#if you need to choose between bad people or nazis

[xjnegen]

just got blocked over this controversial opinion:

if you have to choose between the literal worst people on earth and pretty bad people, maybe you have to choose the bad people. maybe praxis can come after. maybe damage reduction is better than saying "i wont participate in this system" and getting mad at the government. maybe the bad people wont fuck everyone over as bad as the literal worst people on earth and maybe theyll give you slightly more space to perform praxis than the actual worst people on earth would.

[moran-with-a-g]

Tell me, what would you think of someone who respected the Jewish people but genuinely believed that Israel is as bad as their old persecutors now?

That honestly depends on what you mean.

Part of respecting the Jewish people is respecting their right to exist in their homeland, have a country that fits their cultural needs, and knowing that that country's government actions are not a representation of the entire population.

Do they believe Israel's existence as a concept is as bad as Nazi ideology of scientific racism? Do they believe the Israeli government is as bad as Nazi Germany? Do they believe the treatment the IDF ia giving the Palestinian people is as bad as the pogroms the Jewish people went through throughout history?

When you say Israel, are you talking about the country, the government, the people, the military?

When you say as bad as their old persecutors, are you talking about the Nazis? About other people in history?

I have no issues with people who hate the Israeli government, I have no issues with people who hate the actions of the IDF, what I do have issues with is people who say "Israel" without specifying what they mean, and the people who see the need to compare "Israel" with "their old persecutors".

Because you can criticize the government and the military actions as much as your heart desires. I'm not fan of the current government, I'm also very much aware that the IDF is not an innocent force. But when you just say Israel, I would think that actually, you don't really respect Jewish people, because you don't make an effort to seperate the Israeli civilians from the actions of the military and the government.

Because for some reason, people have this obsession of comparing us to the groups who hurt us in the past. Because for some reason, they have this obsession of taking out trauma, our history, and comparing half of our people to those who who hurt us. They have the option of comparing Bibi to Putin, instead they choose Hitler. They treat our past as if it's a lesson we didn't learn, as if we were punished for some great evil we commited and still have yet to change. We're just as bad, if not worse, as the people who burnt away our history, our records and our lineage.

If they properly criticize the government, and the military, and they believe they deserve to be considered between of the worst in human history - while being able to seperate them from the people who live in Israel, the people who believe in Israel's right of existence, and they don't specifically compare them to persecutors of the Jewish people - then I wouldn't consider them antisemitic, and I would love to have a civil discussion with them, and I would probably be able to agree with at least some of what they have to say.

If they can't seperate the concept of Israel into people, government and military, and if they only compare them to persecutors of the Jewish people, while claiming they respect Jewish people - then they never bothered to listen to a Jew when they were told they're being antisemitic.

So you tell me, is that person actually respecting Jewish people, when they don't make the effort to understand what it is they're doing that's antisemitic and why?

[jewreallythinkthat]

Ok so ... Today's absolutely fucking batshit post that I had to read with my own two eyes

We all know Mohamed Hadid is a foaming at the mouth antisemite but this is a new level.

Let's start with the caption:

1. The implication all Jews are American? Insane, untrue, erasing all Jewish history in Israel which dates back to before the Arabization of the middle east.

2. No one has a single percent of Semite in them because Semite is not a race, it's an obsolete term for a family of languages (including both Hebrew and Arabic) however I need to specify that "Antisemitism" was coined as a term specifically about Jew hate. That's what it means, it's actually nothing to do with the language Hebrew at all, it was an attempt to sciencify "judenhass" and make it sound acceptable.

Now to the post itself:

3. If you demand an end to colonialism, boy have I got something to explain about why the official language of Morocco, a country the width of a continent away from the Arabian Peninsula is Moroccan Arabic... Or to be honest, the reason that Arabs are the main demographic anywhere outside the Arabian Peninsula where they originally came from. I understand that peoples migrate but that involves moving from one place to another, not expanding our and literally colonising everything around you. The Arab conquests of the MENA region are a well documented part of history...

4. Demanding a ceasefire is all well and good but we are all aware that we will never be going back to the status quo of before - which frankly is all a ceasefire with no actual work done to rebuild and move towards peace will do. A ceasefire neccestiates thought on what happens next. This is not to say people shouldn't be advocating for an cease to the fighting, they should, this all needs to end. What people have to also do is also be discussing what happens next. The old status quo was unsustainable, and with the mounting evidence that Gazans who worked in Israel helped with the planning of Black Saturday, we will never again see the relations between the people in southern Israel and those in Gaza go "back to normal".

I would love a ceasefire but we need to talk about what happens next in the same conversation. To ignore that is at best naïve and at worst, willfully ignorant because just stopping and Israel withdrawing will do nothing to help rebuild because we all know that everyone will lose interest if that happens, as has happened over and over again.

5. It's well known that Jews are indigenous to Israel and the ancient kingdom of Judea. It's literally in the etymology of the world. Now, obviously multiple groups can be indiginous to one area, but length of time residing there is not a marker of indiginunity, it's literally a childlike playground tactic. Straight up rewriting history... We all know how bad that is.

Mohamed Hadid has over a million followers. His daughters have a total of 130 million. They can post misinformation and almost ten times the number of Jews who exist in the world will see it. This is so dangerous and frankly this level of deranged lying on the internet does not nothing to help end the war, it just puts Jews outside of Israel more at risk. We are being murdered in the streets, in our places of work and everyone is cheering it on.

The irony of people applauding the murder of Jews calling us neo-nazis is not lost on me and it's unreal that we aren't even allowed to stand up to it. Let's be very blunt here, if you are justifying the slaughter of Jews, who's the real nazi?

An additional Edit:

There will never be a ceasefire without release of the hostages and bodies kidnapped into Gaza. Like it's so stupid to think otherwise. Especially with Hamas currently refusing to give a list of who is still alive (they said they couldn't give a list until they knew the terms of a ceasefire which clearly means they COULD do it, but they are choosing not to)

[akajustmerry]

I haven't seen chibnall but I have a hard time imagining being worse than moffat. I'm sure it's possible but that man... he was bad. also out of curiosity what's the problem with eccleston? or did you just use his name as a reference for which era was rtd. feel free to ignore this if you like, I hope you have a good day!

hellooo!

look, you won't hear me arguing moffat wasn't bad but believe me Chibnall was worse. He wrote an entire sequence where the Doctor tricks the Master (then played by British-Indian actor Sacha Dhawan) into being caught by the Nazis, knowing what the Nazis would do to him. Like, the Doctor, presenting as a white woman, handed over the Master, her best friend presenting as a Brown man to the most notorious white supremacist regimes in history. And that moment was framed as a successful ploy!! As a "win" for the Doctor.

