#rather than the majority representation of it

[dfwbwfbbwfbwf]

That's why you wear a belt with chain - it helps distribute the weight so that it falls on your hips rather than your shoulders, which is where you want the weight to be.

And it's really interesting how well chain and plate work together. Chain is more flexible, which allows it to cover mobile areas that plate can't (armpits, kneepits, groinpits, neckpits). Plate is strong and rigid, which allows it to protect against blunt force. Like, yeah, you need blunt force to get through plate, but that's really it's main combat weakness. Hit someone with only chain and gambeson with a warhammer, and they may not have a functional ribcage anymore.

And then there's the bec, but nothing can really stand against the bec.

I do think a lot of mid-medieval armies outfitted their soldiers with at least a helmet and breastplate - those are the areas you want to get poked the least, as it can cause instant death, whereas you usually survive long enough to poke back when you get poked in other areas. But don't quote me on that.

A breastplate doesn't even have to be particularly fancy! I've seen a mid grade breastplate deflect a miniature ballista. (Nothing against the quality - it was just a good representation of what the average breastplate would look and act like.)

This whole conversation reminds me of the video of the guy in full plate halfswording while sprinting full tilt at the camera. Gives me major Tyelco or Finno vibes, tbh. (I've Fëanárized this now.)

I will say, the one thing that annoys me about modern interpretations of breastplates is that they make it go to the hips rather than the waist. 1) men with waspish waists were fashionable at the time and 2) your paladin isn't going to be able to tie her own shoes but you do you.

The myth that knights could barely move in their armor has finally been dispelled by Thrillist

[padfootastic]

not the same anon and i agree w what u said but idk what u mean abt the discrimination mainly being fanon bc it is mentioned in the books that werewolves suffer heavily in poverty bc they are shunned from the wizarding world + anti werewolf legislations are brought up as well. i mean the general consensus abt werewolves seems to be that most ppl are scared of them and think they are dangerous, even out of the full moon

okay yeah i get how it came across that way lol i didn’t bother elaborating only sozz

so. what i meant was: the books give us like a…telling of lycanthropy discrimination, yeah? it tells us people are scared (altho tbf, it’s shown to a certain degree as well w greyback and all), tells us about the anti-werewolf legislation etc etc. what it shows is like. remus in shabby clothes. remus leaving hogwarts in poa before the angry howlers start. remus infiltrating werewolf packs. remus being a ‘privileged minority’ bc of his exclusive education and social capital.

what we don’t see is like. any visible barriers remus faces either bc a. wasn’t imp to narrative so wasn’t shown or b. he ran away before things could reach that point.

if we really wanna deconstruct remus’ identity & barriers he faced (which i don’t lol) we cannot ignore the fact that he was an outlier even amongst werewolves. for one, he was formally educated & is a wand user. two, he wasn’t living in ‘abject poverty’ (had a cottage and all, yeah?) three, had super privileged pureblood friends which affords a layer of protection to him. four, access to wolfbane (supposedly expensive and complicated to make). five, social capital in the form of dumbledore who got him a professor job. six, had a wife and child, got to make his own family.

and that’s just what we do know of him. i’m not even counting the potential happy family he could’ve had with hope and lyall or anything else. so honestly, what we know of remus particularly, it’s more privilege than not. i’m not discounting that werewolves face discrimination in the WW (considering how blood-obsessed it is, that’s impossible) i’m just saying remus had multiple shields from the worst of it.

[valtsv]

a common theme in a lot of media is a character insisting "i'm not crazy" and eventually being proven right. but to be honest? i wish we had more characters who are canonically "crazy" without it being a bad thing or condemnation. characters who struggle with psychotic symptoms like delusions and hallucinations. characters who are unreliable narrators because they're not always sure what's real and what's in their head. characters who need help and support from their friends and loved ones to maintain their grip on reality and stay safe sometimes. psychotic characters who aren't just one-dimensional caricatures or harmful stereotypes but fully fleshed out, developed people with satisfying arcs and meaningful relationships. just more well written canon psychotic characters.

[fiapple]

other early buffy bi-coding includes: both her heart & spirit being initially coded as gay/bisexual (the writers weren’t sure which till tara came into the picture, & according to a semi-recent article, of which label pretty much until willow came out) & were intended as such, as the writers always knew one of them was going to come out.

[the-cimmerians]

On Thursday, Governor Tim Walz sat down for an interview with author Glennon Doyle, her partner Abby Wambach, and her sister Amanda Doyle during a taping of the We Can Do Hard Things podcast. The conversation touched on key election issues such as abortion and gun violence. However, midway through the podcast, the discussion shifted to queer youth, specifically transgender kids. Rather than shying away from the topic, Walz delivered a passionate, several-minute-long defense of LGBTQ+ rights, including transgender healthcare. He outlined his vision for the administration’s role in protecting these rights.

The question came from Abby Wambach, who turned to the topic after discussing Walz’ founding of a Gay-Straight Alliance at his high school in the mid-90s. Wambach asked, “Well, thank you Governor Walz so much for protecting even in the late ’90s queer kids. And so I have to ask, what will a Harris-Walz administration do to protect our queer kids today?”

