#if you have that mindset with the jews you should have it with them too. they have a hatred for god jesus christ and christianity because to

[idiosyncraticrednebula]

Radfems and Alt-right'ers aligning with each other is one of the most incredible things to come out of the 21st century lmao

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

In Judaism, one alternative way of referring to converts is "Jews by Choice."

If a parallel term exists in Xtianity I am not aware of it, but I would like to propose that it really should exist, albeit not just in reference to converts but to all Xtians. Every Xtian should get the opportunity to fully understand their faith in context and to make an informed decision to choose it for themselves. As it stands, many Xtians are deeply ignorant about Jewish history (before and after the formation of Xtianity), the original cultural context for the stories in the Old Testament, the cultural Jewish context that Jesus existed and taught in, the critical historical (scholarly) read of these texts, what they probably meant to the Israelites who produced them, and what they mean to Jews today and how we read these same texts differently in our religious context.

This creates a problem, where Xtians are taught only the narrow band of context that their church deems it important for them to know, and even that is frequently inaccurate or so limited in scope as to make it inaccurate by omission.

And this is because the reality is that the Tanakh (that is, the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures that the Old Testament is based on) does not naturally or inevitably lead to the Jesus narrative. If you are starting from a Xtian perspective, and especially if you read the New Testament first and then and only then dive into the Old Testament, the Jesus narrative is obvious to you because you are looking for it, expect to see it there, and are coming at these texts with that reading lens in mind. And it's not that you or anyone else is nuts to see that narrative there - there are plenty of solid Xtian reads of these texts that make sense if you already believe in Jesus as presented by the New Testament.

But what the vast majority of Xtians aren't taught is how to approach the Tanakh from a Jesus-neutral perspective, which would yield very different results.

Now you might fairly ask, why would they *need* to approach the Tanakh with a Jesus-neutral perspective? They're Xtians! Xtians believe in Jesus, that's what makes them Xtians!

My answer is multi-pronged: First, I believe that G-d wants a relationship with all people, and speaks to us in the voice we are most likely to hear. That's inherently going to look different for everyone. And that's okay! G-d is infinite, and each of our relationships with G-d are going to only capture the tiniest glimpse into that infinite Divine. Therefore, second, when approaching religion, everyone sees what they want to see. If you nothing religion but find your spirituality in nature, you're going to come at these biblical texts with that lens and take away from them similar things that one might take away from other cultural mythologies. If you, like me, are coming at these texts with a Jewish mindset, you are going to come away with a portrait of Hashem and our covenantal relationship as Am Yisrael. And, of course, if you read with a Xtian lens, you're going to see the precursor narratives leading up to Jesus. That reading bias is not only understandable but good or at least deeply human. Everyone sees what they want to see in these texts. There is no objective or flawless way to read them, and to claim that there is, is to claim that not only is there only one answer, but only one kind of relationship that G-d wants to have with people, that you personally happen to know what that is, and that everyone else is wrong. I am sorry, but if you believe that - if you truly think that you in particular (and/or the people you happen to agree with) know the mind of G-d, then you do not worship G-d. You worship yourselves, because to know the entirety of G-d would require you to be G-d. There's a term for that. That doesn't mean there aren't wrong answers too. But it does mean that there is no singular unimpeachable reading of the texts. What you see in these texts then, says far more about you than it does about the texts themselves or G-d.

So the question then becomes: Why do you want to see this? (Whatever your "this" is.) If your read of these texts is something you choose, why do you choose to see what you see? And is it a meaningful choice if you are not taught other ways of knowing, other perspectives on these texts, and to think critically while exploring them?

Judaism inherently teaches a multiplicity of opinions on the texts, and maintains that they can be read to mean different things, even at the same time by the same person. Deep textual knowledge and methods for learning more, asking questions, challenging accepted answers as a way to discover new meaning, and respectful disagreement are baked into our culture and methods. Some Xtians of some denominations have analogous processes, although on the whole still emphasize correct unified belief over correct action with a multiplicity of belief. I am not suggesting here that Xtians stop approaching their own scriptures as Xtians or adopt Jewish methods instead. What I am suggesting is that Xtians should be taught a fuller picture of these texts and learn other perspectives so that they (1) understand their own beliefs and why they believe them (or after further inquiry if they believe them), and (2) understand and respect that this is what they are choosing to believe and that it is not the only thing one could reasonably believe. Because (3) if not, they are more susceptible to having their faith shattered at random by something unexpected, and will connect less to their faith as a relationship with G-d and more as an obligation based on an unchallenged world view.

And, frankly? (4) It will help them to be better neighbors, to love their neighbor as themselves, and to give to others the respect that they would like to receive.

Being taught the historical context, Jewish history before and after Jesus, the differences between the Old Testament and the Tanakh, the timeline of the development of Xtianity in relationship to rabbinic Judaism in the wake of the destruction of the Second Temple, the development of church doctrine and the various splits amongst the denominations, and Jewish readings of the Tanakh would give clarity and desperately needed context to Xtians about their religion. Is there some risk that some people, upon understanding these things would drop out of faith entirely or, like me, discover that they are actually meant to be Jews? Yes, definitely.

But let me let you in on a little secret: you don't want those people to begin with. You really don't. Because the reality is that if a person is not called to relate to G-d through Jesus, eventually that person will learn this about themselves one way or another. If they are given the information and tools to make a meaningful choice, they will part company on good terms. If not, they will likely become disillusioned and leave the church in pain, anger, and even trauma. They will bring that out into the world with them, and spread the bad news about the Good News making it even more likely that other people who were already on the fence will jump ship on bad terms. You cannot trick people into a meaningful relationship with G-d. You can only give them the tools they need in order to explore on their own and the rest is between them and G-d.

And the bottom line is that you don't need to and should not be afraid of knowledge. If your faith cannot stand up to scrutiny, then it deserves that scrutiny tenfold. The people you lose from the flock? You would have lost them anyway, because we aren't in the driver's seat here. G-d is. Hashem called me to be a Jew with just as much love and desire to connect as G-d calls Xtians to the church and to Jesus. A faith examined is a faith deepened or exposed in its weakness. And if it is the latter, don't you want people to know this sooner rather than later in order to fix it?

So my proposition and wish for Xtians is that they become Xtians by Choice. That they delve deeply into the origins and context of their faith so that they can be 100% certain that they understand their Xtian faith and why they choose to relate to G-d through that lens.

[jewishbarbies]

You should watch Israelism. And “Tantura : The Untold story of the 1948 massacre,” its on YouTube. Tantura literally traumatized me. It’s a documentary where journalists interviewed soldiers who “served” in the village of Tantura. They recall the mass rapes, torture and massacres committed against Palestinians there. How they burned them for fun. How they were jealous of them because they lived in beautiful houses. Beautiful clothes. All that with big smiles…

To think human beings, blessed with thought and free will would consciously make the decision to be this evil. How sadistic, How messed up do you have to be to still support those gen0cidal maniacs ? Truly disgusting. The fact that the Brits helped those Europeans Jews do their massacres just proves how much Israel is essentially a colonial project.

