#glad to be an extremist

[milesaerach]

Oh lord ye might want to read State and Revolution and Connolly's the reconquest of Ireland, the current system is not going to just give us change a chairde!

Ireland was partially liberated because no one listened to polite asks to release us from being a colony. The IRA was created due to the partitioning of Ireland and the ongoing oppression by the British State.

Violence is the last answer for an oppressed group.

A little advice from someone studying extremist groups: if you’re in a social media environment where the daily ubiquitous message is that you have no hope of any kind of future and you can’t possibly achieve anything without a violent overthrow of society, you’re being radicalized, and not in the good way.

[age-of-moonknight]

“Soldier,” Vengeance of the Moon Knight (Vol. 2/2024), #3.

Writer: Jed MacKay; Penciler and Inker: Alessandro Cappuccio; Colorist: Rachelle Rosenberg; Letterer: Cory Petit

[fiendishartist2]

started watching the 80s astroboy anime and i need tenma to explode

[tenok]

.

[jimkirkachu]

thought I had finally found a group of people I almost fit in with/could be myself with (an lgbtqia+ discord that's actually all local people) but after a month and a half of feeling okay and accepted for the first time in... idk how long, I ruined everything for myself by being "out" as a Christian, which apparently makes me The Enemy

[crqstalite]

also thinkin abt writing a post-mea fic where i get to write everyone at a nexus gala. i think itd be funny lol

[sunnyskies281]

I love how in my AU Azriel is kinda limited on the friends he can possibly make because you know he’s literally an escaped convict, so he just befriends the first yo-Kai who ever helped him in any meaningful way and that just so happened to be Ed Zoff, who’s a political extremist who tried to kill Enma with the death note.

[phantomrose96]

When people join self-improvement or even hobbyist communities, there are some absolutely critical skills of fundamental skepticism they need when going in. I think most people who get into these communities aren't aware of these.

And just, as a fundamental few:

Does this person stand to gain financially from the thing they're trying to sell you on?

Is the business model of this whole community one of artificial competitiveness? Is there a pressure around never lapsing, or never straying from the model being sold to you?

Are the claims made in this community becoming bolder and bolder deviations from standard information?

These are absolutely rife in fitness, nutrition, and financial-advice communities and they often receive very little scrutiny except among those who already "got out." Because from the outside, seeing someone get into fitness is a good thing, good for them, glad to see it, look at that dedication, happy for them. Same on the other categories, and probably numerous others I haven't seen.

---------

Does this person stand to gain financially from the thing they're trying to sell you on?

If the answer is yes, that does NOT mean "immediately abort", it means keep that in mind when you're interacting with their content.

This nutrition influencer has given you some great recipes for free, and now they're promoting a "really fantastic" brand that they have an affiliate link with? Their motivation isn't to be your friend and helpfully clue you in on a great product. It's to make money off you.

You really like this fitness influencer's work outs, but she gets MORE interaction and MORE viewers the skinnier she gets? She CLAIMS she's been losing weight naturally with healthy eating and exercise, and she's still full of energy, and You Can Too. This is not your friend. This is not someone who knows you. This is someone under large financial and social pressure to do everything she can to put out her best appearance and her happiest appearance, and your attention and belief in the appearance is where the money and clout come from. You really need to remember this in the same way you remember to look both ways before crossing the street. You can cross a street and you can follow a fitness account, but protect yourself when doing it.

---------

Is the business model of this whole community one of artificial competitiveness? Is there a pressure around never lapsing, or never straying from the model being sold to you?

Communities stay strong if they retain people. There are a lot of fine and positive ways to retain people, but it's often easier to retain people by instilling them with a sense that they must be here. They should feel bad if they lapse or if their attention drifts. What they were before was inadequate. Everyone outside this community is inadequate. Do you want to go back to inadequate?

Is that financial subreddit that taught you valuable lessons about 401k's, index funds, and budgeting also quietly pressuring you to always do more? Are the top posts from extremist examples of people living in destitution so they can show the most extreme screenshot, and curate the envy of everyone else who ought to be ashamed of not doing as well as them?

Is that fitness community that got you into jogging also putting you in the mind that the truest and best people exercise 7 days a week? Never miss a metric? Never compromise on their dedication?

Is that person who "cut out all sugar and feels amazing" informing you that you should never have another cupcake in your life? And if you DO it's because you're BAD and DON'T WORRY, you'll get RIGHT back on the horse after. Shame will motivate you to come right back, and stay with the community, and never leave.