I'm sorry but, to me, Moffats fucking decrepit cringe Gen X Misogyny did nowhere near as much damage as thoughtlessly portraying the Doctor as someone who will literally use Nazism against a poc and framing it as clever girlboss behaviour. Like, it's not fun that these are the people we have to choose from but one of these things is not like the other.

As for the Eccleston stuff, I was referring to Christopher Eccleston's conflict with the BBC and by extension implied conflict with RTD. The full details of the conflict have never been fully made public but Eccleston has always maintained he quit the show due to the culture created by the show runners and producers. He's said he'd never work with RTD again. Eccleston implied that one of the reasons the relationship between himself and RTD broke down was Eccleston's desire for the Doctor to be a role model whose intellect wasn't inherently tied to being upper class English and had to really fight to use his natural accent. It's worth noting that the we wouldn't have a Doctor without an RP (received pronunciation) accent again until Capaldi. David even mentioned Russell's "enthusiasm" for DT to speak in RP not his natural accent in his interview with Jodie in 2020.

I want to believe that RTD has grown since the mid 00s, and perhaps this time around things will be different. But I think a lot of people point to Moffat as the worst because his bigotry is the most visible and easiest to critique. It's more popular and acceptable to critique sexism against white women than it is to critique racism and classism. But in reality all of these showrunners are white British men who have pulled white British bullshit and I won't stand for Chibnall and Davies shortcomings being scapegoated via Moffat.

Also, this is not a defense necessarily but a lot of people who hate moffat era who did NOT watch Capaldi's seasons and did not watch season 10 with Bill Potts. So their critique often lacks the perspective of Moffat's best season that proves he's capable of writing something genuinely compelling that's not gross and sexiest. Like it genuinely infuriates me when people talk about "moffat who" but they're only really talking about Matt Smiths seasons. Again none of that is a defence but it's just to say that most people who say Moffat is the worst are people who a) are really talking about Sherlock, which, fair enough that was shit b) people who just think 10th Doctor best Doctor and don't actually care about anything after that era in any meaningful way. Or c) people who have a pretty incomplete view of the series was and where it currently is.

omg this is long sorry I hope I don't sound rude I'm not trying to be I just have so many thoughts about this. I hope this answers your question, please let me know if I need to clarify anything <3

[no-more-rqs]

im going to put this in a separate post because theres WAY too much i need to talk about here than i could reasonably put in a comment. @bread-werewolf you can read this if you want but i dont expect you to listen

alright, for one i want to address the "radqueerish" thing. "radqueer", as its currently defined, is "pro para and pro transid", but i know thats not what you mean by this because incest isnt included in that definition. what you mean is that it is one of the bad things radqueers support. however, do you know what other people consider "radqueerish"? every single thing they dont like, regardless of it is harmful or not. endo systems, otherkin/therians, paraphiles, kink, mad pride, fictionkin, nonbinary people, contradictory labels, and more. yes, there are real anti-radqueers who believe that being nonbinary is a radqueer thing. if something not inherent to the radqueer label is still "radqueerish", then everything is radqueer. the only think that is inherent to the radqueer community is supporting all paraphilias and transidentities. nothing else. incest is not included in that.

if you, after reading three different credible papers (one of which is 20+ pages long) proving you wrong, still believe that incest is "radqueerish" because its a bad thing radqueers support, you are exactly as justified as the anti-radqueers who say that endo systems are a radqueer thing. you claim that endo systems are valid because theyre proven and supported by real science - yet the second it comes to something that you personally dislike, suddenly studies dont matter. i would like to remind you that the rate of incestuous offspring having any sort of disability is 3 percent, and that is only if they actually have children (most dont). this is proven by science, as is evident in the articles included in the post you commented on.

to all anti-radqueers, do you actually listen to all evidence, or do you only listen to the evidence you agree with?

now, onto the supposed "radqueerish" thing. if someone chooses to have a child who is disabled, why is that a bad thing? why is a disabled person's existence so horrible that the idea that, out of one hundred children, three of them will be disabled, means that no children should be allowed to be born? there is no difference between a disabled child born from a disabled person and a disabled child born from any other person. both children are disabled. neither parent is morally wrong for choosing to have a child. disabled children are not a burden, not a moral failing. you should not be advocating against the existence of disabled people. that is eugenics. it is eugenics to claim that disabled people should not be born, for ANY reason. it is eugenics to tell ANYONE "your children might be disabled, so you cant have any kids" because you are intentionally trying to prevent disabled people from continuing to exist. is it radqueer to be against literal fucking nazi ideology?

i will repeat again: THREE PERCENT. you are claiming that no one related whatsoever can ever date because, out of the people who will actually have children (which is not very many), 3% of those children will be disabled. you would think its 110% with how hysterical people get over this. there is no other reason why incest alone could be harmful. this is the only concrete reason besides "its gross and i dont like it".

[beachesgetpeaches]

yall roman is not a nazi. kendall is not a nazi. (because ive seen people say shit)

They are something worse*. (addition for clarification: compared to what you think of when you accuse someone of being a nazi/fascist nowadays). They are no conviction no lean people, Shiv included. Who do not care whether the next US president gets his ideas from Hitler, so long as the president is in their pocket.

they will fuck anyone and quite literally everyone for their own selfish interest.

Roman pushing Mencken win because Mencken favours Roman and has spoken to him nicely and told him they're going to go far. So Roman steps onto the floor and pushes the narrative, pushes them to call. (also funny the "we're gonna go far" thing esp compared to roman x gerri implosion).

Kendall who for a few second considers how this shit might affect his daughter (a far cry from caring about people in general but hey). That is until his ego is bruised by Shiv's scheming and he decides to agree with Roman... Pathetic, and tragic. Also a bad father, but overall yeah not a good person really. Just chasing his own validation/interest.

And Shiv. Shivy shiv shiv. Who has always been on her high horse because she was the one working for a left leaning politician. She was the one unmarred by ATN and all these duplicitous deals that happen. Until she wasn't. Until Logan dragged her into the narrative and then kicked her a bit just to test her. Until she was consciously part of the abuse cycle bcs up until then she was at least in her opinion much better than her brothers. Until she was making lawsuits and witnesses go away. Shiv who has always cared about people until they are NRPI, right? And Shiv who when given the chance to find common ground between Jimenez and the Roy bros throws it into trash because I guess she knows... she knows that if she calls Nate up she might be able to get something done.