Israelism is also a documentary who uniquely explores how Jewish attitudes towards Israel are changing dramatically, with massive consequences for the region and for Judaism itself. It was directed by two first-time Jewish filmmakers who share a similar story to the film’s protagonists, it was produced by Peabody-winner & 6-time Emmy-nominee Daniel J. Chalfen (Loudmouth, Boycott) along with activist and filmmaker Nadia Saah (Mo, Omar, 5 Broken Cameras), executive produced by two-time Emmy-winner Brian A. Kates (Marvelous Ms. Maisel, Succession, The Plot Against America).

Synopsis: “When two young American Jews raised to unconditionally love Israel witness the brutal way Israel treats Palestinians, their lives take sharp left turns.

They join a movement of young American Jews battling the old guard to redefine Judaism’s relationship with Israel, revealing a deepening generational divide over modern Jewish identity.”

I know a Palestinian girl whose grandmother was a Jewish Palestinian killed during the Nakba. Europeans considered her "too Arab," especially since she was married to a Palestinian Muslim. Interfaith marriages were common in Palestine back then and still are among Christian and Muslim Palestinians. It's a tragic reality that the racism against Arab Jews is often overlooked by many Zionist Jews today.

Recently, I read an article by an Iraqi-American Jew about how Palestinian Jews were pressured by Europeans to be "more civilized like them”. That just shows the colonial mindset that they had (and still have).

Finally, I’d like to call your hypocrisy on saying that Palestine never existed. Just because they were colonized doesn’t mean they never existed. It’s like saying “Algeria never existed before the French came and colonized them”, same goes to Morroco, Tunisia, Libya ect.

It’s their land whether y’all like it or not, they welcomed you even though they had nothing to do with the Holocaust. What did they got in return ? Ethnic cleansing, Gen0cide and oppression. Denying their right of return is just the cherry on top of the cake.

Israel is a prime example of why reparations are a terrible idea. All it does is spark new conflicts from old sins. And even then, you can give reparations without creating a colonial apartheid state. Reparations would have been rebuilding Jewish neighborhoods and providing social programs for their residents instead of shipping them off to be someone else's problem.

The fact that Palestinians have to pay for the European crimes is disgusting.

Shame on the US and European countries for denying Palestine right to establish sovereign nation. And shame on you for supporting that colonial and genocidal state.

[hellsbellschime]

I just wanted to thank you so, so much for standing up for Jews right now. I can't express how much it means to me and the rest of the Jewish community that you're one of the few people who've actually gone to bat for us when everyone else went mask off ❤️

<3 honestly you shouldn't be thanking me because it's just the right thing to do, but the amount of antisemitism I have seen since 10/7 has been APPALLING and it's extremely scary. The people who went mask off REALLY went mask off, but there has also been so much stealth antisemitism in so much of the reaction and reporting that I've seen about the situation that it really threw me off and made me realize that I vastly underestimated how popular antisemitism still is.

Clearly, discussing Zionism in the past has REALLY not gone well for me, but the reaction toward it for me specifically and in general has always set off alarm bells that there was antisemitism baked in there which was trying to be passed off as anti-Zionism or anti-Israeli sentiment. But I feel like 10/7 was such a horrific revelation for Jewish people and allies because, at least for me, it was a revelation that for certain people, basically there is no limit to what you could do to an Israeli. There is no limit to what crimes or atrocities could be committed against someone because of where they lived or where they were born, and there is a really scary number of people who would paint that kind of atrocity as some kind of rebellious act of freedom. If you are calling literal babies colonizers and you are saying that the gang rape and mutilation of people's genitals is somehow an act of decolonization, you are trying to dress up your genocidal antisemitic POV with the veneer of some kind of social justice or moral righteousness.

But there are bigger fish to fry here that I think a lot of people are missing, which again further disturbs and upsets me. Because Jewish people should be able to just exist in the world, but the ebb and flow of antisemitism is also an exceptionally good indicator of when social and political upheaval is about to REALLY start fucking everyone's lives up. So again, people should be concerned about this because it's morally wrong, but they should also be concerned about it because Jewish people are also almost always just the first up to bat. Once we pass that critical point where antisemitism becomes socially acceptable again, it's almost always because we are at the beginning of a really hard downturn that is going to destroy a TON of people's lives. So the fact that so many people on the left and right are now united in the whole "oh wouldn't our lives be so much better if we could just take power away from the Jews" is a REALLY REALLY REALLY scary sign that should not be ignored.

And of course, the fact that the Israeli government actually does horrible shit makes this a much easier sell. There are a ton of very legitimate problems that need to be fixed and should absolutely be called out. But again, it's a very scary mindset to get drawn into, because yes you think you're a leftist and completely unaffected by the antisemitism that has been baked into our culture for literally thousands of years and you're on the right side because WELL THE JEWS ARE ACTUALLY BAD NOW. But what the hell do you think people thought in 1930s Europe? Do you think that they hated Jewish people just to hate them? Or do you think that they also genuinely believed that Jewish people were actually the problem then too?

It's heinous because 10/7 and the invasion of Gaza afterward is a perfect vector to hide antisemitism in, and it really seems to be working well. The overt antisemitism I've seen as well as the way more covert that I've seen has shocked me, and even though I'm not Jewish, I considered myself to be more aware than most that antisemitism is not even remotely a problem that's been relegated to the past.

But I'm sorry that you've had to deal with this because I am just a person who is capable of empathy and understands how fucked up it must be to experience this, while Jewish people actually have to experience it. The lack of pushback against pretty obvious antisemitism is really frightening, and again, the whole progression of what has happened is exceptionally cruel and offensive. You can support a free and democratic Palestine while condemning 10/7 (in fact I'd argue given that Hamas hasn't held elections in decades, it's a REQUIREMENT to condemn 10/7 if you genuinely support a free Palestine). You can acknowledge that Hamas is an outwardly stated and admitted antisemitic terrorist organization and 10/7 was an expressly antisemitic attack and fight for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

But the amount of pressure I've seen put on Jewish people specifically to go along with the complete reframing and minimization of 10/7, because actually if you live in Israel then you had it coming, and because the Palestinians have it worse you can't even take a moment to react emotionally to something truly horrific and traumatizing, and if you don't think exactly what we think you're one of the "bad ones," has been disturbing to watch. Your pain is incredibly valid and I know everything that has happened must be so difficult and isolating, but just know that you do have supporters out there, even if you deserve to have a lot more.

[beardedmrbean]

I know you didn’t see it, but as someone pointed out with Killmonger. The people who often said “fuck Christopher Columbus and white people!” don’t hate imperialism itself. They hate that their ancestors was on the losing side of the wars centuries ago

As I mentioned before they glamorized the Dahomey kingdom of all things, I saw a person online with a PHD said the Ottomans were good to lived under.

A Hindu mutual of mine said that the left constantly glamorized the Mughals because they are brown. People are even defending the Aztecs now.

Like I saw people say that the left only “protected” the Jews because of the Holocaust. Because when you dive into Hitler and the Nazis the mindsets you notice a lot of similarities

“The Jews/White people are the root of all evil and must be wiped out!”

