#one of them is a literal fascist why are you saying hes right and proves an interesting moral dilemma meaning bitchass cuntface does too

[technicolorxsn]

oh what the fuck is wrong with this dude

[katyspersonal]

Oh boy, more asks..

These are some... strong words, but you are not exactly wrong about it! It is hard to grapple with. Where exactly "We should respect many things being open to interpretation in Elden Ring" stops and "You people did not play the same game tho" starts? You are not wrong about it at least being 'boring'. What use would be the story through this reading? Obviously, the tragedy of cycle of revenge and becoming the very thing you promised to destroy is a story with more importance and depth than..... than..... uuuuugghHHHH

.....ok sorry I might have overreacted. BUT, I have my limits. What if I told you that trying to uplift the weight of the genocide by either dehumanising the species or finding an 'unavoidable reason' to do it is extremely poor taste. What then.

I suppose that a deeper reasoning here is how normal it became to see fandomry as moral act. The girls go into new interests and see stuff like 'war criminal', 'murderer', 'sex offender', 'committed/complicit in a genocide', 'abuser', 'fascist' etc etc as an obligation to hate the character! From which follows both desperately trying to prove that something is inherently wrong with fans of this character AND feeling in danger if THEY like this character! So what follows? Right, character should be "protected" from "slander"! A kind of behavior that does NOT belong in Fromsoft fandoms, but literally every other fandom IS like this so I am not surprised if people carry this disease here from their previous interests! I can't even judge it because in many cases people did have a reason to be worried about harassment because fandom inquisition would treat their morally grey or black fictional favs as testimony of their beliefs!

Again, maybe I am reading too deep into it? I am just really old, therefore I saw the fandoms as we know them these day at their birth. How that behaviour happened and how it developed. Yes, personal preferences and simply not wishing your fav to be hated are big factors when such things happen!

But I think we NEED to try and think what the writer tried to tell us! What IS the purpose of telling the story where the survivor of something unspeakable returns a long time later to wage a "war with no grace or honor" that gets countless innocent people killed? Would Miyazaki write a story that excuses fascism and genocide?

Nonetheless, so many people just not really think through this lense: why would author write this? A genius writer with multiple masterpieces under his belt before Elden Ring, consistently criticising all the ways society and humanity can go corrupted or monstrous? Would he focus on how wrong the Crusade was just to make Marika and Messmer good guys here, or focus on how cruelly Marika treated the last Fire Giant, after a war with 'Fire of Ruin that could burn the Erdtree' for you all to say she had good intentions in it? 'Death of the author' should have always stayed just a narrative method, as opposed to fandoms deciding to miss the point for the whole past decade!

...And the most frustrating part is that they'll treat those who simply demand more lore accurate reading of the story and characters, without even any moral weight to it, as "omnipresent problem", when going anywhere near Youtube, Reddit and Twitter attempting to avoid Marika defence is like that scene from animated Snowwhite and Seven Dwarves where heroine ran through the dark woods and something horrid would show up no matter where she pokes her nose!

But, look, anon, you are doing That Thing. You are upset at the way some DLC reveals had changed the things in the fandom, when it is not the fault of the DLC. Even before SOTE, there was the whole infight about 'wow Marika is like Gwyn but somehow more evil' vs 'she is just a puppet of Greater Will that wants to rebel'. Such complex characters just tend to attract falling into one extreme or another! One side, likewise, was saying that she was unfairly vilified even when criticism was valid, another was snapping at them saying they woobified her-

Again: just because we as a fandom are not ready for the concept of 'tragic backstory makes a character more realistic than someone bad just because they're bad' does not mean that writers should not make stories like this! I know I am one hell of a misanthrope that can't care less about the "community", but I think somewhere deep down, even I believe we could be better and help each other to improve! People who decided that character is just bad without sympathetic traits and will side-eye anyone who says otherwise are a HUUUUUGE pain, but so can be people who take any criticism as a personal attack!

_________________________

(The post in question: ( x ))

Eh, I am glad that you liked my analysis, anon; It is strangely a second instance ever since SOTE came out where I get anon approvals over "actually analysing lore for what it is instead of using popular headcanon or theory" (first was about Nanaya)! I do not check fandom beyond what ends up on my feed, just never had that habit, but are things actually this drastic?

Regarding your confusion, I think it became widespread because a very popular artist started to draw/write a lot of this fanon? Personally, I absolutely dread when it happens in the fandoms; when it is not a singular popular person on Twitter OR Youtube, it is a group of "cool kids" on some community Discord or whatever, but the resulting hegemony of the same takes/designs/ships/preferences/etc is always there! Don't get me wrong, I am a boring unimaginative autist whose only talent is over-analysing a videogame, HOWEVER. In the places where canon goes vague and one should apply their own creativity, I'd rather see variety of interpretations! Not something that can be helped: most fans, especially the new ones, will adopt popular takes without scrutiny in order to socialise faster and be noticed. It is a self-feeding cycle that you can only escape when you block out all fandom influence and try to look by yourself!

And, well, I guess this is what I do? I try to make sure I don't have any biases besides 'what makes more sense', 'what works better', 'what has more evidence' and 'what author most likely implied'! I guess this is how I ended with "acknowledging the actual relationship" as you've put it! 'Knowing' is a very loud word for Fromsoft lore, yet these games give you limited amount of ingredients and despite there not being a recipe, you would still not try to cook a cake seeing ingredients clearly meant for a soup! Or is it for salad? Or lasagna...? Well, it is not for something sweet, right?

[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.

[super-hero-confessions]

Love when Loki stans act like religious nuts giving a pass to Catholic pedo priests because "well not all of them are pedos!!1!1".

Great. Nobody said they were, just like nobody said that all Loki stans are nut jobs giving him a free pass because he's a pretty white boi. Claiming that's what's being said is not helpful to the conversation that people are actually trying to open.

That being that Loki can and does often get a free pass for the sole reason of being pretty and white from many many of his stans.

Not you? Then why are you acting like you've been personally called out and making strawmans to justify liking him? Nobody cares about why you personally feel the need to defend Loki on behalf of the bad actors in fandom who are being called out.

Just acknowledge the fact and move on morons. It's not hard to admit or understand that Loki has both tragic history and does awful things with a slap on the wrist from white supremacists and people who want to fuck him.

Two things can be true at the same time and not be mutually exclusive. Loki is a bigot that called the human race fucking ants and saw them as beneath him, planning to step on them. He's also a genocidal maniac with daddy issues.

He's also a grown ass man responsible for his own fucking choices. Nobody, and I mean nobody tried to get him to destroy Jotunheim. Everybody, and I mean everybody, tried to stop him.

He's also suffered a great deal due to personal hang ups and not quite fitting in from not being made aware of his adoptee status. I get it, that's relatable?? Still not an excuse to be genocidal space Hitler for blue people and a bit of an overreaction from a literal prince for space gods but oh well.

Loki can be both a villain and a victim and canonically is both. That's the point. He also has plenty of stans and antis that will only acknowledge one or the other. That's the point. And he definitely has stans that only care about how hot or white he is and will say anything to justify his unjustifiable actions. That's the point.

Not you? Then why the fuck are you offended when you know those people exist? Your denial of them only proves the point and lumps you in with those bad stans.

Because you're going out of your way to defend those bad stans, not Loki, instead of calling them out to make the Loki fandom better and less toxic.

The Loki fandom has been successfully converted into a perfect hiding place for real racists, bigots, white supremacists, fascists, victim blamers and the like who wanna skirt on by being genuinely hostile towards valid criticism and nuance, just like the Catholic church.

Congratulations. You played yourselves. Enjoy the literal Nazis that may be standing right next to you.

[beperoncin]

im so mad at myself. is it even my turn to vent yet probably not but fuck the rules baby

uh. tw for me yapping about suicide and general queerphobia and bullying and shit

i keep fucking staying up until 5 am on my phone because im scared of sleeping because i might have nightmares about otherwise trivial things that irritate me because im a stupid self centered bitch whos so scared of a little bit of hate because apparently its almost like that person wants to kill me.

and staying up on my phone isn't even the thing im worried about here its the fact that im mostly on tumblr. because its the only place i feel safe. and what if my mom finds it through the apps i spend the most time on and looks at my blog and sees that i dont strictly use she/her pronouns and supports palestine and supports all queer identities and actually does kill me. or at least does something that leads to me. you know. committing chapter 8 my life ends here.

and also the fact that i stay up all night and go to sleep until 1 pm. i feel so disgusting and lazy depression probably doesnt even excuse it atp im probably just looking for comfort since nobody else can give it to me i mean others have it far worse than i do lol

and Him. dont fucking forget about Him. i had a fucking nightmare about him touching me. not even in anywhere intimate just on my head. just the idea of him making any form of physical contact with me is fucking repulsive. im absolutely terrified to go back to school because what if hes planning things to do to hurt me. what if he has more friends to harm me. what if he hurts Her because Shes one of the only people who trusts me. he didnt even do that much he just made me extremely uncomfortable

literally the only four things keeping me from killing myself are my online friends and the spicy cookies from the hit korean mobile game franchise known as cookie run (specifically only peperoncino and habanero and capsaicin and the other scovillia cookies but my prove is still pointen) and the haha funny wario game released for the nintendo wii on july 24 2008 and the one girl from my school i have an extremely obsessive crush on and if she Finds Out™ then 3/4 of those things (or all 4 if she's sick enough to keep me out of school to "protect me further from the gay agenda") are gonna be taken away from me and. quick question to my mom. do you want a dead child? no? then get your shit together and stop making baseless threats against me for having human decency.

"why do you hide everything from me????????? 🥺🥺🥺" well if you never made those threats to me because i reacted in an almost justified way when you were being hateful about trans people i would have felt more comfortable telling you things. and dont even try and say "but i support the gays too!!!!!!! but not the mutilation psychos!!!!!!" youd probably tell someone to stop shoving it in their faces if you saw even a little tiny lesbian flag pin on their jacket. and stop using psycho for every person you ever so slightly have beef with. its getting annoying and not everyone who thinks trans people should have basic rights has a psychotic disorder. thank you <3

i wouldve been more hopeful about everything if my parents didnt have fucking fox news on every evening and not one not two but THREE FUCKING PRO TRUMP SHITSTUFF in their front yard. these fuckers never learn. i hope blue wins this year so i can see them wail and bitch about their stupid little fascist orange losing. but again thats just one of the dumb little trivial things that frustrate me beyond my limits. i find it funny how i pretend im just. not interested in anything political but. does a backflip

my fucking god can someone just fucking euthanize me. wait not even that. just fucking torture me and keep me alive. like do some wild shit. make the devil shiver even more than he would when a nice guy loses his temper.

i know im overreacting. i know im just making shit up like the self centered pile of flesh i am. but im so mad right now im beyond livid i might blast glittertown in my earbuds again to at least dull the rage

[tuttle-did-it]

Americans, I say this with kindness and affection. USA is still a laughing stock. We still are very confused and shocked at what the fuck is going on over there.