So, she doesn't. She pretends to call and lies to her brothers because when weighing her own benefit (scheme w/ Matsson) against the well-being of the entire country (not having a nazified douche for president) - Shiv Roy chooses her own self-interest. She appeals to the brothers that they need to call for Jimenez, without trying to broker a deal which she now knows might be a no-go for them. But she doesn't sacrifice her self-interest to get them there. She doesn't talk to Nate or Jimenez, or tell them valid reasons why they should probably block the trade (general behaviour, dodgy numbers etc etc).

And this is why ALL of them are worse than just saying "oh my fave turned out to be a nazi"... nah they didn't. They are worse bcs they're flighty as fuck, trying to sit on the highest nicest chair, eat their cake, and benefit while shit hits the fan.

And they're still doing it because of a man who has died and has never listened to what either of them was saying, or wanted. They're still trying to validate themselves by proving to Logan that they're the best one. But Logan is dead, and wouldn't have approved anyway.

tldr; I LOVE THEM!!

* before I get people coming to my replies reblog and ask saying "you can't be worse than a nazi/fascist" let's just state that yes I agree with that statement and I don't want to be debating this to no end. if you compare how kendall shiv and roman behave vs what mencken (modern day fascist/nazi representation) is doing they are not on the same level imo. mencken while deplorable is at least less of a shady fuck compared to the roy siblings. I am not claiming that anything that has happened in this fictional series is in any way worse than ww2 atrocities.

[hello-nichya-here]

Pffft in what fucking way radical feminism is about apologizing abuse?? xD

Hun if you have no what you're talking about just don't talk about it, don't embarrass yourself

Glad you asked!

First we have this very thing that you're doing right now, which is shutting down anyone who mentions that radfems can be abusers. Major red flag whenever someone's first reaction to hearing "Someone in your group has been abusive" is to immediately get all defensive and say "NO ONE HERE WOULD EVER!"

Secondly, we have the very thing that made me point out that radfems are abusive as hell. I pointed out that a stupid radfem was insisting that I was being abused because I like kinky stuff, and then had the nerve to go "You deserve to be beaten until you get brain damage." Saying that some people just "deserve" to be mistreated is abuse apologism 101.

And since we're talking about people who "deserve" abuse according to radfems, let's look at the list of women you guys have thrown under the bus:

1 - Women who have been abused by other women. After all, "rape is a male crime" according to you guys.

2 - Women of color. You guys always get hella defensive whenever a non-white woman points out that radfems are often racist as fuck, and pull stuff like basing their list of "how to spot a tranny" on racist shit like literal nazi propaganda posters to help people "spot jews." And let's not forget the large overlap between plenty of radfem groups and white supremacy groups. Oh, sorry, forgot we're not supposed to mention all that so we won't "devide the comunity."

3 - Bisexuals who experienced abuse by a male partner, since we "choose" to associate with men despite having the oppornuity to date just women, like lesbians do (What? That sounds just like incels who are mad women only go to "jerks" instead of "nice guys" like themselves? Impossible! That would mean radfems feel entitled to sex and believe women DON'T get to say no!)

4 - Lesbians that are not "gold star lesbians", aka who have had sex with men at some point. After all, they're inferior since they didn't have stuff figured out right away, or had no choice but to stay in the closet for years and years due to where they live, or, ya know, were raped. Too bad for them, they were touched by man, therefore they're icky.

5 - Asexuals, because you guys will just hate one ANYONE apparently, even someone who just says "I don't really wanna fuck anyone".

6 - Trans women. After all, you guys literally admited that you made up the whole "predatory trans in the bathroom" myth just to have an excuse to hate on them. And let's not forget this also led to shit like radfems trying to spy on other women in the bathroom to "make sure they're really women." After all, trying to see someone naked without their consent is totally what normal, not at all creepy people do.

7 - Kinky women! After all, we are brainwashed by the patriarchy, and need you guys to step in and save us from ourselves, because YOU know what makes US comfortable or not. It's for our own good really. It totally isn't just slut shaming with some pseudo-feminist terms thrown in the middle.

8 - Sex workers. Once again, they need to be saved from themselves - and that rescue includes ignoring them when they say "your way of helping us in dehumanizing, robs us of our agency, and often ends with us being thrown in prison." And lets not forget that some of the anti sex-work laws you guys swear exist to protect victims of human trafficking who were forced into prostitution often end with said victims thrown in prison anyway because surprise surprise, demonizing people for harmless shit makes a target no matter what.

9 - Any woman who doesn't like that you bitches are constantly associating with the alt-right - including the most violently misogynistic members of the bunch - just to get more political allies. Does it ever cross your mind that if THE biggest women-hating scumbags around think you are "one of the good ones" that shows you totally fucking failed to "rebel against the patriarchy"?

And there's also the group that you guys refuse the acknowledge the most! Men who were abused by women. After all, that doesn't work in your fantasy world where men always hold all the power in every situation, and women are always powerless. No way things could be more complicated, even with misogyny still sadly being a thing, no, no. It has to be an Us VS Them.

So, no acknowledging all the times young boys get sexually assault and are mocked for "complaining that they got laid", even when they're minors and their abusers were grown adults. No acknowledging that while women are more likely to be victims to domestic violence, people often refuse to understand that men can also victims of intimate partner violence - even if said partner is a woman. We can talk about abusive fathers, but not abusive mothers. We can talk about how abusive males tend to become cops, but not about how abusive women tend to become nurses.

And, once again, not ever, ever, ever pointing out that radfems are ALWAYS going on about how some people (in this case men) DESERVE to abused. After all, that will totally make it "fair" after all the shit women endured, since THIS is the way to deal with society's problems: you make sure they hurt as many people as possible instead of just your group.

So yeah, you guys are abuse apologists. You always have been. Now either become a decent person or die mad about it, bitch.

[violetjedisylveon]

It is Disability Pride Month!

I would suggest using the opportunity to learn more about all the different disabilities and how they impact the lives of people with them, and how that struggle is made worse by ablism in our society.

Take the chance to learn from actual disabled people, talk to us and hear our stories, listen to us when we tell you how to help us and make our society more functional and accessible.

Learn about disabled history, about the crimes and injustices done to disabled people. Look up disabilty holocaust and you will get a bunch of articles on what the nazis did to disabled people. It's depressing, but important to learn.

Disability isn't a bad word, it's an accurate description unlike calling someone differently abled. They aren't the same. Disability = not abled, like not able to walk because you are a leg amputee, not being able to do things like everyone else because you have no executive function capabilities. Differently abled = something like left handed, you are still fully abled, you just do it differently but you do it without any aid or tools.

