't on the Assembly of Riorson House (just disgraced nobility, according to Navarre), so we assume they aren't integrated?

What kind of unrest would that entail from the sudden disappearance of the family that has, in effect (we suppose) ruled for centuries (this would insinuate Bodhi isn't around)? You also now have a Duchess whose mother effectively left Poromish citizens, who they've just given refuge to, to death. Along with those that were loyal to the Riorsons. Are the new Poromish/Riorson loyalists in Tyrrendor going to be willing to fall in line, so to speak?

The ramifications of Violet now being the Duchess of this territory has far reaching consequences and I wonder if we will even get any info on that. Is she going to get some true pushback?

We don't really see how exactly the territories are laid out and what the populace looks like overall in Navarre or Poromiel. Or just general civilian thoughts overall.

I love political intrigue in general, and there are so many facets that can tangle and twist. Do we think they get explored more in the next books?

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved in our archive (Daily updates!)

By Karam Bales

The decision to further restrict access to vaccines “will leave many vulnerable people unprotected” warn academics and health professionals

Acoalition of academics and healthcare professionals have backed an open letter critical of the Government and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s (JCVI) decision to restrict access to COVID-19 vaccines.

Campaign group Clinically Vulnerable Families (CVF) has expressed concerns over vaccine access for autumn 2025 and spring 2026.

Until now, COVID policy prioritised protecting “at risk” groups such as those with chronic heart failure, COPD, or diabetes, but using a bespoke, non-standard cost-effectiveness assessment developed by the Department of Health and Social Care, the JCVI has advised that only the following groups should be offered vaccination in spring 2025:

adults aged 75 years and over residents in a care home for older adults individuals aged six months and over who are immunosuppressed (as defined in the ‘immunosuppression’ sections of tables 3 or 4 in the COVID-19 chapter of the Green Book) The JCVI is also withdrawing its offer to pregnant women, despite them having been recognised for years by the NHS as being at increased risk.

Vaccinating pregnant women helps protect their babies; COVID has been linked to developmental issues. The UK is now one of only a small number of countries including Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Turkmenistan, which doesn’t recommend COVID vaccines for pregnant women.

Professor Christina Pagel of University College London and Professor Sheena Cruickshank of the University of Manchester expressed their concerns about the JCVI’s decision in a piece for The Conversation, urging the JCVI to “either reverse its criteria on vaccination in pregnancy or provide a much more detailed and transparent explanation for why it has been discontinued”.

CVF’s letter highlights how restricting access to vaccines doesn’t align with “evidence based public health principles, as supported by the WHO, as we do for the NHS flu vaccination programme”. It prioritises a range of at risk groups including those with diabetes and asthma, and frontline health and care workers.

The JCVI has not released the full calculations and evidence base to explain the discrepancy in its approach to COVID compared to flu.

The study provided by the JCVI notes data for clinically vulnerable groups is limited, meaning the most at-risk could fall through the cracks.

CVF are concerned the JCVI is sending a message to at risk groups that the vaccine is no longer necessary and that they are safe, a signal many may trust and believe.

At risk individuals have the option of paying for vaccines, but this financial barrier will add to inequality.

The open letter notes that private COVID vaccinations are priced around £100 per dose “an amount far beyond the means of many at-risk people”. The price of vaccines supplied to the NHS are approximately ��35.04.

“Private charges will leave many vulnerable people unprotected, amplifying health inequalities and increasing the need for recourse to antiviral treatments, ultimately leading to an increase in hospitalisations,” the letter explains.

Eligibility criteria for COVID antiviral treatments is at odds with the JCVI’s decision on vaccination, the letter notes.

In January, NICE (the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) recommended COVID antiviral treatments for those over 70, or with conditions such as diabetes, a BMI of at least 35 kg/m², and heart failure, acknowledging the strong evidence of a heightened risk to these groups.

The JCVI’s decision to withhold vaccines from this group is therefore both inconsistent with known risks and contradictory, as it will increase their reliance on more costly treatments.

CVF say “prioritising ‘cost-effectiveness’ over vulnerability sends a chilling message: That our lives are less valuable because protecting us isn’t deemed ‘efficient’.”

The focus on age-based thresholds ignores the reality for younger vulnerable groups, a 30-year-old in heart failure could face far higher risks than a healthy 70-year-old, yet this new policy would exclude them from protection.