Walz discussed positive legislative actions, such as codifying hate crime laws and increasing education, while emphasizing the importance of using his platform to advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. He then addressed the role of judges in safeguarding medical care for queer youth: “I also think what Abby, your point is on this, and I was just mentioning, we need to appoint judges who uphold the right to marriage, uphold the right to be who you are, making sure that’s the case, uphold the right to get the medical care that you need. We should not be naive. Those appointments are really, really important. I think that’s what the vice president is committed to.”

He didn’t stop there. Instead, he directly pivoted to calling out national anti-transgender attack ads which have flooded the airwaves across the United States, often airing besides NFL football games and other major sporting events. The Trump administration has spent upwards of $20 million on such ads, with outside organizations spending $80 million on various races.

“We see it now; the hate has shifted to the trans community. They see that as an opportunity. If you’re watching any sporting events right now, you see that Donald Trump’s closing arguments are to demonize a group of people for being who they are,” Walz said. He continued, “We’re out there trying to make the case that access to healthcare, a clean environment, manufacturing jobs, and keeping your local hospital open are what people are really concerned about. They’re running millions of dollars of ads demonizing folks who are just trying to live their lives.”

He emphasized the importance of representation and the impact of coming out, particularly for parents who may not have been exposed to LGBTQ+ identities and therefore might lack understanding. Walz pointed out, “Look, you’re reaching a lot of folks in hearing this, and for some people it’s not even out of malice and it’s not a pejorative, it’s out of ignorance. They maybe have not been around people. You’ve all seen this, however it takes you to get there, but I know it’s a little frustrating when you see folks have an epiphany when their child comes out to them.”

The strong defense of queer and trans youth came just one day after Kamala Harris participated in a Fox News interview with Brett Baier. Baier, who maintained a hostile tone throughout, pressed Harris on transgender issues with his second question. Rather than adopting the Republican framing, as some Democrats have done recently, Harris emphasized that the law requires medically necessary care for transgender inmates and criticized Trump for spending $20 million on ads focused on an issue far removed from the priorities of most Americans. Her response prompted Baier to quickly shift to another topic.

In back-to-back days, the Harris-Walz ticket has made it clear they will not back down on queer and trans rights, despite the barrage of anti-trans attack ads. This stance is likely reinforced by the repeated failure of similar ads in recent races, including Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election, legislative races in Pennsylvania and Virginia, Georgia’s Herschel Walker vs. Raphael Warnock election, Andy Beshear’s reelection in Kentucky, and the 2023 losses of 70% of Moms for Liberty and Project 1776 school board candidates across the United States. For transgender people, these interviews are likely a welcome relief after some wavering responses from other Democratic candidates in swing states.

[cy-cyborg]

Forgetting your character is disabled isn't a "good representation" flex: Writing Disability Quick Tips

[ID: An image with “Writing Disability quick tips: Forgetting your character is disabled isn't a good representation flex” written in chalk the colour of the disability pride flag, from left to right, red, yellow, white, blue and green. Beside the text is a poorly drawn man in red chalk looking down confused at his leg, one is drawn normally, the other is drawn to resemble a basic prosthetic. He has question marks above his head. /End ID]

For a while, I was involved in the booktok and Tik Tok writing communities, specifically parts of the community focused on more diverse books and authors. During this time, I noticed a reoccurring pattern when people were highlighting stories featuring disabled characters, or even promoting their own books, and that was how often people would say "I kind of forget they have [insert disability here] because they're such a badass."

The intention behind this statement is (usually) good, with people trying to show that their disabled characters are self-sufficient and don't fall into the tired old sad/helpless disabled person trope, however, you can - and very much should - do that without erasing your character's disability. If you find yourself forgetting your character is disabled, or your beta and pre-release readers are commenting about forgetting it, then there's a good chance that's exactly what you've done - and as a disabled person myself, if I see that statement being used in your marketing in particular, it's a giant red flag and a sure fire way to make sure I give the book in question a skip.

Remember, disabilities (especially major ones) are a part of your character's identity, and they're important regardless of the character's personal relationship with it. Even if your character doesn't specifically identify with the label of disabled or doesn't really care that much, it's should still be impacting their daily life, even in small ways. If you're finding yourself forgetting about a major part of your character's identity, it might be a good idea to check and make sure their disability is having an impact on the character.

I see this comment most often with amputee characters, and to me, it's a pretty consistently good indication that the author has treated their character's prosthetic as a cure rather than the mobility aid it is. It's far from unique to amputees, mind you (I talked about this a lot when I was discussing the character of Toph from Avatar), but it's when I tend to see it the most. Remember that mobility aids and other forms of assistive technology and assistive magic (if it's a fantasy story) are just that: they're aids, they assist, they shouldn't be cures.

Of course, this wasn't unique to Booktok, I've seen it on nearly every other social media site with a writing and book-focused community at some point, but Tik Tok was just where I spent the most time and it seems to be where I see the most people specifically gloating about it.