As long as you stay, the community grows. As long as you stay, the ad sponsors and the endorsed products and the influencers can benefit more and more. And sometimes, there's perhaps not even a malicious force behind it. It can happen from evolutionary pressures. The communities that survive are the ones that retain people. A community that trips accidentally into a model of pressuring people to stay is one which retains people and thrives.

-----------

Are the claims made in this community becoming bolder and bolder deviations from standard information?

You joined because you wanted to learn to cook for yourself. And this community has been helpful! You know how to make some delicious things. You've tried vegetables you've never tried before. And maybe you needed some convincing that brussel sprouts can be yummy, but what do you know, turns out you like them roasted.

But what else is being said? What things are being said with more and more frequency? Is it that "humans don't actually need any sugar, and it's a poison being sold to us?" Is it that "seed oils are toxic for you"? Is it that "pasteurization is bad"? Is the raw fruitarian convincing you that cavemen lived exclusively off fruit and you can too?

They'll have sources sometimes. Check them. Are they cherry-picked? Are they from an insular echo-chamber? Why isn't the mainstream literature aware of this? And if the answer has anything to do with "because mainstream wants to TRICK YOU and you're actually BAD for ASKING" then don't engage. Disregard. Take the recipes if you must but apply your skeptical filter to all the parts that are snake oil.

Sometimes it's that another community is only a stone's throw away. That person with a great financial portfolio has only good things to say about crypto, and what they're saying is making sense (average person [not smart] [poor] [bad money skills] laughs at crypto, but you're smarter. you're on the in-track). That amazing bodybuilder is pulling the hottest dates, and he says it's about male-confidence, and he says there are good support guides on becoming a respectable masculine man, and all you need to do is reclaim your masculinity in a society that wants to steal it from you.

In any place like this, come up for air. Come up for air FREQUENTLY. Talk to regular people and engage in academic literature outside this circle. Conspiracy thinking wins if you draw all your information from the entity trying to sell you on the conspiracy.

------------

And I hope this is clear but my message is not "never join a community." My message is know danger when you see it. Recognize when you're being used or pressured. Don't fall for conspiracy thinking. Protect yourself. You can use a gas stove to cook meals but don't touch the flame and don't burn your house down. You can cross the street but recognize the signs of a car coming down the street.

And I'm making this point because so many people just don't know. ...Because getting into fitness is "good" and "self-improvement"! So is nutrition. So if financial responsibility. People walk into it and the extremism can make them feel accomplished, and admired, and like they're a part of something, and maybe even like a proper self-punishment for their own inadequacies. And people on the outside won't save you because "Wow! He spends 3 hours at the gym every day! I wish I was that dedicated." is a common attitude, and will push you deeper into what has its claws in you.

Everything I'm saying is not because I'm so much smarter and so much holier-than-thou for knowing this when others don't--I'm saying this because I was in it. I fell for it. Not all the examples above, of course. But I recognize the machine in them. It is highly appealing to run farther and fast longer and overload your class schedule when you don't feel good enough and want to prove something, and so many communities will sell you on the idea this IS an accomplishment. Then once you do, you have to do it forever. Or else you'll go back to not being good enough. And since fitness is "good", and weight-loss and good grades, no one can save you but you.

The answer was not to give up on the hobbies I was doing. I cook for myself most nights. I run and bike as regular parts of my routine. I like new recipes and I like half-marathons. But these are just positive additions to my life and they do not define my worth. If I miss a work-out it's whatever. If I order take-out it's whatever. I fundamentally do not care about the influencer with the washboard abs, and if I try a work-out from her, I have no loyalty to it. If the new recipe I try mentions "clean eating" I'll roll my eyes and just figure out if the recipe seems good. If the recipe is botching itself to avoid certain scare-words I will simply find something else.

There is absolutely a reasonable place for challenging yourself and trying things outside your comfort zone. The internet is full of resources to do so much more than you currently know how to do. And if that community is an oven, recognize it's an oven. Wear oven mitts. If it's actively on fire, leave. You're the only one protecting you. Stay safe.