The JCVI’s cost benefit analysis only took predicted hospitalisations and deaths into account. No consideration was given to Long COVID despite increasing evidence vaccination reduces risk.

Kit Yates Senior Lecturer in the Department of Mathematical Sciences and co-director of the Centre for Mathematical Biology at the University of Bath asks “Why wouldn’t you take long COVID into account when considering who should be vaccinated?”.

Yates continues, “quite apart from the health issues of the people who get it, it clearly has an enormous economic impact.”

Yates cites a recent paper estimating the economic burden of Long COVID in the UK to be over £20 billion per year from real cohort data due to functional limitations and fatigue.

The JCVI’s focus on hospitalisations and deaths is based on incomplete data. COVID hospital data is now significantly under-reported.

Since April 2023, most patients with COVID symptoms are no longer tested to confirm if they have it, unless they are in a vulnerable group eligible for antiviral treatment, meaning data on COVID hospitalisations and deaths will not be accurate.

There are also other post-COVID consequences besides Long COVID, for instance COVID has been linked to increased risk of heart attacks, strokes and neurological harm.

The JCVI cites hybrid immunity, a combination of vaccination and infection acquired immunity as the reason they’re further restricting access to vaccines, however Professor Stephen Griffin, virologist at the University of Leeds, has criticised the JCVI’s reasoning, saying: “There are dozens of the usual platitudes, including the magical ‘endemic’. In my opinion, these are little more than misinformation, including the soothing balm of infection-induced immunity.”

Griffin warns, “we seem to value ‘normal’ over better, especially if it’s expensive up front, or gets in the way of ‘normal life’…but, complacency, ultimately, is also a devastating killer.”

[us-cj]

Avoiding WWIII

From Gen Flynn

1. While most of America remains blissfully uninformed by our establishment press, the world's two greatest superpowers are being manipulated by Dark Forces inside and outside our government, into a major military confrontation that no country wants, and no sane person would ever want.

2. I have no role in the Trump Administration, but over a long career in the active uniformed military, specifically military intelligence, I have made it a point to cultivate many sources of information around the world. From what I can piece together, I want to share my deep concerns about who is behind this march to war, and my recommendations for how our nation and the West can avoid a major military confrontation with Russia.

3. I believe that the American Deep State is staffed by those with a deep, visceral, and irrational hatred for Russia, and these persons have conspired to box in President Trump's decision making through the Russiagate Hoax. During the time the Soviet Union was expanding and infiltrating our government, I was an outspoken anti-communist, but, despite the lies told by our Deep State, Russia is not the Soviet Union and Putin is not Stalin. Even today, years after the Russiagate Hoax has been exposed, President Trump's efforts to bring peace are met with resistance. The Establishment Press, deeply influenced and even sometimes controlled by our Deep State, labeled President Trump and those who work for him "Putin's Puppets" to goad him into taking unwarranted and aggressive steps against Russia. These voices from the establishment press reflect the views of the Deep State, not the American People, and not the MAGA movement, and should be completely disregarded, if not mocked.

4. During almost all of the post-World War II period, and certainly since the establishment of the CIA in 1947, these unelected dark establishment forces have acted to destabilize the world, bringing death, famine, assassinations, violence, coups, riots, revolutions, and destruction to our planet. Currently, these forces are working to provoke Russia into a major --- perhaps a final --- military conflict with the West.

5. This provocation has many forms. Most recently, it involves the surprise drone attack on the Russian federation strategic arsenal, said to affect 40 bombers, or about a third of Russia's strategic bomber fleet. Since Russian and American strategic bombers are generally required by agreement to be visible to satellite surveillance, never before has anyone engaged in an attack on these visible targets. If Russian bombers can be attacked with impunity, so can American bombers. By this action, the Ukrainian Government has not just weakened Russia, it has jeopardized America. Thus, those in the Ukrainian government who ordered these strikes have made themselves enemies not just of Russia, but of the United States. Making matters worse, this unwarranted attack was followed by Ukrainian attacks on the Kerch Strait Bridge connecting Russia and Crimea.

