#i think this will be a controversial opinion

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

hi! can i ask what's ur opinion on giving pets away? not necessarily because u can't afford to care for em anymore but maybe incompatibility of personalities or maybe lifestyles. is it wrong to give ur pet for adoption if u know someone who's better suited for keeping a pet, like emotionally?

This is going to be controversial, but I support making that choice.

There’s a lot of rhetoric lately around how it’s evil and unethical to rehome your pet if you don’t “need to.” And what that does is prioritize human ideology over the actual animal’s well-being.

Pets that aren’t a good match for your home or pets that aren’t really wanted anymore frequently have lower welfare! When caring for an animal becomes a burden or is forced, people end up resenting them, and that means the animal often doesn’t get all of its needs fulfilled. Even if you’re still feeding it and providing appropriate vet care, how likely are you to provide affection or enrichment to an animal you’re tired of being stuck with?

Lifestyle and personality really matter to making sure a pet is a good fit for a home. A dog that alert-barks at every leaf that moves is probably a bad fit for someone who has a chronic migraine syndrome, and they might not know that until the dog has been in the home for weeks and started to open up. A really feisty kitten that requires a ton of play might not do best in the home of someone older who wanted a quiet lap cat. And while you can you do your best to plan to find a compatible animal, you won’t always know ahead of time what issues might arise.

“Forever home” rhetoric is really, really popular and I think it’s very unfair to the animals it is supposed to support. It started with the backlash of seeing animals abandoned inappropriately, and has been heavily reinforced in the public mind because it’s so frequently used to drive fundraising and support for legislation. The whole “forever home” concept communicates to people that getting an animal is an immutable commitment and that if you can’t keep an animal, it is a personal moral failing. It frames human priorities (we think people who get rid of animals are Evil and Bad and should be shunned) as more important than actual welfare needs for individual animals (are they getting the care they need where they are).

Obviously, I don’t support people dumping animals or just getting fad pets they’ll discard immediately, but there’s so many alternate situations that can arise. Even if it’s just “they got a pet and didn’t know what caring for it would take and didn’t want to care for it so they brought it back, how awful” like… okay, I’d like the person to have done more research before they got a pet, but isn’t it better that the animal now has a second chance to go to better home? Knowing what a commitment requires theoretically can be very different than having to actually follow through regularly, and I’d rather see someone maturely acknowledge that having an animal isn’t a good fit than keep it anyway!!

If animals being happy and with all their biological, veterinary, and social needs fulfilled is actually the goal, we need to prioritize their welfare over human opinion. I’d much rather see an animal rehomed responsibly to somewhere it will thrive and be welcomed than see people keep animals they can’t/don’t want to care for out of guilt or shame. 

[notaplaceofhonour]

I would both question the idea that the BITE model is the best model (not saying it can never be helpful, but there are noticeable problems with it*) and encourage everyone to take the work & opinions of its creator (Steven Hassan) and what he considers a cult with a heavy, heavy grain of salt.

This is a guy who quite literally claimed the reason trans people believe that J.K. Rowling (and by extension her “Gender Critical”/TERF arguments) is transphobic is because they’ve been indoctrinated into a “psy op mind control” cult by the Christian far right so gender-affirming care could be used as a form of anti-gay conversion therapy (aka the Trans Cult Conspiracy Theory).

And I don’t think this is just a case of someone having a bad opinion on one issue and a good opinion on another. It’s the direct results of flaws in the way he thinks/speaks about cults, which are baked into the BITE model. It’s exactly the versatility of the BITE model, listed above as one of its assets, that is actually the problem with it. Its reliance on subjective value judgements makes it easy to apply broadly, yes, that just leaves it extremely prone to just reinforcing confirmation bias rather than actually narrowing anything down & properly diagnosing anything. it makes it way too easy to apply way too broadly.