My friend @poeticallydisgraced gave that example when our school put up a sign about recognizing differently abled students. And I think that fits the situation very well.

If you're curious, I've given a bit of a description of my experience under the cut.

Happy disability pride month!

I am nuerodivergent, Audhd, I have autism and Adhd. I also have chronic health issues with severe allergies and I get some bad migraines. I have hearing issues too but wouldn't call myself hard of hearing, it's more of a disconnect between what's said and what I hear. Makes for some entertaining conversations.

I tend to get over stimulated in social settings, too much noise and too many people really mess with me, light and sound trigger my migraines which can last for days, which is never fun.

I have no social awareness, and can't tell the difference between teasing and bullying, the line is super blurred/non existent for me.

This causes a lot of problems, because when people make those jokes and tease me, I don't get it, and to me it's rude and mean, but it also goes the other way cause when I joke I cross a line I can't see, and then everyone gets mad at me even though I'm doing the same thing as them.

I technically have a minor hearing loss in my left ear from a surgery as a child, but I had started having those hearing issues during the phase of development where you learn to speak, so my understanding of language is a bit skewed and I frequently hear things wrong, or don't hear the words said and have to ask for people to repeat it.

My family is starting to get annoyed and won't repeat anything but it's not like I'm choosing to do it, and it is very frustrating when they refuse to repeat it.

All these things leave me feeling a little isolated from my family and people around me.

I am expected to change and be someone else that is more acceptable to nuerotypical society, I jump through hoops and put on an act to appear less different, I've always been singled out as weird and other, and while no one has bullied me, at least that I was aware of, I got left behind by my peers.

The constant masking and acting like something I am not is exhausting, after a week of school I am fully drained of my energy and ability to put on that act.

My mom has gotten upset that I don't act the way I do at school at home, but I shouldn't have to act like a different person with my family.

I am not ashamed to be nuerodiverse and disabled, no one should be shamed or looked down on for something they can't control. A lot still needs to be done to make our society accessible to everyone, the current disability protection and aid laws are insufficient and full of loopholes that allow for disabled people to be ignored.

Have fun learning!

Happy disability pride month!

[dm-clockwork-dragon]

Another Unpopular Opinion

I was asked to delete my earlier reblog by the OP, so they didn’t get sucked into discourse, so I’m reposing this as it’s own thing Well, here I go publicly stating another opinion that will probably get me cancelled. To be entirely fair, I’m sort of beyond caring at this point?

I think people need to calm their fucking tits - homegrown, surgical, or happily removed - over not just this game, but about HP stuff in general.

I’m a recently hatched egg, but I’ve considered myself non-binary for almost 15 years, and been an ally for as long as I knew what an ally was. I also have no particular love for the franchise, despite enjoying it a lot when I was a kid. That’s not virtue signally, or an attempt to defend my position - just letting you all know a little context, and that I do actually have a horse in this race.

I get it, I really do. JK is a fucking terrible person, and should burn in a thousand multicolored hells for the bullshit she spews and the hate she engenders in others. On top of that, she’s a shitty writer, to the point where she accidentally created an entire wizarding world where the difference between the good guys and the bad guys is just what flavor of Nazi you want to choose. But there’s a couple reasons I think that people really need to try and separate her from the franchise that she started.

1. Death of the Author.

This is the one that everyone else gives. It’s possible to enjoy, appreciate, or interpret a creative work in absence of it’s author or their intent. We do it with music, we do it with painting. and Like OP here points out: if we were to burn every book written by a problematic author, we would leave glaring wholes not just in our understanding of our own history and society, but in our understanding of how to avoid the same injustices and suffering caused by those authors. Dead or alive, the author’s right and control over who others interpret their work the moment they share it with the outside world.

2. You guys don’t know how JK makes money, do you?

I see all kinds of arguments out there about how engaging with, or - dare I even mention - paying for HP content is somehow a crime against transfolk because it directly supports a raging TERF and her platform. It doesn’t. Aside from the argument that JK makes all her money through investments and stock market trades - just like any rich person - She also DOESN’T OWN THE FRANCHISE. She retains intellectual property rights: AKA, she can write new books or shit if she likes (we have seen how that goes for her), and she is still treated as the primary source, but the IP and all production rights are owned by Warner Bros. JK doesn’t make a dime off of game, movies, or anything else that WB license or produce based on THEIR franchise. She already made her money by selling the franchise to them years ago. Honestly, she probably got the raw end of the deal at this point. At most, she might get some meager royalties that are eaten up entirely by the cost of paying someone to process them. That’s how publishing contracts and movie deals work - they are a fucking racket.  3. HP isn’t just something some people can throw away.

Like I said above, I sorta grew out of my HP phase, long before any of the issue of JK being a TERF ever came up. And I know that a lot of people who considered themselves fans have also willingly distanced themselves from the franchise in light of her shitty views and actions. But not everyone has that ability. To give you a different example: I grew up reading the Dune books. I finished the core series for the first time when I was 8, and have re-read the entire extended series more than a dozen times since then. It’s more than just my favorite book series, it’s a formative part of who I am as a person. So much of my beliefs and identity as a person have been informed or inspired by those books that I would argue it is impossible to truly understand myself without them. Hell - I’d argue the entire reason I started explore my gender and sexuality in the first place is because of the emphasis those books placed on the “Quisach Haderach” as the perfect fusion of male and female. Even if I were to verbally disavow the series for some reason, those books still define who I am today, and It would be physically impossible for me to separate myself from them Harry Potter is the same way for a lot of people. I think some of us loose sight of just how meaningful those books are to a generation. Not all of us - even within that generation - had the same connection, but for a lot of people who grew up reading them from the time they could turn a page, those books are just as formative and intrinsic to who they are as Dune is to me. they couldn’t separate themselves, even if they wanted to. And pissing all over someone for something they can’t change about themselves is exactly the sort of thing we are supposed to be fighting against! Same can be said of the bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other work that was meaningful and formative to a persons cultural upbringing. Even within the trans community, there are countless Christians, Jews, and Islamic followers. They make the faith their own, because it is an intrinsic and immutable part of who they are. If you are going to condemn Trans or Allies who can’t separate themselves form HP, then you are also condemning any Ally or Transperson who still practices or believes in some form of the religion the grew up with.  4. If we can reclaim slurs, we can reclaim this! I see so many of the same people who rail against HP, also writing or relogging posts about how important it is to reclaim slurs and other labels that have been historically used against us, and I agree. But that shit goes a lot further than just the names we have been called. Reclaiming something from those who would hurt you with it is like picking up the rock that was thrown at you, and saying “neat, this is mine now, you cant have it back”, as opposed to just kicking it back to the abuser so they can hurl it at you again. JK is a terrible person. which is all the more reason that we have a responsibility to take this beloved franchise away from her. She doesn’t deserve it, and as long as it remains in her power, she can continue to use it as a platform to hurt people. And this isn’t without precedent: Look at Butch Hartman, or Joss Wheaton, or Notch, or Gary Gygax. We have a history and a present filled with examples of taking beloved content away from shitty people a deciding “this is ours now, you can’t have it back.” We take those things that were or are important to us, and reframe them, re-write them, or reimagine them into something positive and supportive.  As an author myself, I know quite well how painful it can be to see your work taken away from you, and transformed by people who don’t share your vision. So lets hurt JK where it counts! Not in the wallet, not by railing against her on social media, but by taking away the one meaningful thing she has ever created in her miserable life. Because she doesn’t fucking deserve it.

