#love how they spread misinformation on the interent

[closed--meadow]

Okay guys, hear me out-

[notsogreatpotoo]

hopefully i don’t word this wrong, love y’all

1, he literally does steal stuff in the movie. that’s how he got the ingredients for the diy inter-dimensional travel watch.

2, go steal from a big exploitative company, i beg of you, then tell me that wasn’t the punkest fucking shit. (also, not morally wrong. eat the rich before they eat you.)

3, it would be racism if it was framed narratively that Hobie steals things because he’s black. it’s not framed like that, it’s framed that he steals things as a fuck you to the Spider Society.

4, it would also be racism if Hobie was the only black character and stole things. sure, his character traits justify it, but if your only representation of a group (especially one that has been systematically and historically persecuted, underrepresented, and made into caricatures rather than characters) is reinforcing a negative and harmful stereotype, it doesn’t matter how much justification you cram in to explain it. but Hobie isn’t the only black character, and other black characters are also multidimensional characters that have complex personalities and are not him copy-pasted slightly to the side.

5, there’s this one post i’ve seen about how it’s racist to assume that Miles shoplifts that I really like. why is that different, you ask? because shoplifting (and theft in general) doesn’t fit with Miles’s character. graffiti is his form of expression and leaving his mark on the world, which does not equate to him stealing, because though it might seem like a similar thing, the motivation is different. also, Miles is still very trusting in the law, despite being a vigilante. his dad’s a fucking cop, and a lot of his perspective is filtered through that lens of copaganda. this is just one example, but you see the huge difference between Hobie and Miles and how that affects their individual choices? yeah, that’s called good and distinctive character development, not racism.

6, it’s also okay to dislike stereotypes being perpetuated for any reason, even if it fits with the character and the narrative being constructed in a way that isn’t racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-Semitic, etc. for example, i always hated the ´feisty/otherworldly and strange’ (usually women) or ‘awkward/undateable’ (usually men) stereotypes that i would see most ginger characters being shoved into. even seeing other ginger characters that weren’t like this (which was rare lol) didn’t help because i had red hair and i didn’t like the comparison. i never liked Napoleon Dynamite, partially for this reason. do i understand that it makes sense that a movie trying to capture a specific, authentically awkward teenage experience is going to have an awkward main character? yes. is it okay that this movie decided to characterize him like this? yes. do i like it? no. but i don’t have to. i have a ginger friend who loves that movie, because ultimately, different people identify with different representation. ultimately, you are free to dislike it, but that doesn’t mean the people who like it and the people who created it are in the wrong. you probably think you’re usually in the right, but there also aren’t always sides.

7, don’t feel bad if you thought the original take (the assumption that Hobie steals is racist) was correct. we’re all learning about how best to respect each other and grow an accepting, intelligent, and informed perspective. if i said anything wrong here, please let me know so i can learn too!!!

8, fuck racism, and fuck people who purposefully spread misinformation and ignore the voices of those affected so they can tell you what is ‘actually’ problematic, which often further isolates and alienates people.

TL;DR: good post op, sorry for stealing it to make my own

anyway I saw the lukewarm take that it's racist to assume Hobie steals things and I appreciate the abundance of caution there but. tell me you've never met a punk without telling me you've never met a punk lmao.

[cisarovna]

Hi lovely. Sorry do you reckon you could explain the Eric Dier saga from today please? I don’t have Insta. Thank you 🙏

Over the past few days there has been a lot of drama related to Spotify. A number of musicians are removing their music from Spotify as they oppose how Spotify have handled Joe Rogan’s podcast which is exclusively on their platform. This podcast is known for being misogynistic, transphobic, anti-vaccine and has spread a lot of lies about COVID and hosted conspiracy theorists. Spotify paid a lot of money (I think $100 million) to have Rogan exclusive to their service, and now the musicians are opposed to doing business with Spotify, helping to pay for Joe Rogan’s platform. Because of this many people have cancelled their Spotify subscriptions and the Spotify share price has plummeted which has prompted Spotify to make statements about changes they would make to counter misinformation spread about COVID on their service. Joe Rogan has made his own announcement about how he will handle things going forward (probably out of obligation or to keep sponsors happy, ie for money). This was in a video on Instagram that Dier shared on his stories.

In the video, among many things, Rogan said that information about COVID has changed over time, and that what was one considered fact is now considered false information. One example he provided was that, according to Rogan, vaccines were originally guaranteed to prevent people from getting covid. He went on to say that anyone who suggested you could still get covid even if you were vaccinated would be censored. The problem is that is untrue. It was never promised by the medical establishment that the vaccine would prevent you from getting covid. And no one would have been censored for saying you could get covid even if you were vaccinated. This is a lie by Rogan to draw a false parallel between the natural evolution of our understanding of the virus and the Iies he is disseminating. He is trying to normalise his willingness to spread dangerous lies to get attention, which translates to more money. (To be fair there were more lies on this video from Rogan but I can’t bring myself to continue on. I believe there is a transcript someone on the inter webs).