The fact that it is still a neck-in-neck race and no one has a clue who will win between (not even close to an exhaustive list) an incredibly

Incompetent, incoherent, unqualified, sadistic

Son of a literal KKK member who

Inherited his wealth and has repeated business failures with several bankruptcies and is a

A convicted felon who repeatedly fails upwards into positions he has neither the skill or intelligence to support

rapist who breaks about sexual assault who overturned women’s rights over their bodies achieved 50 years ago. He is a

leader of a neo-Nazi, fascist cult who promises to be a dictator

Who wants a ‘United Reich’ and a real-life Purge (a Kristallnacht). He

Told his cult members to inject bleach and disinfectants to avoid Covid

determined to destroy the lives of women, queers and people of colour and so much more. He’s an

Ancient old man with obvious dementia incapable of putting together an entire sentence ranting about how much he loves Hannibal Lecter and

An inability to to remember which lie he told 8 minutes ago. He is also a

Climate change denier, doing ensuring he can to sabotage the few protections in place,

Encouraged literal insurrection

And didn’t care that shooting skyrocketed under his power. He

Gives death threats to various people (mostly women) and insists his opponents should be ‘slaughtered’

Invited foreign nations repeatedly to help him defeat his opponents

Invited billionaires to fund him in exchange for ensuring the taxes against them will amount to pennies

Literally stole confidential files and kept them in his fucking bathroom

Oh yeah and he was impeached

Fucking twice

Versus

Am incredibly intelligent

Personable

Qualified

Joyful

Sane

Experienced

Woman of colour who

Has worked hard to reach the position of power she currently has and deserves

But the still has to put up with the vicious racism, sexism and general vitriol for existing

And still tries to help the same horrible people attacking her with financial help and social structures like medical care and access to health care (regardless of gender)

WHY THE FUCK DOES THIS MONSTER EVEN HAVE A CHANCE ONCE LET ALONE TWICE

Listen. America. We want to be in your side here. Honestly!! But the fact that this is such a close race is one of the biggest problems of all.

To many of us, you’re country is still a laughing stock. Not you, personally (unless you’re in the MAGA cult), but your country.

Please, please, please. Prove to us all that you can make a sane choice for your leader. We want to be on your side. We don’t want you to be scared of your country, any more than we want to be scared of it.

Please. Fight on the right side, here. Please. Make the right choice here. Prove to us all that the only laughing stock is the MAGA cult and its leader.

We are going to a New Way Forward

[worstloki]

Okay, this is gettin’ real screwed up here.

I watch a lot of TV. Probably too much. And I’ve seen characters beaten to their knees before, sometimes even with collars. And yeah, there’s usually someone standing over them, and it’s been a woman sometimes. The kind of scene we got in episode 5 of Loki is not new ground.

But here’s the thing. In EVERY OTHER SCENE I can remember like this, the person kneeling is the hero. They’ve been brought down, fully humbled before the sneering villain, and in a few minutes something will happen to get them back on their feet again. It’s usually a tense moment, a “what if they break?” that makes you want the hero to win. You aren’t rooting for, or even liking in some cases, the person standing. You’re cheering for the person on their knees.

This doesn’t seem to be the case with the Loki show. Yes, the viewers may be rooting for Loki, but there’s no hatred for Sif there. She’s not proved herself to be a cold, heartless villain, ruthlessly pounding the hero until all he can do is kneel at her feet.

Except…she did kind of do that. But it isn’t treated as something bad. It’s treated more as something Loki deserved, in my opinion. The show wants us to feel like he deserved to get repeatedly beaten up and told horrible things, just for cutting off a lock of Sif’s hair. I’ll grant, it’s peanuts compared to what happened to him in the mythology. But it’s still bad. Especially since they had him acknowledge it, repeat her cruel words back. They’re playing it off as if Loki is still the villain by himself, and is only good because of other people- Mobius, mostly, but Sif is part of that.

That’s not the way Loki’s character is. In the comics particularly, his biggest arcs are always about reinventing the labels given to him, changing “villain” into something good, something he can use, and doing it by himself. Yes, there’s outside influence, but ultimately Loki is the one who decided to change.

The show is not letting him do that. The show is portraying him as a stubborn jackass who refuses to change until other people show him the light- either with psychological torture presented as therapy, or with beating him up a bunch of times until he gives in. The show and its characters are forcing Loki to become good- they aren’t showing him doing it by himself. He is not becoming one of the good guys, he’s being essentially enslaved by them, and the show is passing it off as somehow all that good influence finally rubbed off on Loki’s cold, villainous heart. That’s why him betraying Mobius was shown as so bad even though Loki barely knew him and had been psychologically tortured by him- Mobius is written as a character who can choose to be good, and Loki is written as a character who must be forced to be good.

And something about an entire show revolving around an independent character being treated as a villain, literally enslaved by the “good guys” (back when the show still wanted us to think the TVA weren’t shady as all hell), beaten to his knees with a collar around his neck until he accepts that he deserves to be alone because he isn’t “good” like everybody else…that doesn’t go down right for me.

The TVA being presented in not just a neutral but often reliable light is something I thought would change once Loki literally called out their propaganda and Sylvie called them fascists, but, for some reason the authoritarian genocidalists are not being presented as a bad thing and it irks me too.

It's especially weird because of the way what Loki claims to have wanted by making choices for people and what Mobius claims the TVA do ARE THE EXACT SAME THINGS, except Loki, until the show, hadn't done that of his own volition and was being tortured during the invasion and is treated terribly for something he didn't even succeed in doing, while the TVA successfully erase events on a mass scale but are presented as having a higher (or at best, - equal) moral ground.

The exact same thing was done in Ragnarok where Loki's "turning point" from a tricksy villainous scoundrel happened because Thor left him frying on the ground and gave him a pep talk filled with lies and general slander about how he could be better - and people see that as good because Thor is framed as a hero, and it's because instead of accepting Loki is a complex character they take what the narrative tells at face value and that is that Loki fights the protagonist(s) so he's bad.

I personally don't like the narrative pushing a character that is canonically an abuse victim and attempted suicide and was tortured right after as someone who needs fixing because he's lusting for power and needs it to gain a sense of control during a retcon which is occurring for the sake of calling him a complete bad guy who needs to change (probably because no actual original character development could be thought of?) after he was just confirmed as queer and colloquially (i assume) called a narcissist because of twisted love.

That he deserves to be alone was presented neutrally as a joke even as he was repeatedly getting beaten to the ground, and then both people he could call friends were removed from his immediate vicinity right after.

Loki isn't being presented as a character that has done a huge mix of good and bad in the movies, he's being presented as an oft incompetent idiot that deserves what he gets because he shouldn't have run away from captors, or he cut Sif's hair, or he killed his mother, or he dared to think he had any importance or could do something good, because the truth is he's an evil lying scourge.

"But maybe," Mobius says, "Maybe he wants to mix it up. Sometimes you get tired of playing the same part. Is that possible? He can change?" And everyone's already forgotten that moments before the mission Mobius said to Loki's face that the TVA has pruned a lot of Loki variants because he's so nice! look! he has hope in him when no one else does! It's also easy to forget the "and hey, if it doesn't work, I'll delete him myself," right after because the guy was smiling through it and the scene is followed by Loki really badly trying to explain the logic of being a trickster who everyone knows is a trickster.

A lot of people payed more attention in Ragnarok than to the other Thor movies so it's not a new retcon and people seem fine with the extremely strange take that 'loki is bad but he can do good sometimes,' because the character is more animated and acts foolish and that's generally more fun for comedy, which is fair for people to prefer imo, people find different things entertaining.

But I do solidly hope the show doesn't go that way though and takes a side with Loki on the narrative stance eventually because I've seen a lot of people who just. miss that the TVA's concept is bad. And those who think they're "reforming" Loki. As if the guy needs anything but a break at this point lmao he only got away from Thanos like 2 days ago please just let him rest for a bit he's a fail villain and it's cringe to have your supposed 1st open queer character get beaten to a pulp by Sif and then put wack sexualizing shots for it too :/

it's like the show itself is trying to sell the angle of "Loki is a villain" and I'm a clown who is still wanting that to be intentional because if it is? It could be amazing and playing with how different parties are framed would be s p e c t a cu l ar and could encourage people to reassess the hero coding in other movies including ones Loki was previously in - but we're reaching the last two episodes and I don't feel like that'll happen.

I feel like even if Loki does reach the end of the show as a transformed person it'll be done leaving the audience with "perhaps you're not so bad after all, Loki," and then also give credit to Mobius or Sylvie or whoever else was involved, simply because as even of yet Loki hasn't taken on a lead role in the show. I'd argue he hasn't really contributed anything worthwhile to plot either. As you've said, he's being shown as someone who needs to change but isn't really motivated to. Aw man they better not make romantic love the reason he wants to change.

[sokkastyles]

I was sent this screenshot by someone telling me that the author of this post was using it as “evidence” that Zuko is selfish and disloyal to the Fire Nation, while Azula is selfless because of her loyalty to the FN, and was asked to answer the question: is Zuko selfish?

And I just have to say that this post is written in phenomenally bad faith, especially if it’s supposed to be proof of Zuko’s supposed selfishness.

So let’s get into it.

Zuko’s quest to capture the Avatar is certainly selfish, because his motives are based around what he thinks it will gain him (his father’s acceptance), but hardly for the reason this person seems to think it is.

As Katara says to him in Ba Sing Se, the fact that Zuko is willing to destroy the world’s last hope for peace if it means he achieves his goal is selfish, but pitting him against the Fire Nation “cause” hardly proves Zuko selfish, since destroying the world for its own gain is literally the Fire Nation’s goal.

That’s the first point that needs to be made. Loyalty to a regime that is built on selfishness and hate cannot be said to be selfless in any sense of the word. So the idea that Zuko is selfish for being disloyal and Azula is selfless for being loyal to a fascist regime where she exists in the top %1 is completely backwards.

Second, although Zuko’s motivation for trying to capture Aang before Zhao is selfish from a worldly perspective, it’s also pretty backwards to label him as self-interested and disloyal to the Fire Nation because the reason he wants to capture Aang before Zhao is because this is literally the mission he was given by his father, the Fire Lord. Ozai gave Zuko this mission as a punishment for what he saw as disloyalty, and convinced Zuko that it was the only way to redeem his honor.

Zuko is motivated entirely by proving his loyalty to the Fire Lord. And since the Fire Lord has total authority over his nation, loyalty to the Fire Lord is loyalty to the Fire Nation. Moreover, Zuko is convinced that this is the only way that he can be loyal to his nation, because in all other ways, he is considered by his father to be a failure.

Zuko isn’t motivated by personal glory here, he’s motivated by a desperate need to prove that he’s not a failure to his country and his father, and he believes this because this is what Ozai’s abuse conditioned him to believe.

Zhao accuses Zuko of disloyalty but he isn’t calling Zuko out on anything. Zhao believes Zuko is disloyal because that’s what Ozai said Zuko was, and he also knows that this is a trigger point for Zuko and he wants to push his buttons. Zhao himself is being pretty hypocritical here because he dismissed Zuko’s quest for the Avatar as foolishness until he realized that Zuko had actually found something.