6. I do not believe that the recent escalation against Russia's strategic bomber fleet was authorized by or coordinated with President Trump. Rather, it is my view that the Deep State is now acting outside of the control of the elected leadership of our nation. I believe that these persons in our Deep State are engaged in a deliberate effort to provoke Russia into a major confrontation with the West, including the United States. The time is now to take aggressive action against those who abuse their authority as government employees to manipulate the elected leadership of our nation.

7. Growing up in an Irish Democrat family in Rhode Island, I was only about five when John Kennedy was assassinated, but our family viewed John Kennedy as a hero. Not just for my family, one of our most beloved Presidents, John F. Kennedy, in 1961, found himself manipulated by earlier versions of these same Deep State forces when they attempted to manipulate President Kennedy to launch Air Force planes to attack Cuba after the failed invasion, resulting in an open conflict with both Cuba and the Soviet Union. In President Kennedy's June 1963 speech at American University declaring his vision of peace with the Soviet Union, he declared himself to be an enemy of this Deep State, which by all indications then retaliated by participating in his assassination five months later in Dallas. The American Deep State is not only a threat to peace, but a threat to the President.

8. President Trump has already faced at least two assassination attempts. If there is one person who I believe has the character and love for our nation to rid our government of these forces, it is President Trump. After the shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, President Trump displayed the type of personal courage that those of us who have served in the military deeply admire. With great affection for the President, I now urge him to risk the wrath of the Deep State once again by taking actions to purge enemies of our nation within our agencies and departments. Removing such persons from power is absolutely necessary to achieve the type of peace he described during his campaign and the beginning of his Administration.

9. Once President Kennedy realized he was being manipulated, and opposed because he sought peace, he removed Allen Dulles as Director of Central Intelligence, and several of his assistants. I urge President Trump to immediately clean house of any in government who had prior knowledge of or participated in any way in the Ukrainian attack on the Russian federation strategic bombers, and to go further by immediately declaring an end to any support for the Ukraine War. President Trump is right: this is not "his" War. I urge him to recall all open and covert military and other government personnel from Ukraine. I urge him to have all those personnel removed and interrogated by the FBI or the military to learn of their possible participation in unauthorized military activities. Any Americans who have aided and abetted Ukraine's attacks should be investigated for violation of American law, and prosecuted as necessary.

10. I also believe President Trump should distance himself from certain Western leaders such as German Chancellor Fred Merz, who have acted and spoken in an irresponsible manner with respect to the Ukraine War. If there are countries in Europe who wish to provide military assistance to Ukraine, that is their concern, and they should not be surprised by President Putin’s response to their actions against Russia. If such leaders want to lead their nations to war by persisting in such irresponsible behavior, they will go it alone.

11. I urge President Trump to also distance himself from demonstrated war mongers in our own government, chief among whom is U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham. Those who love wars fought by others are no friends of America, and have no entitlement to be friends of the President.

12. Finally, I urge the American people to stand prayerfully and resolutely with President Trump as he cleans house and acts in pursuit of the type of peace which President Kennedy embraced. Peace is not the normal state of man. Freedom requires a price be paid by every generation. It is time to recommit our nation to both.

@followers

[starstruckbyacomet]

Respect Other People's Feelings

That's it. I've read too many 'forceful positivity' posts that I need to speak up. What kind of posts? The ones which said:

Don't doom and gloom, the door is not closed yet.

Don't spend the hiatus in negativity.

Don't clock out now. It's not over.

etc.

Heck, if my cat died, I don't want people to tell me, 'don't be sad'. If I fell from a bike and cried, I don't want people to say 'don't cry. It's not that bad.' I don't need other people to tell me how I SHOULD FEEL. I can do it myself, thank you very much.

I know you mean well, but what you do is condenscending and invalidating my feelings.

I don't ask people to feel what I feel. Everybody is different. If what makes me sad doesn't make you sad, then good for you. It doesn't mean my feeling is not valid. It also doesn't give you the right to invalidate my feelings.

It's the same with blocking other blogs. It might be only me, but I never block people just because some big blogs or bnfs told me to do so. It's a form of censoring. I don't like when the government does it, so I'm not letting some internet strangers do it to me. I only block people when I personally feel annoyed, not because I was told to do so.

I read what I want to read (including those blogs which people told me to block), I watch what I want to watch, I feel whatever I feel, and I think whatever I want to think.