Eric Dier’s role was in sharing that video on his Instagram page. Because that video has lies in it, he has used his platform to spread those lies. He is a public figure and founder of a public company, and he has chosen to use his platform to spread lies.

I think I have made my views on this action clear, but basically I decline to continue to fuck with this kind of shit.

[velvet-jellyfish]

How to make it through the next war with your mental health intact in 10 easy steps:

1. Pick a side. It doesn’t matter which, only that you choose one and commit to it. People often choose based on emotional connection, where they or their family live. But you can also choose based on your ideology and moral compass. If so, choose the side you believe has suffered the most so that their violence will be justified. What is important is that you feel confident in your choice, since changing it later is very hard.

2. Choose your news sources carefully. Rely only on news channels from your side. This will give you a coherent narrative through which to process your experience of the war, and help you formulate informed opinions. Avoid sources associated with the other side, as these will only confuse you.

3. Trust your feelings. War brings up a lot of difficult feelings, such as anger, fear, worry, and grief. While these feelings may be uncomfortable, they are a message from your body trying to keep you safe so it is important to trust your gut. If you feel scared of certain people, that is because they are dangerous. If foreign criticism makes you feel hurt and angry, that’s because those people are wrong. The people who threatened you and killed your family all deserve to die.

4. Protect your sense of self. Attack anyone who makes you feel small, ridicule anyone who makes you doubt. Remember that only you understand the true complexity of the situation, and any other opinion is wrong. You need to be careful. Other people can easily confuse you and make you doubt yourself and your morals. It is important to defend yourself against this violation of your personal integrity.

5. Stand up for yourself. There are many people in your life and on the internet who will spread misinformation, make unfair accusations, and deny your right to exist. It is your right and responsibility to stand up for yourself. Argue with them, correct misinformation, and make your voice heard. It is important to educate people on this topic, and to exert your influence over the only space that you can control.

6. Remember that the enemy brought this on themselves. If you start feeling guilty, or doubting whether your side is in the right, remember that you are only reacting out of necessity to defend yourselves. If the other side would only stop oppressing you, no one would have to get hurt and this would all be over.

7. Use humor. Black humor is a tried and true coping mechanism even in the most horrific situation. This is a healthy way of processing your feelings, and will help you connect to the people who share your experiences.

8. Find a support system. In this difficult time, it is important to reach out to those closest to you. Find the family and friends who love you, agree with you, and affirm you, and let them be your anchor. Remember that you are not alone, you are all in this together.

9. Be careful of empathy. War is a difficult time. You may find yourself experiencing empathy for those suffering on the other side, or even understanding of their motivations. You may even begin to feel like they have some valid points. These feelings are natural and commendable, but in the long term they lead to inner conflict. For the sake of your own well being it is important to accept these feelings, thank them, and let them go.

10. Search for that feeling of belonging. There is something inside you that is desperate to connect, that longs to be a part of something bigger. War is a difficult time, but it can nurture and strengthen this beautiful part of you. If you follow these steps, you can emerge from the war feeling a deep connection to your country, your culture, and your family. Allow yourself to be inspired by the courage and resilience of your side, to be proud of your accomplishments. The stories you grew up with are all the true, and if you embrace them and rely on them to guide you, you can find the place in the world where you truly belong.

...

About the author: VelvetJellyfish has an extensive background in war as a civilian, soldier, and holder of inter generational trauma. In the past few years, they have been specializing in experiencing war as a concerned expatriate. While they give good advice to others, they often fail to follow it themselves.

[militant-holy-knight]

On a 500-acre campus in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Middle East scholar Raymond Ibrahim was finally allowed to give his speech before a packed, mostly civilian audience at the U.S. Army War College's Heritage and Education Center. Based on his book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War Between Islam and the West, Ibrahim covered the 7th-century origins of Islam, its conflict with Christianity during the hundreds of years that followed, and revisionist attempts to deny Islam's history of violent warfare and supremacism.

Ibrahim, a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow with the Middle East Forum, was on the receiving end of such an attempt in June 2019, when the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Islamists convinced the U.S. Army War College to disinvite Ibrahim from his original appearance, fallaciously accusing the son of Egyptian immigrants of being a "bigot" and "white nationalist."

However, Ibrahim wasn't alone. In its press release, CAIR ridiculed the War College as "an academic institution run on taxpayer funds" that was "poised to exacerbate longstanding problems such as racism and human rights violations that exist within the US military."