And this is where we get to the cognitive dissonance that is characteristic of both abusive people and fascist regimes. “Disloyalty” as defined by Ozai is not obeying and being a failure, so Zuko has to bring back the Avatar. “Disloyalty” as defined by Zhao is Zuko holding back information so he can achieve the mission Ozai sent for him. Ozai most likely sent Zuko on this mission in the first place on the assumption that it would not be achievable, and Zhao also thinks this until he realizes that Zuko has actually discovered something.

I’m sure that if Ozai found out that Zuko tried to impede Zhao from capturing Aang he would brand it as disloyalty, but I think Ozai also purposefully sent Zuko on an unwinnable mission AND was prepared to punish him for “disloyalty” for not succeeding even though that was exactly what he expected him to do. It was only luck that Zuko ended up finding Aang in the first place, and that’s one of the reasons why Ozai restoring Zuko’s honor feels empty in book three.

And here’s the thing, which I’ve said before in response to these bizarre Ozai/Fire Nation apologist takes. You don’t owe any loyalty to anyone who doesn’t have any loyalty or respect for you.

That’s what Zuko eventually realizes, and it’s what he’s beginning to realize as early as here, in the third episode, as seen in his outburst at Zhao calling his father a fool if he thinks the world will follow him willingly. If he thinks people will fall in line by being subjugated by terror and violence.

Zuko knows on some level that he’s stuck in an unwinnable situation and that his father and the FN are wrong, even if he can’t really articulate it yet. Kids are smart, and they know when adults are putting them in unwinnable situations. They also know right from wrong. Kids become frustrated when they can’t do the right thing, and when they can’t please an unpleasable adult that has authority over them, and this is very much what Zuko is doing here. The harder he tries to beat Zhao, the more “disloyal” he is to the Fire Nation; the more Zhao is able to best him, the farther he is from proving his loyalty to his father.

This is actually one of the ways the show sets the groundwork early on for Zuko’s redemption by

1) showing us that the Fire Nation is not worthy of Zuko’s loyalty

2) Showing Zuko being put into increasingly impossible and contradictory situations due to his attempts to remain loyal to the Fire Nation; eventually “screw this I’m out” starts to look more and more like a better idea.

Zuko already knew this, of course, even before the series began, but he buries it deep because of the need for his father’s love. It’s why he stood up in a war room full of adults and demanded to know how the leader of his country could knowingly send loyal soldiers to their deaths. What happened to those soldiers is entirely a parallel to what Ozai did to Zuko.

It’s amazing but also terribly ironic that so many Azula “fans” don’t seem to understand this, either, and try to prop up Azula by showing how loyal she is to a cause that, in the end, destroyed her, as it would have done to Zuko if he hadn’t gotten out.

Zuko is loyal to Iroh because he knows on some level even at the start of the series that Iroh is the one person who isn’t going to gaslight him or manipulate him or hurt him while telling him it’s for his own good. The one person who doesn’t feed him the fascist lie of personal glory and destructive nationalism and instead offers him truth, love and acceptance.

Azula I guess is “selfless” if you consider that her entire sense of self is tied up with pleasing her father, as Zuko’s was at the beginning, but that’s not an admirable trait, that’s just being abused. 

As far as being selfless in her loyalty to the Fire Nation, again, she’s in the top %1 and considers herself as having the right to rule and the right to conquer other nations in the name of the Fire Nation. So loyalty to the Fire Nation is about what she gains and what she believes is her right. From a personal standpoint she is entirely self-centered, as she is cruel and manipulative towards others and sees them in terms of how she can use them. That’s the main difference between her and Zuko, that Zuko actually cares about others, although he tries to shove this impulse down at the beginning of the series, whereas Azula’s cruelty and disregard for those around her that she exhibited in childhood grew as Ozai fostered it.

[danwhobrowses]

One Piece Chapter 1055 - Initial Thoughts

Oh it feels good to have it two weeks in a row

because now we're in for more One Piece, the reveals are coming quick and heavy with news of stuff happening on the outside

but there is still more to come as we build more to the final saga

Spoilers for the Chapter, Support the Official Release too

Our colour spread was to promote the Red movie this time, bit of a shame because they did the same bait and switch with Odyssey, but at the same time it shows how much One Piece has been cooking recently

But we jump straight back into the Admiral fight, where Yamato asks why Momo won't let him fight (last week's scanlations implied all the samurai but the official mentioned Yamato specifically)

Raizo tries to burn him, but Aramaki is prepared to overcome the weakness and sucks the energy out of Raizo

I know she's in the background but surely Shinobu could just, rot the plants right?

Cut back to Robin and now they're joined by Law who sensed that some Poneglyph activity was at play

Seems that they're going deep underground and underwater to get the Road Poneglyph, which the Kozuki had hidden but Kaido found thanks to Jack being a Fishman

How did he move though? He cannae swim

Law ROOMing to the window after making Robin crawl, dick move Law

Mother of Atlantis, Wano has an Underwater City!

They did the Futurama thing and built current Wano on top of old Wano

I may be bugging a little, but if you removed some mountains the Old Wano would look like God Valley a little doesn't it?

At some point at the beginning of the WG, Walls were erected either side of Wano and it became a rain dish, flooding the old Wano as the current Wano built above the tipping point

By the looks of the diagram, bits of land was added to be the foundations of part of the country, which isn't easy to do, plus it bodes the question of Onigashima

Near the bottom of the mountain (Mount Fuji apparently, real life blending with fiction) we find the Third Road Poneglyph

Sukiyaki says though that Pluton is a little further, of course it's underwater so he hasn't seen it but it's there

Key word he said was 'sleeping', it could be metaphorical but knowing One Piece it could also not...

This implies that Kaido may've found Pluton already right? Via Jack and all, It may explain his weapons factories, as well as the legend that Pluton could 'wipe out an island'

To Unleash Pluton though the walls would need to break down, therefore Opening Wano's Borders would mean releasing Pluton

Robin does bode the question that if this is the case, why did Oden want to unleash Pluton?

But we return to Aramaki and his Fascist is showing again, claiming that he wouldn't have been here if Kaido was still ruling, and that means Wano was safe from others despite being a cruel reign

Eventually we get the obvious explanation why Momo won't let Yamato fight: because he wants to prove that Wano can defend itself; Yamato wants to go out to sea after all and the Straw Hats and Minks can't stay forever, if they can't protect themselves then they'll only compel them to stay longer

And thanks to his resolve, Momo unleashes a flurry of Blast Breath at the Admiral, burning down his forest

Of course, the Admiral survives, because he can just grow from a sapling

But just as he's about to go for murder, the lightning of Conqueror's Haki strikes

The Haki scares Aramaki shitless, and it seems that somehow the Admiral is communicating with Shanks from afar

It's almost as if Shanks is doing something with his sword too, the questions are piling up

Probably an error though but it looked like Shanks' silhouette had both arms a bit, the way he was holding the sword was weird...

Shanks dishing out the intimidation factor though, scaring Aramaki away from Wano

So he'll attack new Yonko Luffy for Akainu but literally wilts to Shanks? Interesting

The party wages on but Jimbei, Luffy and Sanji were out watching, knew that their Haki would've sensed the Admiral. What happened with Kid and his murder attempt though?

The four (monster four? Luffy and the new Monster Trio? We gotta workshop on this) are proud of Momo holding his ground though, but even they sensed Shanks' haki

But of course, only Luffy has an idea of who it was as Shanks' ship looks to sail away again

There was also an extra few panels showing Uta getting inspired to write her magnum opus, to also promote the movie, it seems like she was ignoring the Den Den Mushi though telling her that people are in danger, hints towards perhaps the darker side of Uta...

So another mass info dump of a chapter, and still very awesome.

From reading the official I could understand why Momo didn't want Yamato to fight, it helped that I had observed his intervention as him stepping up for Wano as well anyway. It does feel like confirmation that he'll join the crew maybe probably, but we still haven't gotten Luffy's word, and I still feel like Carrot earned it too (admittedly it did annoy me that people were quick to fanart Yamato in the crew while during WCI Carrot didn't get barely any of the same kind, even though Luffy and Yamato have only really known each other for a day before he fell unconscious) but we'll have to wait on that still.

The Pluton stuff is perhaps the most exciting for me; Wano underwater holding the ship, when did they move it from Alabasta? Is Old Wano God Valley? Or was it the other 'City of Gold' mentioned way back when. What of Big Mom and Kaido? They were sent deep into Mt Fuji, they could easily come out somewhere around here, and they did weaken the front wall that could unleash Pluton anyway. Plus Jimbei could check on Pluton, as could Law and the crew in the Shark Submerge, so it feels like there's a lot more still to see with Wano itself.

Does this mean that Zunesha also knew about Pluton? Is Pluton a creature rather than a ship? There are questions piling up and I wants to know! I do feel a little unnerved by Law though, he is with Robin likely for the Will of D answers but still, he's also letting the Straw Hats collect the 3 Road Poneglyphs for him, so keeping an eye on him for now...

And Shanks, ah Shanks. Barely even in the Manga and yet he has us hooked every time he's on screen. His haki is immense to scare an Admiral like that, I'm still curious if the communication with Aramaki was via Shanks or via Aramaki's DF, but it shows that Luffy and Shanks' collision will not be a bunch of BDE power plays, testing both the individual and the cohesiveness of the crew (hopefully at least), but that is indeed one for the future.

Overall we got a lot of stuff, but the night is still young, and much much more still needs to be learned. No admiral will spoil the party at least, so we'll see what else Oda will throw at us

[caslyra]

This always bothered me so much. Innocent until proven guilty? Who cares... The fact that no one cares is so infuriating. Even if they all believed Sirius to be guilty, don't they see that this course of action pushes the door wide wide open for institutional abuse of power? They’re creating a precedent here (not technically speaking). It's not about this single suspect, it's about the society you want to live in; this sets a dangerous tone on a general level, and it shows throughout the series (like with Fudge not giving a damn about 'innocent until proven guilty' in Harry's trial and not caring about his right to call witnesses. Actually, that whole trial is a reversal of 'innocent until proven guilty' – they assume Harry is guilty, and he has to prove his innocence? With the whole authority of the Ministry against him? Cool.). The right to a fair trial is one of the most important pillars of a democratic society – it has to be more important than your urge to lock away a specific suspect as quickly as possible. If you destabilize that pillar it all crumbles down.

And then the last sentence is literally 'All was well' – Are you fucking kidding me??? No, it wasn't. How narrow-minded is that? Just because Harry wasn't in immediate danger of being murdered by some fascist anymore... Like, this one racist dude has been defeated and all the other issues dissolve magically (magically, hah). As if all the problems of wizard society were rooted in Voldemort. Making him the scapegoat, or at least implying so (out of laziness or whatever, I don't care) That's a very very dangerous way of thinking and it's true to the real world, which is why her way of dealing with it is super problematic.

There's tons that's left in the open, plotlines the author started but never finished, like with S.P.E.W. What's with the house elves, huh? All was well, my ass.

Because - the judicial system as a whole? Massive joke. The people holding trials are the ones who pass the laws in the first place and who also enforce them (Fudge, Umbridge...). Not at all problematic. Checks and balances? Never heard of it.

And still, they deem themselves superior to Muggle society. Hah.