[rainbowtvz]

love following normal people (nonliberals)

[leviathan-supersystem]

[Democrat voice]: I'm so glad we waged mccarthyist campaigns of harassment to push anti-war working class socialists out of mainstream progressive spaces to make them more welcoming to "moderate" neocon republican warhawks. those scary tankies were saying things like "hey maybe we should stop funding a genocide"- that kind of extremist rhetoric could lead to political violence! imagine how that might reflect on us! thankfully, our new neocon allies have much more moderate opinions like "we must bomb moscow and beijing to glass and sniff out and eradicate the treasonous swine in our midst," which is a reasonable normal opinion which could never lead to any political violence. now if you'll excuse me, I need to catch up on a couple days of news while I take a big big big sip of my coffee,

[thenationofzaun]

Arcane and Ideological Clashes

Tags by @coolseabird

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. One of season 1's themes I loved was the philosophical and ideological debate between Silco and Vander (and then Jinx and Vi). I adore the personal character-driven aspects too, but the thing is, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. Ideologies can be extremely personally informed/motivated, and in the case of these characters, they were. Every part of their worldviews were shaped by their circumstances, their lives, experiences, and relationships with other characters. For example, Silco surviving the murder attempt by Vander and how this very personal betrayal motivated him politically, to be unrelentingly extremist in his methods. Or Vander feeling personally guilty for all the deaths on the Day of Ash, leading to him forming a political deal with Grayson to subdue the undercity from ever stepping out of line "for their own good". Because when you live in these kinds of dire conditions, there really is no way to separate the personal from the political.

Though season 1 didn't explore these themes with the sisters as deeply as I would have liked, the crumbs were there! Especially for Jinx. Yeah, she's selfish and personally-motivated, but her actions are nonetheless political. When it comes to her political opinions, the first season itself only gave us crumbs ("We kicked the enforcers butts, imagine what the whole of the Lanes could do!" as a kid, and then later Silco tells her that the children of Zaun deserve more and she seems to listen pensively, but never comments on it). Every act of political violence by her in the first season was given a personal motivation (she wants Silco to think she's strong, she wants to confront Caitvi on the bridge, she wants to avenge Silco). But writers comments outside the show gave us more - one of them said online that while Jinx understands Vander, she disagrees with his worldview and aligns with Silco's views on fighting topside. So that confirmed that Jinx does have an ideology and it aligns with Silco's, even if she was mostly preoccupied with personal matters in S1.

Vi on the other hand was completely neglected by season 1. All of her thought process and political opinions post Act 1 were left entirely subtextual. Act 3 was the worst offender because it's there that she makes her most controversial decisions (betraying Jinx to the Council and attacking the Shimmer factory with enforcers). However, again there were crumbs that one could string together to form interpretations. In S1E2, Vander basically convinces her that rebellion against topside is futile as it would likely lead to the deaths of her loved ones. She then decides to give up her desire to fight them and turns herself in to the enforcers. What follows is 7-8 years of being beaten and abused and downtrodden by topsiders in prison. Yeah, I can definitely see how this experience would only confirm Vander's words, that Piltover's might is too much to overcome, not without heavy casualties on their side. That rebellion is futile and the best thing to do is to keep your head down and don't invoke their wrath.

However, it was a fellow undercity citizen who murdered Vander and took her sister. And when she returns years later, she finds that he is still in power, has significant influence and a large number of followers in the Lanes, and no one has overthrown him. One line that really stood out to me was one she said to the brothel madam Babette in S1E5 - "From the looks of it no one down here lifted a finger to stop Silco". How juicy is that! She feels resentful towards her fellow Zaunites for not avenging Vander and taking down Silco in her absence. She feels betrayed, abandoned, left behind by her own neighbours. Her sister changed under Silco, her home changed under Silco. And everyone moved on without her. Expanding on this could have been such a natural way to justify her class treason by joining the enforcers. She thinks Piltover is too strong for Zaunites to beat so there's no use rebelling against them anyway. So why not use their might against her Zaunite enemies? Zaunites themselves "won't lift a finger" to stop violent gang leaders so why not use topside's power to do it? "What loyalty should I have to my class, if the people from my class abandoned me like this?" I could even see how being wronged by Zaunites could hurt more than being wronged by Piltovians - she could see it as the latter owing her nothing while the Zaunites are supposed to be her family and neighbours, who owe her more.

