#one perpetuates a cycle of destruction and violence and the other breaks it

[scramble-crossing]

Do you ever think about the fact that the Leo Cantus Armo fight takes place in the Udagawa Backstreets, exactly where Neku was shot, once by Joshua once by Coco, twice had his life unfairly ripped away from him, and when he arrives Sho is furiously bearing down on Beat with the intent to kill so that even if he is out of his mind under the duress of Soul Pulvis' power Neku would be entierly justified in erasing him...but instead he chooses mercy? He shows him a kindness that the world never afforded him, because for all that Sho has done Neku still believes that he deserves it? And despite the horror he has been through all he wants is to extend the second chance that his friends once gave to him? I don't I'm normal.

[phantobats]

No, Crime Alley doesn’t need a vigilante like Red Hood. In fact, Jason Todd’s approach is exactly what Gotham must avoid to break free from its cycle of crime and despair.

I've seen increasing rhetoric amongst Batfamily spaces that Jason Todd's approach to ruling Crime Alley with an iron fist is the preferable one. He's been painted as some sort of hero for perpetuating violence and controlling the drug trade instead of dismantling it, as seen here:

user iheartdeadmen79 on tiktok:

Contrary to popular fan rhetoric, Batman doesn’t avoid Crime Alley. He confronts its darkness, honoring his parents’ memory and striving to improve the lives of its residents.

Batman frequently patrols Crime Alley, protecting its people from gangs and criminals ("Just Another Kid on Crime Alley!"). His mere presence is a deterrent to crime and a reminder that justice exists.

As Bruce Wayne, he addresses the root causes of Crime Alley’s plight. Through the Wayne Foundation, he funds infrastructure projects, clinics, scholarships, and other resources that empower the community (Detective Comics #457).

Batman collaborates with figures like Leslie Thompkins, whose clinic provides healthcare and shelter to Gotham’s most vulnerable. Together, they tackle crime at its roots—poverty, neglect, and systemic injustice.

Batman’s approach is about more than fighting criminals; it’s about building a foundation for a better future.

Jason Todd’s Red Hood represents the antithesis of progress. His iron-fist approach perpetuates the very cycles of violence he claims to stop.

In "Batman: Under the Red Hood", Jason attempts to take over Gotham’s underworld, including parts of Crime Alley, by using lethal force. This creates power vacuums, incites gang wars, and leads to collateral damage among innocent civilians.

Jason targets criminals but ignores the systemic issues driving crime. Killing gang leaders may seem effective, but it does nothing to address the poverty and lack of opportunity fueling the problem.

Residents of Crime Alley already distrust authority. Jason’s violent reputation only worsens this, making him seem like another dangerous figure instead of a protector.

Jason’s “kill to prevent crime” mentality sends a harmful message. It glorifies violence as the only solution to complex social issues, desensitizing the community to brutality and ensuring the next generation grows up in the same cycle of trauma.

The Bigger Problem: Romanticizing Red Hood

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: much of the fandom romanticizes Jason Todd’s methods without critically examining their consequences. Posts praising Red Hood for “taking control” or “cleaning up Crime Alley” ignore how his actions destabilize the community, alienate the people he claims to help, and perpetuate the very violence he fights against.

Jason isn’t a hero for Crime Alley—he’s a cautionary tale. By normalizing his ideology, fans risk promoting a toxic mindset that equates justice with unchecked power. Crime Alley doesn’t need fear and bloodshed. It needs hope, investment, and the belief that change is possible.

Batman embodies the hard, often thankless work of building a better Gotham. Red Hood, though well-intentioned, embodies the dangers of quick fixes and violent rule. Gotham, and especially Crime Alley, doesn’t need more fear. It needs heroes who understand that real change comes from compassion, collaboration, and addressing root causes—not from perpetuating the same cycles of pain.

Fans need to move past the idea that Jason Todd’s methods are heroic. They’re not. They’re destructive. If we want Gotham to heal, it’s time to embrace hope, not more violence.

And I do know that the creator of the Tiktok I mentioned wrote their POV off as just being fanon, yet because it isn't explicitly stated in the caption and you have to dive into the comment section to even figure it out, it perpetuates the idea that this is how things actually are in canon, instead of being something fans with no real idea about social issues made up to praise their favorite white guy of the month.

[burst-of-iridescent]

now that i've finished my re-read of the hunger games books, it’s even more baffling to me than before that people compare everlark to kat.aang when they are so incredibly similar to zutara.

a fundamental aspect of everlark’s characterization is that they are star-crossed lovers. and while it's true that that is a gimmick the capitol forces on them, it’s also a reflection of the reality that peeta and katniss were never supposed to fall in love, let alone make it last.

from the very beginning, the odds are stacked against katniss and peeta. their class division keeps them apart in district 12, and in the games you're naturally not expected to do anything but kill your fellow tributes. what peeta does in loudly declaring his love and respect for katniss from the beginning is revolutionary because it goes against everything he's been told his entire life. saying he's in love with her and valuing his life over hers is absolutely radical in a situation that forces you to prioritize yourself and dehumanize your fellow human beings. and this framing of love as resistance is something that repeats itself in zutara's arc, in the catacombs where zuko and katara reach out to one another against everything that tells them to do otherwise, and again in the final agni kai when zuko gives up everything for a girl he had been told was nothing.