It was too much for JK to handle the different plotlines, obviously, to go down all those roads; it wasn't her focus. But JK has obviously been drawing parallels between wizarding society and N*zi Germany (and simultaneously post N*zi Germany/Nuremberg trials, which is...).– and that's important – even before Voldemort took control of the Ministry. She's done it with the way Fudge leans on the Prophet, with all the power being concentrated in one person, with trials being a farce, with educational decrees punishing anyone who so much as questions authority, with Fudge being based on Chamberlain. Maybe this is why this bothers me so much - especially as a German who studied law. Because our history is so dark, and if you're using it as a blueprint to base your fictional story on (don't get me wrong, we deserve all the criticism in the world), don't leave it hanging like that. Don't make a point of how messed-up society is even before Voldemort took over, only to later say 'All was well' without explaining how all the things worthy of criticism have been changed for the better in the new order.

The system was massively flawed even before Voldemort. And she wants us to realize that, she's making a point of it. But then she's too lazy or too bad a writer to follow through because the 'main story' is finished. She doesn't clear anything up. Does Kingsley (oh, and how is the Minister of Magic even elected?) enforce a new system? A better one? No one knows (I don't care if she's said anything in an interview or on Pottermore; most readers don't bother with either). She just acts as if now that Voldemort's gone, everything's good. It's not. So yeah, you could argue 'All was well' means that everything is indeed better now, but sorry, I'm not having this. This is not only lazy writing but also dangerous. Critical thinking or not.

Don't start this if you're not going to follow through. It's too important a topic (says me, sitting in Germany with a far-right wing party on the rise again, with a top politician who used to be a history teacher – yes, that's right – but took part in Neo-N*zi rallies and uses SA speech, whom you can legally (court-ruled) call a fascist... you would’ve thought we’d know better). Okay maybe I'm getting a little emotional...

But don't say 'All was well' ffs.

cant believe jkr created a prison that forces you to relive all of your worst memories, put a fairly major character in that prison for twelve years without a trial, and then just... didnt make it a commentary on the justice system OR the prison system. just like "lol thats a quirky thing that happened just for plot reasons, no bearing on reality tho"

[imhaitusncarnate]

I have very mixed feelings on that aot ending

Ok so the politics of Attack on Titan have been discussed by a lot of people, some of whom have a very surface- level understanding of the story. I would like to start by giving my disclaimer that Attack on Tiatan ABSOLUTELY isn’t fascist, its anti racism, anti bigotry and anti discrimination themes are extremely apparent in it’s examination of the Eldians inside Marley, and fascist views held by characters such as Gabi are explicitly condemned in the text and made clear to be misguided and false. 

I would now like to draw everyone’s attention to the openings of seasons 1 and 2. 

Images like these combined with lyrics like these:

You pigs who sneer at our will to step over corpses and march onwards Enjoy the peace of livestock false prosperity "freedom" of the dying wolves that hunger

We dedicate and sacrifice our hearts

And also the use of german lyrics:

Sie sind das Essen und Wir sind die Jaeger! (they are the food and we are the hunters)

O, mein Freund! Jetzt hier ist ein Sieg. Dies ist der erste Glorie. O, mein Freund! Feiern wir diesen Sieg, für den nächsten Kampf!

(O, my friend! Now, here is a victory. This is the first glory. O, my friend! Let us celebrate this victory for the next battle!)

This is the stuff that lead me to believe that this is a deliberate use of fascist imagery. If the show just wanted to go for a militaristic vibe for the aesthetic of it, references this explicit to fascist propaganda and the use of German lyrics was not necessary. Also, lines like this:

And plenty of evidence that things were not what they seemed it the world of aot and that the overly simplistic view of good vs evil (humans vs the titans) was incorrect led me to believe that Attack on Titan was a deliberate deconstruction. That it was putting the audience into the mindset of the fascists to pull the rug from under their feet later. And I was right. Sort of.

As the story progresses, the world becomes a more and more complex political landscape and we are led to believe that this black and white mentality is wrong. We are also informed that the people who can transform into titans, the Eldians, are an opressed minority, explicitly paralleled to the Jews during nazi Germany, from their living in internment camps, to them being called devils, to their armbands, to a large number of them (our heroes) being confined in an island with walls circling them, which is revealed by Isayama to be Madagascar. The island that the nazis originally meant to confine the Jewish population in before arriving at the conclusion that that would be too costly, and that genocide was preferable. 

This is the first of the story’s mixed metaphors. While the show’s heart is in the right place, being sympathetic to the Eldians and showing their plight under marleyan opression and persecution, there is one problem. The reason for the opression of the Eldians is because the world is afraid of their power, as they are a race with the ability to transform into titans. There is, therefore, a tangible, justification for their internment. The Jews were not in any conceivable way a danger to anyone, they were simply scapegoated for the complex socioeconomic problems of Germany in the time period. Also, if we take a look at those openings again, we observe that the Eldians (our main characters) who wish to free themselves from their shackles are framed as fascists. So... what is that saying?

 The idea, as I see it, is that the story is condemning fanaticism in general, as a biproduct of a militaristic black and white worldview. The monstrous titans that our (framed as fascist) heroes fight against are revealed to be human, just like them.

The same is the case for the Eldian “devils” that the Marleyans fight against. Gabi, the character who is most fanatically against Eldians (despite being an Eldian herself) is comfronted with the humanity of the people she hates once she gets to know them.

Again, Isayama’s heart is on the right place here, trying to condemn bigotry, however the explicit referencing of history is the imagery is kind of misplaced, for the reasons I previously mentioned. Now let’s have a look at Eren Yeager.

Eren starts the story as a kind of messed up kid. He kills the human traffickers who kidnapped Mikasa while screaming:

I mean, in this case he is certainly justified, but his rage and anger are definitely not normal for a child his age.

This is Eren. He can’t stand injustice when he sees it. And injustice is what happens to him when the titans attack. His already fiery attitude and mindset is what leads him to this declaration of revenge:

That side of Eren is visible throughout the story and it’s foreshadowing for what he will later become

Eren, however, is a natural product of his environment. Ravaged by socioconomic inequality, with the rich living in the centre of the walls and the poor living in the outskirts, constantly under the threat of the titans and unable to obtain any kind of freedom, Eren’s philosophy of the need to be strong to overcome one’s enemies makes sense. The mantra “the strong prey on the weak”, that he ends up teaching Mikasa (another allusion to fascist ideology) is a biproduct of the world he lives in. He does not know of the political intricasies outside the walls. All he knows is he must kill the titans.

Eren’s titan is described as the “manifestation of humanity’s rage. It is huge and monstrous, and could be seen as a metaphor for vengeful hatred in general. Keep that in mind, it’s relevant for the ending.

This manufactured and false black and white worldview shapes him as a character, and it’s what eventually, after the arrival at the much desired ocean, leads him to this:

“Will we finally be free?”

In the continuation of the story, Eren falls toward the dark side more and more, to the point of committing atrocities and war crimes that are explicitly framed as being similar to what he suffered as a child (see his actions in Liberio). He even acknowledges that, telling Reiner, the person who committed said war crimes against him, that he essentially has no hard feelings and understands that the two of them are similar, doing what “needs to be done”. The character of Gabi, who, after what happens in Liberio, becomes obsessed with revenge against the Eldian “devils” is meant to be a foil for Eren, and his obsession with killing the titans after what happened to him. 

Extremely interesting is the way in which certain ideas and images are flipped in the later seasons. Namely, in season 4, we see a character who idolizes Mikasa and supports Eren’s plans in a scene where she spouts the same mantra of “the strong prey on the weak” and says that Mikasa saving her is what showed her that only with strength she can defeat her enemies. Mikasa tells her to shut up, and she proceeds to do the salute, that has been so glamorized by the show’s openings thus far. Now, it is done by a person from a military faction with a fanatic worldview. The direction doesn’t glamorize it at all. It is a nuanced, almost masterful deconstruction. 

Levi, who has always looked for reasons for why his comrades had t die, justifying their heroism and convincing himself that their deaths were not pointless, ends up here:

At this point, I was in love with Attack on Titan. From here, it only figures that Eren ends up attempting a genocide of the people outside the walls. He has essentally become what he hated the most, and he’s a natural result of the world that created him. Despite his noble intentions, he has turned into a monster. Mikasa, the prerson who loved him the most, completes her character arc by killing him, thus rejecting her blind devotion to him and being free, while at the same time continuing to love the person he once was. It’s a sad and tragic ending, painting Eren as a tragic character and making a pretty strong political point, despite having a few mixed metaphors.

And then, chapter 139 came out...

And Eren apparently pulled a Lelouch. This is a “I purposfully turned myself into a monster to save the world and make my friends into heroes for killing me” kind of thing. It is important to state that the manga makes it clear that Eren would have trampled the world even if they didn’t stop him, because of his urge to be free. However, that urge, that fighting spirit, end up being a good thing. The death of our heroes in battle apparently wasn’t pointless after all. They say goodbye with a salute

The Yeagerists, who were previously framed as fanatics, end up in charge of the government

It is important to state that the real event, the catalyst of the ending, is that killing Eren, who has turned himself literally into the manifestation of humanity’s rage (which has now, through the intricacies of the story, taken the political meaning of hatred and intergenerational trauma), eliminates the power of the titans. The titans are no more. This, in of itself, is good, and in keeping with the spirit of the political commentary thus far. However, the war, is still not over, and Eren’s mantra ends up being correct

So the only way for the war to end is one of the races to be wiped out? 

Also, despite Eren’s genocide being wrong, it is, in the end, justified, as a necessary evil by the story. An Ozymandias kind of moment in which the ends justify the means, but Eren himself has to die, because his crime was too great for him not to suffer punishment. Essentially, this chapter undoes all of the insightful commentary the story had made so far, by proving the ideology of its main character right. Story- wise this isn’t a bad ending, but if we take into account the political references the series has made, and its desire to explicitly tie itself with such imagery makes the ending leave a really bad taste in my mouth. What it essentally says, is that, yes, bigotry and racism are bad, yes, blind hatred is bad, but the general idea of might makes right and the impossibility of reconciliation are true. Armin, who has, throughuout the story, been Eren’s opposite, in terms of looking for peaceful solutions to conflict is rendered meaningless in the end, because him alongside with the other characters were all playing into Eren’s plans. The hearts of our main characters as recruits were in the right place, their fighting spirit admirable, and the overall worldview we are presented with in the beginning of the story remains more or less unchallenged. 

So where does that leave this imagery?

The conclusion is that one must think very carefully before including allegory in their work. I am not accusing Isayama for fascism, and I appreciate the efforts at deconstructing it throughout the story. However, in the end he did an oops I accidentally justified the mentality I was trying to condemn. I still like Attack on Titan, I believe it has artistic value and is overall a pretty good anime, I even agree with its politics to an extent. However, it is very important to critically examine the things we like, and see where they may have gone south. And this ending is that for me.

[useless-catalanfacts]

Why is Pablo Hasel justifying and praising terrosist groups??

I’m not sure if you’re asking why Pablo Hasél is accused of praising terrorist groups or why he said what he said. So I’ll answer both things lol.

