Tumgik
#or at least was complicit in it!!!!
incidentalblr · 1 year
Text
she kissed his scarrrrr,,,, eughhhhh
Tumblr media
7 notes · View notes
1-800-dreamgirl · 4 months
Text
Tumblr media
this is what everyone has been saying!! no one is looking at celebrities for political statements, but they should and must use their platform to amplify the voices of those who need and most importantly be against this genocide!!
20K notes · View notes
copalcetic · 3 months
Text
One of the things that strikes me, rewatching Rebels, is how often Kanan is the voice for negotiation and non-violence.
Yeah, he’s the “cowboy Jedi.” Yeah, he’s not unwilling to cause a little (or a lot) of mayhem when called for. But he’s also the one telling Sabine throughout “The Protectors of Concord Dawn” not to kill anyone (“You love making this hard for me,” says Sabine), and the one who confiscates Ezra’s lightsaber before sending him into the spider’s den in “The Holocrons of Fate” (“He’s gotta learn how to solve problems without it.”) His character arc in the show is learning to embrace the Jedi’s role as peacekeepers, and this is the legacy he wants to pass on to his students.
And so it’s notable to me how much they struggle to hold to that after his death. When I watch “Family Reunion and Farewell” I’m struck by how cold-blooded their plan is. The Imperial Dome has the stormtroopers garrison, sure, but it’s also an administrative center—it’s where the minister’s offices are, it’s where civilians go to work. And the plan isn’t just to destroy the Dome; it’s to deliberately lure all Imperial personnel to it using Protocol 13, and then kill them en masse. “All personnel.” Not just all military personnel.
It’s a very effective plan. It’s the sort of plan that would make Saw Gerrera proud. Luthen Rael would be impressed.
But when Sabine says “For Kanan” as she pushes the button, I find myself wondering: would Kanan actually have approved of this plan, if he’d lived?
300 notes · View notes
transmascutena · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
there's a lot (a lot) to be said about clothing in utena, but there's always been something so striking to me in these scenes about the contrast between anthy who isn't wearing any at all, and akio who is wearing all of his (even if his shirt is unbuttoned or whatever.) it's similar in a way to the framing of episode 33, where instead of seeing a clothed akio with his naked victim, we just don't see him at all. because he's behind the camera, he's the narrator in a more direct and literal sense than in the rest of the show, in that episode. but crucially he is always the narrator, he is always controlling the framing, and it's no coincidence that in these scenes neither his face or much of his body is visible. the abuser demands vulnerability from his victims but never has to be vulnerable himself. never has to truly show himself, never has to take any blame or accountability.
236 notes · View notes
cinnamonsikwate · 8 months
Text
"why couldn't shuro have just been honest about what he felt with laios and falin it's not that hard" are you. are you White
#dungeon meshi#shuro#toshiro nakamoto#look you can hate him for other things but this is very clearly a case of cultures (& personalities influenced by these cultures) clashing#shuro is japanese/east asian-coded and laios is european white boy#i am not japanese but i also come from a collectivistic society#pakikisama is a filipino value both prized and abhorred#it relies heavily on being able to read social cues and prior knowledge of societal norms#shuro being from a different country/culture is important to his character#his repressed nature is meant to contrast with laios' open one like that's the point#they both had similar upbringings but different coping mechanisms#shuro explicitly admits that he's jealous of laios being able to live life sincerely#anyway the point is they were operating on different expectations entirely and neither had healthy enough communication skills#to hash things out before they got too bad#re his attraction to falin i personally believe he unfortunately mpdg-ed her#she represented something new & different. a fresh drink of water for his parched repressed self#alas not meant to be#i'll be honest the way ryoko kui handles both fantasy & regular racism in dm is more miss than hit for me#i don't doubt that a lot of the shuro hate is based off of marcille's pov of him#marcille famously racist 😭#characters' racist views don't often get (too) challenged#practically everyone is casually racist at some point#anyway. again if you're gonna hate shuro at least hate him for being complicit in human trafficking & slavery#he couldn't help falling for the wrong woman goddamn 😭#calemonsito notes#edit: upon further reflection i take back what i said about toshiro mpdg-ing falin!#i'm sorry toshiro 😭
248 notes · View notes
gertritude-art · 9 months
Text
Embarassingly, I haven't mentioned it on this blog, so I figured I would officially state that I stand against the ongoing ethnic cleansing/genocide of Palestine by Israel. I genuinely don't know what to say other than that I hope every politician - especially those in my country, the US - who has signed off on the murder of what is now twenty thousand civilians suffers forever.