they’re love stories because they stem, first and foremost, from love for your fellow human beings — especially in the places where it shouldn’t exist. love for a starving child from a lower class whom you’re supposed to kill. love for a weeping enemy who represents everything you were told to despise. both zutara and everlark are about the importance of unity amidst division, about coming together when the entire world is trying to force you apart. about looking at the person you're supposed to hate and saying no, i refuse, and reaching out in love, in compassion, in empathy instead because you understand that they're not as different from you as you were taught to believe.

and this carries on to the other theme that both ships represent: the need to break the cycle of violence.

one of the main themes that underlies each of these characters’ narratives is how easily (and even justifiably) they could’ve perpetuated the harm that was done to them. peeta, katniss, zuko and katara have all suffered without cause, and it would have been understandable if any of them had let that suffering twist them into vengeance and inflicted it back upon others. it would have been encouraged even, in the societies they live in, for them to unleash their rage upon those seen as deserving of it. to become like zhao or hama or gale or president coin. but what defines each of these characters is that instead of allowing their suffering to overcome them, they choose to help — not harm — others, even the people they would have every reason to hate. that’s why katniss and peeta refuse the chance to hold another hunger games with the capitol’s children, why zuko helps an earth kingdom town, why katara risks the invasion itself to free a fire nation village from tyranny. all of them have been victims of unjust violence and oppression, sometimes even at the hands of other victims, and that’s exactly why they refuse to stand by or be complicit as others suffer the way they did. both everlark and zutara are about looking at the darkest version of yourself, the person you might have been, and refusing to go down that road. to understand that you are more than what your circumstances make you into. to choose kindness over hatred, peace over war.

at their core, both ships exemplify the themes of love and unity and holding onto your humanity against impossible odds. but more importantly, they exemplify hope. the dandelion in the spring. the fire that means rebirth instead of destruction.

choosing to do better, be better, make something better, together.

[inamindfarfaraway]

I can’t wait to see Ezran’s reaction to Callum wanting to free Runaan, and then Runaan himself. We all know that he’s a kind, wise kid. He strives for peace, sees the best in people, prefers diplomacy over combat and applies respect and compassion to everyone he meets. He'd rather show mercy than take prisoners. He wants to avoid his father's mistakes of pursuing hatred and escalating conflict. His power is literally enhanced communication. Compared to the much more ruthless Prince Callum "Stab, stab, bye-bye, bad guy!" of Katolis, he seems pretty 'pure of heart'.

But he has anger inside him. He resents the pain and injustice he's experienced and holds grudges, like Harrow before him. He admits to his people that he is learning to forgive and move forward alongside them. And it isn’t easy.

"We are angry! I am angry. I have been hurt. ...We all want peace and we all want love, but violence tests us. In a twisted way, it converts us to its cause. Because pain and loss feel so terrible inside, you want to hate, you want to hurt someone else."

Callum would kill to save his loved ones, but not to avenge them. One of the first things he does in the show is condemn the self-perpetuating cycle of revenge as irrational, unhelpful and needlessly destructive. He forgives Rayla and Soren. He jumps on board with liberating Runaan, his father's killer, because it's what Rayla wants, even though she's actually willing to put it aside for now. When she steals Runaan's bow he used to commit the crime, he exhibits no hard feelings.

But when Ezran finds the arrow Runaan fired to inform the Dragon Queen of Harrow's death, he breaks it out of rage and spite.

So when he discovers that his dear brother is trying to free the man who murdered their father and stole his childhood, to allow him to experience life and be with his loved ones when Harrow can't? He's not gonna like it.

This arc seems wonderfully plausible in Season Six becaues this franchise adores its parallels and foil dynamics, and Claudia's most likely motivation in Season Six is "The heroes killed my dad and I'm going to make it everyone's problem!" It's telling that his speech about the cycle of pain, bitterness and vengeance I quoted is layered over Claudia fighting in the name of her own murdered father.

The beautiful symbolism of Ezran having his crown forged from the steel of Harrow’s sword... on one hand, he's destroyed a weapon because he never wants to use it. He's choosing a narrative of love over a narrative of violent strength. But on the other hand, he carries the weight of his murdered father's weapon, which did spill blood and take lives, with him all the time as a symbol of his identity, specifically his identity as a powerful authority figure and Harrow’s successor. You see how that’s a little troubling, right? In a show so concerned with generational trauma and history repeating? Ezran? Are you okay?

[zapreportsblog]

In Love With The Same Cat

➥ summary : There’s no Spider-Man without the Black Cat just like there’s no Black Cat without Spider-Man. But what if we had a multiverse dimensional traveling jewelry stealing burglar Black Cat (try saying that seven times fast aye) that traveled across dimensions not only stealing the worlds finest jewels but also the hearts of four unlucky, or lucky depending on how you see it Spider-Man’s and Spider-Women’s hearts.

➥ 3: Seeking Redemption, Not Revenge

Months of tireless training in martial arts and acrobatics had transformed (y/n) into a formidable force to be reckoned with. She had honed her skills and mastered her body, mentally preparing herself for a confrontation that would serve as the ultimate test of her newfound strength.