Again, season 1 itself did jack shit to delve into these feelings nor her trauma from prison. But the crumbs were there. I happily used them to form my own interpretation to justify her bizarre decisions and was satisfied. But then season 2 rolls around. They had the blueprint and chose not to use any of this rich material. How do they justify her joining the enforcers? Do they explore any of the complex feelings of resentment Vi may have for her home and class? Nope, she joins after hearing how her crush talked her up to colleagues. How do they justify her fully turning on Jinx and disowning her sister? Do they explore Vi's loyalty to her foster father Vander, and her acceptance that Jinx chose to betray him and side with his murderer, then try to murder Ekko for years? Nope. In fact, she forgets about Ekko and never mentions him again lmao. Rather she seems to turn on Jinx because she attacked the Council??? That seems to be the turning point for Vi, the thing that makes Vi view Jinx as a monster. "She killed the tyrants who oppressed me all my life, how dare she😤" ???? It would make sense for Vi to view the attack as stupid and reckless, again just like Vander said - fighting topside only brings more wrath to the undercity. But they don't even do that. They never explore Vi's political opinions and how she agrees with Vander's "compliance for our own good" stance. They never touch on her time in prison and how it may have compounded Vander's views. Instead they make it so Vi seems to sympathize with the Councilors and condemns Jinx's bombing because of some generic "violence bad" moral.

It's so stupid too, because they completely forget about Grayson. That's more PRIME material to justify Vi's enforcer arc. If Vander, her mentor, allied with Grayson, Caitlyn's mentor, then why shouldn't she ally with Caitlyn? She could easily use the Vander-Grayson peace deal to make herself feel better about her class treason. "He allied with enforcers to keep the undercity in check for their own good. So will I. Putting on the uniform is just the next logical step. I will take out the gang leaders and Silcos that Zaunites are too weak to stand up to. My parents were wrong to fight against topside, rebellion is futile. Jinx is wrong to fight against topside and will only get more Zaunites killed in the resulting retaliation. They can call me a traitor but I'm doing this for their own good."

All the pieces are there. Instead they never bring up the Vander-Grayson deal. Caitlyn and Vi have never even spoken about either of them in their entire relationship lmfaooo. They don't even know that their beloved mentors knew each other. They never speak about anything of substance. The only crumbs of an ideological clash we get in season 2 is the argument in S2E5. But it's all from Jinx's side - "I wish I was just seeing things when you decided to throw in with the Piltie goons who murdered mom and dad." But then Vi replies with some lame insult, then they're having a cheap slapstick comedy fight, and Vi never reckons with this. She never expresses what she thinks of her parents dying fighting topside. Then the Piltover vs Zaun war is completely abandoned and the plot focuses on Warwick/Hexcore/Noxus. And we don't get any more explorations of the ideological/philosophical clash that the sisters represent. Is it worth it to rebel against an oppressor if you lose yourself and all your loved ones to violence, but at least those in the future reap the benefits of your fight? Is it worth it to comply for the safety of yourself and your loved ones, if your people will eventually suffer a slow death and never have a future? What are you willing to sacrifice for your revolution? How far will you go? They handled this theme beautifully with season 1 Silco, then said "alright that's enough" and dropped all effort when it came to season 2. And from the trailers of Act 3, it looks like Vi will be convincing Jinx to fucking help Piltover against Noxus. Which is just gross lmao.

[mariacallous]

Glad people are finally finding out that these Pro Palestine protestors are ratfuckers-by-design at best (and Republicans at worst) and that's why they support Trump:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/08/dnc-palestinian-gaza-protests/679524/

One month ago, an NBC News headline reported:

Protesters made a tiny footprint at the RNC in Milwaukee. Other than a modest daytime march on Monday afternoon, the first day of the Republican National Convention, there were virtually no protests over the event’s four days and nights.

Obviously, the story from the Democratic National Convention in Chicago is already proving different.

This is part of a pattern. Gather any large number of Democrats together, in almost any city or state, whether at rallies, fundraisers, or presidential appearances, and pro-Palestinian protesters will try to wreck the event. These actions have been building to threats of outright violence. Pro-Trump and Republican events, meanwhile, are almost always left in peace.

Of the two big parties, the Democrats are more emotionally sympathetic to Palestinian suffering. The Biden administration is working to negotiate the cease-fire that the pro-Palestinian camp claims to want. The administration has provided hundreds of millions of dollars of humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza. President Joe Biden’s terms for ending the fighting in Gaza envision a rapid movement to full Palestinian statehood.

By contrast, former President Donald Trump uses Palestinian as an insult. His administration moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. In 2016, Trump campaigned on a complete shutdown of travel by Muslims into the United States; Trump now speaks of deporting campus anti-Israel protesters. He has pledged to block Gaza refugees from entering the United States.

