#so all this bullshit about 'it was not even violent'

[gauntletgirlie]

So, I have a confession to make. Long post to follow, sorry.

Anyone who follows my blog knows I post the thirstiest bullshit, alright, and I love it but…

… there’s a part of me that doesn’t agree with the sexualisation sometimes. I’ve often wondered if my brain just works in different ways to other people’s, maybe I have some aroace in me yearning to come forth? But there are a lot of ships that sprung up from TROP where I have nothing against them at all, I firmly stand on ship and let ship, but what they were founded on I did not interpret as sexy or romantic.

For example, Adar is shipped with all and sundry and it’s brilliant and peak comedy at times, fuelled by Sam Hazeldine’s fantastic chemistry with his co-stars. But there are certain scenes where I get why they were interpreted that way, but I also think a lot can be missed by jumping to sex/romance.

One instance is Adar telling Elrond he has the beauty of his forebear Melian. In modern society, a man calling another man beautiful probably is flirting, since men (generalisation) struggle to compliment each other apparently without feeling the need to caveat “no homo”. But in the context of Tolkien’s world and even medieval norms, that wasn’t the case. If anything, Adar is showing off his knowledge and also baiting Elrond by asking if he’s as wise as Melian.

Also take the scene where Adar chokes Elrond to get Nenya from around his neck. Often interpreted as kinky (which is valid). Sometimes choking is just violence though. Adar needed to get Nenya and overpower Elrond. He’s in the middle of a literal battle. Maybe I’ve watched too much true crime and seen the effects of countless domestic abuse cases, but choking can just be violent and violently intended. Probably a boring and obvious take, but that’s how I perceived it when I watched.

Does Adar look sexy as hell doing it? I think so but others might not. Could you also see it as Adar flirting with Elrond and ship them together? Of course! Why the hell not! I just sometimes miss the non-romantic aspects of analysis and discussion.

Same with Maidar. I totally get where that ship comes from, it makes sense, it has a lot going for it. I also personally adhere to the notion there was no sex or romance between them. I think there was alluring, I think there was admiration, I think there was a codependency, I don’t think it was sexual or romantic. To me, having your best friend and/or most trusted, loyal follower stab you in the back would hurt more than a lover. I might be falling back on my own thoughts on how I’d feel and I would personally be more devastated at being betrayed by my closest friend than my husband. I’ve lost friends and I’ve lost loves, the friends hurt more.

Adariel is another one. Again, I think there are strong grounds for that ship and I love so much of the art for it, but a lot of what is interpreted as romantic for me was just tactical manipulation, coupled with genuine admiration on Adar’s part and the fact that Galadriel is beautiful so most people would be attracted to her if we’re being totally honest. Adar used her to get what he wanted. His methods might have included flirtation or creating tension in closeness, but for me, they were all about tactics to defeat Sauron. Galadriel and Nenya were a way for him to do that so he did want he needed to facilitate that.

I’m not even going to touch on Haladriel or Saurondriel because this post is already hella long and my anxiety is already sky high so I’m chickening out.

Sorry this is such a weird random word vomit, it was nerve wracking to write and post, but I just needed space to let this part of me out. I know it’s so contradictory to how I’ve presented myself on here so far, but I felt like if I’m allowed to let the thirst flow, I should be allowed to let this version of me out as well.

I’m literally this:

Guess which one gets fed more? 😂

Fear not, folks, I will resume my thirsty bullshit forthwith.

[stackslip]

frankly i can't find a better illustration of how arakawa chooses to write the ishbalan genocide than these two pages, one of which directly follows the next.

on one hand you have two soldiers who actively, willingly participated in the genocide, acting in it until the very end for their "fellow soldiers", before waxing maudlin about how tragic war is but how it is their duty to Protect Everybody and they will change the country so less people die. by less people they also mean less of their fellow soldiers btw bc these matter more than actual genocide victims. and this is framed as this great deep nuanced moral lesson after we saw them continue following orders to mass murder, shoot and burn people until the very last one to "protect their fellow soldier". sure ok

on the other, right after this, you have the depiction of scar. scar who just lost his entire people and family in the genocide. who is horrifically traumatized. scar who is portrayed as bad bc he woke, saw amestrian soldiers in panic killed them--and this is the "sin" he has to carry the entire fucking manga. roy and riza can carry all the atrocities they did as this Nuanced Lesson, scar meanwhile here is portrayed as feral, and brutal, and bloodthirsty (a bad thing) for the people who committed these atrocities. he's covered in the blood of the poor innocent rockbells. like. that's it. Revenge Bad. roy and riza want to build something constructive (how nice of them.) and scar wants to build something destructive. not even like, a page to show scar crying, or broken, in the aftermath of horrors so bleak that anyone would be traumatized by them. no, he's just a violent brutal husk possessed by the Evil Spirit of revenge.