[lizbetlovesbyler]

my biggest personal byler proof is just how much they remind me of my first queer relationship before we started dating

queer characters are incredibly easy to fuck over, even without intention. often spelled out or intensely sexualised to prevent misunderstandings for a mostly heterosexual audience, queer storylines are exaggerated and thus become unrealistic.

stranger things doesn’t do that with its queer characters. take robin:

this scene is done beautifully. genuinely beautifully.

robin admits her feelings for tammy and how she locked them away, not just because tammy didn’t like her back, but because she is a queer girl in the 80s. her feelings are unnatural and unwelcome in hawkins.

steve’s acceptance of robin in this scene makes people forget how horrifically this could have ended:

As for Mike and Will

you don’t write a perfect representation of mutual teenage queer pining between childhood friends by accident.

queer pining is quiet and suppressed (especially for young people and ESPECIALLY in the 80s). It is unhealthy to suppress these feelings the way queer people tend to, it’s beyond the typical “secret crushes” straight people experience. queer pining can destroy people when they’re not supported.

through robins character, and wills arc in season four, we can see clearly the duffer brothers understand the nature of queer love, and wish to do it justice.

will ending up with some random last minute jock is unrealistic and does not do his character justice.

mike staying in an insecure relationship, constantly worried his girlfriend will grow out of him and leave him, rather than accepting will’s unconditional love for him, accepting his own love for will and letting himself be who he is, does not do his character justice.

even so, if they tried to set up byler in a way that would come across clear to the GA, it would, by default, become unrealistic and unrepresentative.

neither are yet able to admit to close friends and family they are queer, but they are supposed to convey that part of themselves to an (understandably) dense/heteronormative mainstream audience?

queer teenage love is not the same as straight teenage love, it doesn’t shock me that the majority of the audience isn’t able to pick up on byler beyond wills feelings, and they’re not supposed to.

we all say what we see, they don’t see the queer love brewing because they’ve never experienced it, they’ve never been mike and they’ve never been will. they’ve been max and lucas and nancy, steve, jonathan, etc etc

doesn’t make their heteronormative perspective accurate, they are just straight. they understand will and mike the same they do lucas and dustin. mike says they are friends, they have no reason to think otherwise. they do not know what queer love actually looks like, the duffer brothers do. the actors do. we do.

you are not delusional. you are queer.

if byler was widely agreed upon at this point in the story, it would not be an accurate representation of queer romance. that is the point.

my moneys on the latter and they better get every award for it.

[apas-95]

What criticisms do you have of direct democracy? Assuming it’s communist, as well as having laws about what can and can’t be voted on such as “no killing/disenfranchising the (blank) people” and “no voting for capitalism” (the actual laws would be longer but I don’t want to write a long paragraph about how you’re not allowed to vote for fascism in a fake direct democratic society)

While it's fine in the abstract, in practice it's exceedingly slow and inefficient - being a political representative in a council is a full-time job, and if every single decision made is subject to the popular vote, then both 1) polling itself takes considerably longer; and 2) the necessary amount of education and discussion needed to be carried out prior to a proper vote is much larger: rather than simply summarising the issue and presenting key facts to council members, a massive public education campaign now has to be carried out every time a new, say, regulatory standard for storm drains, is decided upon.

Which leads us into the other main criticism - in practice, people don't *want* to have to deliberate and vote on canal works every day. Either voting is mandatory, in which caee annoyed, disinterested voters are just randomly choosing without much thought; or voting is optional, and the vast majority of people aren't actually being represented in any given issue, because it's solely decided by whichever segment are motivated enough to get a campaign going. Here, delegating the business of understanding and making decisions on random organisational matters *does* genuinely lead to a more representative and democratic outcome.

Fundamentally, what we're talking about is division of labour - a factory is more efficient when each worker doesn't have to make a complete product by themselves. Bureaucratic and administrative work *is* still work, regardless of its political character. Again to bring up division of labour, in industrial society the operation of a single factory relies upon the co-operation of electrical substations next-door, power plants the next town over, logistics offices in the provincial capital, resources developed and extracted on the other side of the country, and the entire nation's collaboration on a unified economic plan; it is something that can only really be directed by a central authority that can collect and collate massive amounts of data to produce new courses of action - to try to operate such a body based entirely on direct democracy is, beyond any other considerations, both impractical and undesirable.

This is not to say there doesn't exist great political drive and passion among the masses, nor that they have no interest in the political process and their representation - but not everyone actually applies to be a council delegate during elections, because most people are fine with the council work itself being handled by a trusted representative.

In practice, the way communists have managed these matters is democratic centralis' - here are a few graphics explaining how representative democracy is carried out on the local level in China, as an example:

[crowleysgirl56]

Ok, so I wanted to do a deeper dive into this particular passage of Good Omens:

For context, this is at the climax of the book, they’re at Tadfield airbase, the horsemen have been dispensed with, Aziraphale has his body back, and Satan is about to claw his way out of the pit.