Trump wants to tell the story that he and his party will enforce public order. He alleges that Democrats cannot or will not protect Americans against chaos spread by extremist elements. The pro-Palestinian movement works every day to create images that support Trump’s argument. As a visibly annoyed Vice President Kamala Harris asked protesters in Detroit earlier this month: Do they want to elect Donald Trump?

Not all pro-Palestinian demonstrators are thinking about the election. Many seem driven by moral outrage or ideological passion. But for those who are thinking strategically, the answer is obvious: Yes, they want to elect Trump. Of course they want to elect Trump. Electing Trump is their best—and maybe only—hope.

To understand why, cast your mind back a quarter century.

In the election of 2000, Vice President Al Gore faced Texas Governor George W. Bush. Gore probably would have won in a straight two-way contest. But that same year, the progressive advocate Ralph Nader entered the race as a third-party challenger—and he pulled just enough of the vote to tip the Electoral College and the presidency toward Bush.

Nader later professed regret for running as a third-party candidate. But at the time, Nader understood exactly what he was doing. Defeating Gore and electing Bush was the intended and declared purpose of Nader’s candidacy. Nader detailed his logic in many speeches, including this one to the summer-2000 convention of the NAACP:

If you ever wondered why the right wing and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party has so much more power over that party than the progressive wing, it’s because the right wing and the corporate wing have somewhere to go: It’s called the Republican Party. And so they’re catered to and they’re regaled—like the Democratic Leadership Council, they’re catered to and they’re regaled. But if you look at the progressive wing … they have nowhere to go. And you know when you’re told that you have nowhere to go, you get taken for granted. And when you get taken for granted, you get taken.

To paraphrase his argument even more bluntly: If progressives caused the Democrats to lose the presidency in the election of 2000, then Democrats would take progressives more seriously in all the elections that followed.

Nader’s logic was not altogether wrong. In many ways, the post-2000 Democratic Party has shifted well to the left of where the party was in the 1980s and ’90s. But catering to the party’s left has cost Democrats winnable races, and with them, key priorities: The Iraq War and 20 years of inaction on climate change head the list of progressive disappointments since the 2000 election, and the list extends from there. Whether or not the shift was worth the price, Nader was neither ignorant nor deceived. He identified his goal and willingly accepted the risks for himself and his movement.

So it is now with the pro-Palestinian demonstrators of 2024.

They start with a fundamental political problem: Their cause is not popular. Solid majorities of Americans accept Israel’s war in Gaza as valid and fiercely condemn the Hamas terrorist attacks as unacceptable. The exact margin varies from poll to poll depending on how the question is asked, but when presented with a binary choice between Israel and the Palestinians, Americans prefer Israel by a factor of at least two to one.

The brute fact of those numbers makes it very difficult for pro-Palestinian activists to win elections. In this cycle, despite all the emotion stirred by the Gaza war, two of Israel’s fiercest critics in Congress lost their primaries to pro-Israel challengers.

From the point of view of any practical politician: If a cause is so unpopular that it cannot help its friends, why listen to its advocates?

The only answer to that question, again from the practical point of view, is the message of the protesters in Chicago: Maybe we can’t help you if you do listen to us, but we can hurt you if you don’t!

Think of it another way. Since the bloody attack by Hamas on October 7 and the Israeli response, pro-Palestinian protesters have marched and agitated all over the United States. They have occupied college campuses. They have impeded access to Jewish schools, businesses, and places of worship. They have posted impassioned words and images on social media.

Yet all of their militant action has barely budged U.S. policy. Arms, intelligence, and economic assistance continue to flow from the United States to Israel. U.S. military forces cooperate with Israel against Iranian proxies in Lebanon and Yemen. Although the U.S. has imposed restraint on some Israeli operations, Israel has mostly been allowed to fight its own war in its own way.

These were President Biden’s decisions, not Vice President Harris’s. But she was the second-highest-ranking member of the administration. If Biden’s deputy inherits Biden’s office, the message is clear: His administration’s record of support for Israel carried no meaningful political price. All of those street demonstrations and campus occupations will have amounted to so much empty noise. All of those articles arguing that Gaza explained Biden’s troubles with young voters would be exposed as ideological wishcasting.

If Harris wins, the pro-Palestinian movement will have lost.

If Harris loses, however, pro-Palestinian protesters can claim that they were responsible for her defeat. That claim might not be true—in fact it probably would not be true—but try disproving it. The pro-Palestinian movement would have at least some basis to argue: You lost because you alienated us.