To be honest, I'm not even pessimistic right now. I think Bucktommy has a big chance to be reunited in Season 9, although I'm not sure in which episode or for how long. Tim could break them up again after a brief reconciliation, and make Buck date a woman just to prove that he's bisexual 🙄, but that's a topic for another discussion.

However, there are fans who are really pessimistic about the chance of Bucktommy reconciliation, and their feelings are valid.

You can say that you disagree with them because of xyz, but telling them not to feel what they feel is condescending. They have the right to express their feelings in their own posts. You can skip their posts or even block them, but invalidating their feelings is disrespectful. Who do you think you are?

It's the same with telling people to block. I prefer to say that 'this blog has posted a CSA fic or this or that. You can report/block it if you want. This is how to do it.' I don't want to tell people to block it or not. I believe they're capable to make their own decision.

The only exception is if their actions bring harm to me and/or to other people. For example, I've told people 'don't vote for Trump' because it could bring harm to the country and the world, like what's happening now.

Some (not all) BT fans who have been very optomistic since Bucktommy break up have also been moving the goalpost several times, for examples:

There's a blue truck in BTS pics of Buck said goodbye to Eddie, like the one in the Billy Boil funeral scene. Yay, Bucktommy will be reunited in the next episode.

Tommy stole a helicopter for Buck. They will be reunited in ep. 8x18.

Remember those?

I don't see other BT fans mock those fans for being wrong again and again. However, some of them still tell the others, 'don't be sad, don't be negative.' Don't they remember how they have been proven wrong several times in the past? Even worse, some of them have the audacity to laugh at Buddie fans who move their own goalpost, while those BT fans do exactly the same — just in a shorter period, with a different goalpost.

There are reasons why some BT fans don't want to clown. They might not want to be heartbroken again. Another reason is that a lot of people laugh AT the clowns, not WITH the clowns. BoBs still bring up how BT fans was sooooooooo sure that Tommy would help Athena landing the plane, or that Tommy was waiting in the blue truck while Buck said goodbye to Eddie. If you don't mind being laughed at, it's your prerogative. Some of us do mind.

Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the most hypocritical of them all?

I hope the answer is not the Bucktommy fans.

[stephobrien]

Is your pro-Palestine activism hurting innocent people? Here's how to avoid that. (Plain text version)

I kept getting "needs pt" tags on the original post, so here's the plain text version:

Over the last few days, I’ve had conversations with several Jewish people who told me how hurt and scared they are right now.

To my great regret, some of that pain came from a poorly-thought-out post of mine, which – while not ill-intentioned – WAS hurtful.

And a lot of it came from cruelty they’d experienced at the hands of people who claim to be advocating for Palestine, but are using the very real plight of innocent Palestinians to harm equally innocent Jewish people.

Y’all, we need to do better. (Yes, “we” definitely includes me; this is in no small part a “learn from my fail” post, and also a “making amends” post. Some of these are mistakes I’ve made in the past.)

So if you’re an advocate for Palestine who wants to make sure that your defense of one group of vulnerable people doesn’t harm another, here are some important things to do or keep in mind:

Ask yourself if you’re applying a standard to one group that you aren’t applying to another.

Would you want all white Americans or Canadians to be expelled from America or Canada?

Do you want all Jewish people to be expelled from Israel, as opposed to finding a way to live alongside Palestinian Arabs in peace?

If the answer to those two questions is different, ask yourself WHY.

Do you want to be held responsible for the actions of your nation’s army or government? No? Then don’t hold innocent Jewish people, or Israelis in general (whether Jewish or otherwise), responsible for the actions of the Israeli army and government.

On that subject, be wary of condemning all Israeli people for the actions of the IDF. Large-scale tactical decisions are made by the top brass. Service is compulsory, and very few can reasonably get out of service.

Blaming all Israelis for the military’s actions is like blaming all Vietnam vets for the horrors in Vietnam. They’re not calling the shots. They aren’t Nazis running concentration camps. They are carrying out military operations that SHOULD be criticized.

And do not compare them or ANY JEWISH PERSON to Nazis in general. It is Jewish cultural trauma and not outsiders’ to use against them.

Don’t infuse legitimate criticism with antisemitism. By all means, spread the word about the crimes committed by the Israeli army and government, and the complicity of their allies. Criticize the people responsible for committing and enabling atrocities.

But if you imply that they’re committing those crimes because they’re Jewish, or because Jewish people have special privileges, then you’re straying into antisemitic territory.