And I think Jews are getting a wake up call with the I/P conflict as now the left antisemitism is in full force

I mean I saw these as the left said in more privileged than career politicians such as Hillary Clinton because I have a dick. But the second they learn in black, I’m more oppressed than a trailer park kid that was pimp out by their parents

And the decolonization thing, hmm strange that never passed to Arab ethnostates

Oh good, you're still here. I'm happy about that _____________

Aztecs, yikes people raised hell here in CA about some of the lessons that involved learning various Aztec prayers, not sure how far if actually got but I hope it didn't get implemented.

Was a whole thing about connecting the Latino students to part of their heritage and CA history as well dumb for one because the Aztecs never made it up this far and for two, the reason Cortez managed to take them out with 300 Spaniards was because of the 30,000 natives that joined in because they were tired of being used for human sacrifices among other things.

Interesting to see the return of moral relativism

It's their culture and it should be respected even if that means this 73 year old dude that died's 19 year old wife will be placed on his funeral pyre with him and burned alive so they can be together in the afterlife (first time I hears a self proclaimed atheist say something along those lines my head spun, was weird. Still is gotta respect their beliefs provided they are using a western religion because reasons)

Colonization thing, I was originally looking for a map of arab migration into North Africa but this kind of thing kept coming up

Finally ran into one that was just Arab migration and it's the same map, which makes sense, Egypt is still full of Egyptians though which is kinda wild, Iran is split between Persians and Arabs, Persians being the indigenous people in that area.

Like I saw people say that the left only “protected” the Jews because of the Holocaust.

This is one of those things I've put a lot of time and thought into.

Short version of my conclusion is that if they were still a stateless people they would likely be one of the darlings of leftist circles.

At least until they started getting to successful, preformative wokeness would be the modern term I guess.

You're not supposed to actually do well because if you do then we can't use you as a prop to show how awful other people are.

Be why Asians got kicked out of the POC club.

And I think Jews are getting a wake up call with the I/P conflict as now the left antisemitism is in full force

Stephen Fry coming out and saying, you know what, I'm Jewish is a good bit for that, seems to be some of the secular Jewish community, even the one's that don't do anything Jewish at all, well didn't since it would seem a bunch of them are having their eyes opened more than they ever thought they would.

So ya that's a thing too.

Circling back to Egypt, wonder what the hotep contingent thinks about the Arabization of North Africa, they're lunatics regardless but I bet there's some funny stuff going on in the we-wuz circles about that. __________

And again, I'm glad to hear from you especially after your previous ask. Keep pushing through world needs self aware people in it.

[mask131]

On the one hand I am monstrously sad to be living in a time when the extreme-right and the extreme-left coexist as threats. On the other hand, I am kind of glad, because it allows me to see the exact workings of each of the extremes, and despise them both as much.

I mean, for the extreme-right it is very obvious why they're bad, ever since World War II we know what we're getting. But the extreme-left? It could be a bit harder to see, especially since the left defends the "good" principles like defending minorities, fighting against oppresors, equality for everyone, diversity everywhere... And yet we now have the extreme-left right in our face, showing how it can take those good principles and twist them, abandoning the "equality" and "diversiy" part for hypocritical ersatz.

The most revealing example - which was discussed about and evoked as a threat LONG BEFORE the whole Israel-Hamas conflict reignited itself - is how the extreme-left is known as antisemitic. You start thinking "Heck, why? It makes no sense! The extreme-left defends racial and religious minorities, and the Jews are known as one of the most persecuted and hated minorities in the world's history, so the left couldn't possibly be against them!".

But here's the twist... The left is against the "elite". Real or imaginary. The left is like a Robin Hood defending "the poor, the weak, the helpless", and will as such attack those that look wealthy or seem powerful, even when they're not. Comes in nice Lady Antisemitism, and the extreme-left starts shouting the same conspiracy theory and insane beliefs that the extreme-right used to shout. "There's too much Jews in the finances and the politics" ; "Jews are wealthier than regular folks, everybody knows that!", "Everybody knows the Jews control the media". And so, the extreme-left turns the persecuted minority into yet another elite of wealth and power who secretly controls the media - and decides they are an enemy to be taken down. Resulting in the exteme-left becoming a twin of the extreme-right.

This "We fight against the elite" mindset can explain a lot of what is wrong and awful with the extreme-left, and a lot of its dangers. For example how they actually "pick-and-choose" the minorities they want to defend and that are "worth" taking care of. I already talked about Jewish people, but there's a reason why the extreme-left keeps talking about Black people and Arab people... but almost never talks of Asian minorities and ethnicities. Because they're "too white", because they're "not persecuted enough", because they're too "well-implanted" or come from "too rich, too powerful, too Western countries". And as such, in this same blind and warped, out of reality logic, the extreme-left considers them to be too, part of the "elite" and thus rejects them as a "valid" minority.

And this dangerous anti-elite movement doesn't just have racist repercusions, but also terrible cultural ones. Everybody points out the anti-intellectualism of the extreme-left, but as a literature student who went to a university, I have to support this: yes, the extreme-left has a problem with traditional culture, classic literature, and simply higher-education that isn't about one of their personal topics. They deem that studying Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome for example is a proof of being colonialist, or that by being interested in any classical European author you are inherently racist. Again, it comes from a good and positive logic such as "One should be interested in many cultures, just not their own" or "It isn't because someone is uneducated that they are not a worthy person". But this is twisted into: "Since our candidate was not elected, we will attack the symbol of this hateful elite that obviously rigged the election - like universities, and we will especially destroy precious and rare books from ancient times, or degrade treasured pieces of art, to show that our rightful leaders have been denied their throne". From "You don't need to have an education to be worth something and a good person", we went to "You don't need an education, period. Culture is useless".

Again, the appeal to the masses that believe themselves to be the mass when in fact they are more of a minority. Fucking demagogues who rely on the "blind and mindless mob" to get in power - that's a technique found equally in both extreme-right and extreme-left, and the recent decade has proven us that. When a extreme politician is not elected by a vote, their supporters will start rebelling and rioting and shouting angrily the election is rigged, because "they" are the majority, "they" are the voice of te people, and as such it is impossible for them not to win... And in this blind senseless anger they refuse to admit that, simply, maybe they didn't win the vote because they are not the "majority" they like to think themselves as, but just a loud minority, or a mass of people not as big as the mass of people opposing them.

To return to the extreme-left, I can even extend the topic to genders! This was denounced heavily by the mockeries of the "wokism" movement and its ridiculus excesses, but I will forever recall this incident where someone tried to create a social and working group exclusively for women and "trans people" from which all men were banned - before realizing the problem that, by banning all men, they also banned trans men, and created the paradox of, by accepting trans people denying them any masculinity. It was at the time shared as a ridiculous story to be mocked at, but honestly it was very revealing of the entire warped "goodness" the extreme-left puts into place, and it shows how, as the saying goes, "Hell is paved with good intentions".

The right wants to maintain traditions, a culture, offer peace and security - leading to an extreme-right of xenophobe and racist fascists.

The left wants to put down the elite and care about minorities and open itself to diversity - it becomes an extreme-left of antisemitism, transphobia and book-burners.