If Harris wins, she may want to do something about the pro-Palestinian cause—for humanitarian reasons, for reasons of diplomacy and geopolitics, for reasons of Democratic-constituency management in particular congressional districts. But she won’t have to do it. She’ll know that the protesters tried to beat her, and they failed.

If Harris loses, however, future Democratic candidates will tread more carefully on Israeli-Palestinian terrain. Even if they privately doubt that the party’s position on Gaza explains anything truly important, they will be worried by advisers and donors who will believe it or who will want to believe it.

But what about Trump? Why aren’t the pro-Palestinian demonstrators in Chicago more fearful of Trump’s possible return to the presidency?

Although the pro-Palestine cause attracts support from progressives, it is not exactly a progressive cause. Americans associate progressivism with secularism, feminism, and gay-rights advocacy, among other causes. The Palestinian national movement, especially now that Hamas has effectively replaced the Palestine Liberation Organization as leader of “the resistance,” has become markedly religious, patriarchal, and socially reactionary. But it is also a movement fiercely opposed to American global hegemony—and that is its “anti-imperialist” appeal to Western progressives.

If you oppose American global hegemony, Trump is your candidate (as a long list of anti-American dictators have already figured out). Trump fiercely opposes the alliances and trade agreements that magnify American power and make the U.S. the center of a huge network of democratic, market-oriented countries. Trump’s “America First” bluster is actually a pathway to American isolation and weakness that will further remove American power from the world.

If you wish America ill, of course you wish Trump well. The far left and far right of U.S. politics may disagree on much, but they agree on that.

The protesters in the streets of Chicago are not acting aimlessly or randomly. The people on the receiving end of their protests would benefit from equal clarity. The protesters want chaos and even violence in order to defeat Harris and elect Trump. They are not ill-informed or excessively idealistic or sadly misled. They are not overzealous allies. They are purposeful adversaries.

The Chicago-convention delegates should recognize that truth, and act accordingly.

[moonstruckme]

In a week-

I saw you did royal Bodyguard poly!marauders to sunshine!reader, ans I was wondering if we could get something like that but instead reader is a little sneakt bitch who uses escaping her bodyguards as a fun pastime?????

Thanks for requesting!!

join the party

bodyguard!marauders x fem!reader ♡ 979 words

You’re about to take a sip from your cup when your wrist is gripped by a strong hand, stopping it from reaching your mouth. 

“You have no idea what’s in there.” 

“Hi, Jamie,” you shoot him a smile, warm and loose all over from the drinks you’ve already had. “Sure I do. It’s a rum and coke. Pretty straightforward, actually.” 

“He means,” Remus says, prying your fingers from around the cup and setting it on the bar, “that you probably weren’t watching to see if anyone slipped something into it, and unfortunately for you, we weren’t here to do it for you.” 

You don’t have to look around to know Sirius will be here as well, your three bodyguards relentless and nearly impossible to shake. Still, you’re a bit proud you’d managed to get free for a little over an hour tonight. That’s not an easy task. 

“No one here is going to drug me,” you say, though you know that’s not strictly true, and you go on before one of them can contradict you. “How’d you find me anyway?” 

James gives you a deadpan look, the closest thing you ever get to anger from him. “If we told you, you’d just figure out how to get around it next time.” He sets a hand on your shoulder, pushing you gently away from the bar. “Come on, let’s go home.” 

“I don’t want to go home,” you say, and despite your best intentions, your voice comes out with a petulant edge. “Why can’t we stay here?”

“You know very well you’re allowed to go out,” Remus says as he and James steer you towards the exit. “But we haven’t had time to look around this place, and you’re supposed to be studying at Kate’s.” 

“So this is a punishment.” It’s not a question, but Sirius answers you anyway, draping an arm around your shoulders as you meet him by the door. 

“Yes, it is,” he says lightly. “You almost killed Remus tonight, doll, and attempted murder deserves a time-out at the very least.” 

Even whilst scolding you, Sirius’ voice is teasing. Between the three of them, you know he’s the least upset with you. He might be a bit frustrated, sure, but he seems to also harbor a tiny bit of respect or understanding for what he calls your ill-timed rebellious phase. Though to be fair, you’d never had much cause for rebellion before your mom had forced a security detail upon you. You were used to doing whatever you wanted, and what you wanted had never seemed so wild until one day you needed permission to go outside and your privacy was blown to smithereens. 