Hassan easily uses the BITE model to cast the fight for trans health care as a cult, criticism of JK Rowling’s transphobia as a cult, and even criticism of him and his opinions as the nefarious machinations of that same “cult”. And yet, I can easily look at that—the trans cult conspiracy theory, the way he employs rhetoric about “cancel culture” to silence dissent, the casting of his critics as the monolithic brainwashed masses in an “us vs them” narrative where he’s just prometheus trying to bring fire down to us—and I can easily use his own BITE model (as well as the fact that he was self-reportedly in a leadership role within the moonie cult, with a history of employing these tactics on followers) to make similar claims about him. But I think the truth is more complicated than that; I don’t sincerely think he’s literally brainwashing anyone into a culty group, just illustrating how subjective & loaded his model is.

This is not just me saying this. While his work is popular, it is not without controversy within academia. Fellow sociologists have argued that his work may be part of a moral panic about cults. Personal friends have suggested he tends to see cults everywhere due to his experience with the moonies (essentially, “when you only have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail”).

And, on a personal note, as a fellow cult survivor myself, a member of multiple groups frequently targeted by conspiracy theories that use the same rhetoric he does (including the exact conspiracy theory he quite literally promotes himself), and just someone with a general interest in/familiarity with conspiracist & popsci kooks & grifters, the lengths that Steve Hassan has gone to brand himself as not just a cult expert, but THE cult expert (even making his social media handle literally just “cultexpert”) and the amount that he uses heavily loaded, clichéd, & hyperbolic rhetoric such as “mind control psy ops” about anything from Trump to gender-affirming care just smacks of “everything is MK Ultra” & raises so so many red flags

it just seems like the cult focused version of the narcissistic/empath pop-psychobabble that’s been going around for so long

America has a weird relationship with cults where they’re terrified of small cults (or organizations they think are cults) but completely normalized massive cults that hurt many more people (eg: LDS Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Amish, Scientology, most Megachurches)

[air--so--sweet]

I've been thinking and I'm not sure if I want a near death experience where Buck is hurt causing Eddie to confess his emotions. I thought I did, I do love characters in peril with a sprinkling of hurt/comfort, but, given his past, I think Buck deserves better. Because he spent his childhood thinking that the only way to get love and affection from his parents was to get hurt. To the point that he would intentionally engage in reckless activities so it would make it more likely he would get injured. I can't help but think Eddie confessing his love to Buck after a near death experience just feels too similar to that for me.

Buck deserves love just as he is, so I think I need any confession of feelings from Eddie to come at a time where there is no catastrophe or tragedy occurring. In fact by all accounts it's a perfectly run of the mill, normal day.

Also, Eddie's arc is about him realising that he is worthy of joy and allowing himself to experience joy without guilt. His confession needs to be about him actively choosing joy for himself. His confession can't come from fear.

Also, Eddie's almost lost Buck a lot, both to his many near death experiences, but also to the lawsuit when he wasn't allowed speak to Buck. Eddie knows how scary it is for to think he might lose Buck and that hasn't caused him to realise or confess his feelings before now. Just like Buck seems to have had at least the start of his realisation on the couch in Eddie's apartment, I think I want Eddie to realise, and subsequently confess in a similar manner (though I'll happily accept some gay panic in between the realisation and confession).

That said, I'll happily take any NDE's they want to throw at us after they're already together or even after they've just confessed, spent a night making up for lost time, but not had a chance to actually talk about what this means in real terms and how they want to proceed from here. Y'know the classic almost losing what you've always wanted just as you got your hands on it. That'll suit me fine. And of course if the rest of the team doesn't know that Eddie and Buck have finally gotten together/told each other how they feel, whichever half of Buddie isn't injured has the added pressure of trying to keep their relationship under wraps.

[dcdreamblog]

What are your opinions on the Justice League International? They were a controversial time for the League for sure, a lot of news outlets around here, red state, you understand, called them a 'joke' and 'an embarrassment on the good name of the League,' but they were heroes, if you ask me.

Any red state dipshit who wanted to say that about the JLI would have to then meet me in the parking lot after I smacked my work gloves across his face.

(The most iconic image of the JLI, the day they received their official charter from the United Nations. TIME Magazine.)

The "Justice League Detroit" (A name I put in quotes because it IS meant to be pejorative in its original context, though the surviving members of that team wear it with pride ) had disbanded after a violent clash with Anthony Ivo left several of its members dead around the same time that G Gordon Godfrey was first able to whip up a popular discontent around superheroes.