354 notes · View notes
arrangedaccident · 4 months
Text
i’ve seen some ppl saying that ricky and lindy being an analogue to the doctor and ruby is foreshadowing (and it still might be!) but more importantly i think that their extended scenes together are there to reflect back reactionary conservatives desire for what doctor who as a show should be. a white man doctor that’s oddly apolitical but smarter than everyone else and a ditzy white woman companion who instantly falls in love with him running around and saving themselves only. which are just villains
76 notes · View notes
unopenablebox · 6 months
Text
i admit that i find it a little bit frustrating how Wildly Astonished other antizionist jews act when i tell them my israeli jewish family have lived in the region since [some unknown length of time before 1800 when there start being records about it]
#and then they're like ''ohhh they're mizrahi!'' [connotation nonwhite‚ virtuously indigenous]#and i have to be like. no. it's just that‚ as palestine was in fact ottoman-administered greater syria for most of the last 600 years‚#you could get there from other parts of the ottoman empire. such as the part of now-ukraine your ashkenazi family is also from.#it wasn't actually a hermetically sealed arab-only ethnostate that evaporated immigrants on sight. it was a pretty decent place to live as#a jew by at least some accounts. or better than the front of the hapsburg-ottoman war anyway which is where they were coming from.#i'm not sure who you think it's serving exactly to believe that there were literally no ashkenazim in the middle east before the 1st aliyah#however there were some. and this information does not actually threaten a modern anti-state of israel position like at all.#but since apparently you've constructed your new Diaspora-Centric Identity around the idea that 'palestine' and 'diaspora'#are the two mutually exclusive nonoverlapping regions and the former is ontologically a no-european-jews-allowed zone#i guess i can give you a minute to try to figure it out.#ugh sorry this is nothing it isn't anything. for one thing it's fantastically unimportant#and for another thing i don't know how to like talk about it in a way that doesn't make me sound at least kind of like im trying to justify#myself as being somehow less complicit or something. i mean i think my complicity as an american dwarfs the rest of it honestly but.#i just feel really insanely alienated where the rhetoric of my theoretically most closely politically aligned group is not really built to#like. accommodate the facts of my family history.#sorry. i have honestly no idea why im so obsessed with articulating this concept ive just been chewing on it pointlessly for days#box opener
62 notes · View notes
everyone-calm-down · 10 months
Text
See most people are thinking about the new Trolls movie as the silly-fun-boy-band movie that it is. However, I am incapable of being normal about anything and if there’s ONE thing that I’ll always be able to rant about it’s child endangerment.
Okay, so we’re led to believe that Floyd did his due diligence for Branch by ensuring that he’s in the care of Grandma Rosiepuff before he dips out. HOWEVER, upon maybe 5 seconds of thought about those logistics, I don’t think he DID do his due diligence.
The first movie sets up two distinct chunks of time, when the trolls are living in Troll Tree and when they’re living in the forest. It’s mostly implied, but the tree is characterized as being a prison AKA near impossible to escape from. This is why they need to secretly dig escape tunnels. And in this timeline, Rosiepuff died WHILE the trolls were still trapped in the tree.
The tree being implied to be inescapable and the timing of Rosie’s death paint a confusing picture for me. With these two facts, Brozone would have had to break up WHILE they were still living in the tree since Floyd left the care of Branch to Rosie. But what did the brothers do after the breakup? They would have either had to have found a way (or four separate ways) to escape the tree or they were avoiding each other in the tree until the day of the escape. And in BOTH of these scenarios, they did not make sure they did right by Branch before they left.