You step out into the cool night air, and Sirius rubs your upper arm when you shiver. Remus leads you all towards the parking lot, and you’re secretly glad to be able to get into a warm car even if you’re still stubbornly yearning for the mundanity of the bus. 

“I know you think of running off as trying to get back some sort of freedom,” James says, and his voice is gentler now if not quite friendly, “but it’s not going to feel like freedom if while you’re off by yourself one of your mom’s…critics,” he decides, using the most delicate term possible, “takes the opportunity to kidnap you.” 

“Or kill you.” Remus says gruffly, his posture extra-stiff as he scans the parking lot, eyes skimming over every dark corner and potentially occupied vehicle. 

“Their issue is with her, not me,” you sigh, somewhere between frustrated and resigned. “You should be protecting her.” 

“She’s got her own detail,” Remus reminds you. “And it wouldn’t be the first time extremists have targeted a politician’s family to get at them.” 

You’re silent at that, and the boys let you stew in it, the memory of your mother’s face when she’s gotten the news that her coworker’s son had been killed in their home. She’d grieved for her friend that day, but her panic had been for herself. For you. 

“We’ve got to find a way around this need to escape, angel,” James says, opening the door to the backseat and offering you a hand in. You nod hello to Marcus, your mom’s driver, whose duties have apparently been extended to picking you up when you go “missing” for an hour or two. Sirius gets in on your other side, Remus taking the passenger seat. “Are we really so awful to be around?”

“No,” you say, though you know the question was meant in jest. They deserve to know anyway. “You guys are great. It’s your job that’s the problem.” 

“Unfortunately, it’s still our job,” Remus says, turning around to fix you with a look. It works, and you shrink in your seat. Remus is such a kind, gentle soul, especially considering his profession, so when he focuses his disapproval like this, it always leaves you feeling thoroughly shamed. “Every time you slip off, we have to act as if you’ve been kidnapped, even if we know better. And you very well could be kidnapped. You just—” He shakes his head, and guilt sprouts, winding and thorny, in your gut. “—I don’t think you understand the danger you’re putting yourself in when you do this.”

You nod, forcing yourself to look him in the eye so he knows you’re really listening. “I’m sorry. I’ll…” you sigh, indignation eating at you even as you give in. “I’ll try to work with you guys more.”

“That’s all we’re asking, sweetheart,” James says, bumping your shoulder with his lightly, and you know you’re at least mostly forgiven. 

“For tonight,” Sirius drawls, “are you going to actually stay in your room, or is one of us going to have to tie you to the bed?” He winks. “Because if you need me to, I can totally do that, dollface.”

[queer-geordie-dyke]

Do anti-trans crusaders like JK Rowling realize they are endangering lots of cis women with their hate? I get that they don't care about trans women's safety or wellbeing, but what about all the not-so-feminine-looking cis women out there who are now becoming the targets of transphobic attacks? The butch lesbians, the tomboys, the women with PCOS, the tall women, the muscular women, the short-haired women, the post-menopausal women who can't afford regular salon visits and injectables and cosmetic surgeries to keep them looking sufficiently "feminine" after their oestrogen dries up, the women who've had double mastectomies without reconstruction, the plain old 'ugly' women? What about them? They are all now being 'accused' of being trans online and getting doxxed and kicked out of women's bathrooms and secretly filmed in gyms and beaten in the streets in transphobic attacks. Does JK Rowling not care about them? Or are they all just collateral damage in the crusade? Should they all just make more of a damned effort? What? How should all the 'unacceptable' cis women out there protect themselves from the new wave of hate people like JK Rowling have stoked against them?

Would JK Rowling be willing to get her vag out and take a DNA test to 'prove' she's actually really truly a fully female woman? Would she object to that, I wonder?

(Not even going to start on the fact that she's also endangering intersex people and 'insufficiently masculine' men.)

I've found myself worrying lately about using public toilets. I'm a taller-than-average not-pretty cis woman who never wears make-up or jewellery or perfume or dresses. I now worry a little about not appearing 'feminine' enough in public, that I might be mistaken for a trans person and subjected to hate or violence. Is that really the world JK Rowling wants?

Anyway. She seems horrible and I'm glad I got rid of all her books. What a stupid hill she has chosen to die on.

Honestly, I think her and her ilk are so blinded by their all encompassing, frothing hatred and paranoia that they really *don't* care at all about women, any women. Like all extremists, their so-called *concern* is really a cover for their abhorrent behaviour.