In most of the proceeding chapters involving Crowley it talks a lot about how scared Crowley is. He is very scared of Hell.

One could perhaps say maybe he is scared of them due to The Arrangement, but that is never explicitly stated. I think it has more to do with Hell is bad, and Crowley has spent the majority of the book being yelled at by some entity through the radio or TV telling him how he’s going to be in super amounts of trouble when they get their hands on him. He is just scared of what will happen. When he comes across the book shop burning he doesn’t cry for his lost friend. He curses Aziraphale, and I think it’s because the one person who may have been able to keep him safe and protected from Hell is now gone.

So when he thinks to himself (as shown in the above screen shot) that there is now nothing left for him to lose, this is why I never thought (upon reading the book the first time that is) there were any romantic feelings between him and Aziraphale. I know that technically he had already lost Aziraphale. But by this point he was back again, and back in his body. If there truly were romantic thoughts between them surely the idea of losing him again would come up.

I have read so much fanfiction, some old, some new, and what they all have in common is the detailed inner monologue of Crowley’s turmoil over his feelings for Aziraphale and how he doesn’t feel like he can act on them. In the book we get nothing of the sort, from either character. Even when they’re separated there is hardly ever any description of them thinking of the other except occasionally to frame a short reference to something. Reading the book I never got the impression that there was anything more than two ethereal beings spending time and proximity to each other and doing work for each other for no other reason than they’re essentially a bit lazy.

I think they’re only queer coded for the fact that there’s the line about Aziraphale appearing “gayer than a tree full of monkeys on nitric oxide”, and Crowley is, well, very Freddie Mercury coded. Them being seen as gay together and all the gay slurs in the awful racist scenes of Aziraphale body hopping about in culturally indigenous people after the bookshop fire has more to do with the very typical 80’s/90’s trope of “being gay = comedy gold”, than them actually being together romantically.

I think the reason why they were shipped so much after the publication however is for the same reason we ship so many male couples (or female couple) in modern media, why we’ve always shipped them: because of the complete and horrid lack there of, of proper queer representation.

If you’ve ever seen the magnificent Russel T Davies TV series It’s a Sin, there is a wonderful scene where the character Ash starts a job in a school library and the headmaster asks him to go through all the books and find any book that has queer love scenes so they can be removed. Ash then gives a most beautiful and impassioned speech (albeit it turns out the speech is just in his head) of how there is nothing. Absolutely nothing. There is nothing to the point where they are nonexistent. They are invisible. They are not seen. (Or like, something to that effect. I tell you though, it’s bloody brilliant).

So I think that’s rather the point really. You have two iconic characters, albeit supporting bit characters practically, and I think a lot of our minds automatically get drawn to wanting to put them together because of the sheer lack of queer couples. People have been doing it for years from Frodo and Sam, to Harry Potter and Draco (or Ron I guess), to Sherlock and Watson (even before the Benedict Cumberbatch show. Also as an aside let’s not get into how obsessed people got about Sherlock Holmes back in the day when those books were first published. The obsession was the reason Doyle killed the character off the in first place, then after getting letters from people telling him they were literally going to kill themselves, the reasons why he resurrected him again. Don’t tell us that modern day nerds are weird and obsessive. We’ve ALWAYS been like this).

It’s for this reason why queer representation is so god damn important. Why I still support the idea of Good Omens season 3. Because regardless of how the characters were originally intending to be represented in the book, it’s very clear now that they are so much more than “Just friends”. And we NEED that! Whether you subscribe to the idea that they will be physically intimate with each other, the fact remains is they love each other. They love each other immensely. And that comes from years of Terry Pratchett (and the other guy) accepting that canon and telling fans that it’s true. Because Michael Sheen made a choice and held a belief about how he saw his character and then David Tennant followed suit. That literally tens of thousands of fanfiction writers have decided the same.

So that’s my take. I don’t think loving each other was ever intended that way in the book, but in the last 35 years their story has morphed into the ineffable husbands that we now know.

What are your thoughts? Have I rambled on long enough to make any sense? Do you agree? Have I missed something completely obvious and gotten it all wrong? Keen to hear thoughts.

[theotterpenguin]

the performative accusation that shipping zutara (and occasionally this criticism is levied at jinko/zukka) is colonialist apologism has been addressed in some excellent posts, explaining the inaccuracies and problematic implications of this logic far better than i ever could - like this post and this one and this one and this one and this one.

and i know this topic has been talked about to death, but if you could indulge my contribution for a moment, i just find it interesting how this sentiment results from the cognitive dissonance of atla fans being unable to reconcile with the idea of their favorite show's political beliefs not lining up with their own.

atla is a largely philosophical children's show that at its core deals with themes of love, redemption, and destiny vs. free-will. atla examines these themes through an anti-colonalist, anti-imperalist lens that deconstructs the idea of racial divisiveness and the idea that people of different ethnicities are inherently different. this is message is pretty explicitly stated by guru pathik:

Guru Pathik: "The greatest illusion of this world is the illusion of separation. Things you think are separate and different are actually one and the same." Aang: "Like the four nations?" Guru Pathik: "Yes. We are all one people. But we live as if divided."

and also by uncle iroh:

"It is important to draw wisdom from many different places. If you take it from only one place, it becomes rigid and stale. Understanding others, the other elements and the other nations will help you become whole."

this theme is developed across three full seasons, with the crux of this message culminating in zuko's friendships with the gaang - despite coming from different nationalities and different backgrounds, they have all had their own experiences being hurt by the fire nation and work together to take down the oppressive fire nation government. the question of destiny vs. free will is also explored through zuko's character - despite starting off as an antagonist, he develops into a symbolic representation of how the fire nation's oppression hurts its own citizens. he unlearns the fire nation's imperialist propaganda while simultaneously unlearning his father's abuse. rather than following misguided beliefs of what he thought his destiny was as the heir to the throne, instead he forges his own path.

thus, to claim that zuko can never form a deep and meaningful relationship with any of the gaang because of his nationality goes unequivocally against the themes of the show. and a major part of this is because these are fictional characters being used to analyze different theoretical questions within the show and in some cases, are used as symbolic representations of different philosophical ideas - their friendships and their character arcs serve a purpose within the text that cannot be easily transcribed onto real-life dynamics between people.

it's illogical to criticize fans who are choosing to understand atla at the level of the themes that are presented by the text - who are interested in exploring similar philosophical questions brought up by the show through the context of relationships.

if you don't like the themes of forgiveness and redemption that atla explores, your criticism should be aimed at the writing of the show itself rather than other fans. because you are giving far more thought to the "implications" of a close friendship or romantic relationship between someone from an imperalist nation and someone from an oppressed nation than the writers ever did. (and if you fall in this camp of people, i would hope you wouldn't be reblogging fanart of zuko and the gaang together while simultaneously claiming zuko could can never escape the sins of his ancestors and can never form a deep relationship based on trust and intimacy with katara or sokka or jin - because that would just be hypocritical).

and as a side note, people seem to apply this flawed logic to zutara far more than other ships solely because the show spends the most time exploring the complicated nature of fire nation imperalism in the interactions between zuko and katara in the latter half of b3. this is because they've been juxtapositioned against each other and paralleled with aang since the beginning of the show in ways that toph, sokka, and suki are not, who have mostly been used to examine different themes. there simply isn't enough time to explore these complicated themes with all the other characters, even if they theoretically exist in zuko’s dynamics with these characters, so the writers focus the most on zuko's relationships with katara and aang, and these relationships are given far more narrative weight, so have more content to criticize. but zuko and katara also canonically become friends by the end of the show. if you want to discount the existence of their friendship, claiming that it will always be tainted by the fire nation's oppression regardless of what is shown in the text, then you also have to discount zuko's friendships with aang, suki, toph, and sokka - because even if this isn't shown as a permanent barrier to their friendships in the show, it’s also not shown as a permanent barrier to his friendship with katara. if your logic is solely based on the idea that a person's identity in a relationship as a colonizer or a victim is fixed and unchanging regardless of character development, this would apply to zuko's friendships with everyone else as well.

[chanaleah]

So this is a great example of a fundamental misunderstanding of history!

In 1948, the land that is now Israel/Palestine was controlled by the British Empire. It wasn't owned by either Jews or Arabs in its entirety, and additionally there had not been an independent state in the land since the Jewish Kingdom of Judah was conquered by the Roman Empire in 63 CE.

Secondly, the pre-State of Israel agreed to a UN partition partition plan in 1947 that guaranteed an Arab state and Jewish state in the borders shown on the map below:

On May 14, the State Of Israel declared independence within the borders shown in blue on the map. Rather than accepting an Arab state and a Jewish state, the armies of surrounding Arab states, including Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, attacked the nascent State Of Israel with the intention to destroy it in favor of an Arab state in the entirety of the former British Mandate of Palestine.

Before it was attacked, the State Of Israel had no intention to fight the Arab states or hurt the Arabs living in the borders of Israel. This is shown clearly in Israel's Declaration of Independence.

WE APPEAL — in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months — to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. WE EXTEND our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

Direct quotes from Israel's Declaration Of Independence.

However, during the 1948 War* the majority Palestinians living in Israel fled out of fear or were kicked out. Similarly, all of the Jews living in Judea & Samaria/the West Bank were kicked out by the Jordanian army.

Massacres were committed by both sides during the war, including the Deir Yassin massacre, in which many Palestinians were killed by right-wing Zionist militias and the Gush Etzion massacre in which many Jews were killed by the Jordanian army.

Both Palestinians and Jews had to flee/were kicked out of places in which they had resided for centuries - some examples being Lydda/Lod (for Palestinians) the Old City of Jerusalem, specifically the Jewish quarter which was later looted by the Jordanian army (for Jews).