He got sentenced to jail because of different verses from his rap songs and some tweets. To be precise, the judges have considered that he published 64 tweets that were either against the Spanish monarchy (yes, “offense against the Crown” is a crime in Spain) or praising the armed organisations GRAPO and ETA. These are the tweets that caused more scandal:

“Los parásitos de los Borbones siguen de trapis con los decapitadores de los homosexuales”: “the Bourbon parasites are still doing business with the ones who decapitate homosexuals”

This is a reference to the fact that the Bourbon family (the dynasty of the Spanish monarchy) are, in fact, doing business and being friends with the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, where human rights are not respected at all.

It is a fact that Saudi Arabia condemns homosexuality as a crime: gay people caught for the first time are flogged or jailed and if the “offense” is repeated they are sentenced to death penalty (source). It’s also a fact that King Juan Carlos I has had a long friendship and business relation with the Al Saud dynasty. In 1979, the Saudi monarchy gave Juan Carlos I a yacht as a gift (which he accepted and used for his holidays for years), when the king Fahd of Saudi Arabia died in 2005 the president of Spain José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (from the PSOE party) declared a national day of mourning for the Saudi king as was suggested to him by the Spanish monarchy, in 2008 king Juan Carlos I received 100 million euros from Saudi Arabia, in 2007 Juan Carlos gave Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (brother of the current king of Saudi Arabia) the collar of the Order of the Golden Fleece (the highest chivalry honour that the King of Spain can give), in 2011 Juan Carlos intervened to the king of Saudi Arabia to get the contract of the high velocity train to Mecca (which is valued in 7,000 million dollars) assigned to a Spanish business, in 2019 the Panama papers revealed an offshore foundation that the Saudi monarchy had used to give the Spanish monarchy 100 million euros... Just a few examples that prove this relation. (Source). And now Juan Carlos I is living in the United Arab Emirates, another country with harsh punishments for homosexuality (among other human rights violations).

So Pablo Hasél was just stating the facts in that sentence.

“El mafioso de mierda del Rey dando lecciones desde un palacio”: “the fucking mafioso King giving lessons from a palace”

Given the many cases of corruption that the king has been involved in, as well as his intervention in the economy (such as profiting from big businesses that had profited from Franco’s dictatorship) and pressure in politics, it’s not so crazy to call him (and his family clan) a mafioso. In fact, the French TV news literally called Juan Carlos I a “gangster” once.

As for the “giving lessons from a palace”, that’s what he does in his Christmas speech or any other time he addresses the citizens, as if we all had it so easy as living and owning multiple palaces with hundreds of maids and not having to work while getting all kinds of luxuries payed for with public money. Not just Juan Carlos, Felipe VI is the same (remember when he went to Cuba to give them lessons on democracy, but then pretended everything was perfect in the visit to Saudi Arabia?).

Once again, Pablo Hasél was not being far from the truth.

“Guardia Civil torturando o disparando a emigrantes”: “the Civil Guard [Spanish military police force] torturing or shooting migrants”

The Civil Guard literally shoots rubber bullets at migrants who are trying to get on Spanish soil in Ceuta (source). By shooting them rubber bullets, the migrant people fall back on the water, and many drown. The Civil Guard murders and tortures migrants. And everything that takes place inside CIEs (migrant detention centers) can also be called torture with no doubt.

Again, these are facts.

Those were posts on social media, he has also been sentenced because of the lyrics of his songs. Here are some sentences from his song “Juan Carlos el Bobón” (the title is a pun with the words "Borbón”-Bourbon- and “bobo”-stupid-).

“Me cago en la marca España explotadora y casposa”: “the exploiter and braggart brand Spain can go fuck itself”

That’s self-explanatory. A personal opinion you can agree or disagree with, but given the things we’ve mentioned in this post and so many more, it’s perfectly understandable that he would feel like this. And he should be free to say it.

“Si Froilán se disparó en el pie siendo menor de edad igual ahora que es mayor de edad va a disparar a toda la Familia Real”: “if Froilán shot himself in the foot when he was underage, maybe now that he’s an adult he’ll shoot the whole Royal Family”

For those who don’t know, Froilán is the son of Infanta Elena, and so the nephew of the current king Philip VI. This line is a reference to 2012, when he was shooting in one of his parents’ possessions and he accidentally shot himself in the foot. It was illegal for him to be shooting in the first place, because Spanish law prohibits kids under 14 years of age to hold firearms, but of course nothing happened to his parents for doing illegal things because they’re the royal family.

Unsurprisingly, this line is considered “offense to the Crown”. It’s not a threat from Hasél, it’s just wishful thinking that I’m sure many people share.

And lines from other songs by Pablo Hasél:

“Siempre hay algún indigente despierto con quien comentar que se debe matar a Aznar”: “there’s always some homeless person awake with whom to talk about the need to kill Aznar”

José María Aznar was president of Spain between 1996 and 2004 with the right-wing party Partido Popular (PP). He was a shit president, during his presidency the labour rights decreased and left thousands of workers with way less protection than before, he focused a lot of his work as president on making the economy more neoliberal and left thousands of workers with unfair salaries and harsh working conditions by allowing the owners to fire and decrease pay at will. He also gave support to the USA in the occupation of Iraq, even when the population had been protesting against it (I was only 4 or 5 years old at the time and even I remember one of the general strikes against it).

“¡Merece que explote el coche de Patxi López!”: “Patxi López’s car deserves to explode”

“¡Que alguien clave un piolet en la cabeza a José Bono!”: “Someone stab an axe on José Bono’s head!”

“No me da pena tu tiro en la nuca, 'pepero'. Me da pena el que muere en una patera. No me da pena tu tiro en la nuca, 'socialisto'. Me da pena el que muere en un andamio”: “I’m not feeling sorry for the shot in the back of your neck, pepero [member of the PP party]. I feel sorry for the ones who die in dinghy boats. I don’t feel sorry for the shot in the back of your neck, socialisto [member of the PSOE party]. I feel sorry for the ones who die in a scaffold”.

“Prefiero grapos que guapos”: “I prefer GRAPOs to handsomes” (a pun). GRAPO was a communist and anti-imperialism armed organisation.

“Mi hermano entra en la sede del PP gritando ¡Gora ETA! A mí no me venden el cuento de quiénes son los malos, sólo pienso en matarlos”: “My brother goes in the PP’s headquarters shouting ‘Gora ETA!’. They won’t sell me the tale of who are the bad guys, I’m only thinking of killing them”

“Es un error no escuchar lo que canto, como Terra Lliure dejando vivo a Losantos”: “It’s a mistake to not listen to what I sing, like when Terra Lliure left Losantos alive”. Terra Lliure was a short-lived communist organisation that wanted to fight for the independence of the Catalan Countries through armed struggle. Jiménez Losantos is a fascist radio host who tells all kinds of lies and manipulates information to spread right-wingism, hatred towards national minorities, homophobia, etc.

“Los Grapo eran defensa propia ante el imperialismo y su crimen”: “GRAPO were self-defense against imperialism and its crime”.

“Quienes manejan los hilos merecen mil kilos de amonal”: “those who pull the strings deserve 1000 kg of ammonal”

“Pienso en balas que nucas de jueces nazis alcancen”: “I think of the bullets that would reach the nazi judges’ back of the necks”

None of these sentences are serious threats / plans at the moment. On the contrary, when the politicians he mentions make policies that directly cause deaths (of migrant people at the borders, suicides in migrant detention centers, of workers in their workplace, of people whose heat and gas is cut off or who are evicted, of women murdered by their husbands because they didn’t have anywhere to go for help, etc), now those are real crimes, aren’t they?

Pablo Hasél has been very vocal about being a communist. So I’ll copy-paste Friedrich Engels’ definition of “social murder”. I don’t know what Pablo had in mind when writing those lyrics but I think this fragments helps understand where he’s coming from.

When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another such that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessaries of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live — forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence — knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission. But murder it remains. (Engels, The Condition of the Working-Class in England, 1845)

So we can agree or disagree with Pablo Hasél and what he says or his way of saying it, but that doesn’t mean he should be jailed because of it. And it’s incredibly hypocritical to consider saying (not doing, just saying!) that “there’s always some homeless person to talk about the need to kill Aznar with” is violence, but to ignore that Aznar’s involvement in the Iraq helped kill thousands of civilians (for a lie, because Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction!) and caused the misery and indirectly the death of so many workers.

If your question was why did Pablo Hasél say these things, I think two of the sentences we said sum it up:

“I’m not feeling sorry for the shot in the back of your neck, pepero [member of the PP party]. I feel sorry for the ones who die in dinghy boats. I don’t feel sorry for the shot in the back of your neck, socialisto [member of the PSOE party]. I feel sorry for the ones who die in a scaffold” and “GRAPO were self-defense against imperialism and its crime”. Pablo Hasél was highlighting how the current situation we live in is already violence. Violence inflicted by capitalism, imperialism and hatred, so he would consider his words self-defense.

[joannalannister]

Anonymous asked:

Hey there, Lauren! I love your blog and metas! I have a question for you, in terms of the book, could you tell me when and where Daenerys shows signs of being a tyrant or a fascist? I see lots of metas say that she is, but from what I've read, I don't see any signs of that? Sure, she kills her enemies, but what powerful monarch doesn't? I just feel like the fandom has a very biased and double standard hatred when it comes to her, and I would like your opinion! Thank you!

Before I answer your question, we need some sort of working definition of fascism. To achieve this, I would like to quote a disabled person who helped lead the fight against fascism for years, and who died in the line of duty:

Over a year and a half ago I said this [...]: "The militarists in Berlin, and Rome and Tokyo started this war, but the massed angered forces of common humanity will finish it."

Today that prophecy is in the process of being fulfilled. The massed, angered forces of common humanity are on the march. They are going forward [...] 

We will have no truck with Fascism in any way, in any shape or manner. We will permit no vestige of Fascism to remain. [...]

In every country conquered by the Nazis and the Fascists, or the Japanese militarists, the people have been reduced to the status of slaves or chattels.

It is our determination to restore these conquered peoples to the dignity of human beings, masters of their own fate, entitled to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

We have started to make good on that promise. I am sorry if I step on the toes of those Americans who, playing party politics at home, call that kind of foreign policy “crazy altruism” and “starry-eyed dreaming.”

--President Franklin D. Roosevelt, July 28th, 1943 Fireside Chat

What did the fascist Nazi Party stand for in WWII?

Historically, there was no Nazi Party apart from their racial and social agenda. It was a party founded on racial distinctions, with a vision to dramatically transform their society. The Nazis disliked and persecuted anyone who they did not consider Aryan. They persecuted and killed Jewish people, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and communists, and they wanted to eliminate people with mental or physical ailments. The Nazis pushed women out of the workplace and actively promoted patriarchy. [x]

But where does GRRM come into this?

I wasn’t a complete pacifist; I couldn’t claim to be that. I was what they called an objector to a particular war. I would have been glad to fight in World War II. But Vietnam was the only war on the menu. [x]

GRRM’s ethical views are at their clearest and most concise while discussing slavery and dehumanization in his (most excellent and highly recommended) vampire novel, Fevre Dream:

I never held much with slavery […]. You can’t just go… usin’ another kind of people, like they wasn’t people at all. Know what I mean? Got to end, sooner or later. Better if it ends peaceful, but it’s got to end even if it has to be with fire and blood, you see? Maybe that’s what them abolitionists been sayin’ all along. You try to be reasonable, that’s only right, but if it don’t work, you got to be ready. Some things is just wrong. They got to be ended.