[dragoneyes618]

"In probably no other area of ethics are the differences between Judaism and the New Testament as pronounced as on issues of self-defense, and responses toward evil people. Both Jesus (in his Sermon on the Mount) and the Talmud articulate their positions unequivocally: "If anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well."

- Matthew 5:38-39

The early Zionist essayist, Ahad Ha'am, comments: "If I practice love to the extent that when you smite me on the right cheek, I offer you the left also, I am thereby encouraging injustice. I, like you, am therefore guilty of the injustice that is practiced. In an argument with the pacifist writer Leo Tolstoy, Thomas Masaryk (1850-1937), the great (non-Jewish) humanist and founding president of Czechoslovakis, expressed a similar notion: "If someone attacks me with the intention of killing me, I shall defend myself, and if I cannot avoid it, I shall kill the attacker. If one of us two must be killed, let the one be killed who has the bad intentions." Indeed, Masaryk's words sound as if they came straight out of the Talmud:

"If someone comes to kill you, kill him first."

- Sanhedrin 72a

A thousand years before the Talmud, the Torah likewise legislated that one need not wait until an opponent has begun his violent attack. Strong circumstantial evidence of murderous intentions constituted sufficient provocation; thus, "If a thief is seized while tunneling his way [into a house during the nighttime] and is smitten so that he die, there is no bloodguilt...." (Exodus 22:1).

Although the Bible offers no rationale to justify the killing of a would-be thief, the Talmud does. In an admittedly speculative passage, it tries to enter into the mindset of the kind of burglar who tunnels into an occupied house (had the house been empty, he would have entered in a less arduous way, e.g., through the door or window). Such a thief, the Talmud reasons, is fully aware that he might encounter resistance, yet makes the following calculation: "If the owner fights me and tries to prevent me from taking his property, I will fight back, and if need be, kill him" (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 72a). The Talmud concludes that that is why the Torah permits the homeowner to take preemptive action.

What additional guideline do the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament offer for dealing with a violent attack? Again, Jesus' teaching seems blunt and equivocal: "Offer the wicked man no resistance" (Matthew 5:38-39).

In contrast, the Hebrew Bible repeatedly reiterates that one should offer the evildoer forceful opposition. On several occasions, the Torah enjoins, "You shall burn the evil out from your midst" (Deuteronomy 7:17). It also describes Moses' killing of an Egyptian taskmaster who was beating a Jewish slave (Exodus 2:12).

While a few Christian sects such as the Jehovah's Witnesses still hold themselves bound by Jesus' pacifism, almost every nation with a large Christian population has chosen to disregard or reinterpret his words. Indeed, Jesus' foremost twentieth-century disciple on this issue has turned out to be not a religious Christian, but a devout Hindu, Mahatma Gandhi. During the Second World War, when it appeared that Nazi Germany might overwhelm England, Gandhi offered the British the following advice: "I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions....If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them" (Non-Violence in Peace and War).

A few years earlier, in the final months before World War II erupted, Gandhi had offered German Jews similar wisdom for overcoming Nazi antisemitism:

"I am as certain as I am dictating these words that the stoniest German heart will melt [if only the Jews]...adopt active non-violence. Human nature...unfailingly responds to the advances of love. I do not despair of his [Hitler's] responding to human suffering even though caused by him."

- Mahatam Gandhi (in his newspaper Harijan, December 17 and 24, 1938, and January 7, 1939). I have drawn these quotes of Gandhi from Gideon Shimoni's far-reaching analysis, Gandhi, Satagraha, and the Jews; see, in particular, pages 46, 51-52, and 59.

Jews reacted to Gandhi's words with pain, scorn, and incredulity. The philosopher Martin Buber, referring to the link between Jesus' and Gandhi's teachings, responded to Gandhi in an open letter:

"We did not proclaim, as did Jesus, the son of our people, and as you do, the teaching of nonviolence, because we believe that a man must sometimes use force to save himself or, even more, his children."

Six years and six million murdered Jews later, Gandhi offered some postmortem wisdom to the dead Jews:

Gandhi: [ in a June 1946 conversation with his biographer, Louis Fischer] "Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."

Fischer: "You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?"

Gandhi: "Yes, that would have been heroism."

- Jewish Wisdom, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, pages 420-423

[cursedvibes]

have you ever watched jjba? If so, who's your favorite villain?

I've read and watched it (although I skipped some parts of the 5 and 6 anime). Reminds me, I still need to read the most recent chapter of JOJOLANDS.

For villains I'm wavering between Kars and Pucci, but I think if we're just talking about them in their role as villains, I would choose Pucci because I will defend Kars with my life, he never did anything wrong. Especially after reading the Jorge Joestar novel, he doesn't feel like a villain to me. Literally just minded his own business until Joseph pissed him off by killing his husband, and the whole Ultimate Being thing might've been bad for humanity (according to Jorge novel it wouldn't be), but who cares. He only wanted the best for his family minus Santana and experiment with the limits of the living organism. He kills Nazis and saves puppies. Can't get any better than that.

Now, Pucci is so far the only jjba villain I found scary. When I was reading the end of Stone Ocean, where he chases Emporio through the prison, walking slow but never letting himself be shaken off, I was on the edge of my seat and so worried. He technically succeeded in killing the mc and a whole universe. Most successful villain so far. Never underestimate how far a gay catholic priest is willing to go for his vampire boyfriend. I also find his relationship with Dio and philosophy very fascinating, and his desperate descent that made him turn to Dio in the first place. While the things he went through as a child are pretty wild (the whole baby switching and incest thing), the emotions he feels and how he acts is very relatable, which makes it hit more.