I always knew all extremes were bad, but now I actually see in real time how good principles and ideas are warped up into dictatorial and hateful behaviors, and as I said before, it makes me both sad and glad. Sad for the monsters we will have to fight, but glad that I know how the monsters came to be and what their anatomy is.

[shoujoboy-restart]

Didn't Israel attack a celebrity for speaking out against the atrocities? Response to that post I just saw about them claiming the crisis actor thing.

Also about Israel, is everybody that still supports Israel are bad people like the people in that protest from days ago in Washington showing support towards them? Cuz I kind of do feel a little conflicted because one of those reasons involved the October 7th massacre, which is kind of rarely brought up and the focus is more on the Palestinians, which I'm not saying shouldn't be focused on but it looks like most people are making it seem like what Israel is doing is proof that every Jewish people are bad and that the Nazis had a point, which is something I feel like is alluded to somehow with the rise of anti-Semitic hate crimes around the world.

Like I mean come on a fucking man just killed a young boy to death because of this fucking conflict and this idea that Jewish people are the bad guys and the conflict shows that which I don't feel is fair at all to condone everybody because their government is following Hitler's steps with their own touch.

Yeah they tried to drag Bella Hadid(a model with Palestinian heritage) on their fucking Instagram stories, it was so patethic lmao.

I wouldn't say everyone who supports Israel is a bad person, that's a very pointless generalization, many of them are people that since babies believed this was some sort of birthright of them to have this land and all Palestinians were evil people who seeked to kill them, before the current conflict there was some random girl on TikTok who made storytime/vent about how she had these neighbors that were nice and lovely and sweet, but after she discoverwd they were Palestinian she immediately started to believe they would hate her, kill her hark and therefore want then harmed as well, again, completely unprovoked without any aggression from the neighbors, Zionist Jew are under some crazy powerful propaganda and cult like beliefs.

And it is absolutely disgusting to think every single Jew is somehow at fault for israel's actions, Netanyahu had a absolutely abysmall approval ratings before the conflict, and he will absolutely not be elected democratically again or still be in power if there any actual democracy in that place and the support for him is extremely isolated, Jews in and out of Israel have always protested and fought against the occupation.

Both Islamophobic and Antisemitic hate crimes are on the rise, and if you are talking talking about 6 year old Wadea Al-Fayoume that killed by his landlord it is absolutely a case of how the media was at first reporting completely favourably of the Israel government:

“The father said [the landlord] had built a tree house for the boy and allowed him to swim in a makeshift pool and brought him toys. But it wasn’t until he started watching the news and hearing the statements [about the war] that something changed,”

Obviously there was probably some sort on mental illness at fault too(still not enough for a insanity please as of now it seems), but divise politics got a whole generation of people saying and protesting wanting a little black girl hanged and lynched for just wanting to go school as well.

Although I don't agree with the Hitler comparison(even thought the Israel got caught saying the whole "children of children's, children of darkness" shit that was found to be a mindset within the SS army) yeah Jews shouldn't be penalized for what Israel is doing, not Israel citizens should, we can complain about collective punishemwnt for Gazans and Palestinian and then make excuse for the same thing with Jews and Israelis

[supremacy-of-the-weak]

The fight against unjust laws requires militant protests, and the fight against bigotry needs to be relentlessly aggressive.

It is a privilege to believe self-defense cannot be used to counter fascism in its early stages.

In the liberal mindset, violence should have been used only when Jews were lined up to enter the gas chambers.

Once Jews became political targets, violence should have been the first step. After the Nazis declared Jews enemies, they had the right to defend themselves with violence. A violent approach at the beginning could have prevented the rise of the Nazi party.

Liberals' inability to grasp this will lead to more marginalized minorities dying around the world.

Militant protests should be organized against the attempted removal of trans rights in the USA. The rights of black people and abortion rights should also be protected aggressively.

The protests should be held in front of, if not inside, the houses of the oppressors.

These protests should be as aggressive as possible, creating an atmosphere of fear among those who oppose the rights of transgenders and others. There should eventually be a tipping point when their fear becomes reality, if they are not to stop their unnecessary oppression.

A marginalized group does not receive human rights, they are stripped of them. The removal of your birthrights should be brutally opposed as soon as possible.

Fascists use democracy to their advantage. It does not matter whether they are politicians or citizens, a right-wing politician will oppress both with his political power. Our ability to stop fascism will be limited if liberals do not exercise their political authority.

It is too frightening for liberal politicians to use their power for real moral purposes, so they won't help.

Our liberal politicians accept transphobia as an opinion and fascism as a solution.

People are imprisoned for petty crimes, but you can speak freely if you make a sincere effort to recruit people to your fascist ideology. Creating a safe environment for fascists to speak without fear is not only dangerous, but those who allow it are complicit in their crimes.

If a racist, transphobic or homophobic person gets into a room with a fascist. Within a few hours, if they discussed politics, two fascists came out of the room.

To prevent fascism, liberal voters must take risks, including letting go of their flawed concept of democracy. Unless they engage in militant protests or suppress fascists' freedom of speech, liberals and fascists are the same.

The right to say transphobic remarks only protects those who intend to use transphobic language. The same applies to all bigoted speech.

In a society where freedom of speech is unlimited, only fascists would benefit.

-Initially, they came for racists' freedom of speech.

-After that, they remove the homophobe's speech.

-Afterwards, they demanded removal for sexist speech.

-They then came for ableists' freedom of speech.

-When they came for me I gave them a high five and said thank you.

-Because I am not a racist, homophobe, sexist or an ableist.

It is always necessary to respond aggressively to the claim that bigotry is merely a difference of opinion.

[the-lady-writes-what]

Warning: Long essay below the cut

Real talk about Harry Potter for a second. As a millennial who was into HP when I was younger, I have to honest and say that I did not see the problematic shit the J.K. Rowling put in her books. For a lot of us, growing up as a white kid in the early 2000's, we were not educated enough to see the anti-Semitism, racism, and lukewarm feminism that wasn't really feminism because Rowling made fun of Hermione for it. Watching the spiral of Rowling into TERF territory and aligning herself with people who reference Hitler in their TERF speeches and literal fascism breaks my heart. HP played a huge part in my childhood, as it did for many people. Sadly there are HP adults who continue to enable Rowling to use her platform for evil. Instead of looking back and dissecting the literature that formed our current mindset, there are people who grew up to be nasty people indirectly because HP taught them that anyone who complains about the system is doing progressive social justice wrong. Harry Potter became a wizard cop for the system that helped put Voldemort in a position of power. Hitler didn't rise to power out of the blue. He worked the current system in his favor and won support. He wasn't just some manipulative well spoken mastermind, he was using rhetoric that already existed. The criticism about the politics in the HP universe came far too late. We currently have numerous adults who are now currently voting to repress Black and queer history from schools, LGBTQ+ education, and criminalize being trans and gay in several states in the USA.