As (y/n) delved deeper into her mission, her initial mindset of seeking revenge began to shift. Revenge, she realized, was a dark path that could consume her soul and perpetuate a cycle of violence. Instead, she resolved to use this confrontation to reclaim her power and seek a form of redemption for the pain inflicted upon her.

After tirelessly scouring the city, (y/n) finally found a lead that would point her in the direction of Blake, the college guy who had assaulted her that fateful night. It was a trail speckled with danger, but she was no stranger to adversity. With her heart pounding and her determination unwavering, she embarked on this treacherous journey, armed not only with physical prowess but also the strength of her spirit.

When she finally located Blake, (y/n) discovered a man plagued by demons of his own, existing in a world of self-destruction and regret. It was a sobering sight, one that stirred empathy within her. As anger simmered within her veins, she couldn't help but feel a twinge of sorrow for what he had become.

Drawing deep from the well of her newfound strength, she stepped out of the shadows to confront her assaulter. Blake's eyes met hers, and for a brief moment, time stood still. In that charged silence, (y/n) measured his every move, her training guiding her like an invisible hand.

But instead of lashing out with a fury fueled by revenge, (y/n) chose a different path. She embraced forgiveness, recognizing that it was not weakness, but rather a testament to her own strength.

She looked into Blake's eyes and spoke words that echoed with both pain and resilience. "I refuse to let your actions consume me any longer. I've come here not to take your life, but to claim back mine." Her voice trembled, yet carried an inescapable conviction.

Tears streamed down Blake's face as he finally comprehended the gravity of his actions. He wanted to beg for forgiveness, to find redemption for the pain he had caused. But (y/n) knew that the burden he carried was his alone to bear.

With her head held high, (y/n) turned away from Blake, leaving him in the haunted labyrinth of his own remorse. Redemption, she realized, was a personal journey that required an individual to face their demons, seek amends, and make peace with their past—a journey in which she had no power to escort him.

As (y/n) walked away, she could feel the weight of her past beginning to lift. She wasn't just a survivor anymore; she was a warrior who had triumphed over darkness. The scars on her body were now a testament to her strength, resilience, and reclamation of her identity.

From that point forward, (y/n) dedicated herself to helping others navigate the complex path of healing after trauma. She became an advocate, breaking the cycle of sexual assault, and transforming her pain into a catalyst for change.

In the wake of that confrontation, (y/n) found peace within herself—a peace crafted from the shards of her shattered innocence. She understood that revenge would only breed more anguish, but by choosing forgiveness and reclaiming her power, she had transcended the confines of victimhood.

In the annals of (y/n)'s journey, Chapter 3 marked a significant turning point. It was a chapter that showcased not only her physical growth but, more importantly, her emotional evolution. She learned that true strength resided in rising above the urge for revenge, embracing forgiveness, and forging a new path filled with healing, understanding, and compassion.

[orchidbreezefc]

thinking about the book of life. thinking about the original songs in the book of life and how they were translated in the spanish dub

well actually i think "te amo y más" was a bit of a miss generally... first of all i never like the "nobody will ever love you as much as i do" line. but also 'i love you and more/beyond' doesnt have the kind of melancholy that "i love you too much" has

like diego luna takes a completely different approach to the the last use of the title line in each version, which i think is appropriate to these very different sentiments, but him almost triumphantly shouting 'te amo y ¡mas!' just doesnt hit the same as the vulnerable little voice break with "i love you too much".

there's that depth of emotion man. the way manolo loves maría is hurting him. there's a very real chance he loses her to joaquín and what the hell does he do then, when he's already in pain from how much he loves her?

ANYWAY THOUGH both versions of the apology song go so hard, fuck. there are homophonous dual interpretations?? bitch??

the spanish version starts with "toro, me da pena"--'bull, it pains me'. BUT the way the spanish r is pronounced it's practically identical to "todo me da pena"--'it all/everything pains me'. this whole thing pains me. the entire fuckin situation. all of it.

and then the line "si nos quisimos matar" can either mean 'if we wanted to kill each other' or "if we wanted to kill ourselves". the way those two things are in a very real sense one and the same. perpetuating this cycle of violence just means participating in one's own destruction. a

meanwhile the english version has "your royal blood was never meant to decorate this sand", which sounds just like 'your royal blood was never meant to decorate this hand'. like. god. your royal blood should have greater purpose than to be wasted, spilled in the dirt, pearls before swine. but also it should have greater purpose than to bring me glory by spilling it.

even the 'never meant' itself can be read either as "this should not have happened" or 'something else was supposed to happen instead'. both, honestly. you had some glorious purpose but instead by some horrible mistake you're here. you're cast aside in the dirt, your life and your beauty forfeit so that i can claim some bit of prestige for myself.

[musicalhell]

Persephone's Gambit Extras: More Fun With Tarot

I've said before that I personally don't consider Tarot to be divinatory (believe me, if I knew of a reliable way of predicting the future my life would be a lot easier), but something more of a combination of improvisational storytelling and meditative exercise. The cards don't mean anything until we give them context though our own perceptions and experiences.

That said, the Tarot in Persephone's Gambit does tend to be a means of foreshadowing (or backshadowing, or side-shadowing, as it were). Because I'm the god, and if I want to make the cards tell the characters things they may or may not pay attention to then dammit I'm gonna do it!