What I like most about him is his attitude as an adult though. His stand is quite literally the manifestation of all his repressed thoughts, outing him as a petty little bitch. Just love how from his first appearance we know he doesn't actually care about the people he's counselling in the prison, it's only about his vision. "You got family problems? You don't know what to do when getting released? Well, tough luck. Let me show you this cherry trick and give you a lecture on heaven and humanity. I'm sure that will help." He looks down on others, but in an entertaining way.

The whole New Moon/Stand Pregnancy is also my favourite part of Part 6. Just seeing how he starts to affect the world around him and the loss of physics is just really well done and so trippy. It also emphasizes this feeling of "holy shit, how will anyone ever beat this guy". He's op, but in an interesting and dynamic way, since he has to adjust to it too and it has quite severe consequences for him.

My favourite moment of his is still how he curses the frog rain because it ruined his 600$ pants. What an icon.

[it-is-i-zim]

25 for the choose violence game

"Common fandom complaint that you're sick of hearing."

Good fucking lord did you pick a question.

Captain Boomerang is racist. This literally isn't even canon anymore. It hasn't been touched on since the 1987 Suicide Squad run. So many people want to argue with me, the expert of Captain Boomerang in comics, with "well actuallys" and like... Y'all still think he's a fuckin assassin for some reason. Where are you even getting your info from. Oh! Ofc you're a Batfam fan! Yeah. Let me guess, you know about him through Tim Drake. Yeah. Ofc you do. Oh and you decided to did threw comics to find one from 37 years ago to tell me he's bad and it's weird that I like him. That comic is almost twice my age. And DC has gone through like what... 3 different canon rewrites since??? You know those changed almost everything about Captain Boomerang right? Like... I get that sometimes I cherry pick stories and choose to ignore certain aspects of his characterization (again, assassin doesn't work for him AT ALL and if you think that's who he is as a villain, read his comics for the love of God) but this is ridiculous. Literally he only acted like that when John Ostrander wrote for him between 1987-1992. Otherwise, from 1960-1986 and 1993-2024 (so far) he doesn't act that way at all. If you need any sort of perspective... He was less racist when segregation was still legal.

Stop insisting Boomerang is racist you guys... He hasn't been for over 30 years.... I get it. One writer decided Boomer calls a black man slurs. Like... Y'all aren't going to insist Captain America is actually 100% a Nazi because Nick Spencer wrote him as one. God the double fucking standard is insane.

[princeescaluswords]

13, 14, 15

These answers are for the "Choose Violence Ask Game" so I assume that they're meant to be provocative.

13. worst blorboficiation

This one is easy: ARMITAGE HUX.

When The Force Awakens came out in 2015, General Hux was mildly prominent among the minor characters. He gave a speech, gave Kylo Ren side-eye, and supervised the destruction of billions of people and their civilization. Other than that, he was not-a-bad-looking man with red hair who could fill out a suit who was on the screen for a smidge over four minutes in an 138-minute movie.

And the fandom blorbo-ed the shit out of him.

It mystified me then; it mystifies me now. Hux was clearly intended to be a hollow man, someone so eager to attach himself to any vision of something greater that he was a willing -- enthusiastic! -- participant in genocide. He was the type of soulless bureaucrat that fascist regimes have always needed to accomplish their goals. In his total of twelve minutes of screen time, the only thing that kept him from being nothing more than an animated Nazi-esque mannequin was his annoyance with Kylo Ren's antics and the fact that in the end he was unsurprisingly revealed to be a spineless incompetent.

Of course, someone could say that him a blank slate onto which people could project their desires, and the only way I can respond to that cliché is with another cliché: "That's worse. You get how that's worse, right?"

There are literally dozens of minor characters who are far more of a blank slate than a man who could have been in charge of the coat-check at the Wannsee Conference. But the 'worst' part is: that's the point. It's somehow liberating to certain people to dabble with the forbidden, to take the absolute worse examples of humanity and hug them to their breast, as long as there's just enough distance between him and real life that they feel no one can call them out on it. And that he's a young white man.

14. that one thing you see in fics all the time

The Trauma Olympics is not only a terrible way to view the characterizations in your favorite media property, but it's also hypocritical as hell. At these games, the judges always cheat.

I want to be clear. I'm not talking about when fanfictions explore the traumas that serve to establish characterization, even when these traumas create monsters and villains. It's fascinating to see how identity and character can buckle under the force of an excruciating experience.

No, what I'm talking about is when trauma is used as a tool to distort the narrative into something it was never intended to be. The Trauma Olympics can be used to dehumanize or decentralize heroic protagonists because they didn't allow trauma to upend their moral character, which is what makes them a heroic protagonist. The Trauma Olympics can be used to cloak antagonists or outright villains as the true victims because their reactions to what shaped them are not healthy. Comparing one trauma to another creates a scale whose sole purpose is to make characters more or less valid, and that denies the essential individuality of all characters. If a story governs the arc of all characters by an arbitrary scale of the severity of their pain, it's simply bad writing.

And it's arbitrary. Context is stripped at will from pre-existing stories in order to increase or decrease their final scores. It turns a fanfiction story into propaganda; it can't help but do that.

Let me give you an example. I can't tell how many times in my own fandom, Scott, the protagonist, is castigated for not treating one villain EXACTLY like he treated the other villains. Peter-stans write stories where Scott is a hypocrite for treating Theo with more mercy; Theo-stans write stories where Scott is a hypocrite for treating Peter with more mercy. Peter got sent to a low-quality mental health facility and imprisoned with a deranged psychic, while Theo got sent to a discount punishment realm by appropriated demigods, and yet both argue with equal fervor of the unfairness of that comment, with no analysis of why this happened. Only the pain inflicted on their blorbos matter and that pain is seen as undermining the narrative when compared to others.

Or another example -- the fandom loves to excoriate Scott, the heroic protagonist, when he grabbed Derek by the back of the neck and forced him to bite Gerard, the villain, as part of a ruse to defeat the old bastard. You see, Derek was a victim of sexual assault six years ago, and this had to be triggering to his trauma. Scott is monstrous because he used sexual assault (it wasn't) against a survivor (of something which Scott didn't know about) and profane a sacred ritual of Derek's family (which the Bite isn't -- just ask Jackson Whittemore and Victoria Argent) as part of his scheme (and not because the villain threatened to kill his love). And yet, this same fandom remains adamantly silent when Peter Hale, as part of a scheme to gain power and kill the heroic protagonist, leads that very same Derek (his nephew) into an ambush arranged by the woman who sexually assaulted Derek as part of a deception designed to ambush and kill their family. It doesn't even occur to them to note the hypocrisy -- if the Trauma Olympics makes Scott a terrible person, than Peter should win the Gold Medal. Yet I've never seen it dealt with in fanfiction.