Not every adult who read HP became a fascist, not every adult who is fascist read HP. I'm certainly not saying that HP is solely the reason why anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes are currently on the rise again and legislations are trying to get passed. What I am saying is that this is what happens when you don't think critically what you read. Critical analysis about what books are produced and by whom can help deter or enable the kind of ideas that Rowling associates with. Her brand of "progressiveness" is seen through the lens of an upper middle class and upper class white British woman. She largely benefits from a system that will come to be the shoulder for her to cry on when the internet "bullies" her, i.e when the internet and former fans try to hold her accountable for the inflammatory things she's said and written about trans people, women, Jews, POC, etc. I am not a saint in all of this either. My first book that I wrote which will never see the light of day again contained an Indian servant because I thought about historical "accuracy" which looking on it now was a load of shit. What I should have done in the first place was do critical research and properly acknowledge the racism and discrimination and imperialism of the British Empire. That character should not have existed and I deeply regret writing a story like that, even if my intention was not to further enable a white-washed history of the relationship between the British aristocracy and the people of India. Whether it was my intention or not, the fact that I wrote it was not okay. I am sorry for that. That book is no longer available and the remaining physical copies will stay with me. They aren't going anywhere. Moving forward, I will do better research and listen to the voices of people of color when it comes to writing characters outside of my own race.

Rowling has yet to learn that lesson towards trans people and keeps using the debunked conspiracy theory that "men dressed as women" will sexually assault someone in the ladies' room and take up female-dominated spaces. Transwomen are women. End of story. It seems that the more she is criticized for upholding anti-trans beliefs and conspiracy theories, the deeper she digs her heels in. She doesn't want to be corrected or told she's misinformed. The die hard fans of hers follow suit. Adult fans of HP have gone to assault and abuse transwomen, forgetting the soft-spoken message of the books they claim to love so much, that you should not hate people for who they are. I say soft-spoken because HP's message of anti-bigotry can hardly be called as such. It is spoken through the lens of upper class wealthy white woman's perspective of social justice and feminism. I say soft-spoken, and even limp-wristed, because its anti-bigotry message falls flat when discussing the numerous problematic and racist undertones in her writing. She wrote house elves as sentient creatures who want to be enslaved and made fun of Hermione for fighting for their freedom. She wrote the main characters to be all straight, white, and cis who later become part of the very system they fought against as children. The magical races in the Wizarding World universe are frequently looked down upon as if they're lesser than the human wizards and nothing is done for them. She did little to no research on non-European naming conventions and named the one East Asian character Cho Chang, combining a Korean and Chinese name as if the cultures are synonymous, named a black character Kingsley Shacklebolt, and allowed the Fantastic Beast franchise make Nagini (a South Asian name with cultural and religious significance) an Indonesian woman played by a South Korean actress. As if insult wasn't enough, Nagini is portrayed as a submissive Asian woman (stay classy Rowling!) who later dies at the hands of a white character to move the plot forward.

I wrote this fucking essay because Rowling is hurting so many people. Her kind of rhetoric which is a pandemic of hate towards trans people is hurting those I know. Two of my dearest friends are transwomen and I would fight tooth and nail for them. Hearing the author who wrote the books that got me interested in reading say things that accuse my friends of being men and wanting to assault women hurts them more than me and it infuriates me. She is one of the many reasons why diversity in reading is important so her mistakes don't get repeated and regurgitated. When you're a dumb white kid in the 2000's, you don't see the problematic stuff because you're not personally affected by it. Nobody can be racist against a white kid. And when authors like Rowling get praised in spite of the insensitive stereotypes and problematic shit in their books, it really is no wonder that we have a resurgence of hate crimes and rhetoric against LGBTQ+ folk and POC. The books didn't materialize out of thin air. There were so many editors who have had to go through the books and said, "Yep. That's fine" when she was writing offensive names for POC characters, anti-Semitic goblins, and having the white main characters join the system that put wizard Hitler into power.

It hurts to let something like HP go and die a slow painful death. It was a huge part of my childhood and got me into reading books. I might not be the reader I am today without those books. Because I will never be affected by the system in which people of color, trans folk, and the Jewish community are oppressed and I admit to being very privileged, I did not recognize the numerous red flags in J.K. Rowling's body of work until it was too late. For that I am sorry. The damage is done, but I'm trying to do better by listening and protecting my friends, trans or otherwise. J. K. Rowling can go fuck herself.

[beesandwasps]

Not Magic But Intent

The phrase “intent is not magic” used to be pretty popular on social media a few years back — it means “doing a bad thing while having a good mindset does not somehow make the bad thing good”. This is true.

However, intent does have some practical effects. Right now, neo-nazis are trying to take over relief efforts for the train derailment in Ohio. They are doing this in hopes that if they talk really loudly about how mutual aid is coming from fascism, they will be able to recruit more fascists, or at least make the recipients of the aid stop opposing it. Since we don’t even want the fascists we already have, let alone a new crop, this is concerning.

I bring this up not because of that specific issue but because I am starting to see something on the left which worries me, involving intent.

Fascists are evil and we should stop them. If you’re here and reading that, I’m kind of presuming you agree with that statement. (If not, go away.) But it is worth asking ourselves “why?” now and again, so that we remain clear about this.

The correct answer is “fascists need to be stopped because they will, if left unchecked, harm (and usually kill) people for traits which they cannot control, such as ancestry or sexual orientation”. If there were, somehow, a fascist movement which exclusively sought to improve the lot of its favored group by nonviolent collective bargaining on their behalf, like the AARP does for old people, then it would not be necessary to resist it — but it also would not be categorized as a fascist movement, because a movement is called fascist because of its hatred of and, ultimately, violence towards the “other”. Nobody is seriously going to categorize the AARP as fascist (unless they start blaming young people for things and trying to kill them, of course — that would put them over the line).

Now, note the specifics of that answer: the fault is with the hatred of and violence against others. It’s not the particular selection of who those others are. If you encounter a political movement which blames all problems on white people and wants to kill them, that’s as bad as American fascists who blame all problems on dark-skinned people and want to kill them, or nazis who blame all problems on Jews and want to kill them. The wrongness is the desire to scapegoat people and then harm and kill them.

I bring this up because I keep seeing posts which seem to be saying “we need to resist nazis because they hate Jewish people, and Jews are special and should be exempt from violence”, with the implication that if said nazis were targeting some other group it would be okay.

Think that’s an exaggeration? Think again — the current Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the single largest political party of Israel — which is considered centrist and mainstream in Israel, no matter how right-wing it may appear from the outside — has spent years trying to whitewash not just nazis but Adolf Hitler himself. In 2015 he tried to claim that Hitler didn’t want to kill Jewish people and just a couple of years ago — there’s an article on this somewhere in my blog’s archives which I can’t find, and I don’t want to Google this too specifically because I don’t want a bunch of searches with these terms in my history — gave an interview where he said that if the Nazis hadn’t specifically put Jews on their enemies list they would have been fine (which means that the other people who were in concentration camps, gays and Roma and disabled people and dissenters and so forth, were fine to exterminate). It is absolutely a mainstream opinion in Israel that fascism is fine as long as Jews aren’t the target.