Some things are worth fighting for. Fascism requires opposition, some form of opposition, or it will steamroller all over you. 

My regret now is not that I stayed my arm, but that I remained aloof in my window while others protested peacefully outside. It would be naïve to think that those marching in neo-Nazi parades could have a change of heart from such efforts, but I am more concerned with those who are not marching for anything. We must convince the apathetic to care, and stop those who are walking down the path of hatred before it becomes too late.

--David Olin, The View from My Window, Berkeley 2018, written for the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity 

Now, let me apply this to ASOIAF piece by piece. 

In every country conquered [...] the people have been reduced to the status of slaves or chattels.

This is Tywin. This is Tywin enslaving people as part of his militaristic campaign of aggressive force in the Riverlands. This is Tywin sanctioning the capture and torture of innocent people. This is Tywin “using” other kinds of people and disregarding the fact that they are human beings. This is Tywin enslaving Arya Stark. This is Tywin impressing people to work in his gold mines on a whim, as we learn in AGOT. This is Tywin reducing people to the status of slaves or chattels. This is Tywin. 

I don’t know how many different ways I can say it, but as I’ve said before and will say again: Tywin is the character in the ASOIAF books who most prominently espouses fascist ideology. 

There are other characters in the main series -- Roose Bolton and Randyll Tarly, for example -- who also exhibit characteristics of fascist ideology, but I would argue that it is Tywin who is the fascist poster boy of ASOIAF ... and it is also Tywin who is one of the main villains who is drawing humanity’s attention south away from the true threat of the Others, who wish to turn every living thing into their slaves and playthings. (Littlefinger also comes to mind.) Tywin is an unwitting general in the Others’ army. Tywin is fighting the Others’ Campaign of Dehumanization on their behalf. 

The Nazis disliked and persecuted anyone who they did not consider Aryan. 

Substitute “Aryan” for “Lannister” and this is Tywin. “a Lannister, and worth more.” It is Tywin who pushes an agenda of Lannister superiority and it is Tywin to whom non-Lannisters aren’t human, to the point that he had to marry his own cousin. He dislikes non-Lannisters so much he had to marry his own cousin!!!! It’s Tywin who passed down his obsession with blood purity to his children to the point that they literally have to fuck each other. It’s Tywin who puts his House (a proxy for his race) above the individuals in it; it’s Tywin who doesn’t care if Cersei and Jaime and Tyrion are ground to dust under his disgusting ideology as long as House Lannister reigns supreme. 

"Spice soldiers and cheese lords," his lord father called them, with contempt. 

This is Tywin. 

Non-Lannisters aren’t fully human to Tywin. This is fascist ideology!!!!

It was a party founded on racial distinctions

This is Tywin and Kevan, refusing to allow the Westerlings to marry into their family because of “doubtful blood”!!!!! (”Ser Kevan seldom had a thought that Lord Tywin had not had first.”) 

It was a party founded on racial distinctions

This is Tywin and his refusal to allow a betrothal between Jaime and Elia. 

they wanted to eliminate people with mental or physical ailments. 

This is Tywin and his hatred toward disabled Tyrion. This is Tywin and his refusal to allow a betrothal between Jaime and disabled Elia. 

The Nazis pushed women out of the workplace and actively promoted patriarchy.

This is Tywin. This is Randyll hating on Brienne of Tarth. (And you can bet your ass Tywin doesn’t approve of women with swords.) 

I don’t know how many ways I can say it: Tywin and others like him are the fascists. 

Tywin is one of the cold fucks the AGOT prologue warns us about in the very beginning: “the real enemy is the cold.” 

The central conflict of ASOIAF is between the living (the fire) and the dead (the cold), those who would recognize your humanity and those who won’t. 

It is our determination to restore these conquered peoples to the dignity of human beings, masters of their own fate

^^ This is Daenerys Targaryen ^^

Daenerys Targaryen is a freedom fighter who kills slavers in the books. 

Her breakup of the economic system of Essos (meaning SLAVERY) is more akin to a communist revolution than a fascist takeover imo. Daenerys associates herself with people of all races, all classes. She gives Missandei, who canonically has dark skin in the books, a place as one of her closest advisors. Unlike Tywin, Daenerys is not pushing an agenda of Targaryen superiority. 

Daenerys is not perfect. She does not always get it right. Daenerys has got some things wrong. But I don’t think there has been any other option for Daenerys. You ... you can’t just look the other way when evil men are crucifying children, and I truly do not think that non-violent opposition would change anything in Essos. “Better if it ends peaceful, but it’s got to end even if it has to be with fire and blood, you see?” 

Sometimes innocents like Hazzea have died on Daenerys’s journey. 

And I fully believe that more people are going to die in TWOW, and that Daenerys will hold herself responsible, whether she is or not. I know that TWOW will give all the antis of every character a lot of ammunition. TWOW is going to be a dark and depressing book. 

I think that Daenerys is going to reach a very low point in TWOW, just as Tyrion is nose-diving in ADWD, but I think that’s just what GRRM does with his greatest heroes. It’s the moment in a movie when the hero falls off the cliff, and the Evil Villain starts cackling maniacally and you think all is lost, and then you see the hero’s hand reach up over the edge and the music crescendos as the hero pulls himself up. Except the real villains that GRRMs heroes are battling are themselves. The cliff is a metaphor for our darkest impulses. 

Characters tell Dany in AGOT that “she is nothing” but Dany’s story is about proving them wrong. It’s about her finding her own dignity and worth as a human being out on the Dothraki Sea, and becoming the master of her own fate. As her story progresses, she helps others to do the same, helping people to rediscover their dignity, to regain their names (or take new ones), to find the humanity that was stolen from them. 

(This is why it’s so important to me that her story intersect with zombie!Jon, so that she can help a dead man remember what it is to be human and remember why it all matters. Because if none of it matters ... if a man can’t find a fuck to give, well, that’s Tywin Lannister, who was a cold dead man long before Tyrion shot him.) 

I brought up FDR in the beginning of this post. Although FDR died before GRRM was born, he was one of the great American cultural figures of the 20th century and I have no doubt FDR’s legacy was a formative influence on GRRM. And that’s the thing - so many of these, these great American cultural figures of GRRM’s life died before their work was completed: FDR, JFK, MLK, so many others... The promised land is somewhere ahead of us, despite the opposition making accusations of “crazy altruism” and “starry-eyed dreaming.” No one is going to drive us there and drop us off; we have to get there by ourselves, and the journey isn’t an easy one. It’s a place we have to keep striving for, working for. A dream of spring...

It’s not Daenerys’s destiny, I think, to rule humanity in the long term; Dany’s destiny is, I think, to make sure that humanity doesn’t, well, lose their humanity. To make sure that humanity doesn’t fall into eldritch slavery.

The Others would make us automatons in their icy, inhuman regime. The Others would steam-roller all over humanity, and take away humanity’s freedom to choose, as Tywin Lannister tries to do to his children, trying to take all of their choices away and control them completely. The Others would take away our self-determination, our freedom to choose good or evil, our freedom to be the rulers of our own fate. 

I don’t think it’s Daenerys job to be a ruler in the end. I think she’s fighting evil now so that other people can keep fighting that good-and-evil “human heart in conflict with itself” fight long after she’s gone ... I’ve never believed in a “Targaryen restoration” ending although I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to it. 

Like Moses, Daenerys won’t lead us into the promised land ... we have to get there ourselves. 

And I’ve strayed from your question into a topic that’s more interesting to me because I cannot fucking belieeeeeeve that you are even asking me if the compassionate, caring, teenage-girl, sexual-abuse-survivor, messiah-figure Daenerys Targaryen is a fucking fascist when everything Daenerys “the fire is mine” Targaryen does is in narrative opposition to Certified Fucking Fascist Tywin Racist Lannister oh my god I cannot believe this is where we’ve come to as a fandom, I cannot fucking belieeeeeeve. 

Anon. Honey. Baby. I say this gently, with love: Whyyyyyyyyy are you reading “Daenerys is a fascist” metas? That didn’t even work on the show. 

When I googled “Daenerys Targaryen fascist” to try and figure out what you could possibly be reading to argue against it, the top result is an alt-right thinkpiece website about how dangerous Dany was all along in freeing slaves!!!! And the next results are people who think the iron throne actually matters when GRRM himself has said that the political war is a red herring. 

The endgame rulers don’t even particularly matter because what matters in the end is that humanity wins against the Others and we still have control over ourselves, what matters is for that human heart conflict to continue to exist inside ourselves and that we rule over that conflict inside ourselves. 

"We all must choose," she proclaimed.

Practice some self-care; go read Armageddon Rag, and remember this: TWOW is not going to save us. 

[jade-refraction]

So what does this have to do with Democrats? Well, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is the current Vice Presidential nominee on the Democratic ticket. For a pinko commie like me, he was a far better choice than many of the others that were being floated around, most pertinently because his rhetoric is 1) more to the point than most Dems and 2) less filtered. Bernie Sanders he is not, but it says a lot about the current Democratic party that someone saying "yeah we're feeding schoolkids regardless of cost, why are you against that, what the hell is wrong with you" is refreshing. He was, in fact, the one who started the whole thing where Ds called Rs "weird" for like a month and a half, and Rs spent a lot of time and effort to try to prove that they're not weird, that they're cool and normal, and in the process proved themselves deeply weird (derogatory). Which was again, refreshing. Democratic leadership still loves to venerate like the concept of Republicans existing ("a bird has two wings" or whatever) - Pelosi said at one point "we need a strong Republican party". Which to someone who has observed the Republican concentration of hitler particles per person increase exponentially is a wild statement. Hell, Harris touts the endorsement if Dick Fucking Cheney. How.

In short, Ds like to try and maintain decorum, to take right wing framing at face value, to see a man claiming that immigrants are causing all our problems and engage with that on its terms, pulling out statistics about how immigrants actually do less crimes or worse, saying that they would actually implement Trump's draconian border policies. We can't disrupt this framing, we can't say that the emperor is naked, that one party is full of delusional sheep at best and malicious fascists at worst.

When Shimura and Sakai assaulted Khotun Khan in his castle, Shimura sent dozens of fighters across a bridge to a chokepoint. In response to which Khan blew up the bridge. Shimura spent the night ordering his forces to patch it up for another assault, while Sakai poisoned their food.

And while Sakai was in the keep, he saw that a frontal assault would have led into a trap, a killzone full of explosives and flame.

The Khan turned the samurai code and tendencies against them, but he wasn't prepared for the Ghost flouting all of it effectively.

Tim Walz calling right-wingers 'weird' sent them into a multi-week meltdown the likes of which we'd not seen for a while. But on the VP debate stage he made a point of saying that he and the fascist "agreed" on a bunch of things. Reasonable and civil and boring and useless.

Obviously, a debate isn't an election, this didn't move the needle at all, and elections aren't even the whole of politics. But this frustration is something that stems from Democratic Party behavior in general. Can't get rid of the filibuster, it's a tradition of the senate (that came from a bug created by a dude who literally shot our first treasury secretary and tried to become president in a shitty coup). The parliamentarian can't be fired or ignored, so we can't pass this bill, except wait the Repbulicans ignored the parliamentarian during his term. Speaking of Bush 2, the SCOTUS gave him the election, but it's totally okay because they said that this ruling shouldn't be used as precedent, and we all know that SCOTUS justices are never swayed by partisan considerations even when they're declaring the president a king.