This, of course, lead to the famous "Battle of the Lincoln Memorial" where a group of heroes defeated Godfrey and stymied the plans of his ultimate master, Darkseid. Bringing together a new team with the realization the world always needed a Justice League.

The team would handle various crises until the came into the interest of billionaire philanthropist Maxwell Lord who approached them with an idea: Seek official UN sanction, granting greater resources in exchange for government oversight. This period is when the most iconic lineup joined the team more or less, including the American mandated Captain Atom, his Russian counterpart Rocket Red with personable duo Blue Beetle and Booster Gold.

The First thing that caused an international backlash was the WAY the UN sanction was secured, namely that it was a TRANSFER of the Global Guardians' sanction to the League which was WIDELY unpopular in the majority of the world, especially among the Nonaligned Nations. The Global Guardians were and are deeply respected in the areas where they are active and cutting them out in order to replace them with a line up of the Justice League was seen by many smaller nations as America muscling in on the international stage.

This international outcry was somewhat quieted by the addition of popular Brazilian and Norwegian heroines Fire and Ice to the group and the mandated acceptance of Russia's Rocket Red. Though concerns remained that its claim to an international organization was hollow due to its majority American membership in contrast to the truly global commitment of the Global Guardians, worries I sympathize and agree with to a degree.

The OTHER "problem" many had with the team was with its general bearing and membership. The League was at that time, and still often is, thought of in terms of "The Seven", its most famous and prominent members with other heroes playing a peripheral role in the eyes of the public. With Batman very swiftly bowing out once media attention glued itself to the team, the only member of that chosen few that remained was the Martian Manhunter who is often disregarded by a certain...kind of observer. This lead to a perception that the JLI wasn't the "real" Justice League despite the total confidence placed in the JLI by personages like Superman or Wonder Woman.

It also got itself involved in rather less serious matters and conducted itself in a sometimes less than proud manner, mostly due to the public debacles that Blue Beetle and Booster Gold became wrapped up in. But I've already made a post about my thoughts on both men and why I think both are deserving of respect.

My evidence is as it shall ever be.

If you are slightly older than me you probably clearly remember when an alien alliance lead by a race calling themselves THE DOMINATORS tried to conquer the Earth via military force of arms. Which team was at the forefront of the counter attack that saved all our lives? The JLI.

Who stopped the illegal Bialyan junta under "Queen Bee" from gaining a superweapon? The JLI.

Who pushed back the intergalactic despot Despero to such a degree that he STILL thinks that these are Earth's greatest champions? The JLI. I would dare ANYONE who would like to question their legacy to stand in their shoes and still see if their big mouth avails them.

[koalapastries-writes]

ok so we always get reader was fan of driver BUT

let me introduce driver was a big big fan of reader !! so basically reader is a driver and has been for awhile now (like sebs age range) anyway so the driver has been a fan of reader for a long time (reader was probably drivers gay awakening) and now they’re driving together and like the celebrity crush evolved into real feelings

-🐝(can i claim this one?)

yes you can! i've added it to the claimed list :) done this with oscar because i love him <3 mentions of reader winning a championship but not mentioned which year bc i couldn't choose who to screw over, mild suggestive content, + minor implications of manwhore!reader but yk all of them were in the early 2010s so ...

you've been a formula one driver for a while.

the early 2010s were ... well, nobody could say you didn't have fun. it was a time when a few of the drivers decided to experiment a little. you being gay was a bit of an open secret among the drivers. if they wanted a night of fun to find out what they liked, you were the one they went to. which meant many of the podiums and cool-down rooms you were in were ... somewhat charged, shall we say.

the day you won your championship was no different. what you didn't know, though, was that your celebrations caused a young oscar piastri to realise something pretty fundamental about himself. you were easily the youngest of the older drivers—you'd just gotten into f1 when you were barely eighteen—which (perhaps unrealistically) convinced oscar that he was allowed to hold onto his crush on you. the age gap wasn't that big, right?