Hate crimes against Jewish people should not be tolerated. But they should not be tolerated because hate crimes should not be tolerated, not because the target is Jewish people. We don’t need Jewish übermenschen any more than we need “Aryan” ones; unfortunately it is clear that Zionism is increasingly linked to exactly this worldview. Deciding that Muslims — and particularly Palestinians — are inherently evil and then trying to kill them, which is official Israeli policy now, is fascist, and must be stopped.

[whumpster-fire]

This, and also, I'm not convinced that scientific literacy is the solution. Some of the "9/11 was staged, jet fuel can't melt steel beams" type conspiracy theories have IIRC been pushed by people who have backgrounds in science and engineering: usually in different fields, but still, they should have a basic level understanding of how science works, and should have a substantially higher baseline of scientific literacy than the general public, but they still get entrenched in these beliefs. Better scientific education might make people less susceptible to falling for pseudoscience on average but it won't prevent people from Dunning-Kruger-ing their way into some terrible ideas.

It's true that just shoving evidence in hardcore pseudoscience cranks' faces isn't going to change their minds, and that you need to empathize with why they want to believe something, but describing them as "bright, naturally inquisitive people who are just misinformed and could be good scientists if they were more scientifically literate" is overly charitable IMHO. The fundamental mindset of starting with a conclusion and working backwards by cherrypicking / creatively interpreting evidence to justify it needs to be changed, and that's really difficult because the real belief they're trying to support is often not that the pseudoscientific theory itself is true, it's either a deeper ideological agenda or their own self-perception (or both).

In the self-perception category, someone who's convinced that their new (disproven by evidence 70 years ago) theory disproves the big bang, or that they've discovered the secret to Perpetual Motion, might be addicted to the ego boost of believing they're a misunderstood genius "I'm smarter than everyone else and can see the truth that all these 'smart' scientists can't / I'm too smart to believe the official story like all those other sheeple," they might be unable to take the ego hit of admitting they're wrong about something so they latch onto an idea and entrench themselves deeper and deeper into it. Someone with this attitude knowing more science might just make them latch onto some other fringe theory that requires more specialized knowledge to debunk.

On the other hand, a 9/11 truther? Yeah, the reason they want to believe that an airliner crash couldn't have brought down those buildings isn't because they're deeply invested in their ideas about how structural engineering works, it's because believing 9/11 was an inside job fuels a core belief like "America Bad. 9/11 was a false flag to create a pretext to invade Middle Eastern countries for their oil / create a surveillance state / kill brown people / feed the Military-Industrial Complex" or "Israel / The Jews did this to drag America into a Middle Eastern war for their own benefit" or some shit like that.

Young Earth Creationists? Well obviously that particular pseudoscientific theory is religiously motivated, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the people pushing it tend to also want "Biblically based law." They want a theocracy, and any part of the religious text they want society / the state to follow their fundamentalist interpretation of being proven to not be 100% factual threatens the legitimacy of that. If the Bible is wrong on how the Earth was created, then it could also be wrong about women's rights, or abortion, or homosexuality. (ignoring that the Bible may or may not even say those things)

"The Pyramids Must Have Been Built By Aliens" guy? There's a good chance the real root of that belief is that "primitive people" were too stupid to accomplish something like that, which is usually racist. I mean, I have seen "Aliens did Stonehenge" theories too so they're not exclusively directed at African and Native American people, but I haven't seen any "The gothic cathedrals couldn't have been built without help from aliens, medieval Europeans didn't even understand sanitation" ones, I'm just saying.

(Which isn't to say that kind of theory is the exclusive domain of white supremacists. I think I've seen some "the existence of pyramids in Central America proves Africans must have sailed across the Atlantic because there's no way indigenous Americans could have independently figured out how to carve large stones and stack them on top of each other without help" arguments a while back)

(not going into Hollow Earth, QAnon, New World Order, Antivaxxers, etc because the above poster already brought up the bigotry at the core of them)

On the other hand, pseudoscience like the Antivax trend or pseudoscientific home remedies can spread extra fast when people are scared and the institutions that are supposed to have answers do shit that loses them the public trust. The antivax movement being as big as it is isn't solely due to ableism in the general public: it's been aided by the fuckery Trump pulled with the CDC during the initial outbreak of COVID which people saw as proof the medical establishment were being used as political pawns / didn't actually know what they were doing, as well as decades of patient-hostile or public-hostile practices by the US medical system. "The doctors don't want to help you, they want to keep you sick because it makes them more money" and similar theories are easier to believe not because of a failure of scientific communication, but because the healthcare / health insurance industry in this country is broken.

Similarly, like... the US Government very blatantly did use 9/11 as a pretext to create a surveillance state, and started a completely pointless and devastating war over fraudulent evidence of WMDs, and that lent credibility to 9/11 Truthers that they wouldn't have had if the Iraq War or the Patriot Act didn't happen. Again, for something like that the failure isn't on the side of science: no amount of widespread literacy about how difficult it would be to secretly plant enough explosives to implode a skyscraper or how massive fires can affect a structure and the immense dynamic loads of 20 floors of building falling 10 feet onto the floor below can address the fundamental problem that the public has good reasons to not trust the government to murder its own citizens en masse. Even if every single person was convinced that yes, plane impacts could and did cause that damage, you'd just get theories that the hijackers were actually Government agents and the recovered documents linking it to Al Qaeda were fake instead.

Tl;dr yeah there's well-meaning people who fall for astrology, homeopathy, MBTI etc because of being uninformed, but a lot of conspiracy theorists and cranks don't believe dumb stuff because they're uninformed, they believe dumb stuff because they're assholes.

It is true that otherwise well-meaning people are sucked in by pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, and empathy is the key to dealing with that, but scientists can't fix the problem because the root cause is often institutions behaving so unethically that people stop trusting any scientists or educators agreeing with the "official story."

I really like what this physicist, Lamar Glover, has to say in Behind the Curve. 

+ this part from Spiros Michalakis:

[mozillavulpix]

Israel

If you're a progressive activist who likes to write call-out posts and permanently excommunicate from people who don't share your political opinions, please don't read this post. For my own sake.

I'm a Jewish person who gets upset at a lot of the discourse surrounding Israel, especially at the moment.

Don't you want an immediate ceasefire?

I do, but I get the feeling that's not happening because it's not exactly practical. If you ran a country and knew that a neighboring region had access to militants and weapons to go over to your country and murder and kidnap your citizens and civilians whenever they wanted (and in fact, that's what they just did), I think it's...practically the point of having an army to make sure something like that doesn't happen again. If you stop, you give them time to regroup and escape to try another time.

But what about the lives of the Palestinians?

It's a pretty awful situation, yeah. But Israel has already told them to go to the south so they don't get caught up in the fighting, and Egypt doesn't want to accept any of them as refugees, so I don't know how else you'd even get them out of the area.

But isn't Israel bombing in the safe zones, too?

This is a war. I'm sure the Israeli army wouldn't bomb other places unless there was some practical reason. Like there was access to weapons in one of those areas. I really wish they wouldn't do that, but I'm also not a military strategist with intelligence on the area, so it's not like I know what's around there.

Listen, if the reasonings are "Israel had intelligence that there were resources in that area used by militant groups" or "Israel are cartoon villains who purposely bomb civilian targets to make sure they inflict as much pain on Gaza civilians as they can", the first one just seems more likely to me.