Criticize the crime, not the group. If you believe that collective punishment is wrong, don’t do it yourself.

And do your best to use words that apply directly to the situation, rather than the historical terms for situations with similar features. For example, use “segregation,” “oppression,” or “subjugation,” not “Holocaust” or “Jim Crow.” These other historical events are not the cultural property of Jews OR Palestinians, but also have their own nuances and struggles and historical contexts.

Also, blaming other world events on Jewish people or making Jewish people associated with them (for instance, some people falsely blame Jewish people for the African slave trade) is a key feature of how antisemitism functions.

Please, by all means, be specific and detailed in your critiques. But keep them focused on the current political actors – not other peoples’ or nations’ political or cultural histories and traumas.

Be prepared to accept criticism. You probably already know that society is infused with a wide array of bigotries, and that people growing up in that environment tend to absorb those beliefs without even realizing it. Antisemitism is no exception.

What that means is, there’s a very real chance that you will screw up, and get called out on it, as I so recently did.

If that happens, please be willing to learn and adapt. If you can educate yourself about the suffering and needs of Palestinians, you can do the same for Jewish people.

Understand that the people you hurt aren’t obligated to baby you. Give them room to be angry. After I made a post that inadvertently hurt people, some were nice about it, and others weren’t. Some outright insulted my morals and intelligence.

And I had to accept that I’d earned that from them.

I’d hurt them, and they weren’t obligated to be more careful with my feelings than I had been with theirs.

They weren’t obligated to forgive me, trust me, or stop being mad at me right away.

I’ll admit, there were moments when I got defensive. I shouldn’t have. And I encourage you to try not to, if you screw up and hurt people.

I know that’s hard, but it’s important. Getting defensive only tells people you care more about doubling down on your mistake than you do about healing the hurt it caused.

Instead, acknowledge that they have a right to be angry, apologize for the way you hurt them, and try to make amends, while understanding that they don’t owe you trust or forgiveness.

Be aware that some antisemites are using legitimate complaints to “Trojan horse” antisemitism into leftist spaces. This is a really easy stumbling block to trip over, because most people probably don’t look at every post a creator makes before sharing the one they’re looking at right now.

I recently shared a video that called out some of the Likud and IDF’s atrocities and hypocrisy, and that also noted that many Jewish people are wonderful members of their communities.

I was later informed that, while that video in particular seemed reasonable, the creator behind it is frequently antisemitic.

I deleted the post, and blocked the creator. I encourage you to do the same if it’s brought to your attention that you’ve been ‘Trojan horse’d.

EDIT: Important note about antisemitism in leftist spaces:

While it's true that some blatant antisemites are using seemingly reasonable posts to get their foot in the door of leftist spaces, it's also true that a lot of antisemitism already exists inside those spaces.

This antisemitism is often dressed up in progressive-sounding language, but nonetheless singles Jewish people and places out in ways that aren't applied equally to other groups, or that label Jewish people in ways that portray them as acceptable targets.

If you want to see some specific examples, so you can have a better idea of what to keep an eye out for, I suggest reading this excellent reblog of the original post.

Fact-check your doubts about antisemitism. Depending on which parts of the internet you look at, you’ve probably seen people accused of antisemitism because they complained about the Likud and/or IDF’s actions. So you might be primed to be wary, or feel unsure of how to tell what counts as real antisemitism.

But that doesn’t mean antisemitism isn’t a very real, widespread, and harmful problem. And it doesn’t mean many or even most Jewish people are lying to you or being overly sensitive.

So if someone says something is antisemitic, and you aren’t sure, I encourage you to:

A. Look up the action or thing in question, including its history. Is there an antisemitic history or connotation you aren’t aware of? For best results, include “antisemitic” in your search query, in quotes.

B. Understand that some things, while not inherently antisemitic, have been used by antisemites often enough that Jewish people are understandably wary of them. Schrodinger’s antisemitism, if you will.

C. Ask Jewish people WHO HAVE OFFERED TO HELP EDUCATE YOU. Emphasis on WHO HAVE OFFERED. Random Jewish people aren’t obligated to give you their time and emotional energy, or to educate you – especially on subjects that are scary or painful for them.

@edenfenixblogs has kindly offered her inbox to those who are genuinely trying to learn and do better, and I’ve found her to be very kind, patient, reasonable, and fair-minded.