So. In the latest chapter (obligatory shameless plug link) we once again see two spreads, a five-card and a three-card. The first is done for Christine and Raoul by a fairground fortune-teller, and though she's typically vague about the meaning it does apply to their situation:

The Wheel of Fortune is at the center of the cross. (The first drafts had the Lovers, which was also appropriate--and fun, because the Universal Monsters deck features Christine and Raoul themselves for that card--but I went with this for The Drama). It's a reminder that the only thing constant is change, and there's always something that's beyond our control. Right now, Christine and Raoul are together, happy, and content....but fall is coming on, and Persephone will need to descend to the underworld. What will happen to them when she does?

The Ten of Swords represents despair, betrayal, and ruin--a perfect summary for where things stood in Phantom's dramatic climax. It's a difficult card to confront, but no Tarot card is wholly good or bad. The Ten cards show the suit in a self-perpetuating cycle--in this case, the cycle of violence that leads to destruction. It confronts us with the harm done to us and by us and says: will you continue in this death spiral, or will you break free?

The Emperor is the Major Arcana that embodies those traits traditionally defined as "masculine:" strength, order, guidance, authority. Upright, the Emperor is a just and benevolent leader, but when he's reversed (as he is here) he becomes a tyrant, abusing his power over others and demanding obedience to rigid, confining systems. It's likely the challenges Christine and Raoul will face in the future will come in this form...

The Eight of Swords represents entrapment and imprisonment (and has my favorite art in the Rider-Waite cards). Christine is afraid of being caged, whether by an Opera career overseen by a domineering, possessive impresario or as an aristocrat's wife that will place rigid limits on her life and activities. Likewise, both Raoul and Erik consider the life the other would offer her as something that would limit her. But the Eight of Swords is also a reminder that the power to free ourselves is always at hand...even if we can't see it just yet.

If the Ten of Swords is the doom of the tragic hero, the Ten of Cups is the fairytale ending. It represents the apotheosis of emotional and spiritual fulfillment: joy, abundance, loving relationships. Faced with the traumas of the past and the uncertainty of the future, it confronts Christine with an enticing yet seemingly impossible resolution. Can she really have it all?

Then at the end of the chapter, Erik does a reading using only the Major Arcana, the most deeply symbolic cards in the deck. It's a good technique when you want a reading with clear, direct answers--and he gets them:

The Tower, like the Ten of Swords, indicates calamity and ruin, often one brought about by the subject's own hubris. Erik has brought grief upon himself and others, and must face the consequences. And like the Ten of Swords, it is a call to action in one's darkest hour. Erik has a choice: sit and decay amid the wreckage of what he has done or, like a good architect, rise up and rebuild on stronger ground.

Erik himself is The Hermit in the UM deck, fitting as this is the card of solitude and social withdrawal. Traditionally, hermits removed themselves from the world for the sake of contemplation and spiritual enlightenment, but a reversed Hermit indicates the subject has become isolated and disconnected from reality. Having spent several days in a state of indolent self-pity, Erik needs a reminder that this situation is not doing him any good.

The Star is the card of hope. It follows the Tower in the Major Arcana and is the first light in the dark, the promise of renewal that follows a bitter and hard end. It reminds Erik that he can find guidance out of his own inner darkness...if he has the courage to seek it.

[wraith-caller]

I love the dlc lore for Marika and every other character so far, glad to see somebody else like it! One thing that I find kind of missing in this discussion is Martin's overarching themes that are present here? Not sure how familiar you are with ASoIaF but Marika and Miquella's quest to Godhood feels very much like the broader fight for the Iron Throne. It's an evil system that you cannot win at! It's destructive to be part of that system, nobody gets out free, nobody can be a good person in it!

I haven't read or watched any game of thrones things, but yeah, that sounds like the same themes lol

Marika's lore did end up being so tragic, which I guess is unsurprising as most things in the game end up that way. I'm sad to see ppl already calling it genocide apologia when the game has never pulled punches about how horrific the Golden Orders actions have been, and we spent the DLC witnessing the devastation of the purge. Marika's sad background doesnt come off as an excuse but as an illustration of how these cycles of violence perpetuate even when ppl who have witnessed it first hand have the power to end things. Forgiveness is hard to find, and power is a heady thing when you've been powerless all your life. And as Ymir says, it's all rotten from the roots. Drives home what you've highlighted about when the system itself is terrible you have to first operate within that terror if you're going to escape it. It's no coincidence that Ranni and Miquella both had to do awful things to even attempt to break the cycle.

[itsnothingofinterest]

About the shinsou/machia thing, definitely seems a little sketchy, like you said. Maybe we'll see that shinsou has confliction about his quirk being used this way but given the usual levels of hero introspection and self awareness, that doesn't seem very likely. Do you think?

It might just be something like before when 'heroes who need to act unheroic' (momona said this I think, hawks lives it), even though when you look at everything from a wider view and together (the broken/corrupt system and the quirk singularity) the heroes aren't actually saving anyone at all.

Because you see heroes saving the civilians and even saving some captured villains from dabi flames, but then I think about it (because the system perpetuates it's problems) those same people will inevitably be put in danger again and the heroes are just going to thow the captured villains to rot in prison or use them to fight other villains, even mind controlling them to do it. There's really no moral high ground here. And it's getting kind of ridiculous in this part of the story too, that the heroes (except for deku/ochako, kind of) don't seem to realize this. Do you feel the same way?