Ibrahim explained that CAIR is "well aware how important it is to dominate the historic narrative." He pointed to his reliance on primary source material and actual quotes from jihadist and Islamists to support his view that there is "a continuity between past and present; Muslim religious leaders and jihadists see Christianity as both antithetical to the Islamic world and inherently ripe for conquest or conversion."

It took a letter signed by ten congressmen to Army War College commandant Major General John S. Kem, as well as a National Association of Scholars letter to President Trump that included 5,000 signatories, to convince Army leaders to reinstate Ibrahim's invitation.

When CAIR learned that Ibrahim was set to return to the Carlisle campus, it responded by once again suggesting that the Army War College suffers from an "internal problem with white supremacists and white nationalists within its ranks," while claiming that Ibrahim's talk would "instigate hatred against Muslims."

Undeterred by his Islamist critics, Ibrahim began his presentation by saying that "since 9/11," it has "become popular" for media and academia to whitewash the Koran's objectionable passages. "They say Mohammad may have done bad things, but so did King David and Abraham," he said. The difference, Ibrahim noted, is that the Torah acknowledges the wayward path of these leaders and advises against following them, unlike the Koran.

For argument's sake, Ibrahim offered to "put aside what the Koran says" and "see what Islamists have done." Beginning with the Islamic conquests of the Middle East and North Africa, Ibrahim argued that Islamists' consistent goal has been Western submission to Islamic supremacy. This region, which is identified today as Muslim-majority, was home to more Christians than Europe in the 7th century. What remained after the Arab Muslim invasion became "the West." Ibrahim quoted historian Franco Cardini, who wrote, "Repeated Muslim aggression against Europe in the 7th and 8th centuries and again in the 14th and 18th centuries was a violent midwife to Europe."

Ibrahim referred to the late historian of Islam Bernard Lewis, who said, "We forget that for a thousand years since the advent of Islam from the 7th century to the siege of Vienna in 1683 Christian Europe was under constant threat from Islam, the double threat of conquest and conversion violently wrested from Christendom." Ibrahim noted that modern historians often fail to acknowledge this simple truth.

He argued that Mohammad's guidance to spread Islam was the motivation behind the Islamic conquests. The only way peace could be achieved was through acceptance of Islam by conversion, enslavement, or paying the jizya — an enormous annual tribute that the caliphate levied on non-Muslims.

Short of these options, a non-believer's only recourse was to fight to the death. Ibrahim quoted what Islamist conqueror Khalid bin Walid said to a Byzantine general before the Battle of Yarmuk in 636 C.E.: "We Arabs are in the habit of drinking blood and we are told the Romans are the sweetest of its kind. Where you love life, we love death."

Unlike modern historians who identify the various inter-civilizational wars of this age as ethnic and nationalistic, Ibrahim emphasized that the primary sources clearly show that these ongoing battles were manifestations of jihad, inspired by Koranic scripture. He called this tendency "a historic fact that modern day historians censor."

Ibrahim showed that modern jihadists "belonging to groups such as ISIS are well-versed in Islamic historic military jurisprudence" and the Koran and point to historical precedents to justify their violence and brutality.

At the fall of Constantinople, Sultan Mehmed II motivated his jihadists with the same instructions invoked by modern-day ISIS: "Recall the promise of our Prophet regarding fallen warriors in the Koran; the man who falls in combat will be transported bodily to Paradise [and] will dine with Mohammed in the presence of women."

Next, Ibrahim recounted the American experience with the Islamic Barbary pirates in 1785 and 1786 that attacked U.S. merchant ships and enslaved American sailors. In an effort to ransom the slaves, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams entered negotiations with Abdul Rahman, Tripoli's ambassador to Britain. The American diplomats futilely explained that they "had done them no injury" and "consider all mankind our friends."

Abdul answered that "it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, written in the Koran that all nations not acknowledging their authority were sinners, that it is their religious right and duty to make slaves of non-believers, and all Muslims slain in battle were sure to go to paradise." America's conflict with Islam did not begin on 9/11. Rather, it dates back to the time of America's Founders.

To underscore this message, Ibrahim cited Theodore Roosevelt's 1916 book, Fear God and Take Your Part, where the former president pointed out, "If the peoples of Europe in the 7th and 8th centuries, and on up to and including the 17th century, had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated."

The great English statesman Winston Churchill also criticized Islam for institutionalizing slavery. "The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman is the absolute property — either as a child, a wife, or a concubine — must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."

Ibrahim rhetorically asked, if the violent history of Islam is so well documented, "so ironclad," then "why don't we know about it?" Older historians who studied Islam unprejudiced by political correctness reached conclusions that no longer comport with what the public is told. Conversely, modern historians get away with academic malpractice by reducing previous Islamic studies scholarship to outdated myths.