Israel ended up winning the war -- and winning more territory than had originally been given to them. This was what the map looked like after the Armistice Agreement at the end of the 1948 war:

At the end of the war, Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied Judea & Samaria/the West Bank. There was no Palestinian state.

During and in the aftermath of the 1948 War, 700,000 Palestinians became refugees from Israel, and between 17,000 and 40,000 Jews became refugees from Judea & Samaria/the West Bank and Gaza, and about 1 million Jews became refugees from the rest of the SWANA region.

This post is in no way an exhaustive or authoritative history, but it shows clearly the history of the 1948 War is much more complicated than "forcefully took that land from them".

If you would like me to make a post about history pre-1948 I can do that as well.

*I chose to call this war the 1948 war so as to be impartial as possible. Other names used include the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Israel's War Of Independence, and the 1948 Palestine War.

Keep reading below the cut for sources.

SOURCES:

[demento-mori]

I also think a lot of the Shiori Hate™ comes from her portrayal in Adolescence. Now, while I understand the conclusions that peoole come to based on this, I don't think it's entirely fair to Shiori's character as it doesn't really take into consideration the context of Adolescence and the role that Shiori plays in the narrative.

Adolescence of Utena (regardless of whether you interpret it as a direct sequel, a standalone reimagining, or something in-between) clearly serves as a synopsis of the events of the series, just with details cut-out, changed, or condensed to support the movie's length. For example, the Student Council arc is instead condensed into a single duel with Saionji, as is the Apocalypse arc with Juri.

I would argue that Movie!Shiori, rather than being 100% representative of the real Shiori, is instead meant to serve as a stand-in for the Black Rose Duelists as a collective. The Black Rose Arc in RGU is vital in showing how victims of the system are turned against one another in order to keep them distracted from their real oppressors (this idea is also embodied in the series by Nanami, who is missing from the movie). It also demonstrates several examples of how Ohtori Academy's patriarchal system has fostered unhealthy and toxic relationships between various characters. I believe that Shiori is meant to serve as the embodiment of these themes in Adolescence of Utena, in lieu of the Black Rose Arc.

In Adolescence, Shiori has a very unhealthy and toxic relationship with Juri. She wants to force Juri to be her prince forever, so that she, by extension, can gain power within the system. This is in much the same way that the Black Rose Duelists make their respective student council members into rose brides by forcefully pulling swords from their chests, all in order to gain power and agency within the system. Shiori also plays a major antagonistic role in the movie as she is the one who exposes Anthy as the one who "killed" Akio, and she later attempts to stop Anthy from escaping to the real world (its a big mistake to think you're the only one who can turn into a car). I would argue that this represents how the Black Rose Duelists are convinced by Mikage to kill the Rose Bride, believing that it will solve their problems- which in itself represents how victims of the system are turned against other victims in order to keep them from rising up against the real oppressors. I think that this shows how Shiori's motivations within the movie more closely align with the general motivations of the Black Rose Duelists as a whole, rather than her original motivations within the series (which are worthy of an analysis all on their own).

-

Tl;dr Movie!Shiori shouldn't be taken as a true 1:1 representation of Shiori's character, because she actually represents the entire Black Rose Arc and all its themes as a whole, just in condensed movie format.

[snixkers]

Bailed Out

Pairing: Elle Greenaway × Fem!Reader

Fluff/Minor Angst

For: requst by @lez-talk1 and @imagining-in-the-margins Pride Challenge!!!

Content Warnings: Cursing, internalized homophobia/biphobia, canon level violence, no physical descriptors

Summary: Elle has a crush on you. Elle doesn't want to.

Author's Note: Gotta get my sapphic representation innnnn for Elle. Also, whoever requested this, I'm so sorry, it was lost in the comments. Enjoy!!!

Feedback is always welcome!

Requests are OPEN!

Elle Greenaway knew she was fucked.

She had been held hostage, shot, traumatized, and more in her years at the BAU. But by far, the worst thing was her crush on you.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with you. Your smile lit up a room, and your confidence made her feel better by association. But when she realized that the feelings were more than just a like, she began to realize some things about herself.

She had a crush on a girl. And she was a girl. Did that make her a lesbian? She wasn't big on labels, but it didn't make sense. She could flirt with men, find them attractive, be interested in them romantically. Could she do both?

Something about saying that she liked girls was scary. Not that she cared if other people did, but it was herself. She liked girls.

Maybe she was just jealous and dealing with issues after the Fisher King.

Easier to do that than actually mention anything to you.

Which worked well for a couple months, until those feelings started to get stronger. It was no longer that she liked a girl, she was in love with a girl. Which was a whole new can of worms she was not opening.

Every single time you two would get paired up on a case, she would stare longingly at you to the point where Hotch offered time off because he believed she was disassociating.

It was a stupid little crush, and it was getting out of hand. She had to do something about it sooner rather than later.

Elle, headstrong and unable to tackle her emotions properly, walked up to you after the majority of people had gone home and tapped on your back.

"Hey, can we talk?"

You spun around, and it nearly knocked her on her ass just how much you made her day better. All her previous ideas about asking you out or maybe accusing you of some type of witchcraft immediately dissipated.