Yeah you definitely put a lot of my problems with the heroes right now into words.

Like, I don't want to get on Shinsou's case too badly. This is actually his first time out on the field and the first time he's used his quirk on a villain. A quirk well known for potentially morally-ill uses. Using prisoners as weapons against their allies is a mistake, and one I genuinely hope to blow up in his face so he realizes that mistake and doesn't repeat it, but it's only his first blunder. You know?

But on the whole; yeah the heroes have been doing a lot of really sketchy stuff lately...and also for the past few decades. And sometimes those sketches are crimes against humanity. And perhaps they really do think the ends justify the means; greater good and all that. But I can't shut up about how my biggest problem with the series rn is: so long as that greater good is just the status quo, I can't root for them. Not even Deku, for now anyway. I've seen the status quo they're protecting and it was way more of a contributing factor than AFO to all these villains and all this destruction. And until the heroes realize that proper; their victory will just lead hero society to make another League of Villains that'll commit the same atrocities. A cycle of misery-fuelling-villainy I am very worried about hero society falling into until the singularity does it in.

Ironically this may mean that Shigaraki & the League, who are trying to break that cycle through incredible violence, have the greater 'greater good' they're fighting for.

And that's a big reason why I'm still rooting for the villains so much, and haven't moved to rooting for the kids to save them already; I'm left pinning all my hopes on Shigaraki & the League to either get the idea of what the kids actually need to fix & change through their skulls, or else conquer the country and change it themselves before the heroes beat them, and at this point I don't care which.

[fear-fatale]

💬 I'm begging u to info dump on Waylon

“Do you ever think about how most of the Universal classic monsters aren’t really monsters? In the sense of being true, born monsters. Most definitions of the word ‘monster’ mention a strange or frightening imaginary creature, usually large in size. That of course is the most literal definition. The word ‘monster’ is also used to describe the cruelty of one’s actions. Both of these are associated with being inhuman in some sense.

Now let’s look at our roster of monsters and see who applies. Gill-Man, or the creature from the Black Lagoon, and the Wolfman fit the imaginary creature bill pretty closely, but even the Wolfman was human once.

Frankenstein’s monster is of course called a monster and is designed to provoke disgust, but he’s a collection of human parts. He was designed by a human brain, has one of his own and even a human heart. If anything he’s painfully human because of that. “He’s a monster because of his actions!” I hear you say. Does he act out in violence and cause destruction and death? Yes. But were those behaviors he displayed as soon as he sprung to life? No. Just like you and I, society made him a monster. They were scared of him, scared of his existence. Frightened and disgusted by his looks and taking all his actions in the most evil light they could, they called him a monster and retaliated with violence. When the creature fights back out of defense, he’s only confirming the humans bias of him being a horribly violent thing, thus perpetuating the cycle. We see this in the Phantom of the Opera and Quasimodo as well. Two men who are human, but due to their physical appearances were cast out and deemed monsters. Gill-Man to some extent, also applies here if instead we use the comparison of a fish native to its pond instead of humans. They invaded his natural habitat and then got frightened when he tried to protect his home. That’s like breaking into someone’s house and being shocked that the homeowner would try to protect themselves and their things.

The two “monsters” I feel are outliers to this are Dracula and the Invisible Man. Dracula is a monster, a species different to us driven by dark desire. Vampirism as a whole is a reflection of humans fears of their own want for said dark desires, but that’s another conversation. At its surface Dracula is a monster, but his appearance says otherwise. Bela Legosi was a gorgeous man, and his charming look was definitely important to what was trying to be told. Vampires are meant to be seductive, it makes sense for a handsome man to play the pinnacle role. But he’s still a monster and is called a monster. With the Invisible Man, the concept of a guy turning himself invisible is supposed to be bizarre, and the idea of not being able to see someone is supposed to invoke fear, but that’s not why Dr. Jack Griffin is considered a monster. He’s a monster because immediately upon realizing how much destruction he can cause as an invisible man, he takes that opportunity to cause as much chaos as possible. His abilities aren’t enhanced being invisible, he’s just a man who can’t be seen, yet he’s probably the Universal monster with the highest body count. He derails a whole train just because he can. The fact that he is physically invisible and defied nature to do so is supposed to be unsettling to think about, but the true fear comes from not knowing what he’s going to do or having any way to predict what’s coming from him.

Something all the monsters have in common is being slates for society to project their current fears onto. Moral panic and horror have always gone hand in hand. Whatever current event is going on, whatever society fears of it will be projected onto the monster, adding to why it’s seen as such. The fear of the other and people society struggles to understand will always present itself in horror. And just as they are reviled, these monsters will also be celebrated by those who have also been outcast for being different. To the humans in ‘Frankenstein’ the Creature is the monster, but to the Creature the humans are the monsters. In a way, we’re all monsters aren’t we? It just depends on who’s telling the tale.”

[the-12i-times-jerome-reporting]

War: What is it Good For? A Reflection on the Israel-Hezbollah Conflict Through the Lens of Edwin Starr

6th October 2024, Edwin Starr's iconic anti-war anthem, "War," reverberates with a timeless message, its powerful lyrics transcending generations and conflicts. Released in 1970 against the backdrop of the Vietnam War, the song's central question – "War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!" – remains tragically relevant today, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Palestine and Lebanon.