when oscar got a seat in formula one and realised he would be competing against you, he was thrilled. he knew his manager, mark, wouldn't approve ("i raced against him, oscar, that means you're too young"). that didn't stop oscar's daydreaming. he'd always told himself he had no idols. it was true to an extent, but that didn't mean he didn't idolize you just a little bit.

over his rookie season, he actually got to talk to you and get to know you beyond the personality you had in front of the cameras. slowly but surely, oscar's idolization gave way to genuine feelings for you. his daydreamed version of you grew closer to the actual you. his daydreams morphed from you becoming so instantly enamoured by him that you'd bend him over into romantic dates and waking up next to you and maybe even having kids ...

it takes almost two seasons, all of oscar's courage (and more than a bit of alcohol) for him to confess to you. you're not about to take advantage of him while he's drunk, so you take him back to your apartment and let him sleep in your bed while you take the couch.

he's so embarrassed when he wakes up, but he doesn't take back what he said. he is in love with you. he's been in love with the idea of you for years, and he's now been in love with the real you for over a year as well. he's so sure you'll reject him because he's too young for you. but you don't. you just lean forward and kiss him softly and admit that you feel the same. you were scared he'd think you were too old for him.

yeah, the age gap is controversial and people certainly have their opinions ... but you and oscar are happy. you both know nothing happened until oscar was well and truly old enough and you never pressured him into anything. if anything, you tried to push him away from you.

who knows?

maybe the two of you were just ... meant to be.

[woolieshubris]

So, you've been sent bait: A Guide for Internet Posters and Readers

Disclaimer: I am simply an autistic internet poster with a special interest in human interaction, abuse patterns, and internet culture. I am not a scholar and I do not have a degree in these things. While I have done research into the topics of cancellation, online abuse, and harassment, I am far from an expert.

Introduction:

I've seen this happen dozens of times before. A semi popular blogger will suddenly seem embroiled in a controversial topic, receiving harassment and accusations of some pretty terrible things. It goes on for about 24-72 hours, and then poof, it seems to be completely over, (however, of course, it can be brought up again without warning.) This can be emotionally damaging for the blogger, for the supporters of that blogger, and for the shock waves it will undoubtedly send into the greater community. This also further spreads discourse and popularizes harmful ideologies to people who might have previously never heard of them. The targets are almost always trans women, (with transmisogyny doing most of the cancellation legwork) and it seems to always have the goal of turning fellow trans people against the target. (Though, of course, I've seen this done with autistic creators, nonbinary creators, ect. Trans women are just the most popular target.)

Now, the goal of this guide is to help people understand how this happens, be able to recognize the patterns of a targeted harassment campaign, and be able to try and prevent it in the future. I'll be writing this as a guide to the target, however, I think it's important for lurkers/readers to also be able to recognize these patterns so they too can avoid being manipulated into falling into these pitfalls. A large portion of this harassment initiative is to use "useful idiots" in order to do most of the legwork. As a reader, you must avoid becoming a useful idiot, (which I'll be referring to as fools from now on) and you must be able to tell when other people are being used in this manner as well. This is the most effective way to protect people from unwarranted harassment campaigns.

Section 1: Bait

Types of Bait:

You've been sent bait, but you aren't sure if it is actually bait, or a genuine question from a fan. You don't want to ignore someone's valid concern, so you answer it even though you might not be sure. This is your first mistake! If you think it might be bait, it's best to treat it as such. Think of bait asks as toxic waste. If you aren't sure, it's much better to be safe than sorry. If you receive a bait ask, your best bet is to delete it and not respond at all. Yes, it will probably rattle you, and you'll probably feel bad about deleting the question, but you need to understand that it doesn't matter. If this person was asking a genuine question, they would understand if you don't want to answer. If they get annoyed or angry at your lack of answer- they were likely asking it with the intent to hurt you.

The first type of bait is bringing up a controversial topic.