"Um, do you need more coffee?"

You shook your head, putting in your headphones and turning back to your computer.

"All set."

"Yeah, no problem. Sorry for bothering you."

So Elle Greenaway, who had stared down killers and rapists, fled back to her desk with her tail between her legs.

The second time she tried to ask you out, it was during a movie that Garcia and Reid had dragged everyone along to. The seats were scattered for convenience, and some sick deity* had placed the two of you together.

*Garcia

She spent the entire movie nervously fidgeting, considering asking for another bathroom break before realizing you might think three meant she was having a medical episode.

So she sucked it up, basking in your sweet perfume and the high of sitting next to you. During the credits, you were both getting up when some sick deity** forced her to bump into you. You held onto her arms to steady yourself, and Elle did something incredibly stupid.

**not Garcia

She leaned forward and kissed you before promptly turning around and walking out of the theater.

The next week was tense and uncomfortable, but she made sure there wasn't any chance of another one-on-one.

She didn't try to ask you out a third time. After the movie theater disaster, why should she?

Clearly it wasn't meant to be. She had enough emotional baggage to fill the overhead bins of the BAU jet. It would be better to forget about the whole thing.

But you had different plans.

After a week of avoidance, you walked up to her desk with a purpose, and she immediately panicked. Before she could apologize profusely (since when did she apologize?), you had kissed her.

Oh.

"There, now we're even. But if you want to do me a favor, you could come get dinner with me tonight."

Oh.

"Um, sounds great. I'll just, uh, get my stuff."

Now she sounded like Reid. Dammit. She watched you walk away with a satisfied smile, sighing to herself.

Elle Greenaway liked girls. She liked you. She was getting used to it, but she could definitely get used to you.

[enixamyram]

My Unpopular Hazbin Hotel Opinions

Chaggie is one of the best couples and is underappreciated because it doesn't follow stereotypical romance tropes that have been forced down our throats by Hollywood for years.

The majority red colour doesn't bother me. In fact I think it works really well as a media tool to make Hell look depressing without being bland while places like Heaven stand out as being really magical because of the variety of color they have in comparison.

Vox, Velvette and Val are all entertaining characters with great designs and while I will enjoy karma and justice (hopefully) kicking their asses at the end, I also hope it isn't rushed and we can enjoy their chaotic relationship a bit longer.

As long as you respect canon, I don't see any problem with having fun with ships, even the OOC ones. (In fact I kinda like RadioStatic as a ship...)

There are no bad songs.

I hope it's revealed that characters like Angel and Husk did genuinely bad things that earned them places in hell. I feel like their greatest crimes being self inflicted abuse with drugs and alcohol takes away from Charlie's goal and the overall storyline.

I understand why people want Angel and Husk to have a relationship that's more emotional than sexual. But it feels a little unhealthy to say they would cut out sex entirely, like going from one extreme to the other is never a good thing.

Saying Niffty is like a child because of her size and goofiness while drunk is really almost dangerously problematic.

Velvette being treated like Val and Vox's daughter also feels really gross to me. Why is it always the women that get this treatment?

Hazbin Hotel is a passion project from an independent creator. Representation is important and great when included but it shouldn't necessarily be a check list everyone has to do. While I would love to see more plus sized characters, Vivzie clearly has an art style and she shouldn't be vilified for that. The same should not be said for mainstream media projects because they aren't telling a story out of love but rather to be popular and they have a much bigger impact on audiences so they should be held to higher standards.

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

I gotcha, dawg.

Well, there's lots I could say here, but perhaps the easiest thing to address is you yourself saying you want to remain anonymous so as not to get "in trouble" - I presume from Democrat Tumblr users(?)

In a democracy, you shouldn't have to be frightened to say who you voted for or the concerns you have about an election.

This present climate of fear of saying the wrong thing or using the wrong pronoun or is one of the things I find most refreshing about the Trump train: he's the only mainstream politician in America openly pushing back against Wokeness - which is a 21st rebranding of Political Correctness - which is in turn a perversion of the word "correct" to mean "in line with present party policy" that first appears in Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. Also the only U.S. mainstream politician against the present transgender madness (the castration, sterilization and brainwashing of children) and open borders. These are very commonsense positions necessary for any nation's survival that have massively widespread support amongst the majority of ordinary people, but no-one else in government was doing anything to represent them.

It took an outsider not in the pocket of the donors who own the arms companies and the oil companies and the media companies and the pharmaceutical companies and so on to actually push back against the status quo and have a thick-enough skin and good humour to not back down. That's who Trump is. Yes he's a flawed and sometimes buffoonish-like figure, but the fact that he is a bullheaded businessman has meant he's been able to look at America as an enterprise in decline that needs fixing and overhauling to make "great" again, and just charge through the red tape to do whatever actually needs doing.