Understand that this is URGENTLY NEEDED. In one of my conversations with a Jewish person who’d called me out, they said this was the most productive conversation they’d had with a person with a Palestinian flag in their profile.

THIS IS NOT OKAY.

I didn’t do anything special. All I did was listen, apologize for my mistakes, and learn.

Yes, it feels good to be acknowledged. But I feel like I’ve been praised for peeing IN the toilet, instead of beside it.

Apologizing, learning, and making amends after you hurt people shouldn’t be “the most reasonable thing I’ve heard from a person with a Palestinian flag pfp.”

It should be BASIC DECENCY.

And the fact that it’s apparently so uncommon should tell you how much unnecessary stress and fear Jewish people have been living with because of people who consider themselves defenders of human rights.

By all means, be angry at the Likud, the IDF, and the politicians, reporters, and specific media outlets who choose to enable and cover up for them. But direct that anger toward the people who deserve it and are in a position to do something about it, not random people who simply happen to be Jewish, or who don’t want millions of people to be turned into refugees when less violent methods of achieving freedom and rights for Palestinians are available.

Stop peeing beside the toilet, people.

[imsobadatnicknames2]

When it comes to benefits from economic imperialism, is puerto rico also included among those who receive these economic benefits? Genuinely curious, I don't know much about the economic situation in Puerto Rico compared to the rest of América Latina

Have in mind that not being from there and I'm not like EXTENSIVELY well-read about US-Puerto Rico relations, but from what I've read the short answer is no.

I do think Puerto Ricans have a small privilege over other Latin Americans by virtue of being granted US citizenship (considering that just being a US citizen confers a non-trivial amount of passport privilege); but in the economic sense Puerto Rico is subject to the same kind of exploitative economic relationship that other Latin American countries have with the US, where the conditions enable American businesses to extract a staggering amount of wealth from the territory by operating there (either through labor outsourcing or exploitation of natural resources) in a way that benefits American investors and not the local economy, except this relationship is exacerbated by Puerto Rico's all but explicitly colonial status as an unincorporated US territory which allows American interests to create and maintain these conditions, and the fact that Puerto Rico is subject to the decisions of the US federal government while being denied any say in US politics.

I think a very straightforward example is the issue of how laws such as the Jones Act benefit certain sections of the US working class while having extremely negative consequences for Puerto Rican people. Puerto Rico, being a small island nation, is heavily reliant on importing goods and resources that can't be produced locally. The Jones act, among other things, requires all ships transporting goods between US ports (including those in territories like Puerto Rico) to be american-owned, operated, and built. Due to protecting the US maritime transport industry from foreign competition (and also due to codifying seamen's rights to compensation in the case of injury working on a US-flagged ship) it enjoys the support of US maritime worker unions, but it also increases the cost of imported goods in Puerto Rico by an estimate of 30%, which massively increases the cost of living for Puerto Ricans. (Which you know. I support labor unions, and the law does benefit maritime workers in the US, but it's an example of the way the influence that the American government wields over Puerto Rico is used to create conditions that benefit certain sectors of the US economy at the cost of the quality of life of people in Puerto Rico)

Another example is how Puerto Rico has become a tax haven for American companies and wealthy individuals under the guise of attracting investment. On top of already low property taxes, currently under Act 60 certain export industries are allowed to operate in Puerto Rico at a 4% corporate tax rate, and entitled to a 75% exemption from property taxes, 100% from passive income taxes, and 50% from municipal taxes, while US citizens who become new Puerto Rico residents as "individual investors" can apply for a 100% exemption from most income taxes.

Also there is the whole deal of disaster capitalism and American companies benefitting from natural disasters in Puerto Rico, such as firms like Whitefish Energy securing extremely profitable contracts to rebuild Puerto Rico's electrical grid after Hurricane María, or private equity firms like Blackstone swooping in to buy the affected hostels, homes, and farmland at extremely cheap prices.

Ultimately, I think the simple fact that US economic projects have turned Puerto Rico into what is considered a "high-income economy" while the poverty rate in the territory is currently 43% (more than double the poverty rate of the poorest US state) should be a pretty good indicator that Puerto Rico, despite nominally being part of the US, is on the receiving end of US economic imperialism and wealth extraction.