15. that one thing you see in fanart all the time

I love fanart. I wish I could make it, but my lack of talent is a difficulty I have yet to overcome. But what always disappoints me is when an iconic and important image about a character-- often romantic -- is repurposed in fanart to serve as an iconic image between a different character in the same property. It just seems to me unnecessary, unimaginative, and demeaning to the original character.

For example, one of the promo shots for Season 3A of Teen Wolf has Scott standing in the front of the cast. Some artist exerted a lot of effort to rearrange the photo to put Stiles in the front. It was a lot of work, a lot of talent, and it was used in the worst possible way. Or when the upside down kiss from Spider-Man is used in the same fandom. It just strikes me as cheap.

[snarky-gourmet]

necessary context: x

I'm posting these all together to more effectively address these-- thank you for taking the time to write this out. I'm not going to lie, for several days I've gone back and forth between whether or not I'd direcrtly answer you or not because some of the wording you used set off alarms not only to me but to other people I asked their thoughts on all this. I'm choosing to still take your words in good faith, and I hope that isn't the wrong decision.

I straight up don't know what you mean by "people in the leftist sphere deliberately engaging in dual loyalty blood libel." I know what dual loyalty is, I know what blood libel is, but when I tried to gather context for that combined phrase, all I got were zionists claiming it was antisemitic to claim that the israeli occupation was deliberately targeting palestinian children in the genocide. That is what the israeli occupation is doing. To be clear. Like that is what they are doing and that is what supporting zionism is also endorsing... it's not feeding into a conspiracy theory to state that they are killing palestinian children, on purpose, for the sake of committing a genocide, and I'm remarkably concerned with not being able to find anything not highly suspicious to help sort out what you meant.

Out of an abundance of caution and desire to be as clear as possible, I also don't wish for this to descend into a back and forth argument of "what you said was suboptimal" "oh yeah well what you said was also suboptimal", however I want to make clear to anyone who reads this that your words are your own and I am also not necessarily in agreeance with bringing up and emphasising OP's status as a muslim while trying to discern their motives, or the (accidental?) condescending tone that accompanies "i think they're hurting But(..)", nor am I particularly comfortable delving into the topics of religiosity in this context, as you said it is a separate issue, but also because I think it's a road to nowhere for two people who are not jewish, and presumably not muslim, to weigh in on. However I want to thank you for bringing up the contents of their blog, and their habitual conflation of zionism with judaism, because if you hadn't, I would not have gone to check, nor been made aware that there actually are more relevant examples of blatent antisemitism on their blog that inform the place in which they wrote the post in question from earlier. Someone who makes that sort of post is not someone I want to engage with or agree blindly with on any level.

I think despite both of our best efforts, this will ultimately still boil down to a case of semantics; we seem to have different understandings of why exactly general comparisons between nazism and zionism have been made, as well as why it persists, and colloquial use of the terminology with regards to what constitutes someone or some entity receiving accusations or a label of specifically nazism over fascism.

My understanding of the greater topic at hand, apart from the OP's post--which as established, has a bias attached to it that renders it in need of criticism--is that fascism and nazism are not being conflated 1:1 and used interchangably in these instances, nor is the label of nazi being thrown around to punish or weed out "bad jews", as you imply. (As an aside, I honestly am quite wary of bringing up that sort of terminology here when we are talking about an ethnostate abusing judaism to justify its end goals; I'm unsure it's situationally appropriate to liken this to practices of tokenism, and I can see it being read a bit too closely to the common talking point that zionism being criticised is inherently antisemitic, due to misconstruing the point and insisting that it's not the colonial violence, establishment of an ethnostate, racism, apartheid, genocide, etc, that's wrong, but that it's a jewish state doing it that people simply don't like, which is not something I wish to impart, nor do I think that was your intention for that matter, but I do not feel comfortable posting this while not offering a disclaimer.) Rather, it is the label being applied to a geopolitical entity that has adopted ideals, apart from "just" textbook fascism, that are also inherent to those of the broader nazi ideology, specifically--such as but not limited to the topics and practices I previoisly mentioned in the last reply--and also the way in which the israeli occupation upholds ideals of racial superiority, white supremacy in particular. It's nowhere "just" the weaponisation of forced starvation where the similarities lie. If you were to hear someone call a group of people "human animals", or paint themselves as "the children of light" and their targets "the children of dark", for example, it would be reasonable to immediately label this nazi rhetoric, regardless of who is saying it, because things exactly like this were and still are said by those who are nazis. By extension, if you were to see an ethnostate practice and enforce eugenics, such as forcing ethiopian jewish women to take contraceptives against their knowledge as a condition of being allowed into israel, or the marriage laws that exist within israeli society barring jews from marrying non-jews, and argue ethnic superiority, it would be kind of wild to choose to die on the hill of insisting that people not liken that to nazi ideology. Not all fascism is automatically nazism, but if something mirrors nazism specifically, this closely, there are going to be people calling it that, because that's what it looks like and that's what it operates like. I do not believe it is any coincidence either that those who aren't jewish and are on the alt-right very often wind up being outspoken zionists, even in cases where those same people are also outspoken antisemites and even self identify as nazis, neo-nazis, or white supremacists. The ideologies ironically do not conflict like they seem they should, and I firmly push back against the insinuation that pointing this out is feeding into the israeli propaganda that says all jews are only safe as fellow colonisers in an occupied palestine, especially when zionists target non-zionist jews with particular ferocity.

Ultimately, I'm unsure if either of us, as not just one, but two gentiles, are actually in an acceptable position to debate the broader appropriateness of this matter definitively, and how it pertains to the language that we use. But I do think it's remarkably important to pay mind to who we share words from, and how those words may come across, and exercise due caution to avoid missteps.