Sure, you lose while "playing by the rules", and you claim that the rules are all separating us from chaos...while chaos runs free. Maybe these rules aren't as good at preventing chaos than you think, and maybe your "honor" isn't as important as, you know, the material consequences of losing, especially losing without even trying.

Who knows, maybe in Act III Shimura will accept the Ghost. But I'm not holding my breath for Democrats to start actually fucking fighting.

I ended up finishing Act II of Ghost of Tsushima on the day after the Vice Presidential debate, and my thoughts on Shimura's dumbassery and Democratic uselessness have become this unholy chimera that I will now inflict on all of you. You're welcome.

(This was probably already said better by Innuendo Studios in his Alt-Right Playbook series, but still)

(Also spoilers for a four-year-old game I guess)

(Also also if you're gonna yell at me for "making it political" 1) stuff it 2) war is politics with weapons)

So Shimura is an old-guard samurai, honor, order, justice, announce your name before a duel, etc etc. And (feudalism aside) the samurai did end up bringing some semblance of order to Tsushima in the past. And when the island was in its backstory civil war, it's implied that they won that war "as samurai" ie with frontal assaults, duels, and the most subterfuge employed is troop deployments.

Enter the Mongols, who make landfall at Komoda Beach and are met by Shimura's allied force of five clans. And they get their asses obliterated. But not just that - it's shown from the start that the Khan has studied the samurai. He knows their code, their ideals, their tendencies. So when Shimura tells his best swordsman to "go break their spirits" by presumably dueling the Mongols' best warrior, defeating him, and therefore showing how outmatched they were, Khotun Khan walks up, douses the man in alcohol, and lights him on fire. In the ensuing battle, the clans are routed. Shimura is captured, and our protagonist Jin Sakai barely survives because a thief nursed him back to health.

So now the Mongols have control of the island and are pillaging and assaulting. The instant Sakai gets his sword back, he makes to challenge the nearest Mongols to an honorable duel (sidenote, the fact that the iaido standoff is a game mechanic is incredible. Inspired), but Yuna the thief warns him that Mongols like to kill prisoners at the slightest provocation. So now Jin has a choice - follow his code of honor and fair duels, or take some levels in NIN and start shanking Mongols in the back? Given that Sakai becomes the Ghost of Tsushima, it's obvious what he picked.

And Shimura hates it. To him, Jin was just trying to win by any means, becoming no better than the Mongols, acting as an honorless monster. But to Jin, Shimura was privileging his code of honor over the many, many, many lives that would be thrown away for his "honorable" win - or his crushing defeat, as the Khan keeps outmaneuvering Shimura.

[lookwhatilost]

I’m going to use this video as something of a case study to prove my point. Some things that are necessary to point about Ben Shapiro: he is an intelligent person, he speaks quickly, and he makes good quips. This makes him very good for the YouTube video “LiBtArD wReCkEd” compilations. He’s also very dishonest and he tends to misrepresent statistics. This is, of course, because Ben is a fascist and fascists don’t care if they’re telling the truth.

So, this is a thirteen minute video, and barely a fraction of what this student is laying out is going to get covered. The reason why Ben is letting him talk as much as he does in the beginning instead of interrupting him the moment he started explaining what socialism is is because he’s looking for something to quote back at him. Usually he’ll let his “debate” opponent talk until he finds something to do this with, and hit them hard on the point he stops them on.

Next we have this “workers or the government” thing Ben comes back at him with: he clearly said “workers owning the means of production”. He even said it twice, I believe, and Ben pretty much says “I know you’re talking about that, but if you said THE GOVERNMENT owning the means of production, that would be very ineffective” and then he rattles off on that. Even though this student never said anything about redistribution – he deliberately stepped away from that point at the very beginning. He acknowledged the fact that Ben will often talk about redistribution without actually engaging with the core points of socialism and, once more, he never said anything about government control and he never said anything about lack of free market enterprise. Socialism and free market enterprise aren’t in any way disparate. Market socialism is a thing.

Hypothetically, what you’d have to do here is let him talk on, and when he’s done, say “That was great and all, Ben, but I pretty clearly said worker owned means of production. Would you mind answering the actual question.” You can’t treat people like this in good faith. Ben knows exactly what he’s doing here with his talking points. No one brought up the Scandinavian countries. No one brought up government owned means of production. Nobody brought up free market enterprise. Nobody brought up being paid $100,000 to dig holes in the ground. No one brought up redistribution policies – unless you count the kid bringing it up to clarify that this wasn’t what he was talking about.

He then brings up that he’s an owner. Ben is smart enough to understand the basic principles of socialism, but he recognizes he isn’t capable of addressing any substantive criticism, so he’s deliberately pretending to misunderstand what this kid is saying. “Freely choose to alienate your labor” as if you have any choice in society these days. That’s like saying you freely choose to shit inside of a toilet. You don’t have many other options in regards to that. You can if you want to, but eventually, you’re going to get in trouble with it. Again, this is a deliberate misinterpretation. The workers owning the means of production gets brought up, and he spends the first two minutes of his response saying “if you meant the government owning it, that’s disastrous, and by the way, Norway is actually capitalist, and socialists won’t tell you this, but they actually have free market enterprise. And I’m a worker, so workers do actually own the means of production. Isn’t Bill Gates a worker?” Aren’t the tens of thousands of people under Bill Gates also workers? We’re talking about all workers, not just the one worker who also happens to own the company.

Him crafting rebuttals that actually take into consideration the tenants of socialism would, at least on some level, give the socialist credence to argue in a reality based sense. If a reactionary defends their belief system by attacking socialism in ways that are actually salient, you’ve set the socialist up to debate in a fact based argument, and that’s not what reactionaries dominate. Reactionaries dominate in a purview of recited dialogue trees, of snooty quips, and emotionally based arguments. This is where they thrive. They do not want to bring the argument into a reality based discussion.

In three minutes, he’s introduced so many stupid misconceptions that the student is going to spend more time arguing against the misconception than he will putting forth his own argument. He could spend a literal hour trying to correct the dumb, deliberate straw men that Ben Shapiro has thrown out here and never will he get a chance to substantively put forth any real advocacy for socialism.

To counter his “criticism” on labor theory of value: what if you spend a lot of time and money digging up diamonds from the ground? There are plenty of diamonds that get dug up that have absolutely no mechanical or industrial purpose. He’s saying “labor theory of value is dumb and bad because the market theory of value is what’s correct” without presenting any sort of argument to support that. Neither of these are holistic theories, both of them have valid places in society as lenses of interpretation, but this is not a substantive criticism. It is, in fact, very stupid.

It also helps that he has all the social capital in this situation. You never, ever want to challenge a reactionary when they have the podium and you don’t, and while they have the audience and you don’t. If they are even slightly intelligent, it is literally impossible for them to lose in the eye of their audience.

When the student brings up Mondragon: this is what reactionaries do. They define capitalism as freedom. Capitalism is when the owners of capital own the means of production and socialism is when the workers own the means of production. Not that we should take much that economic theorists say for granted on the account of most of them being cheerleaders for capitalism, but there are plenty of things that Ben laid forth that many economic theorists would disagree with. For one, he’s laid out the assertion that free markets are somehow absolute to capitalism and antithetical so socialism, that worker owned communes are an example of capitalism, and the degree to which government intervention is present in an economy is deterministic to whether or not it is socialism. Reactionaries operate in a delusory, fantastical land where the characteristics of capitalism are amorphous and capable of being shifted to suit one argument to another. In one instance, capitalism is the liberator of the working class, the distributor of technology, and in another instance, the very real consequences of capitalism are instead a product of corporatism, of government intervention, of “globalist” policy. Not true capitalism, mind, just other things.

And hey, guys, I’ve read the Communist Manifesto. Does anyone remember any segments in there where Karl Marx claimed the government needed to cram down and force people to participate in guild markets? Does anyone remember that part? I don’t.

Anyway, this is why you don’t argue with reactionaries when they have the podium and you don’t. The student got a bunch of time to speak where he laid out a very calm point, Ben got a bunch of time to speak where he then said a bunch of shit that had nothing to do with the kids argument to mislead the audience, and then deliberately interpreted what the kid was saying to present a straw man that the kid would have to correct. Now Ben has got the student in a position where he’s basically saying “I don’t disagree with anything, you’re basically saying capitalism. Worker owned means of production? That just means the people who own it also work at it, right? If Republicans did that, would you vote for them?” The kid is never going to be able to correct all this, not in a million years, and now when he speaks up, Ben is going to keep hammering this in, deliberately interrupting the kid and forcing him to answer misleading questions.

This is how you win a Ben Shapiro debate. This is how you “own libtards”. You get the mic, deliberately misinterpret what they say, you throw straw men at them and force them to defend or respond to that, both of which are impossible, and then, just to keep them off base, you continue to interrupt them when they respond to your point. It’s a very, very simple formula to follow if you are intellectually dishonest and a complete fucking asshole.

But yeah, the free market is not exclusively capitalist. For one, the free market does not have prescriptions. The free market is not a physical entity, it’s a concept that some people aspire to, unfettered trade. And free market socialism is a thing, yet again.

At around the 8 minute mark of this video, the student makes a bit of a mistake because he’s not really harping in on the public vs private ownership of the means of production, but Ben Shapiro’s line there is completely irrelevant: “So companies shouldn’t be able to have investors?” This is a tangential question. This would be like him talking about socialized ownership, and Ben leans into the microphone and asks “well, who’s the CEO then, dummy?” This is to say, it’s tangentially related, but it has nothing to do with the thrust of the argument.

His counter to the pencil factory example is pathetic. No one mentioned doctors. No one mentioned everyone in society getting paid the same amount. This has nothing to do with doctors and pencil factory workers, this has to do with pencil factory workers and pencil factory owners. He thinks this is a “gotcha” but it literally has nothing to do with the argument the kid is making.

It is so, so difficult to maintain your composure when you are around a hostile audience. At least if you were on stage, you would have the positional authority over them. You’d be in a place where, at least physically, you are given credence by the architecture of the room – standing atop something, having the lights on you, being behind the podium, having unfettered control over the mic. These things can lend you a lot of confidence. But if you’re just standing there and someone else is holding your microphone, and the audience claps whenever Ben Shapiro says something… Ugh.

But it comes as no surprise that Ben sees capital and labor as one and the same, because he’s a fucking capitalist and he’s a piece of shit. To him, people and money are just interchangeable cogs in a larger machine that he benefits from, and that is how most capital owners see them. After all, labor is a resource, and capital is a resource, and that’s all you look at them as – resources – there isn’t much of a difference between the two. Now, of course, you’ve got a few more ~libcucky~ takes on it, like how humans are human beings, and we have rights, and should be entitled to happiness and respect, but that doesn’t really factor into that sort of economic, capitalist worldview.