In scenario 1, where they actually leave the tree and scatter to the winds, what the fuck would be the reason to leave not only Branch, but Rosie and every other troll in the tree? Trolls are getting ritualistically sacrificed every year. Why are we leaving a TODDLER in that situation if there’s a way to escape? Why are we leaving ANYONE in that situation if there’s a way to escape? I can understand the necessity of having small groups to remain hidden during an escape, but you can’t tell me that it’s preferable to leave a small child and an elderly person in a dire situation if you’ve found a feasible way to get to safety.
Scenario 2 is even worse. If the brothers weren’t able to leave the tree and were just doing their best to be no-contact with each other up until the escape, then they really dropped the ball by not ensuring that Branch had another guardian after Rosie died. And to be fair, this is murky waters because we don’t actually know what the rest of Branch’s time in the tree was like after her death. He COULD have had a guardian. But they really imply that he remained alone and if that’s true AND the brothers were still in the tree, then I’d argue that it was their responsibility to make sure Branch was being cared for before they dipped. Which they didn’t, since Branch says that he hasn’t seen or heard from them since they initially left.
Anyway, my point is that the movie tries to placate us by showing the scene of Floyd leaving Branch with their Grandma but upon even a touch of thought, that was not a reasonable situation to leave their kid brother in and they needlessly endangered him which resulted in spending nearly his entire childhood and all of his teenage years gray.
74 notes · View notes
wonder-worker · 3 months
Text
"It is too easy to dismiss [Leonor of Navarre] as an overambitious schemer who would do anything to obtain a crown, shedding the blood of her own siblings and her subjects in order to attain the throne. However, a deeper investigation of her long lieutenancy and ephemeral reign shows a woman who fought tenaciously to preserve her place but also worked tirelessly to administer a realm which was crippled by internal conflict and the center of the political schemes of France, Aragon, and Castile. She tried to broker peace, fight off those who opposed her, repair the wounds caused by conflict, protect the sovereignty of the realm, and keep the wheels of governance turning. Leonor was not always successful in achieving all of these aims but given the background of conflict and the lack of cooperation she received from all of her family members, bar her loyal husband, it is a huge achievement that she survived to wear the crown at all. Many writers have argued that Leonor deserved the troubled lieutenancy, personal tragedies, an ephemeral reign, and a blackened reputation, basing their assumption that she committed a crime that cannot be [conclusively] proven. However, a more fitting description of her would be that of a resolute ruler who successfully overcame a multitude of challenges in order to survive in a difficult political landscape and gain a hard-fought throne.”
-Elena Woodacre, "Leonor of Navarre: The Price of Ambition", Queenship, Gender and Reputation in the Medieval and Early Modern West, 1060-1600 (Edited by Zita Eva Rohr and Lisa Benz)
#historicwomendaily#leonor of navarre#15th century#Navarrese history#my post#I mean...the crime can't be explicitly 'proven' but Leonor DID have the means motive and opportunity; she had the most to gain;#the timing was incredibly convenient for her; and most contemporaries believed she was responsible.#She *did* ultimately act against her brother [Carlos] and sister [Blanca]#Though of course the fact remains that:#1) The final responsibility lies with Juan the Faithless: he was the King; the one in power; and the one who rejected Navarre's succession#Blanca herself - while criticizing Leonor and Gaston - placed the ultimate blame on their father as her 'principal...destructor'#All three siblings were reacting to an unconventional disruption in the system caused by Juan & their actions should be judged accordingly.#2) I am hesitant to believe accusations of 'poison' as a cause of murder given how that was commonly used to slander controversial women#and given how it contributed to the dichotomy of Blanca as a tragic beautiful heroine and Leonor as her scheming ambitious sister#3) Even if Leonor DID commit the crime (imo she was at the very least complicit in it) she is still worthy of a reassessment.#I don't think it's fair for it to define her entire identity#Because it certainly did not define her life - she lived for decades before and would live for decades after#It was on the whole one of the many series of obstacles and challenges she had to face before she succeeded in ascending the throne.#The fact that she died so soon after IS ironic but it is in equal parts tragic. And we don't know what Leonor herself felt about it:#Did she think it was a hollow victory? Or did she feel nothing but satisfaction that she died as the Queen of Navarre? We'll never know.