how fucked is this? it's so unbelievably fucked. just. i keep being told again and again by random tumblr users and the like that really the genocide of ishbal is nuancely and respectfully depicted in the manga and it's like, is your understand of a "nuanced" tale of genocide, especially one that is so obviously coded after american intervention in the middle east, really that fucking skewed by all these american war movies? do you think american sniper is a nuanced tale too? wanna tell me all about how anti imperialist fma is? yes i know this is all fictional. yes i know this is shounen. i think if you're going to graphically depict women and children being burned to death by a sympathetic character who justifies it as his duty of being a soldier and depict his PTSD and survivor's guilt with nuance--following interviews you made with soldiers of real conflict!--but you can't be fucking bothered to give the victims of said soldiers even a quarter of the same kind of attention and nuance, nevermind this fucking bullshit, you should maybe not write about these subjects at all, especially when the rest of your shounen is about a fucking stupid magical mystery guy who is the Real Evil Bad Guy!

[kasumingo]

We really went from "if you ever sent a death threat in your life you're an absolutely fucking loser" to "if i tell someone to kys and they talk how suicidal they are, it's actually THEIR fault and they're suibaiting me!!" huh

[soullessjack]

this isnt rlly a serious post more so than a thought I need to verbalize but like. there’s an INSANE difference between the fandom being like “hey what if jack was actually his age and got to be a little normal” vs y’all treating a grown ass man like he has to cover his ears when someone swears or sleep with a nightlight on because he’s afraid of the dark, and throwing the P word around to anyone who thinks he’s attractive. one of these things is not like the other.

[kaseyskat]

why does everyone think normal would actually even TRY to hurt taylor like this boy literally just had an entire episode where he became convinced that he was right and his friends don’t care about him AND he just was reminded that it’s kinda his dads fault that taylor didn’t get to have a dad in his life you really think norm isn’t fully prepared to step down and let taylor win he literally said he only wanted to rule hell because it sounded angsty and he’s being angsty why would he get violent about it 😭😭😭😭😭

[infiniteglitterfall]

Me, looking through books on Palestine: "Ilan Pappé wrote one called 'The Biggest Prison On Earth?!' People in Gaza hate it being called a prison. There's an entire hashtag for it. There's been an account dedicated to collecting pics and videos of #TheGazaYouDontSee for 6 years.

"Is Pappé even Palestinian? oh god wait I can tell already. this is gonna be an 'Israeli apologist' isn't it." Internet: "Yeah, Pappé's Israeli."

Me: "For fuck's--- so people will believe Israelis unquestioningly if they're shit-talking Israel, but in all other situations, Israelis are all liars?"

Internet: "Pretty much. Also, at best, Ilan Pappé must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians."

Me, admittedly in full schadenfreude now: "What?!?!"

Internet: "Benny Morris. That historian who's extremely hard-core about primary source documentation, who wrote that detailed book about how and why each group of Palestinian refugees left in 1947-9. He reviewed three books about Palestine."

Me: "Holy shit. And the book by Pappé is about the Husaynis. The family that Nazi war criminal Amin al-Husseini came from, the guy who fucked absolutely everything up for both Israel and Palestine."

Internet: "That's the one. Morris wrote, 'At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two.'"

Me: "Why??"

Internet: "He says, 'Here is a clear and typical example—in detail, which is where the devil resides—of Pappe’s handiwork. I take this example from The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine'....