[jewishvitya]

Saw an interview with the Israeli ambassador in the UK where she openly rejects the idea of a Palestinian state at all. Including in a two-states scenario. Which, I knew this is the position of our government, Netanyahu was recently trying to push the "I'm the only one who can prevent a Palestinian state," but she was unusually open and explicit about it for an international interview.

And I didn't realize it at first (because I'm awful with faces... and names) but that's Tzipi Hotoveli. She's so right-wing that she was a popular name in the settlements when I lived there. And this is something I can say about many politicians currently running the government, they are the names that aligned politically with the most extremist community. And this is why she's so bad at being diplomatic about it - the people with that mentality rarely care about watering down their goals.

A mutual of mine on a different platform, an American anti-zionist Jew, talked about a trip they took to the West Bank. It was organized to show the occupation, the checkpoints, etc. Someone asked in response if they visited settlements too, and said that he was glad they enjoyed the trip, but it seems to be all one color.

This was a weird comment. What can you see in the settlements to change your mind, if you care about human rights. What can you see that would erase the suffering of Palestinians there, or give context to justify it. Even if settlers knew to say all the right words, this shouldn't be enough to make you forget what Palestinians are living through.

But they don't say the right words. Especially there, the people openly dehumanize Palestinians. And if you talk to them for a while, they will do it to your face. And they will be open about wanting no Palestinians living on any part of the land. Israeli Arabs are often seen as a different story, as long as they accept Israeli sovereignty. Still not fully trusted, though.

I saw someone confusing the electric fence I mentioned in a few posts, with the separation fence, which is the wall around the West Bank. Not the same thing.

The separation fence is built within the territory of the West Bank, but it's a large wall all around that cuts them off from other areas of the land.

The electric fence is smaller, and it's specific. The one I'm referring to is in Kiryat Arba, near Hebron. That's the settlement I grew up in. It's one of the more established settlements, and it's basically a small town. Right behind the apartment building I lived in, there was the electric fence. And in a distance of maybe a couple of traffic lanes past the fence, were Palestinian homes. They could see us, we could see them.

The fence was there for our sake, not for the Palestinians. But sometimes the settlers would tear it down, forcing the border police and the military to guard that spot and rebuild it. I wondered why, because a hole in the fence near my home scared me. And then I learned they were protesting against the feeling that they're being contained. The settlers, with how they're constantly expanding, felt that they're not given enough. Settlers treat "we can't expand as fast as we'd like" as if that's oppression.

They would regularly get into conflicts with border police and with the military over this. They'd go out to claim another hill, and their temporary homes would get torn down. Individuals from the West Bank settlements would have the Shin Bet keeping track of them in case they'll do something that could provoke an escalation of violence. And this isn't to claim that Israel was being fair to Palestinians or protecting their interests. It just means that Israel tried to be strategic to an extent, and the settlers are inflammatory. Their stated goal, openly talked about, is to establish a presence on the ground, so that any agreement that gives land to Palestinians won't be possible. I kept hearing sentences like "not even a square centimeter." Meaning that they want to leave nothing for Palestinians. They aren't trying to think about what Israel can get away with, they feel entitled to everything.

And these are the people that the current Israeli government aligns with. Which puts a lot of things out in the open, and pushes a lot of other things into further extremes.

[neversetyoufree]

Obviously I'm very glad that Domi has stepped in to help protect Dante and Johann, and it's great that she's calling Dante by his name. However, I'm vaguely concerned that a member of the de Sade family directly confronting chasseurs (and particularly hateful chasseurs!) could lead to very bad things down the line.

Back at the start of the catacombs arc, Johann pointed out that relations between the church and the vampire establishment are still extremely tense, so it would be prohibitively dangerous for Orlock and his people to get involved in a conflict with them. If you take Johann at his word, it could take as little as one false step to set off the beginnings of another war. And the situation has only gotten worse since the catacombs.

Dominique isn't as politically important as Count Orlock, but she's still a member of a key family of aristocrats. If Gano and Ogier escalate the current situation to violence and Domi has to fight them, there's a chance things could spiral out of control in a big way.

There's also a chance Domi, Dante, and Johann will still be able to calm things down without a fight, of course, but if it does come to blows, I'm afraid an excuse to hurt or be hurt by a vampire aristocrat is the perfect opportunity for Gano. We know the extremists want an opportunity to go to war again, after all. I don't know if Gano shares that desire, since he's working with Ruthven on the side, but he's hateful enough that I sure wouldn't rule it out.