While certain topics (like queer rights, abortion, Palestinian freedom) do actually matter in the real world and I would believe are worth responding to or making your position clear (as long as it is something you do have an opinion on) this does not mean all controversial topics are equal. Many topics that are "hot debates" online do not matter in the real world. (for example, proship vs antiship). Regardless of the validity of the debate, if it doesn't matter in the real world, it likely isn't worth publicly stating your opinion on those things. That is why people who are active in those movements try to make these things seem like they have real world consequences- to try and make their debate more valid and easier to pull more people into. The real goal with many of these topics is not to try and have a reasonable discussion. The goal is to try and pull as many people into them as possible. If they can successfully get ANY response out of you, then they win. Their debate is now broadcasted on your platform. Their thoughts, arguments, philosophies are now spread to thousands of people instantly. Even if you respond with an answer like "huh?" "what?" or "what does this mean???" they still win. Your acknowledgement of the debates existence at ALL is a win for them. They get to publicly platform their beliefs on your profile. If you respond at all and express even the slightest hint of an opinion, then they will have an entire section of fools that can now send you messages about this topic. Death by a thousand paper cuts. This is the most common type of bait, and the reason is simple. Internet debates can suck in people and can quickly rot peoples brains. Like sleeper agents, people will automatically start trying to chime in the moment they see the hints of any debate. If you fall for this debate, the best thing to do is delete everything, block main players and wait it out. With any luck, it will be completely forgotten by the end of the week.

The second type of bait is an accusation.

Again, while some allegations or accusations are worth responding to, if it is completely false, not responding will be your best bet. If you do respond at all, the allegation and your name will be linked in peoples minds. Even if you deny it, people will be confused as to why it was brought up at all. They might even think that you are lying or deflecting. Responding to the accusation at all is treated as a confession. If this accusation is something you've heard before, it would be worth looking into the source of the claim- someone might be spreading lies about you. However, if this accusation is something you've never received before, it is almost certainly bait. They are trying to make you look bad. Just delete them. If this is something you are receiving from a specific person, ask them about it privately. Never respond to false accusations on your public platform unless you know the source of the accusations. If you have to respond to them, you need to link to the accusation in full, not vaguely describe them. When you vaguely describe them, then you are putting the duty on the readers to find the accusation- they'll read it on the accusers terms- putting the ball directly into the accusers court. If your reader reads it directly from the accusers, then it will automatically make your refutation look dubious by comparison. Make it easy for the reader to see the full accusation and point out the absurdity of the claims. By laying out all of the information clearly, the readers will be able to easily figure out that the claims were bogus. In future confrontations, your supporters will likely even respond to the accusers for you, now that they fully understand the arguments against you. Supporters love to correct people, and this can help you significantly- just as much as it can hurt. It's a double edged sword, so if you point it in the right direction, it can help protect you against false accusations.

The third type of bait is confusion.

This type of bait is a bit harder to spot, and it's usually blended with the other two types. This type of bait is deliberately confusing. The confusing nature is what makes it such effective bait. A vague message can be read a thousand ways, and as long as one person can spin it in a way that makes you a "horrible person" then that can quickly become the narrative. If you receive a question that you do not understand, you have no reason to answer it. If you can't answer, simply not acknowledging it at all is the smartest thing to do.

How to deal with bait:

As I've stated in the previous sub-sections, the first time you receive any type of bait, you should ignore it. The intentions of the bait may differ, but they all need to be treated in the same way- with no respect at all. Anyone who tells you otherwise is someone who wishes for you to be hurt or a fool. If you receive it more than once, try blocking the person. If you continue to receive it, then that means that in all likelihood it's more than one person sending you the bait, and it might not be bait after all. However, you should proceed with extreme caution. You do not respond to the bait- you figure out the source of the questions and answer it on your own terms. Simply making a post like "Hey, for the record, I support dolphins." will go over a thousand times better than a post that goes like "'Why do you hate dolphins?' I don't." If you are receiving bait, another way to deal with it is by turning anonymous asks off and looking into the blogs of people sending you the bait. Search terms relating to the question they asked. If it's something they seem to get into a lot of internet fights over, block them. The approach you must always consider bait with is that all of the bait asks you receive are sent by one person trying to seem like a group of people. This is on purpose- they want to intimidate you into answering. This is why blocking and turning off anonymous asks can be useful tools. It forces them to unmask themselves.