"Blah blah blah, basically in 1947 the UN voted to partition the land into Palestine and Israel, and extremist militias started shooting at Jewish towns and people. David Ben-Gurion was the leader of the Jewish community there, and his journal describes a visit from a scientist named Aharon Katzir, telling him about an experiment codenamed "Shimshon." Morris gives us the journal entry:

...An experiment was conducted on animals. The researchers were clothed in gas masks and suit. The suit costs 20 grush, the mask about 20 grush (all must be bought immediately). The operation [or experiment] went well. No animal died, the [animals] remained dazzled [as when a car’s headlights dazzle an oncoming driver] for 24 hours. There are some 50 kilos [of the gas]. [They] were moved to Tel Aviv. The [production] equipment is being moved here. On the laboratory level, some 20 kilos can be produced per day.

"Morris says, 'This is the only accessible source that exists, to the best of my knowledge, about the meeting and the gas experiment, and it is the sole source cited by Pappe for his description of the meeting and the "Shimshon" project. But this is how Pappe gives the passage in English:

Katzir reported to Ben-Gurion: 'We are experimenting with animals. Our researchers were wearing gas masks and adequate outfit. Good results. The animals did not die (they were just blinded). We can produce 20 kilos a day of this stuff.'

"'The translation is flecked with inaccuracies, but the outrage is in Pappe’s perversion of "dazzled," or sunveru, to "blinded"—in Hebrew "blinded" would be uvru, the verb not used by Ben-Gurion—coupled with the willful omission of the qualifier '"for 24 hours."'

"'Pappe’s version of this text is driven by something other than linguistic and historiographical accuracy. Published in English for the English-speaking world, where animal-lovers are legion and deliberately blinding animals would be regarded as a barbaric act, the passage, as published by Pappe, cannot fail to provoke a strong aversion to Ben-Gurion and to Israel.

"'Such distortions, large and small, characterize almost every page of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. So I should add, to make the historical context perfectly clear, that no gas was ever used in the war of 1948 by any of the participants. [Or, he later notes, by either Israel or Palestine ever.] Pappe never tells the reader this.

"'Raising the subject of gas is historical irrelevance. But the paragraph will dangle in the reader’s imagination as a dark possibility, or worse, a dark reality: the Jews, gassed by the Nazis three years before, were about to gas, or were gassing, Arabs.'"

Me: "Uuuuggghhhhhhhhh. Yeah, it will."

Internet: "He does say, 'Palestinian Dynasty was a good idea.' Then he does some really detailed historian-dragging about the lack of primary sources and reliance on people's interpretations of what they say instead.

"'Almost all of Pappe’s references direct the reader to books and articles in English, Hebrew, and Arabic by other scholars, or to the memoirs of various Arab politicians, which are not the most reliable of sources. Occasionally there is a reference to an Arab or Western travelogue or genealogy, or to a diplomat’s memoir; but there is barely an allusion to documents in the relevant British, American, and Zionist/Israeli archives.

"'When referring to the content of American consular reports about Arab riots in the 1920s, for example, Pappe invariably directs the reader to an article in Hebrew by Gideon Biger—“The American Consulate in Jerusalem and the Events of 1920-1921,” in Cathedra, September 1988—and not to the documents themselves, which are easily accessible in the United States National Archive.

"'Those who falsify history routinely take the path of omission. They ignore crucial facts and important pieces of evidence while cherry-picking from the documentation to prove a case. 

"'Those who falsify history routinely take the path of omission. They ignore crucial facts and important pieces of evidence while cherry-picking from the documentation to prove a case. 

"'But Pappe is more brazen. He, too, often omits and ignores significant evidence, and he, too, alleges that a source tells us the opposite of what it in fact says, but he will also simply and straightforwardly falsify evidence.

"'Consider his handling of the Arab anti-Jewish riots of the 1920s.

"'Pappe writes of the “Nabi Musa” riots in April 1920: “The [British] Palin Commission... reported that the Jewish presence in the country was provoking the Arab population and was the cause of the riots.” He also quotes at length Musa Kazim al-Husayni, the clan’s leading notable at the time, to the effect that “it was not the [Arab] Hebronites who had started the riots but the Jews.”

"'But the (never published) [Palin Commission Report], while forthrightly anti-Zionist, thereby accurately reflecting the prevailing views in the British military government that ruled Palestine until mid-1920, flatly and strikingly charged the Arabs with responsibility for the bloodshed.