To summarize, this juxtaposition, “you’re a socialist, I’m a free marketer. You’re talking about things that are voluntary, which means they can’t be socialist, because socialism is authoritarianism”, this is the dichotomy that he’s been trying to reenforce this entire conversation. I don’t know how deliberately he’s doing this, but it’s very effective. In the mind of every audience member right now, what Ben is doing right here is destroying this “libtard” right now by saying “Heh, idiot. You think that’s socialism? How can that be socialism if there’s freedom involved?' and that’s basically what he’s going for here. But when the kid gets flustered and struggles to make a coherent point in the face of all this, Ben can just shit on him. And then the people who edit this shit put in airhorns and laugh tracks so the smooth brained dipshits watching this unironically know when to clap and bark like seals at the libcuck getting owned. It’s pathetic and it’s not a real argument. Fin.

[quicklyseverebird]

Why I became politically activated (agitated), or why I became a Trump supporter.

All the cards on the table, I doubt anyone will read this, especially anyone to whom it might make a difference or change a mind.  This is a textual equivalent to shouting into the wind, and at the moment of writing these words, I don’t even know if I will post them anywhere.  Yet I find clarity in writing things out, and in light of the state of our country, I want to organize my stream of consciousness to see why and how I got here, to where I stand now, at this point of time.

I used to pride myself on my lack of political involvement.  I used to all but sneer when people got all worked up about political issues.  Such things were distant and had no seeming impact on my life, though I did my civic duty and voted whenever possible, because that’s what you do in a republic, and you have no right to complain about the results if you did nothing to affect them.

So, when Trump first mentioned that he was running for president, I just rolled my eyes and chuckled like anyone else.  He was vain, self-promoting and way too quick on the Twitter finger.  He’s no one I would want to have over for dinner, but now I’m glad he won and I hope he wins again.  I don’t think anyone else’s ego would have been able to weather the storm we’ve gone through over the past 4 years.  Especially not a politician, who survives mainly by going wherever the wind of public opinion blows.

But I’m not a Republican, so I can’t vote in their primaries, so when he rose to the top, I was as surprised as anyone else.  So, who was my other option?

Hillary Clinton, the poster child of political corruption and cronyism, whose scandals and crimes make a bigger volume than all the books she’s written explaining(complaining) about her loss.

2016 is when I had my political awakening and started to really look around at what was happening in the culture around me.  Perhaps it was because I was a parent to a child on the cusp of adolescence who would soon start to be immersed in it.  What I saw terrified me.

America had a rising group of Nazis infiltrating our culture.  And I don’t mean the stereotypical skin heads we all revile and view with disgust.  And I don’t mean the paltry 10-11k white supremacists in our country of 365 million (per Anti-defamation League data).  No one took them all that seriously, because their bigotry was all too obvious, easily exposed, and they were, quite frankly, too few to matter.

No, I mean a real group of extremists who were Nazi’s in all but name.  Who actually made a point of labeling anyone who disagreed with them a Nazi, in fact.  Who with seeming ignorance of the historical irony of their actions, re-enacted every deed performed by the black and brown shirts of pre-WWII fascist Europe.  They worked to shut down free speech (of anyone whose position differed from their own), attacked and intimidated anyone who challenged them with threats physical, verbal, professional and political, advocating literal book burning, public destruction of property, and most sneaky of all, enacting a new form of acceptable racism into a form that some have compared to a state-sponsored cult or religion.  I saw the blossom in 2016, and now I am seeing the fruit.

A couple weeks ago, I watched, in horror, live on television as the Krystal Naught was reenacted in my own city and cities across the country.  Since then I’ve seen these groups claim territory, terrorize and destroy businesses and residents’ homes.  Most often—again in seeming unconscious irony—those belonging to the very people they claimed to be fighting in support of.  The term terrorist is apt, as well as zealot.  They subvert groups of well-meaning people to their own political ends and rain down terror on anyone who disagrees with them, up to and including actual physical harm, and provoking situations that wind up in death.

They are left wing, just as the Nazi’s were, born from a communist/Marxist foundation with an emphasis on race, instead of class, as their dividing point.  It’s not the proletariat and bourgeoisie anymore, it’s <insert minority group> vs white.  The irony that most of these individuals are themselves, white, seems—of course—to be lost on them.  Fascism is socialism with a nationalistic and racial focus.  It was invented by a student of Marx as a way of making socialism feasible.  Apart from the nationalistic bent, this group follows the same formula.  Anyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi or some kind of “-ist” or “-phobic.”  It’s a marvelous rhetorical device.  Say you’re not racist, well that that’s proof that you are!  Try and bring up a factual point that disagrees with them, and they slap you with a label and claim through intersectionality politics that they don’t have to listen to you or any facts you might have to offer because you are from the “wrong group.”  They only have to listen to details or views on an issue from a group appointed and designated by their ideology.  No one else could ever offer a differing position.  And those from the group in question who DO disagree with them?  Well obviously, they are “race traitors” and their views don’t matter either.  After all, a person is only a part of the “right group” if they agree with these people.  If this took place in Nazi Germany, they would have been called “Jew-lovers.”  I’ve literally watched people of color assaulted, abused, called racial slurs, by white people.  (yes, there’s that irony again.)  I’ve watched POC being told by these individuals, unaware of their actual skin color, to check their white privilege because obviously they have to be white if they disagree with their position.  I see this inherent and rampant racism every time I post my own views and watch as people assume I’m a white man because…I hold the “wrong view.”  Why would race even matter to whether or not what is being said is true or accurate, unless you're a racist?  They have all their groups in neat and tidy boxes, with their assigned positions and “proper,” “permitted” viewpoints and anyone straying from the herd must be culled.  I’ve watched them tear down statues of the men who gave them their rights, and statues of the men who freed slaves or died to free them, even black heroes!  They’ve torn down statues built to commemorate abolitionists in the name of…racism…  They paint a street, claiming that it is free speech, but when someone else paints on the same street, it’s a hate crime.

They are, in fact, the most racist people in our country, and they revel in it because they feel it’s justified.  Place any of these people in Nazi Germany and they would be chomping at the bit alongside the Fuhrer at the "outrages" the Jewish race had inflicted on their country and the "privileges" they possessed.  Their racism is “justified!”  It is “right!”  I have no doubt that, if our skin color didn’t already distinguish us from one another, the mobs roaming our cities now would be demanding something akin to pink triangles or stars of David be worn by the designated parties.  We can see their racism clearly wherever they find a position of power and are allowed to organize themselves.  We watched an utterly self-unaware Chaz/Chop re-institute Jim Crow laws and create race-designated locations, parks, gardens, etc.  Whenever they find themselves in power, they organize themselves along racial lines.  Given enough time, they would probably have created separate bathrooms and drinking fountains.

Like the Nazi’s of Germany, they thrive on division and fear.  It gave the Germans a sense of purpose and pride coming out of the Great Depression following WWI.  In today’s world, they never would have risen so far or so fast if not for the economic devastation following Covid-19 and the many frustrated, unemployed, frightened people it left in its wake.

And they do it all in the name of “racial” or “social” justice, and justify their rampant racism that way. They excuse their racism in the name of…racism.  It leaves one wondering if these are either the most historically ignorant and self-unaware people in human history, or if they are literally evil.  And I don’t use the term evil hyperbolically.  I don’t mean mustache-twirling villains in black.  No one really evil believes they are evil.  The Devil himself thought his actions justified.  Evil always justifies itself, masks itself as good, and this allows them to do even greater harm, for no one does more damage than an intellectual fool who believes they are doing the right thing.  The only thing greater than mankind’s tendency towards evil is our ability to convince ourselves that it is good.  And oh, they lie, and they lie, and they lie.  They lie about events where they were the aggressors.  They lie and even post videos of the event proving they are lying, boasting about their lies, because they know that they won't be held accountable, and their lie is being spread faster than the truth, and the people in authority will allow this.  Far from being counter-cultural, they are now a state-sponsored, state-supported non-theistic religion.  The similarities with a cult are creepy.

The truth is, they aren't interested in eliminating racism. In fact, as we can see from these protests, they make racism worse!  And they do so deliberately.  Why?  Because they aren't interested in lives, no matter the color.  They aren't interested in actual justice.  More black lives alone have been killed by these protests, by actual BLM and Antifa people, than unarmed black men were killed by cops across the country in all of 2019.  Perhaps we should defund/disband them.  They are militarizing racism the same way the Nazi's did, to gain power.  It's not about lives, it's not about actual violence or inequality, it's about the Movement. It's about gaining power and influence in society.  And it is working the same way it did back in Germany.  When you have literally white, leftist people attacking and calling black people racial slurs because they don't agree with their positions, and then claiming they are against racism....

So, let’s see here.  We have an international organization born from the German Communist Party, with localized cells but a unified ideology, cooperative networks, shared finances, a common uniform, trademarked logos and merchandise, who ferment racial tensions to gain political power, create divisions between communities, seek to destroy anyone who would stand in their way through threat of violence and intimidation, destroy history, hide in screens of “useful idiots” seeking to be a part of a cause that they stir into “protests” so they can create further unrest and violence, all so they can gain power for their ideology.  And all the while, claiming to be the victims of the people they attack so they can claim the moral high ground.  Self-defense in the face of the mob is “racist.”  Protecting your property is a sign of “privilege” that must be purged, even as they loot, burn, destroy homes and businesses of the people whose lives they claim to want to protect.  

Explain to me how, exactly, they aren’t exactly like the Nazi’s before the rise of Hitler?  They are a socialist organization, with a racial element that use intimidation, threats of violence, doxing, actual violence and harm to anyone who disagrees with them or stands in their way to gain political and social power.  A literally evil ideology that has caused more death and suffering to mankind than any other in history, that has failed everywhere it was implemented.

And all the while the media propaganda praises them, just as they did Hitler (who himself won Time’s Man of the Year award, recall).

If you want to know if you are one of the good guys, then ask, which side supports freedom of speech?  Which supports liberty?  Which side doesn't advocate for violence as a means to their ends?  Which side are literally attacking their opponents?  Are people better off when you are in control, or not?  I think we can look at the smoldering ruins of our cities to decide where these extremists stand.

So, why did I become politically activated/agitated?  It wasn’t some YouTube channel “radicalizing” me.  I am not a MAGA fanatic or Trump fan.  What motivated me was seeing the rise of a new, evil authoritarian power in America.  They wear a different mask, but their actions speak for themselves.  They are the REAL neo-Nazis.  It doesn’t matter what they call themselves now.  You can change your name, but your deeds remain.  Your title doesn’t define you; your actions do.  If it quacks like a duck….  The Right didn’t pull me to their side, you on the left drove me here in fear for my life and the future of this country.  The fear is only growing now as I see official after official bow (sometimes literally) to these groups.  If they gain any more political power, I shudder to think of the world my daughter will inherit.  Will she be the new Anne Frank?  The Right isn’t the one making threats or calling me names if I disagree with them.  You are.  They don’t threaten my life or my family’s future.  You do.  They aren’t the people approaching with devastation in their wake.  You are.  You activated me.  I can only hope enough other people will see you for what you are and be activated as well.  God help us all if you ever gain power.  Some of them are literally already calling for anyone who disagrees with them to be imprisoned in "re-education" camps.  No lie.  This cannot happen.  Never again.