Starr's lyrics paint a stark picture of war's devastating consequences:

"War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker"

"Friend only to the undertaker"

"War has shattered many a young man's dreams"

These lines resonate deeply with the realities on the ground in Palestine and Lebanon. The conflict has claimed countless lives, shattered families, and left a trail of destruction in its wake. Innocent civilians, including children, bear the brunt of the violence, their dreams and futures extinguished by the relentless cycle of attacks and retaliation.

The song's chorus, with its emphatic repetition of "absolutely nothing," serves as a powerful indictment of war's futility. It challenges the notion that violence can ever be a solution, highlighting the senselessness of the suffering it inflicts. In the context of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, this message is particularly poignant. Decades of fighting have failed to resolve the underlying issues, only serving to deepen the divide and perpetuate the cycle of violence.

Starr's lyrics also touch on the manipulation and propaganda often used to justify war:

> "War means tears to thousands of mothers' eyes"

> "When their sons go off to fight and lose their lives"

>

In the current conflict, both sides employ narratives that demonize the other, fueling hatred and making compromise even more elusive. The media, often caught in the crossfire, can inadvertently contribute to the escalation of tensions by focusing on the violence and neglecting the underlying causes of the conflict.

The song's bridge offers a glimmer of hope, suggesting an alternative to the path of war:

> "Peace, love, and understanding"

> "Tell me, is there no place for them today?"

>

This plea for peace and understanding resonates strongly in the context of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. A lasting solution can only be achieved through dialogue, compromise, and a willingness to address the root causes of the conflict. This includes acknowledging the historical grievances of both sides, respecting human rights, and working towards a just and equitable solution for all.

Starr's powerful lyrics serve as a reminder that war is not inevitable. It is a choice, and a costly one at that. The human toll of the conflict in Palestine and Lebanon is immeasurable. The destruction of infrastructure, the displacement of communities, and the psychological scars left on individuals and families will take generations to heal.

The song's final lines offer a challenge to those who perpetuate the cycle of violence:

> "War, what is it good for? You tell me!"

>

This question demands an answer. It forces us to confront the reality of war's consequences and to consider the alternatives. In the context of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, it challenges both sides to find a way out of the endless cycle of violence and to pursue a path towards peace.

Edwin Starr's "War" remains a timeless anthem for peace, its message as relevant today as it was in 1970. In the face of the ongoing conflict in Palestine and Lebanon, the song's powerful lyrics serve as a reminder of war's futility and a call for a more peaceful and just future. It is a call that we must all heed if we are to break the cycle of violence and create a world where peace, love, and understanding prevail.

[seahgreenhorn]

(via 'Is It a Trivial Thing?' (1st draft))

'Is It a Trivial Thing?' (1st draft) hazy vision may become blindness as a black a dark dense forest-- as Amazon Basin's biome biological community dangerous. Lacked morality's pathways quite unseen while under spiritual attack; deformed its trails persist in a curvaceous serpentine bend responding to Satan's world's physical environment regional climate of fluctuating 'trends' perpetuated despite any intense internal desire for wickedness to desist since exists snappy tragic news 'breaks' or unsweetened 'tweets' which cycle foolish thinking: "Jehovah is not seeing.’" Ezek. 9:9. As one creeps then drops to their knees behind calloused barks to hollowed out trees within a fog of unbelieving. Finally to slip in tip toe away swiftly for day's dawning's presence is avoided like a lowsome disease: "Their deeds are done in a dark place, While they say: “Who sees us? Who knows about us?” Isa. 29:15. Jehovah said to Ezekiel: “Son of man, do you see this? Is it a trivial thing for the house of Judah to do these detestable things, to fill the land with violence and keep offending me? Here they are thrusting out the branch* (*Apparently a branch used in idolatrous worship.) to my nose. So I will act in rage." Ezek. 8:17, 18. "He then called out in my ears with a loud voice, saying: “Summon those who will bring punishment on the city, each one with his weapon for destruction in his hand!” I saw six men coming from the direction of the upper gate that faces north, each with his weapon for smashing in his hand; and there was one man among them clothed in linen, with a secretary’s inkhorn at his waist, and they came in and stood beside the copper altar. Then the glory of the God of Israel rose from where it had rested above the cherubs and moved to the threshold of the doorway of the house, and he began calling out to the man who was clothed in linen, at whose waist was the secretary’s inkhorn. Jehovah said to him: “Go through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who are sighing and groaning over all the detestable things that are being done in the city.” And to the others he said in my hearing: “Go through the city after him and strike. Do not let your eye feel sorry, and do not feel any compassion. Old man, young man, virgin, little child, and women you should kill off completely. But do not go near to any man on whom there is the mark. You should start from my sanctuary.” So they started with the elders who were in front of the house. Then he said to them: “Defile the house and fill the courtyards with the slain. Go!” So they went out and struck down people in the city." Ezek. 9:1-7. *** As in the past: "Then when Jehovah passes through to plague the Egyptians and sees the blood on the upper part of the doorway and on the two doorposts, Jehovah will certainly pass over the entrance, and he will not allow the plague of death to enter into your houses." Ex. 12:23. *** Then the two spies said to Rehab: “We will be free from guilt respecting this oath that you made us swear unless, when we come into the land, you tie this cord of scarlet thread in the window by which you let us down. You should gather your father, your mother, your brothers, and all your father’s household with you into the house. Then if anyone goes out the doors of your house into the open, his blood will be on his own head, and we will be free from guilt. But if harm comes to anyone who remains with you in the house, his blood will be on our heads. But if you report our mission, we will be free from guilt respecting your oath that you made us swear.” She replied: “Let it be according to your words.” Joshua 2:17-21. *** "And he rescued righteous Lot, who was greatly distressed by the brazen conduct of the lawless people— for day after day that righteous man was tormenting his righteous soul over the lawless deeds that he saw and heard while dwelling among them." 2 Pet. 2:7, 8. *** Yes, "There also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their brazen conduct, and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words. But their judgment, decided long ago, is not moving slowly, and their destruction is not sleeping." 2 Pet. 2:1-3. For: "Jehovah knows how to rescue people of godly devotion out of trial, but to reserve unrighteous people to be destroyed on the day of judgment, especially those who seek to defile the flesh of others and who despise authority." 2 Pet. 2:9, 10.2024 “Declare the Good News!” Convention Program https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&pub=co-pgm24&srcid=share Photo credit:  © 14 mins ago, Lucretia McCloud   society • sad • teen • spiritual • hope • love