"'The team chaired by Major-General P.C. Palin wrote that “it is perfectly clear that with... few exceptions the Jews were the sufferers, and were, moreover, the victims of a peculiarly brutal and cowardly attack, the majority of the casualties being old men, women and children.” The inquiry pointed out that whereas 216 Jews were killed or injured, the British security forces and the Jews, in defending themselves or in retaliatory attacks, caused only twenty-five Arab casualties.'"

Me: "Yeah. I'm looking at that report right now and it says there had been an explosion, and then people were looting Jewish stores and beating Jews with stones, and in one case stabbing someone. Some people said that some Jews got up on the roof of a hotel and retaliated by throwing stones themselves.

"And then it literally says, 'The point as to the retaliation by Jews is of importance because it seems to have impressed the Military and led them to imagine that the Jews were to some extent responsible for provoking the rising.' That's the only thing it really says about anyone blaming the Jews.

"Except.... the very beginning gives some historical context. And it does say that when the Balfour Declaration came out, Muslims and Christians 'considered that they were to be handed over to an oppression which they hated far more than the Turk's and were aghast at the thought of this domination....

"'If this intensity of feeling proceeded merely from wounded pride of race and disappointment in political aspirations, it would be easier to criticise and rebuke: but it must be borne in mind that at the bottom of all is a deepseated fear of the Jew, both as a possible ruler and as an economic competitor. Rightly or wrongly they fear the Jew as a ruler, regarding his race as one of the most intolerant known to history....

"'The prospect of extensive Jewish immigration fills him with a panic fear, which may be exaggerated, but is none the less genuine. He sees the ablest race intellectually in the world, past-masters in all the arts of ousting competitors whether on the market, in the farm or the bureaucratic offices, backed by apparently inexhaustible funds given by their compatriots in all lands and possessed of powerful influence in the councils of the nations, prepared to enter the lists against him in every one of his normal occupations, backed by the one thing wanted to make them irresistible, the physical force of a great Imperial Power, and he feels himself overmastered and defeated before the contest is begun.'

"Wow! What a great fucking example of how 'positive' stereotypes are actually used to fuck people over! We're not antisemitic, we actually think Jews are the smartest, most powerful, richest group with tremendous global power! So positive!! Not at all being used here to justify antisemitic violence!

"Also, immigration from all over the world actually meant that different agricultural and manufacturing techniques were brought into the region, and yes, financial investments to start businesses sometimes, which meant that Arab Palestinians there had the highest per capita income in the Middle East, the highest daily wages, and started a lot of businesses of their own. But go off, I guess."

"Anyfuckingway.... it basically says that the Muslims and Christians were angry and scared, the Jews were too quick to set up the functioning government that the Brits were supposed to be there to help both sides create -- and which the Arab leaders completely refused to create for Palestine, because (1) fascists and (2) didn't want Jews nearby -- and that they were "ready prey for any form of agitation hostile to the British Government and the Jews." Then it says the movement for a United Syria was agitating them real hard, and so were the Sherifians.

"Is that what Ilan Passe, I mean Pappe, meant by the Palin Report blaming the Jews?! That when it says it's understandable the Arabs were freaking out, because antisemitism, Pappe thinks it's saying the Jews were provoking them?!"

Internet: "I don't know. I kinda tuned out after the first hour you were talking."

Me: "OGH MY GOD"

Internet: "So anyway, then Morris ALSO says, 'About the 1929 “Temple Mount” riots, which included two large-scale massacres of Jews, in Hebron and in Safed, Pappe writes: “The opposite camp, Zionist and British, was no less ruthless [than the Arabs]. In Jaffa a Jewish mob murdered seven Palestinians.”

Me: "What the ENTIRE FUCK? There was no united 'Zionist and British' camp! The Brits would barely let any Holocaust refugees in, ffs!"

Internet: "Morris says, 'Actually, there were no massacres of Arabs by Jews, though a number of Arabs were killed when Jews defended themselves or retaliated after Arab violence.

"'Pappe adds that the British “Shaw Commission,” so-called because it was chaired by Sir Walter Shaw (a former chief justice of the Straits Settlements), which investigated the riots, “upheld the basic Arab claim that Jewish provocations had caused the violent outbreak. ‘The principal cause... was twelve years of pro-Zionist [British] policy.’”