The first Trump presidency was a time of democrats and other hysterical left-wing activists burning, looting and rioting in America, but on the global stage it was a time of relative peace: Trump invaded no country or started any new wars (the way Biden did only 6 weeks into his presidency), and there's no reason to think he will this time round either. He did nothing to incite the very silly January 6th free tour of the Capitol Building, but for telling people to be peaceful and go home he - the sitting president - was silenced and booted from every social media platform.

So much was made this election over abortion rights - and I myself have always been pro-choice - but he didn't (and has repeatedly stated he won't) ban abortion but simply made it an issue that individual states can decide for themselves, which makes sense given the range of opinions on that matter in different parts of the country. It's probably my least favourite aspect of his policies, but the fact that such a relatively trivial matter was placed front and center in the Democrats' campaign and all that the hosts of The View and other female media dross could talk about for a year just tells you how shockingly debased and distracted political discourse has become in the west.

I could go on, but rather than addressing one claim after another, I would suggest you simply make a list of all the things you can recall the media and the democrats claiming Trump has said or done, and then go look up the original unedited videos that the out of context soundbites have been taken from, and then ask yourself whether what they presented you with seems a fair and unbiased representation of any individual, and whether it seems reasonable to trust the people who relentlessly deceived you in this way. That would do more to broaden your point of view than anything I could say.

[dnpbeats]

drop the dan loving goblin phil essay rn

(in reference to my tag on this post)

OKAY SO! In BIG dan says this about phil: "And this is when, through the magic of the internet, I met Phil. And obviously we were more than friends but it was more than just romantic. This is someone that genuinely liked me. I trusted them. And for the first time since I was a tiny child, I actually felt safe. [...] Especially to anyone that has experienced the kind of self-hatred that I have dealt with, one person accepting you can make all the difference" (ty @goldenpinof for the transcript 🕺). Now obviously, this is in the context of dan being gay so for the most part he's referencing his sexuality here when he talks about being accepted, and I am not trying to undermine that at all. But I think that phil's acceptance of dan went deeper than just his sexuality (goblin Phil comes into this I promise lol).

dan also talks a bit in BIG about how he was nerdy and was bullied for that before he was bullied for being gay. He's also mentioned other times how being nerdy/geeky didn't use to be accepted. In the 4/13 stereo show, dan says: "Before YouTube, if you were a nerd, you felt like you weren't a valid member of society unless you were, like, captain of the football team or whatever. [...] Now, thanks to social media, it's like 'oh, okay, well if someone like Hank Green can exist, I'm fine.'" What's extra interesting about this example specifically is that dan is talking about representation in response to a fan prompting him to talk about queer representation in media. So like, yes the majority of dan's struggles in accepting himself were surrounding his sexuality, but I do also think there was a layer of being a nerdy kid at a time when it wasn't cool or fun that added onto him not accepting himself. And I do not think that that's completely separate from his nonacceptance of his sexuality.

So, what exactly does this have to do with dan expecting phil to be super debonair and then having those expectations shattered? But then still wanting phil, arguably even more than he did before? Well, I think that phil was (and is) unapologetically himself, and that was inspiring for dan to see. dan said in BIG that he didn't meet an out gay person until he was 18, so either that person was phil himself or he met phil shortly afterwards and phil was therefore one of the first out gay people dan knew. and we know from phil's coming out video that he wasn't ashamed of his sexuality at that time. but phil's acceptance of himself goes beyond his sexuality, like just look at his YouTube content at the time. he was doing experimental stuff that was weird as shit (I don't mean that in a bad way I like his old vids!). most people probably would not have the confidence or self-assurance to make the stuff he was making, let alone post it. and then, beyond that, he was just a nerdy guy himself! but it was something that he openly talked about online and we know he and dan bonded over video games/tv shows/etc.

And now let's think about this from dan's perspective. He's been watching this guy's videos forever. He's been talking to him online for the past couple of months, and while he was talking with phil (rather than "amazingphil"), I'm sure there was still that element of like "wow holy shit I can't believe I'm talking with amazingphil!" Hence why dan says in the mean girls video that he was expecting phil to be all "hi, I'm amazingphil! 😏" when they first met (also side note, when dan starts to make this joke phil starts doing it at the same time, so I'm sure this is a discussion they've had before lol). but Phil wasn't like that!!! he was all hunched over and awkward and dorky! because he was nervous!! BUT he wasn't ashamed of that. he wasn't trying to put on some AmazingPhil™ Smooth Operator Refined front. He was just himself. Unapologetically so. And for dan, I think that that meant so much in terms of accepting himself, but also feeling accepted. because how was he going to believe phil when he said "dan I love you for who you are" if phil was hiding himself around dan?

So yeah, I think that's why dan saw goblin phil, not amazingphil, and was still like "yeah I want to build my life with this person." Because for him, phil represented self-acceptance and being accepted and a safe place and someone who he could be on the same wavelength with and true unconditional love and someone he can geek out with and someone who will let him yap for an hour about whatever the hell dan has decided to talk about that day. of course he would like phil more than whatever version of amazingphil he had built up in his head. because phil loves dan for who he truly is and dan loves phil for who he truly is :)