This is all part and parcel of what Ibrahim referred to as "propaganda as a form of jihad," misinformation of which academics and groups such as CAIR are the most vociferous defenders.

Meanwhile, CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the nation's largest terrorism finance trial and an accused Hamas-supporter, engaged in "propaganda jihad "by working to suppress Ibrahim's historical review, a practice consistent with Islamist suppression of different religious beliefs.

In the end, Ibrahim gave Army service members and the community a coherent and fact-driven presentation of Islamic history that everyone in America should hear, one that dispels the many false, politically correct notions about the nature of Islam. It lays bare the inconvenient truth that Islamic ideology is what motivates Muslim jihadists to perpetrate acts of terrorism against non-believers, both domestically and abroad.

[elizabethrobertajones]

I'm so sorry that you are getting all this wank. It's unfair for people to be hating on you and other meta writers just because their opinions doesn't match yours

Thank you

And yeah, they just have jumped ship so hard from enjoying the show and from wanting Cas to have anything to do with it any more that they’re curling defensively around him and seeing pretty much everything, fandom, show, whatever, as an attack on Cas or people not loving him enough because they’re not AS hurt on his behalf because they’re not displaying various defensive behaviours about him as well. 

I can talk quite cheerfully about Cas dying because I have confidence that the show loves Cas (they were all up his ass in season 12, I mean, seriously, trying to imagine how people who hated Cas felt about a THIRD Cas-centric episode on the go was making me giggle in glee, so these feelings just do not compute to me :P) so I don’t feel like anything happening with Cas’s death was meant as an insult to Cas fans or disrespectful to his character. I’m really looking forward to what putting him centre stage again next season while he bravely explores the Empty for us or whatever will look like. And because I am a Cas fan as much as a Destiel fan, I’m not bummed out he’ll be separated from Dean for this period; Cas being on his own means he’s having a self-sustaining storyline which is AWESOME for a Cas fan because it means they’re letting him do stuff for his own sake. Killing him off was an excellent idea because the way he comes back is going to be deeply personal and Cas-focused and on the other hand back on earth everyone’s gonna be eulogising him and I’ll get my shipper hit that way of Dean being all Dean about dead Cas :P

So the idea that we’re not caring about Cas because we’re happy with him being dead is totally bizarre to me, unless you understand that people who feel this way are SO protective of Cas, probably because of times he was mistreated by the narrative, that they’re going to see any “it’s literally so much better for the Cas fan these days guys” posts as over-optimistic and not understanding how much the show shits on Cas. I’ve not thought the show was shitting on Cas from the beginning of Carver era, but I can see it loves him even better now.

I can also see that I could have had this wank with Sam or Dean fans, depending on who got riled up by whatever I said. It just so happens that those fans keep their own company for the most part, but Cas fans often rely on Destiel fans for their wider fandom needs and just hope they aren’t shitty towards Cas, except they go in with their hackles up, and read stuff they don’t understand because they’re EXPECTING the worst, and tada, misunderstanding that suddenly ends up on my dash where I’m the villain of the year for hating Cas and spreading lies and misinformation.

So idk if it was HATE per say towards me, rather like complete and utter misunderstanding because of their own issues towards ANYTHING other than me and the things I say, but they just take my posts as being symptomatic of something completely opposite to what I believe - aka that Cas is amazing and I love him and I’m so proud of him right now and seeing how his story goes from here is going to be so good - and taking that last part as a sign that I ascribe to The Evils Of The Show That Hates Cas and therefore everything I say and do is wrong because I’m not condemning them completely for their choices or something. 

(I mean the other misconception is that meta writers are uniformly positive instead of the fact we’ve pretty much all spent the last season groaning in horror about main plotline nonsense, especially where it’s all handed to Buckleming for FIVE episodes, which they bungle pretty dramatically in their own special ways each time >.> Like, trust me, the fact a bunch of us are still hype about season 13 does not mean we didn’t find parts of season 12 completely shitty, wrote about it at length, and are holding on for different reasons - like, for example, that the character focus was excellent, the MotW from the new kids were pretty much all amazing, and since character investment usually carries us twice as far as plot stuff on a GOOD day, those of us who gelled with the character stuff in season 12 are feeling pretty positive that THAT side of things will be good enough again to watch the season and carry on rooting for our favourites.)

Anyway inter-fandom bitchiness sucks, but it’s a new sunny day, so I’m much less pissed off to be in the middle of that witch hunt out of the blue, and much more forgiving of the fact that these people have just been hurt so badly by the show in the past that they are completely out of fucks to give and unfortunately are just passing on the hurt now by starting ridiculously defensive witch hunts, where they see Cas and Cas fans as utterly victimised, because other people, even ones who claim to love Cas, won’t talk about him like they want, which is as far as I can tell, standing in front of him threatening to shiv any supernatural writers who come close.