"'It is unclear what Pappe is quoting from. I did not find this sentence in the commission’s report. Pappe’s bibliography refers, under “Primary Sources,” simply to “The Shaw Commission.” The report? The deliberations? Memoranda by or about? Who can tell?

"'The footnote attached to the quote, presumably to give its source, says, simply, “Ibid.”

"'The one before it says, “Ibid., p. 103.”

"'The one before that says, “The Shaw Commission, session 46, p. 92.”

"'But the quoted passage does not appear on page 103 of the report.

"In the text of Palestinian Dynasty, Pappe states that “Shaw wrote [this] after leaving the country [Palestine].” But if it is not in the report, where did Shaw “write” it?'"

Me: "I'M ON IT. [rapid-fire googling] OMG. This is.... Not the first time. In 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,' he reported that in a 1937 letter to his son, David Ben-Gurion declared: 'The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as war.'

"It's not in the source he gave. It's not in any of the three different sources he's given for it.

"He apparently has never responded to any requests for an explanation, either from the journal he published in, or from other historians. But it says he did "obliquely [acknowledge] the controversy in an article in Electronic Intifada, in which he portrayed himself as the victim of intimidation at the hands of “Zionist hooligans.”'

"This is absolutely fucking wild. THEN it says the chair of the Ethics Committee where he was teaching eventually said that the second part of the quote ('but one needs,' etc) was a (combined?) paraphrase of a diary entry and a speech Ben-Gurion gave, and that the first half is 'based on' a letter to his son.

"And it's so convincing! The chair says, 'Shabtai Teveth[,] Ben Gurion’s biographer, Benny Morris and the historian Nur Maslaha have all quoted this letter. In fact their translation was stronger than the quotation from Professor Pappé: ‘We must expel the Arabs and take their place.’ Professor Pappé has documentary evidence of these quotations and the source will ensure that this is correctly cited in any future editions of the publication or related studies.'

"And IT'S NOT EVEN TRUE?!

"Ben-Gurion's actual diary entry (not a letter) says the opposite.

“'We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places.... All our aspiration is built on the assumption – proven throughout all our activity – that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.'

"Benny Morris misquoted it as "We must expel the Arabs and take their places" in the English version of his 1987 book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, although it was correct in the Hebrew version. He corrected himself in the 2001 book Righteous Victims.

"Teveth also misquoted it in the English version of his 1985 book Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, but again, had it correct in the Hebrew edition.

"And both Morris and Teveth explicitly point out the rest of the entry. The part about all their aspiration being built on the assumption and experience that there was enough room in the country for everyone.

"Historian Efraim Karsh’s 1997 book Fabricating Israeli History pointed out and corrected their mistakes.

"This is apparently a very well-known issue among historians of Israel and Palestine. It was a big deal in 2003, when an evangelist Christian publisher put out a book FULL of disinformation, which not only used the same quote as Pappe does, but also could not give a real source for it.

"But Pappe STILL USED THE MISQUOTE AND DOUBLED DOWN ON IT EVERY SINGLE TIME."

Internet: "Are you done? I know all this already."

Me: "Also, there are literally only two places where the phrase 'twelve years of pro-Zionist policy' shows up online, and they're both about Pappe making quotes up.

"NOW I'm done."

Benny Morris wasn't, though. The review continues at the link below. And the next part starts, "To the deliberate slanting of history Pappe adds a profound ignorance of basic facts. Together these sins and deficiencies render his “histories” worthless as representations of the past, though they are important as documents in the current political and historiographic disputations about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Pappe’s grasp of the facts of World War I, for example, is weak in the extreme."

[buttercup-barf]

Under the cut are mostly self-insert doodles of decreasing quality. Again, not much directly tied to Team Fortress 2. Might as well toss these out while I have no access to my puter. Much yapping under the cut and in the tags incoming.

Another self-insert, this time less of a "here's me as a tenth class" and more of a "here's my game experiences translated into the class I would take the place of". The Cleaner. Although I guess they could still be wearing either suit. It doesn't matter that much.