Among the people whos stances and words have informed my understanding of matters as detailed above, I have seen a remarkable amount of jews themselves liken zionism--and the methods of genocide the israeli occupation implements--to nazis, nazism, and the holocaust, calling to attention their own familial trauma and experiences while doing so, as well as detailing the massive slap in the face it is to all jews for the israeli occupation to weaponise judaism while committing acts of such incredible depravity, especially in cases where defenders of and active participants in zionist violence continue to say "never again". But this very well could be one of those things where it's okay for some people to say, and not others-- and as in cases like the OP of that post, there is a clear problem with someone saying that while also partaking in blatant antisemitism. I'm not sure, as it's not something that everyone most affected are likely to agree on collectively, but I don't think that everyone who makes these comparisons is inherently operating in bad taste, have intentions of malice, or are throwing around words carelessly. I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not out here saying "well I'M going to be saying it, because if they did it then it's ok for me to" or anything of the sort-- because I'm not, and I don't feel it'd be an appropriate response reflective of our conversation's goals. With such an issue, I think it's important to recognise as much nuance as possible, while also treading as carefully as possible, in any given situation, and to carefully examine sources for potential prejudice that alter the overall message being conveyed and the wording used, which are all things that drastically changed the perception of the initial OP's post, and I do want to stress that I am thankful for you bringing that to my attention

[a-real-ghost]

nobody cares about your racism sob story tbh. just leave black people alone we dont want or need you. if its SOOO hard for you to stop being racist then just leave. like are you expecting us to feel sorry for you or something? what possibly could you offer us thats any of use, really. If you're struggling to do the bare minimum why do you expect black ppl to pat you on the back? cracker.

Okay so -

I didn't say that people made me "go back to being racist" - what was meant by my words was:

When I was starting to work towards becoming better and just beginning to realize that being a racist is a shitty thing, people being hyper-literal with what I said and assuming malice instantly made that process harder. You can't learn if you can't make mistakes.

I am not going to "become a racist again" no more than I am going to become a baby again. It was a part of my life, I outgrew it. I'm not going to start shitting my pants again just because somebody was unkind on the internet.

(The metaphor is obviously imperfect, because I am actively still unlearning harmful behaviors and patterns in my life - not going to try and pretend otherwise)

Now, I could have phrased that better initially. And given that my post was in response to a person acting in bad faith, I should have. I don't particularly care if people like me or find me agreeable but I won't have people misrepresenting me or my beliefs. If you're going to hate me, hate me for who I am - don't take the easy way out and make shit up.

I appreciate your comment, and will do my best to be more clear about my stances in the future.

That being said, to be as blunt as possible about things:

Racism is bad. Racists are bad.

Cops are bad.

Cops uphold the white supremacist standard in this country and serve at the whims of the wealthy and powerful to silence dissension.

Nazis are bad. Fascists are bad.

Racism is Violence.

Destruction of property during protests is not violence.

Assaulting protestors is violence.

Nazis, Facists, and white supremacists committ violence by existing - any violence against them is self defense and justified.

All humans are capable of change and growth if they choose to do so.

If someone chooses to harm others, they deserve to be harmed in return.

Encouraging suicide is bad and cowardly - if you want to send a death threat just send a death threat

Assuming people's intentions is bad.

Reading in between the lines to make yourself a victim is bad.

Intentionally misinterpreting someone is bad.

Ignorance is not inherently malicious.

Just because somebody is mean, rude, stupid, or impolite does not inherently mean they are being racist.

If people have to be perfect and address every aspect of a topic completely and without flaw in order to be an ally to whichever cause/group/creed - nobody is ever going to fit that definition.

If you criticize people who try to answer things with nuance and precision for writing too much, and at the same time you criticize them for being occasionally imprecise or not mentioning things - you are a hypocrite.

If you define anybody who is not a perfect ally as an enemy, you are wasting your energy that could be spent helping people or going after the folks actually responsible.

Not all of the things I have listed are bad to the same extent - the world is not as simple as "this is all good" and "that is all bad". Nothing exists on a binary, it's more complicated than that.

Not all of the things I have listed are a response to anything you have said.

Do not assume anything about me that I have not explictly stated.

If I make a mistake, I am happy to do the work to learn, grow, and do better in the future - but I cannot learn from a mistake I am not aware of.

If I ask a question about a mistake that I made, I am not attempting to justify what I did. I am trying to learn what I did wrong, how it was wrong, and how to do better.

Nobody is obligated to tell anyone that what they did wrong, how it was wrong, or how to do better.

People of all races, nationalities, sexualities, political orientations, etc, are capable of being wrong, making mistakes, and hurting people.

[veale2006-blog]

Democrats, if you’re wondering why America voted for Trump, allow me to explain:

The truth is, the American People are sick of your shit.

You ruined our nation and our culture. You openly mocked, belittled, and discriminated us, then called us racist, misogynist, Nazis when we started noticing.

You defiled and corrupted all of our great institutions, to include the media, social media, tech, academia, intelligence, health, pharma, Hollywood, entertainment, sports, EVERYTHING! You weaponized every aspect of American life, and used it to push your insane far-Left agenda down our throats.

You told us Trump was a Russian asset that was going to start WW3 and would be worse than Hitler. Then you used that as an excuse to justify hatred towards Trump supporters and to riot in the streets. You used it as an excuse to obstruct and ruin Trump’s entire first term, and it turned out it was all a lie.

Then during Covid, you demanded we all be forced to take medical experimentation without testing. You wanted dissenters locked in prison. You wanted children taken from their anti-vax parents. You wanted the anti-vax in camps. You were rooting for our deaths. Then it turned out you were wrong about everything from the man-made origin, to masks, to vaccines, to social distancing, to ivermectin, to HCQ, to natural immunity, and everything in between.

Then during Ukraine, you told us that Ukraine was a bastion of Democracy, and that they desperately needed all of our tax dollars. Then it turned out that Ukraine is one of the most corrupt nations in the world, with literal Nazi military forces, and it was actually just a money laundering operation to steal from the American taxpayer. You want to defend Ukraine’s borders more than our own. You sent hundreds of billions of dollars on the other side of the planet, while Americans are suffering, all based on more lies.

Then there’s the whole Epstein, Diddy, human-trafficking element. You all told us VEHEMENTLY that human-trafficking was a myth, you told us the border was secure, and you told us that anyone who questioned it was an irredeemable conspiracy theorist. You said anyone who watched “Sound of Freedom” was a QAnon extremist and threat to democracy. Then it turned out to be true, and the elites really are engaged in unspeakable crimes against children. After you all told us for decades this was not true. You covered up the most heinous crimes imaginable, for political gain.

I could do this for days, but I think you get the point. The American People are awake to the scam and the true evil going on around us, and we are not going to stand for it anymore. So we hired Donald Trump and his team of Patriots to rectify the situation, and bring America back to her greatness.

This is the reality of the situation. You are the bad guys, and you have been deceived. The sooner you wake up to it, the sooner you can join us in repairing this nation. Or you can choose to deny reality, and spend the rest of your lives consumed by hate, based on lies.

The choice is yours.