[faith-in-democracy]

The Perilous Path of Hatred: An Unpatriotic Journey

In the annals of history, there exists a sobering lesson, a stark reminder of the perilous path of hatred and its devastating consequences. It is a lesson that speaks to the very core of our humanity, urging us to rise above our differences and embrace the strength of unity. For in the depths of animosity, we find a darkness that engulfs not only our souls but threatens the very fabric of our nation. Throughout the ages, nations have stood divided, torn apart by the venomous tendrils of hatred. From the ancient rivalries between empires to the blood-soaked battlefields of the World Wars, mankind has witnessed the destructive power that arises from the boiling cauldron of animosity. Yet, the seeds of hatred continue to fester, refusing to loosen their grip on the hearts and minds of individuals and societies. But what grants this force such dreadful potency? It is the blinding veil it casts upon our judgment, clouding our perception of reality. Hatred blinds us to the nuances of opposing viewpoints, reducing complex issues to mere caricatures. It numbs our empathy, extinguishes our compassion, and corrodes the very foundations of a civil discourse. Moreover, the danger lies not only in the divisive impact it has on individuals, but in its corrosive effect on our collective consciousness. When we allow hatred to reign unchecked, we risk transforming ourselves into vessels of destruction. We become unwitting pawns in a cycle of violence, perpetuating a legacy of turmoil and suffering onto future generations. To illustrate this point, let us turn our gaze towards history. The aftermath of the French Revolution, renowned for its ideals of liberty, equality, and brotherhood, descended into a bloody reign of terror. The very principles that fueled its inception were twisted and distorted, spawning a wave of executions, fear, and chaos. In the depths of this madness, reason withered, and compassion bowed before the altar of vengeance. Similarly, in the crucible of the American Civil War, a nation stood divided with hatred coursing through its veins. Brothers turned against brothers, sons against fathers, and friends against friends. The consequences were dire, leaving scars that continue to mark the collective consciousness of our country to this day. As citizens, as patriots, it is our duty to recognize the treacherous path of hatred and to actively resist its allure. In a time where political divisions threaten to tear us asunder, we must rise above the fray, seeking understanding rather than animosity. We must acknowledge that our shared love for our nation binds us far more than any superficial differences may separate us. Let us break the chains of hatred and stoke the fires of unity and compassion. Let us cast aside the weapons of division and embrace the tools of dialogue and empathy. For in doing so, we honor the spirit of patriotism, placing the welfare of our nation above personal grievances and standing as beacons of hope in this tumultuous world. Remember the lessons of history, for they serve as a harbinger of caution. Let us forge a path that leads us away from the precipice of destruction and towards a brighter, more united future. For the true strength of a nation lies not in the triumph of one side over the other, but in the unity of its people, bound together by principles of equality, respect, and above all, love.

[whiteheart7]

One of the themes in Goncharov I found fascinating considering its timeframe and setting is the idea of surviving despite everything. Despite the violence, the destruction, the uncertainty, you can still make it through. It also ties into the theme of how the characters' perpetuate a cycle of violence. Circumstances may change, but the method of handling it stay the same.

This is highlighted by the two gangs featured, one affiliated with the Russian Mafia and the other the Italian Mafia. The two groups were changed by the events of WW2, and had adapted to survive in the new society they found themselves in. Still, their methods of how to handle things stay the same throughout it all, which at its core is violence.

The characters go through this in their own ways. Everyone ends up resorting to violence to deal with their circumstances. However, this ends up being a, literally, fatal flaw for them. They lean too much into their ways and they end up facing brutal consequences. Ice Pick Joe's murders come back to him and he dies with his weapon in hand. Goncharov is killed after having betrayed everyone, getting a taste of his own medicine. Katya can make anyone disappear, but that leads to her own unknown status.

What they all fail to realize is that they needed to survive, not just succeed. They were so deep in what they thought was their only choice that they couldn't see the opportunities they could have taken to change these circumstances.