Footnote 1: The response by these bait people is often "keeping on anonymous asks allow people to feel safe in asking these important questions." Your safety is more important. This is just trying to guilt trip you. Fools will also often respond similarly. After all, it can sound compelling. However you are not a publicly traded company. You do not need transparency. You do not have body guards or multiple employees. You are a singular person with a right to privacy and safety.

Summary

In this section, we discussed the main types of bait: controversial, accusatory, and confusing. We also talked about the best way to deal with each type, as well as the pitfalls of responding to each type, and how to deal with a larger harassment campaign.

If you personally have fallen victim to any of these techniques, either as a fool or a poster, I can understand how you might feel- however the important aspect of these types of bait is that they can and do trick people. If they didn't work, they wouldn't be used. It is not your fault for falling for it- it is completely on the perpetrators of this abuse. However, I hope this guide can help people to protect themselves or recognize when these things are happening to them.

[hyperpotamianarch]

So, I would like to offer my perspective - though I must (shamefully) admit that I didn't know of this particular public controversy, so my opinion may not be too relevant on this specific point. What I do know is how songs written by early Zionists about Hannukah are perceived by religious people.

Here's the thing: the Zionist movement was started by predominantly secular people. There was a small group of religious people who joined it, the Mizraḥi movement (which doesn't have much to do with specifically mizrahi Jews, that's just what it was called), but most religious Jews didn't like it all too much. One of the major reasons for that was fear of secular Jews influencing the religious ones to abndon their faith, which I'll leave to you to ponder how much basis this idea has in reality. And the dominant secular Jews loved looking at old stories of Jewish rebellions and uprisings and to draw inspiration from them - things like the Bar Kokhva revolt, the Great Revolt and of course - the Hasmonean revolt.

The problem starts with how those stories were told for decades. Bar Kokhva was largely forgotten by religious Jews, due to being a failure and most rabbis of his generation not necessarily liking him very much (Rabbi Akiva may or may not be an outlier, there was clearly pushback against him on that topic). That was how Levin Kipnis could make up the weird story in his children song Bar Kokhva - a story with no historical basis, but it gives us a nice hero who calls for freedom. The Hasmoneans, though, were well remembered for generations as the guys who had a miracle on their victory. Which is what Anu Nos'im Lapidim pushes against very directly.

Now, of course, it's supposedly talking about Israeli militery victories! ... only it apparently was written before anything of the sort existed. The point is it directly represents an anti religious streak in early Zionism - the Epikorsim, the people who very deliberately knew what the religion was about and didn't want it. I think it could be represented very well by the Passuk "כחי ועצם ידי עשה לי את החיל הזה", "my own power and the might of my own hand have won this wealth for me" (Devarim 8, 17). While it's meant as a warning to not think so, the early secular Zionists seem to have taken that as a command.

Yes, I know, I'm phrasing that is a religious way. You, as a secular Jew, might think it doesn't matter. Sure, I don't want to hear things like Anu Nos'im Lapidim, or Yemei HaChanukkah (apparently it was translated from Yiddish, but the original version was religious so the change to Asher Ḥollelu HaMakabim is blatant), or even Mi Yemallel due to their anti-religious messaging, but that has nothing to do with public spaces and official state events. Our state doesn't have to bend before the whims of the religious population, right?

That point gets to Israeli politics, and I suspect we both know how often the state does bend a little to whims of religious groups (which isn't too often but it happens). I don't know if this is another such case, I can probably make the case for this song being very directly and blatantly anti-religious, which does mean that its inclusion in an official event is a little disturbing, but you do you.

TL;DR: the problem is that this song is very blatantly anti-religious and not just a secular statement, maybe that shouldn't affect state-sponsored events but here we are.

PS, Yemei HaChanukkah at least also has a more religious version, and people care less about the Mi Yemallel thing - I've heard it way too many times.

does diaspora jumblr know about the Nes Lo 'Kara Lanu (נס לא קרה לנו, a miracle didn't happen to us) controversy?

[notascammer]

alhaitham textposts pt. 1 (pt. 2)

[sorrelpaws]

a fully completed troll lineup where all the trolls are fully rendered and drawn all together

[wellsbering]

Cycle 99.