That one Convict's Case taunt with Backup would be extremely funny, because the man would be on the verge of a breakdown (he does not want to go to jail so bad you have no idea). The second image- I owe no explanation. You know what I am. You see the pattern with my favourites.

The duality of the man. Resting face versus "just heard you express interest in religion/Russian folklore" face. He's not that hard to make friends with, when you pull him away from all the explosions.

Some doodles of trying to figure his face out. Unfortunately, the more I stare at him, the more I worry that he looks like A Certain Guy With The Last Name "Kazarin", and the fear of never being original in my life caught up to me.

Don't look at me, don't perceive me, I refuse to explain any of my actions to you.

[theoreticalli]

I put 30 tags on that dear evan hansen post. for the love of god don't click to expand the tags I'm so fucking sorry I just hate that awful fucking show so fucking much. oh fuck I've done it again in the tags here oh god

[scentofpines]

in class today i felt so incredibly out of place again, why does it have to be so hard for me? and, i like this girl, but every single time we have class she mentions her "autism" while happily chatting with 3+ ppl at a time, completely effortless, while im sitting there, staring and trying to focus enough to even understand the conversation bc there is so much noise around me that i feel like i'm about to either explode or shut down completely and i feel like an alien trying my best to somehow socialize and understand what is going on and really to just get through this.

[bagheerita]

DS9's "Second Skin" once again shaming the Stargate Atlantis writing team by doing an episode they wrote but over 10 years earlier and 50 times better. I went on a rant about "Sunday" vs "Lessons" a couple years ago, but watching "Second Skin" is like seeing what "Michael" could have been if written by people who understood drama instead of only being acted by people who did. There are definitely differences, like we start out having a relationship with Kira which we don't with Lt Kenmore, but with the whole fake identity plot having the person's actual parent there makes it sooooooo much more emotional. (This is what I wanted from "Michael"!! Not just handing him a stock photo that literally looks like it came with the frame and telling him "These are your parents." But an actual emotional connection, any tie for him to cling to to believe your bullshit and not just Teyla being quietly agreeable like whoring her out is the only way you can sell your lies. Because, here in DS9 as well, the lies are so obviously bullshit.) But making it a double blind also, where you lied to the parent as well to make sure you manipulated that honest emotional connection into existing, fantastic, exquisite, Stargate wishes. And in the end the point of the episode is different, as Lt Kenmore is the focus of his episode and Kira is really just the excuse to expose the Legate by having him try to protect his "daughter," but (and as much as I love "Michael") the emotional content here is so much deeper and sweeter. Maybe SGA writers are allergic to honest emotions, or maybe the writers were trying to hedge their bets with not portraying their main cast as being as evil as the Obsidian Order... though if you're going to go with the war crimes go whole hog with the war crimes come on.

[jackass-jones]

We talk about the potential of aoilight but never the chaotic potential of akane x clover...

[jvzebel-x]

news letter from SWOP Behind Bars, sent Monday, July 17th, in regards to the Woodhull Freedom Foundation's constitutional challenge to FOSTA

[images 1,2,&3 text:

"The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday, July 7th 2023, that the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) is constitutional, upholding key portions of the law that critics have said intrudes on First Amendment speech protections and harms sex workers.

FOSTA suspends Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a law that grants online platforms protection from liability for user-generated speech. After FOSTA passed, social media platforms were forced to censor sex-worker generated content in fear of being held criminally liable under the law. Since becoming law five years ago, FOSTA has been condemned for making sex work more dangerous and increasing online censorship. While lawmakers passed the law to combat sex trafficking, critics have alleged that the law has hindered law enforcement from using websites to catch actual traffickers, and that sex trafficking reports actually tripled the year after FOSTA was enacted.

Although the Court did not issue the constitutional ruling that was sought, it held that the law must be interpreted narrowly in order to avoid “grave constitutional questions”. By imposing the interpretive discipline Congress lacked, the Court ruled out many of the broader applications of FOSTA that caused Woodhull and its partners to challenge it.