Sofia, however, seems to be the only character to break her own cycle. Everyone else dies in the end, but she was able to look away from everything just long enough to accept these opportunities. This is why she ends up as the sole survivor of the film. It can seem like an act of cowardice, like she ran away from her problems, but I believe it was a successful act of self preservation. She realised it wasn't worth sticking around to see if things got better. You can't help anyone if you're dead.

[raayllum]

That last ask made me wonder: what’s Kasef’s narrative function in the story? Like how Claudia is often used to show the dangers of apathy and social stagnation, what does Kasef bring to the table in the Dragon Prince? What themes does his character illustrate?

Kasef is a character archetype I saw coming following the end of s2, since I figured that Ezran would need some sort of opposition other than Viren to his goals, at least for the first half of the season. Whether that would come from another human kingdom, or within his own council (turns out it was both!) I assumed we’d get a more minor antagonist who could reliably challenge the young king. I think that’s Kasef’s primary function from a plot standpoint.

From a thematic / narrative one, he’s there to foil Claudia, Soren, and Ezran, (somewhat Callum) and to show that the younger generation isn’t impervious to perpetuating the cycle. Let’s break that down quickly in order.

Kasef, like Claudia and Soren, is bound to his role in his father’s footsteps. He ultimately participates in self-destructive behaviour, and dies with possible full or limited sentience due to the spell. He is a cautionary sign to what Soren could become if he doesn’t leave and what Claudia largely does by the end of season three.

(AKA what sons will do for / to their fathers)

Kasef is a reflection of Ezran. He is a young king, only nineteen, coming to power after the assassination of his father. But Kasef’s grief is ‘artificial’ compared to Ezran’s, as Ezran’s father is actually dead and was actually killed (as far as we know) by Moonshadow assassins. Kasef’s father, King Ahling, is not actually dead, just injured, and we know his death was fully orchestrated by shadowy Moonshadow assassins conjured by Viren. Kasef occupies the same position as Ezran, but he is also nothing like Ezran.

Furthermore, side note for Callum: Kasef is very much everything a prince should be - a good warrior, headstrong, clever and able to manipulate situations politically to get what he wants. An arrogant, crueller version of Soren. Callum rejects all this emotionally while keeping the good sides. It leaves him vulnerable to Kasef’s attack, but it leaves him narratively “worthy” of being saved from him, too.

Before Kasef, every young character we’ve met has broken the cycle. The main trio all actively work towards it, even if Rayla takes a few episodes more to get on board than the princes. Ellis is one of their first allies. Aanya refuses Viren’s deal (and Kasef responds to war with even more gusto than any of the former four leaders of the Pentarchy). Soren and Claudia, particularly the former, rest on the fence throughout most of season two. In 3x02, we’re not quite sure where they’ll stand. 

Enter Kasef. He’s not only opposed to all of the characters around his age or younger, but is committed to it. He doesn’t back down and instead readily boxes in Ezran, gladly marches into Xadia, and gambles his life first for Viren’s “gift.” Kasef, in my opinion, is a sign of things to come, particularly for Ezran’s political plotlines going forward. So while Kasef’s death is a cautionary thing, it’s also a tragedy, narrowly mirrored and avoided by Rayla in 3x08, of charging headfirst at your own death because you’re still entrenched in the Cycle, and it’s just going to keep causing pain, loss, and violence. 

The weight of prejudice and history, of the Cycle, is not so easily erased from the world, even in the youth. Kasef just fell prey to it. Hopefully his father and younger sibling will not.

[projectdreamcatcher]

Not to love post about c! Tubbo again but. Rant under the cut bc i Love Him. /dsmp /rp

He’s such a good character because he shows how a peaceful character =/= nonviolent character. He shows how “nice” does not necessarily mean kind of morally good.

Tubbo is living proof of a cycle that perpetuates itself. A cycle of power grabbing, of hurt and pain, a cycle of destruction. He did his best to break that cycle, and almost succeeded. Almost.

Whats holding him back truly is his inability to acknowledge somethings wrong, that he needs help. Because if he asks for help, his pain is real. The first step to healing a wound is to acknowledge a wound is there, and tubbo can’t even do that.

So instead of wallowing in it or processing his pain he throws himself into his work instead. Build more walls, make more weapons, do anything necessary to protect your country and the ones you love. Even if it means he has to hurt others.

That being said, tubbo is not at all someone who revels in violence for violence’s sake. He has no qualms of commiting acts of violence if he believes there’s a Cause, a reason. This isn’t to say he enjoy’s it- most of the time, he wanted to do the opposite. However, it doesn’t change the fact that tubbo still commited those acts out of his own free will- with not much guilt about it at all.

Tubbo has worked so hard to get where he is now. Lost his home, his pets, his friends. Died twice, nearly died permanently again. Dealing with the aftermath of being dehumanized and treated more like an object than a person- to the point where tubbo has not only internalized it towards himself, but others.

Despite all this he... kept going. He has a new home, a new family that cares about him and that he cares for in turn- in his own ways. Tubbo just kept grabbing for any sense of stability and defense he could, so he couldn’t be hurt again. And... he did it, somehow he managed to do it. Had to break himself apart, but he did it.

Kids aren’t alright.