What about the hospital that was bombed?

Several Western countries have all said from their independent intelligence that it wasn't Israel that did that.

But what if they're all just lying and saying that because they're working together?

Now you sound like Qanon

Why do you call us anti-semitic? We just want peace. We don't support terrorism and we're not telling people to hate Jews.

You're going around and using words like 'genocide'. Even if you don't think you're inciting violence, when you make such a powerful plea to people's emotions and empathy, some people are going to feel powerless and try to take it out on an 'easier' target that's only vaguely related to it. Like those Jews living in your country who happen to have family in Israel and so want to support them.

You're all really pissed off at the moment. Pissed off people get violent.

Wow, I can't believe I used to respect you.

I think it's a very dangerous mindset to be so willing to do a complete 180 on someone just because of one situation where they play devil's advocate. I'm not going around and yelling that all Palestinians are terrorists and should be killed, I hate people in the Israeli government as much as you do. I just want people to stop treating Israel like some one-dimensional cartoon villain responsible for all the evils in the world because you heard they're the 'occupiers'.

anyway, this isn't gonna stop anyone, just really me rationalising my thoughts and why i keep having to mute people on twitter until this all hopefully dies down

i'm literally just some girl on the internet, i'm not a political expert and don't fucking put me on blast because my arguments don't have all the facts

[captaintiny]

ok this has been bothering me for a long time and i never really knew how to put it in words until it suddenly came to me in a painkiller-induced nap

there are different levels of bad.

there is truly awful and problematic media, like h*rry p*tter for example. or awful people like pewdiepie. or greg ellis (for those unaware, he's a film and voice actor who claims he's a libertarian but his stances have become more aggressively and openly fascist over the past few years). these properties and people don't deserve a platform, money or attention.

but... not every piece of media or every person with problematic elements is as bad as those examples.

like. it just really bugs me when people see something like say, the umbrella academy season two, and see someone talking about the antisemitism in it. and then the immediate response is BOYCOTT THE SHOW NEVER WATCH IT, EVERYTHING ABOUT IT IS BAD. and like. it's exhausting. it's false equivalency.

everyone will, of course have different lines about what is okay and what isn't. im jewish. i watched tua. sure, there were moments that made me uncomfortable, but it didn't ruin the show for me personally. i also know a lot of jews that said "it was too antisemitic for me so i didn't watch." both of these opinions are okay.

im also a rape survivor. black sails is incredibly violent, and has a particularly high incidence of sexual violence in season one. it also has issues with racism at times, and i know people who didn't watch it for either or both of these reasons. i still firmly maintain it's one of the greatest pieces of media made in the last 20 years. outlander, on the other hand, had too much sexual violence for me to handle, and the show framed it in a way that made me uncomfortable. but i don't believe that consuming outlander makes you a morally deplorable individual, nor do i believe that it should be banned or cancelled or removed from the social consciousness.

brennan lee mulligan, who runs dimension 20 - my all time favourite actual play RPG show - has views on religion that i think come from a very narrow mindset, and it's very obvious what helped formed those views, and i often get uncomfortable when he speaks about religion as a monolith. but having a questionable opinion on religion doesn't make him the same as someone like jkr.

it's crucial that you're critical of the media you consume, and the celebrities you are fans of. but finding a single flaw, or even two or three, or reading about a single shitty thing a person did, doesn't make them equivalent to fascists. it doesn't mean the media is irredeemable.

it also doesn't mean you should ignore those shitty things either. you should absolutely acknowledge when stuff you like has issues, and listen to people that they affect talking about them. and again, i will reiterate: there are people and pieces of media that are problematic in so many ways that it is universally reprehensible to try and continue to consume them. but not everything that has a flaw is automatically the highest possible tier of awful, and i'm kind of tired of everyone treating personal boundaries or lines w media/public figures as a moral litmus test that has a right and wrong answer. you can acknowledge something has flaws and still enjoy it.

[philosophicalparadox]

It's a problem mindset that has plagued humanity forever, but only became systemised about 748 years ago. Give or take. The Catholic church attacked itself in 1280, they blamed the Jews and all other manner of minority folk got dragged into it, and once they realised having a common enemy was a good way to get everyone from everywhere on their side, and more importantly to forgive them for doing bad things, cause Y'know, "in the name of __", they never let it go. And everyone in the western world seen how absurdly powerful and rich they got doing it, so they followed suit.

And you wonder why this mindset is often propagated by the christian religious - the stratified, systemic version started with them; you think they're gonna let go of the best system for control of the masses they've found in near 800 years? Ha!

That is not to say the mindset didn't exist before then - ancient Rome and Greece would certainly testify to that, to say nothing of China, Mesopotamia and Egypt - but Catholicism gave it immortality in a way no one else had before. Catholicism offered people their pick of nemesis and promised to battle them all, in perpetuity. But most importantly, anyone could join the fight - you just needed to believe. Mostly those nemesis were Heretics and Saracens (Muslims) but minorities that were squicky or weird were good too.

Then the protestant movement happened, and the only way they could gain power was to promise everything Catholicism could or would not. Protestantism gave people witch hunts, lynchings based on race or sexuality, genocide of other Christians, and freedom to severely persecute anyone the Catholic church refused to outright kill, basically. Im not saying they were much better - heretic hunts were only slightly less gruesome and more honest than witch hunts - but the Catholic church drew lines it would not cross, no matter the pressure, both good and bad, and protestants filled a niche with people who wanted to cross those lines, for good or ill.

748 years later, and we are still living with the consequences. All because the clergy decided to attack one another over differences in ideology.

Butterfly effect is real, folks. And I am both awed and disappointed that this pivotal moment in history is almost never talked about outside niche little circles, cause obviously it had a huuuuuge effect that still resonates today.

Again, this kind of mindset is kinda endemic to the human condition, us being tribal species. But this exact kind of Utopia thing is pretty Christian. And I feel more people should casually recognise that.

I could go on, but I shan't. What is Tumblr for but rambles

many problems are caused by the mindset that the world is divided into good people and bad people and the bad people can be "found out" and removed, eventually leading to a utopia containing only good people.

[welivetodream]

Thoughts on Harry Potter Ships (Disclosure: DO NOT attack me if I give some unpopular opinions or hate your favourite ship, it doesn't matter because this is only just an opinion and shipping is subjective.) (PS: my thoughts on this might change later) (Also this is not in any particular order)

Ron×Hermione: looveee it!!! This is one of those relationships that you see coming and are waiting till it happens. These two complement each other wonderfully. Their banter is realistic. Their fights are realistic. And they just care about each other even when they are fighting or not talking.

Harry×Ginny: did I see it coming? No. I didn't really notice Ginny till the 4th book. And I love Ginny as a character. She is also very much Harry's type being pretty and good at quidditch (ex: Cho, Draco, Cedric...etc). They are kinda okay. I don't dig much in their relationship, they don't have the sparks of Romione but they are still a good healthy couple.

Harry×Cho: um....they were not ready to date. They were not compatible. Could have worked out if Cho was in a more emotionally stable mindset and if Harry wasn't a huge oblivious dork.