Specifically, it held that FOSTA “Does not proscribe facilitating prostitution more generally, which could extend to speech arguing for the legalization of prostitution or that discusses, educates, or informs about prostitution.” It also clarified that the law “Does not reach the intent to engage in general advocacy about prostitution or to give advice to sex workers generally to protect them from abuse. Nor would it cover the intent to preserve for historical purposes web pages that discuss prostitution.”/text]

[coraline-piange]

white leftist gay men are truly the fucking worst.

how fucking dare this guy stand there and claim to be leftist and anti fascist and be gay and make fun of frats and all their right wing ideology and their sexism

AND THEN look a woman in the eye and basically threaten to beat her up? talk about beating up women in general and how they are (physically) inferior to men? and just generally being a sexist piece of shit?

not to mention praise israel and the IDF and being super weird about the people literally being murdered by them?? you call yourself anti fascist?? antifascist where??

[queeranarchism]

For those wondering what's happening in Amsterdam right now and hearing media bullshit about 'pogroms', let me break it down for ya:

Sunday, November 3rd: During the weekend, Israeli fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv arrive in Amsterdam in advance of the soccer match against Ajax to take place on Thurday. On the first night, a man wearing a kufiya is attacked and beaten up so bad that he is hospitalized. The incident is ignored by the media and the police.

Wednesday, November 6th: Maccabi fans remove Palestinian flags from buildings, burn the flags and intimidate the inhabitants. A taxi driver is attacked with metal chains. The police watch and do nothing. Fellow taxi drivers have to come to the victim's rescue. The incidents are ignored by the media.

Thursday afternoon, November 7th: Maccabi fans hold a pro-IDF rally, carrying IDF emblems and shouting 'destroy the arabs' and 'we will fuck the arabs'. Fans also return to further intimidate the inhabitants of buildings that they had targeted on Wednesday. The incident are ignored by the media and the police.

Thursday evening, November 7th: Maccabi fans are shouting the same slogans and intimidating people of color while moving through the Amsterdam metro, while other fans simultaneously disrupt a vigil for the victims of the floods in Spain. The incidents are ignored by the media and the police.

Thursday night, November 7th: Amsterdam youths successfully fight back against the Israeli's that have been terrorizing their city. Maccabi fans that had gathered for another night of violence are driven off in all directions. Some find shelter with the police.

Friday morning, November 8th: Ignoring everything that has happened before, the city council and the media go wild, declaring that a 'pogrom' has taken place against 'Jews' and that 'violent antisemitism' is making Amsterdam unsafe. Maccabi fans that were shouting 'death to arabs' a few hours ealier are giving teary-eyed interviews claiming they were afraid for their lives and were targetted for being Jewish. The city council bans all forms of protest for 3 days.

Saturday morning, November 9th: a group of Amsterdam antizionist Jews is forced to cancel their Kristallnacht/Novemberprogromme 1938 commemoration because of threats of violence from Maccabi fans. This is ignored by the media and the police.

[restlesssinner]

Hey listen. A bunch of people will now try to convince the public that the killing of Brian Thompson was ethically wrong. They will try to use the same old tired arguments: that murder is always wrong, that we should stand against political violence in all forms, that CEOs are people too, etc.

Now, you probably won’t fall for all that bullshit, but a lot of people might. Here is what you need to tell them in return - it’s not guaranteed to change their minds, but every time you offer someone a chance to accept the truth you’re making it ever so more likely to take it.

In philosophy, the idea that people should never do certain “bad” things (e.g. killing) is called deontology. The thing is, unlike utilitarianism (which states people should choose actions that create the most wellbeing in society), deontology is inherently flawed as a morality system.

See, only through deontology can people end up finding themselves having to choose outcomes that will lead to more suffering in the world; think, the trolley problem. Now, ask yourself, what kind of morality system expects its followers to selfishly pick the choice that ensures their own moral purity, even if it dooms the wellbeing of possibly hundreds or millions of others?

Understanding this, you might ask yourself: who benefits from having deontology be the crux of understanding morality for so many people? Who benefits uplifting rules like the Ten Commandments as the ultimate guideline to ethics, as opposed to what it was in the original context of it’s religion - a simple list of base laws meant to instruct a small group of escaped slaves several thousand years ago?

The answer is twofold. First, there are the authoritarians, who wish to instill obedience by making people believe that breaking their rules, no matter how justified, is wrong. Secondly, there are the bystanders, who watch nervously as the world crumbles around them, but excuse their inaction by latching onto a false belief that they are still somehow better than the people who are doing something about it in a way they find aesthetically displeasing.