The sky above is blue, and there’s only one sun... but otherwise, it feels like home.

i don't post much (any?) of my cosplay on here but these photos turned out so well i had to share!! shoutout to my friend mel (@baroqueblood on instagram) for capturing these incredible shots of my lup last month :,) i'm so so proud of this cosplay, i've slowly assembled it one piece at a time over about 2 years and i think this is the best version of it so far!

[frostedpuffs]

i need adrienette to be closer than ever actually. they're both traumatized af i want them attached at the hip and a little obsessed w each other. i want them slightly unhealthy and codependent. they've been through so much shit together and now that they have each other i want them to sink their claws in and never let go

[quicklings]

BRIAN MURPHY as BIG BARRY SYX in

Episode 1: Quangle in Queal Quife DIMENSION 20: TIME QUANGLE

[sskk-manifesto]

I love my women unhinged with blood splattered across their face

[egophiliac]

did you ever consent to having your art reposted on Pinterest? that's actually how I found you (all of your twst comics are on Pinterest and some brave soul has gone through every single post saying "by egophiliac on Tumblr". the original posters never credit you either :/

nope...I have tried to ask people to take them down in the past, but I usually just get ignored. :') so I do appreciate that people are going through and adding credit, at least!

(the worst is when people actually edit out my signature/watermark to get around do-not-post lists...this has happened more often than you'd think 🙃)

[iamumbra195]

Not really in the DC fandom and I don't really read many comics but I've been seeing some videos and posts making headcanons about the Al-Ghul family being Muslim and it pisses me off so much.

This interpretation is deeply rooted in Islamophobia and the ignorant notion that every Arab is a Muslim and therefore a "terrorist". The Al-Ghuls are not and have never been Muslims and any parts of the religion found in their characters are likely due to the fact that Arab culture has a lot of aspects of Islam mixed into it and because again, people think that being Arab and being Muslim are the same thing and a lot of the comic writers are white Americans who commonly have this misconception about Arabs.

I'm not going to go into the specifics of everything because 1) I don't know all that much about canon and 2) this is a little hard to explain but I will give several examples that pretty much disprove that headcannon because The Al-Ghuls do things that are considered major sins in Islam on the daily.

Ra's runs an assassin league/cult and despite what many people think killing people is a major sin in Islam except in very specific scenarios where it may be excused like in self-defence or in war. And what the Al-Ghuls do? That isn't excusable in any way.

Ra's' name in and of itself is proof. His name means the Demon Head and I promise you a proper practicing Muslim would not call themself that or commit the atrocities he has on innocent people. I don't know if this is true but I saw on the wiki that apparently a character named Gerhardt asked him if he was a man or a fiend from hell and Ra's, said that he was both and neither and that he was "Ra's al-Ghul". A Muslim would not associate themself with Hell, a place where evildoers are punished in the afterlife.

Talia committed zina (fornication), yet another major sin, and wears extremely revealing clothing despite the fact that modesty is an integral part of the religion.

The Al-Ghuls drink wine, eat pork and apparently Damian was often fed ox blood soup as a child despite the fact that all these things are explicitly forbidden for Muslims to consume in verses of the Quran. (To clarify a bit, in case you're confused about the ox blood soup, Muslims are forbidden from consuming animal blood because it is considered filthy and harmful, much like pork and wine.)

Not to mention the whole thing about Ra's nearly being 500 years old and the Lazarus Pits apparently reviving him every time he dies... but that's a whole can of worms I don't know enough about to open

So yeah, the headcanon that the Al-Ghuls are Muslims perpetuates harmful stereotypes about Islam as a whole. There probably is more to be said about this topic but unfortunately, I haven't read many comics and have only watched a few of the DC animated movies so I can't say much more.

Feel free to correct me if I've said something incorrect or missed something important.

[c1trvswurld]

STOP babying and objectifying Daisuke

STOP making anya a perpetual forever doting victim

STOP making swansea this hotheaded gaurd dog

STOP babying and objectifying and being ableist to curly and removing autonomy

STOP ignoring the complex themes of jimmys character just to mischaracterize and to dunk on your idea of him and, therefore, ignoring the themes of the story

Stop ignoring the complexities of their characters please and thank you