#Whatever the case: given her circumstances the fact that she survived to wear the crown itself was an achievement#It's funny because Woodacre parallels Leonor to Richard III in terms of 'blackened' reputations for 'unproven' (...sure) crimes#(thankfully she admits Richard has been long-rehabilitated; what she doesn't bring herself to admit is that he's now over-glorified)#But I don't think this parallel works at all for the exact reasons she uses to try and reassess Leonor#Namely: Richard was the one in power. He was the King. The ultimate blame for what happened to his nephews was his own.#and moreover: Richard's actions against the Princes DID define his reign and were exactly what provoked opposition to his rule.#Any so-called 'rehabilitation' that doesn't recognize and emphasize this is worthless#also if we want to get specific: the Princes were literal children who did nothing and were deposed in times of peace.#Carlos and Blanca were adults with agency and armies and Leonor's actions against them took place in the middle of a civil war#So ultimately I think Leonor's case is fundamentally very different and I don't think her comparison holds well at all
19 notes · View notes
project-sekai-facts · 11 months
Note
i can't believe mafudad is kinda based
i mean he's better than his wife for sure but i wouldn't go that far
67 notes · View notes
saccharinerose · 2 years
Text
Personally I found Eris more tolerable as a character in the ACOTAR series bc while he is a dickweasel, the narrative at least treats him as such. Meanwhile, Rhysand is both a dickweasel and a moron but the narrative treats him both like a genius and the second coming of Christ.
281 notes · View notes
abrahamvanhelsings · 1 month
Text
"goodsir is neoliberalism bc he tried to kill those guys blah blah blah" they kidnapped him and then they made him cut up men to be consumed as an act of control and pure humiliation by threatening to kill probably the last man he still liked in that party, forcing him to be complicit in an act he is viciously against, and to be complicit in the survival of the very men who betrayed the whole expedition and who are using him like a tool. and then the guy he's trying to protect comes up to him to sob and monologue at him about cannibalism and religion and acts of survival and belief as some kind of justification for the fact that he's an absolute pussy ass bitch who'd rather lie down and take it than stand up in the face of acts and circumstances he finds abhorrent. and goodsir was supposed to not be a cunt abt that? lol
#it's so important that in ep 1 we see him trying to argue with stanley bc he doesn't want to cut into young bc he asked him not to#and stanely is like. cut into him you loser. and like he does it but he really doesn't like it bc young specifically asked for the opposite#it's desecration of his last wishes#and then in the mutineers camp he is forced to cut into someone again when he absolutely does not want to#he doesn't want to be complicit in the cannibalism and he doesn't want to help the mutineers#which hickey knows. so he uses the act of cutting up the bodies as an act of humiliation#just as stanley standing there like a hardass doing fuck all except be an ass only you know. worse.#so often when goodsir tries to do what he thinks is right someone with more power tries or does prevent him to do so#and the comparison to stanley burning everyone as a mercy kill doesn't hold up for me bc at that point so much just has not happened yet#completely different situations. at carnivale stanley has lost hope where everyone else still has at least some of it#at mutiny camp there's a couple men who betrayed everyone else out of arrogance and selfishness#and hickey gets off on humiliating those who he thinks think are better than him. hodge for his previous position. goodsir for his morality#like goodsir was not needed to cut into those bodies. and he knows he isn't he deadass says that.#the only reason hickey makes him do it is bc he needs to humiliate him.#brother id be so fucking mad id start killing everyone too#the terror#harry goodsir#it's like listen i get where the argument is coming from. but also i think this is a very understandable thing to do from his perspective
13 notes · View notes
bisupergirl · 7 days
Text
Tumblr media
i love how people in the jon kent tag think
11 notes · View notes
evansbby · 8 months
Text
i think if there ever was any doubt before, there isn’t anymore that chris evan doesn’t give a fuck about the genocide and probably doesn’t even know what is going on…
27 notes · View notes
cellberry · 11 months
Text
Guys, Cellbit doesn’t think he’s the only one who’s suffered or that his suffering is all that matters. He knows the others have gone through pain and he personally helped many of the islanders when they were at their lowest, but he feels like he’s tried goddamn everything and they are no closer to winning their freedom from the Feds or the island.
28 notes · View notes