Therefore, it is imperative to look at the world through a utilitarian perspective, and judge every incident like so. Brian Thompson is part of a very exclusive club; he had wronged so many people so severely that the suffering caused to him and his loved ones by his murder is still innumerably outmatched by the joy his unlikely retribution will give the literal millions of people he’s wronged.

Remember, by similar logic it is still very unethical to kill 98% of people, so think of all the choices Thompson had to make to put himself in the top 0.1% of the 2% of people who’s murders can be justified. In a better society, a society that prevents and punishes exploitation, it would be hard to even conceive of a murder that could ever be so righteous.

In fact, in a society that uses classism and bigotry to block people from achieving their fullest potential through non-violent means, we must celebrate those who risk their lives and legal rights to push humanity forward, bringing to justice the true criminals of decency.

TLDR: Brian had it coming.

[rafesugar]

exbf!rafe seeing you do yayo with another man

warnings: s2 rafe, exbf!rafe, cocaine, violence, p in v, unprotected sex, hate sex, finger sucking, size kink, toxic!rafe, toxic!reader, reader not caring about rafe beating someone up

rafe pulled up to the party in his motorcycle, carrying a case of beer in one and as he walked into the mansion. “where's top?” he looked at kelce, who just shrugged, preoccupied with a girl on each arm as he sat at the center of their attention. “dunno” kelce mumbled before saying a joke, making both the girls laugh.

rafe let out a scoff, setting the beer down on the kitchen counter before wandering around the mansion. he was about to take a turn and go out to the pool when something caught his eye, a head of hair waaay too familiar in a tiny dress he immediately hated. he gritted his teeth and took a few strides closer, only to find you sitting on a man's lap.

the man was gripping your jaw, rubbing coke on your gums with his index finger. you were looking up at him, your gaze lingering a little too long as you sucked on his finger. a familiar cologne filled your senses, but before you could register it as rafe's, you heard the heavy sound of knuckles against bone.

rafe's fist plowed into the side of the man's face, his head snapping violently. the man was quick to get up, but he was careful to slide you off his lap. the man sized up rafe before shoving him. “what the fuck is your problem? huh? what the fuck is your problem!” he lunged at rafe, slamming his fist against the square of the rafe's jaw. rafe faltered for a second before taking the man down and pinning him onto the ground, gripping on his collar so harshly the man couldn't breathe.

rafe then reached for an empty beer bottle, smashing it against the side of the table, small shards of glass shattering. but before he could do more, he caught a glance of you, completely unbothered and fed up with his bullshit. you were sitting at the very same spot, lighting up a cigarette. you didn’t even bother to turn your head, to take a look at him, at what he was doing behind you. that gave the man the chance to get away, taking the glass out of rafe's hand. “you fucking psycho!” he yelled, scrambling far far far away from rafe.

rafe was furious. he made his way towards you, standing right in front of you as you stayed seated on the couch. “who the fuck is he, huh? who the fuck is he.” he let out a scoff when you stayed silent. “you know what he is? he's a coward.” he snatched the cigarette away from your fingers, tossing it onto the floor, crossing his arms while you shot him a glare. “really? i think you're a little bruised.” you taunted. “what are you gonna do, hm? clean me up?” he looked down on you, a smirk playing on his lips. “oh fuck you.” you scoffed. “i like that idea, that's a better idea.” rafe grinned ear to ear.

“you're an asshole” you muttered as you sank down onto rafe, his dick practically splitting you open. “yeah?” his grip on your hips tightened as he guided you, your hands falling onto his chest. you let out a sob, squeezing your eyes shut as your walls flutter around rafe, your whole body going limp.

he flipped you onto your back, placing kisses all over you as he pounded into you. he was relentless, going at an unforgiving pace. “r-rafe, please!” your nails dragged down his back while he took out all his pent up jealousy with each stroke of his hips “sitting on a his fucking lap, letting him put his flithy finger in your mouth. i never once let you touch that shit.” you let out a sob with his every thrust. ��it's not good for you” he then took a hand off your hip, placing it on your tummy and gently pressing down on the bulge. “neither are you” you choke out, your second orgasm hitting you harder than the first.