Lavender×Ron: One word. Cringe.

Draco×Hermione: .....NO. JUST NO. I don't think Hermione would ever date someone like Draco. And knowing Draco, he will never date someone like Hermione. They might become friends later, but no, their pairing is too toxic.

Draco×Harry: ....now as I hate Dramione it might seem like I would hate Drarry. But....Drarry low-key rocks. They do have chemistry. More than Harry has with anyone literally. It's just a ship I really like despite all the toxicity it will have if it happened. It's better than Dramione since Harry and Draco are more of equals in terms of badmouthing eachother (both of them have insulted eachother's mothers for example)

Harry×Hermione: one word. Gross. It's like shipping siblings. Harry says in DH “She’s like my sister, I love her like a sister and I reckon she feels the same way about me. It’s always been like that. I thought you knew.” I hate she-who-must-not be named later said she wished they ended up together. No.

Ron×Luna: an unusual ship that a lot of people like including me. I did see some moments where they are lowkey crushing on eachother, especially Luna, but it's not huge.

Neville×Luna: another good ship, but the problem is the Neville in the books never showed any romantic interest towards Luna and did she (as much as I remmember) It's something the movies added.

Ginny×Luna: super cute but no canon info about that. It's still something better than a lot of other popular ships.

Snape×Lily: I can't go with this one....my thoughts on Snape are more on the bad side than good. I just don't think Lily should have liked him after he called her mudblood and became a death eater. (It's like a Nazi loving a Jew. Does not work out). I have no feelings towards James. He doesn't get much personality other than being a bully and later a hero. Snape had 6 books about how big of a douche he is...so No to Snily.

Remus×Sirius: AKA WOLFSTAR!!! Ofc I love it. Who doesn't? It's like the SHIP after Romione. They just feel like a married couple whenever they are together. Just *chef's kiss*

SiriusxSnape: are you Sirius?

Hermione×Snape: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I am calling the police.

Harry×Snape: Double NOOOOOOOOOOOO. WHY? JUST WHY? Who hurt you?

Tonks×Lupin: yep. Good one. They are cute. They spolier (died) too young.

(I didn't talk about all the ships just the one I remembered at the moment I could write a part 2 later)

[writingwithcolor]

Hi, thank you all so much for running this blog--I was hoping I could get your feedback on a Jewish MC. The crux of my question is whether I, a gentile, would be out of line depicting her experiencing internalized discrimination from her own father (who in my first draft was Catholic, but I think that will be changing to a TBD protestant denomination).

The backstory I have for her right now is that her mother is Jewish and places great value on the history and culture of being Jewish, but is not a particularly religious person. Her daughter refers to her as having sometimes attended events at a local reform synagogue and making note of the high holidays but she is, overall, not someone with strict religious observances of any kind, and for a long time she and her husband (raised Christian but deeply agnostic) raise their daughter on the idea that it's important to understand where she and her family come from but that how she ultimately pursues faith--whatever that faith may be--is up to her. Both parents introduce her to the stories and lessons they grew up with but don't pressure her to attend religious events, etc. unless she has a personal, independent interest in doing so. For the first 16 or so years of her life this is how she's raised and her family is stable and her parents seem deeply in love. So far beta readers from households with one Jewish and one Christian parent have told me this backstory seems fine to them, though I welcome any feedback you have, too.

What I'm most concerned about, though, is when she's a teen and her parents divorce. Right now I have the reason for their divorce as being that they fell out because her dad becomes a bit of a Christian zelot and becomes less and less respectful of his wife's religion and background as he gets deeper into this mindset. The reason he becomes like that is essentially that when 9/11 happens MCs mother, who grew up with the story of how her grandparents fled from the Soviet Union because of religious discrimination under Stalin, only narrowly managing to immigrate as far as the US before the breakout of WWII, powerfully empathizes with the people suffering from the horrible rise of Islamophobia we saw in 2001-2002. Her husband, on the other hand, does what I saw a lot of people in my family and community do and becomes increasingly religiously conservative as a reaction the percieved "threat" of the Islamic world. (This is all clearly identified in the book as his being in the wrong.) One of the ways this manifests is that he starts pressuring his daughter, the MC, to attend church services with him and become Christian. His rationale is that he just wants what's best for his daughter--to be "saved."

MC's mother has no tolerance for that crap, as she shouldn't, so they fight quite a bit going forward and eventually separate. Mom gets custody of the MC.

While her father never says anything openly antisemitic--implying those ideas but never stating them explicitly--he does respond to 16 yr. old MC basically asking him if he would still love her if she pursued her mom's faith by saying some bullshit along the lines of "well honey I just love you and want the best for you," as his answer. She never says to him that she's cutting him out, but after this moment she's never close to her father again and by the time the main narrative takes place 10 years later, she hasn't spoken to him since she was 21.

This backstory helps build a foundation for a lot of themes for the MC in terms of different ways alienation manifests in her life, how she trusts, and what we can and cannot forgive our parents for, so I like it from a narrative standpoint, but I would deeply appreciate your feedback on whether writing this kind of experience for a Jewish character is inappropriate for me to be doing. And, if not, do you have any suggestions on ways to modify this backstory, or would you recommend scrapping it entirely? Thank you so much.

Interfaith family broken up when Dad becomes a jerk and a bigot

A difficult situation definitely but I don’t have a problem with the setup. If this isn’t based on your own observations, it’s probably a good idea to get a beta reader with experience around bigots of the same stripe as Dad to make sure the awful stuff Dad says uses word choices and ideas that feel authentic. If that IS your experience I am so very sorry and I hope you have other wonderful people in your life to make up for it. 

--Shira This seems very well planned, and thought out. It's also very real, and will be an emotional read I'm sure. As long as your character isn't forced to give up her Jewishness because of her father, and provided that you are careful during fight scenes between the parents earlier in the work (to ensure that the mom doesn't end up seeming like the Shrill Jewish Woman stereotype), I think you are on solid ground. Good luck!

--Dierdra

Also, I just caught that you said "internalized discrimination" from her dad -- that's not what internalized discrimination means. Internalized discrimination is when someone is feeling negatively about their own group, because they've absorbed bigoted ideas from outside. Discrimination from someone who isn't yourself isn't called “internalized” even when it comes from someone as close as a parent. But that's just a little language correction.

--Shira

Oh no, this backstory is so sad! I hope your MC has a happy ending with some very mutually supportive relationships.

I agree that this shouldn't be a problem as long as you take care to avoid stereotypes on a more micro level in specific scenes. As for the overall idea, nothing jumping out at me. You've clearly put so much effort into creating a believable background for your character and its influence on her current psyche - that gives me confidence that you will write humanised characters rather than falling back on tropes!

Also, don't know if you knew this but something to note with interfaith families: if MC's mother is Jewish, she is a Jew in Jewish law. It doesn't matter what she believes or practises or how she was brought up. (I don't say this to invalidate patrilineal Jews or oppose anyone self-identifying the way they want, but just halachically. You should be aware that many more religious Jews will consider her that way.)

Good luck with your story! I would read this 😌

--Shoshi