#so i mean... not exactly a credible source.

[saintedbythestorm]

First thing I tell dad when he comes into the room: hey I was calling you like 2-3 times.

Dad like a minute later: I don't know you called me.

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

Y'know, if Lila was just a one-off character for Volpina and we never saw her again, a few tweaks in that episodes writing could have made it a good lesson about not letting your temper get the best of you, even in a situation where your anger is justified

This is in reference to the post where I discussed how terrible Volpina's lesson is and I agree with the proposed change. If Marinette has to be in the wrong here, that's the only way to make it kind of work. In fact, this is what I thought the episode was trying to do on my first watch. When the next season started with Lila gone, I thought, "Okay, so that episode was supposed to be about being the better person and having a more measured response when you've been wronged. I don't think it did that lesson super well, but I can see what they were going for and we'll give them some grace. Definitely one that I wouldn't just give to a kid, though. Way too high a risk of them internalizing a very wrong message."

I only gave the writers that grace because I assumed that Ladybug had truly humiliated Lila out of Paris off screen (remember, we only see Ladybug out Lila to Adrien even though Lila was lying to everyone) and that is a pretty extreme punishment for a teenager making a dumb choice. Even then, saying that Ladybug was in the wrong feels a little too victim blame-y for my tastes. Lila was the one telling the lies and using Ladybug's name for clout on a city-wide scale or possibly even a national/international scale depending on the Ladyblog's viewership. By telling those lies, Lila was harming Alya's credibility and presenting herself as a sort of authority on Ladybug, a position that she was going to use to her advantage as we saw with her manipulating Adrien. She was also putting herself at risk if Gabriel or other villains believed the lies and saw her as a way to get to Ladybug.

That means that the lies Lila told aren't exactly minor, victimless crimes like the lies Marinette and Adrien tell to hide their identities. Lilia's lies needed to be outed on the same scale that they were broadcast and there's no kind way to do that. It's going to have a brutal edge no matter how pretty the words are.

There are times when it's right to be "the better person" and let a thing go, but it's hard to view this as one of them because this was not a nuanced situation. There was no reasonable option other than issuing a public retraction and Ladybug didn't even go that far! She had a single, private confrontation with Lila and then let the matter rest. A better version of this episode might see Alya and Marinette giving a really mean retraction on the Ladyblog that they then feel bad about because they should have been more professional, but that's about it as far as possible improvements go.

If we look at what the episode actually gave us, it feels like another Gamer situation. An episode that blames Marinette for impure motivations while ignoring anyone else's faults, creating a nonsense moral that just makes me mad. Ladybug-is-wrong-for-confronting-the-liar-for-impure-reasons is certainly a take. It's just not one that I'm ever going to agree with. To give a recent, real-world example, do people really feel that James Somerton was the wronged party because his many, many lies and instances of plagiarism were outed in a brutal public takedown? (Context part 1 & part 2, though part 2 is the one to watch if you only want to see why letting lies from respected sources go unchecked can be so messy.)

To be clear, I don't think that Lila's lies were Somerton bad in Volpina, but they were starting to go down that road and they arguably reached Somerton levels by season five. Fakes identities, almost getting Marinette expelled, using her lies to get social power from Gabriel, the list goes on, which is yet another reason to hate Volpina. Its nonsense moral is a big part of why Lila could do all of that. Ladybug should have outed Lila! Society suffered and will continue to suffer because she didn't. That's why you have to stop misinformation as soon as you possibly can, but that wasn't actually the moral of Volpina. The moral was that Ladybug was in the wrong for being mean to the liar. Maybe if she'd been nicer, then Lila wouldn't be so evil now which is a very gross moral! Volpina really does feel even more victim blame-y now that Lila is the new big bad.

That's a good segue to circle back and finish off my original topic: I gave the writers grace for Volpina until Lila returned and established that she'd never been publicly outed. At that point, Volpina lost any chance at me giving it charity. The lesson was worse than I thought and I was fully justified in hating it. It's one of the ones I use when I explain why I wouldn't want a child getting into Miraculous because the problem with Volpina's moral is pretty straightforward.

[khaire-traveler]

Sniffing Out The Bullshit: Spotting Misinformation

Ah, misinformation - the bane of any pagan or polytheist's existence. With information in general spreading faster than the speed of light these days, we must be able to discern when something isn't as true as it claims to be. This post delves into different methods of verifying sources and noticing misinformation. It's, by no means, exhaustive; it's simply meant to serve as a guide for those who may not know how to do discern falsities otherwise.

Spreading misinformation is ahistorical at best and immensely harmful - hell, even deadly - at worst, especially when it comes to physical/mental health and marginalized groups. Misinformation is how conspiracies about "drinking bleach to cure XYZ illness" start (among many other factors, of course). When people listen to the loudest voice rather than the most credible, they are easily misled into believing falsities and spreading those harmful lies to others. It's best to stay accurately informed about topics so that you both know what you're talking about and can't be easily misled by someone with potentially malicious intentions.

-

Now onto how to actually discern misinformation online. Here is my guide on sniffing out misinformation (numbered for your convenience, but you don't have to go in order):

Are there any logical fallacies in the person's claims? Here is a website that explains each individual logical fallacy. People will often use logical fallacies to twist an argument in their favor, despite having no real evidence of their own. You'll see this a lot within online discourse. I've noticed "appeal to emotion", "strawman", and "tu quoque" are quite prevalent online, especially on this website.

2. Is this fact, opinion, belief, or prejudice? This website offers a good explanation of how to distinguish each. I see people often confusing these with one another, and it contributes greatly to how misinformation is spread. Someone will share an opinion on something historical or historical-sounding, and others will take it as fact. Not being able to differentiate fact from opinion, belief, etc. can lead us to assume someone knows a lot about a topic that they actually know nothing about or are simply not qualified to speak on. Someone who is not a doctor diagnosing people with certainty and conviction is a great example of this and something I see, unfortunately, quite often.

3. Is the source emotionally manipulative? Although WebMD is admittedly not the best source of information, this website discusses emotional manipulation in detail and what to look out for. Believe it or not, people do use emotional manipulation to spread their ideologies and misinformation online. This is actually a form of control often employed by cults. Be on the lookout for anyone who seems to be emotionally manipulating their audience.

4. Is the information claiming to be historically accurate? If so, are they providing any sources? If you're unsure whether or not something has any historical accuracy, I recommend looking it up on Google Scholar. Run the information through a general search as well to see if you can find other sources claiming similar things. Remember that just because the same information appears in an online article does not make it accurate, as some websites are more trustworthy than others. Honestly, I'd recommend reading books by credible authors over looking things up online, but for looking up a random fact, that's not exactly always helpful.

5. Does the source seem credible? Here is a website that provides a guideline for distinguishing credibility. This is probably the hardest question for people to answer when looking into a topic. Websites that have ".org" or ".gov" tend to appear more trustworthy, but keep the website name and the other content present on the site in mind. For example, if a site claims to be historically accurate but also advertises articles about "top ten celebrities who turned their lives around", it is not a trustworthy source. Also, keep in mind the date of the article or website. Is it over ten years old? Five years old? If it seems dated, try to find information on the topic that is a bit fresher. It can be difficult to find newer sources on certain topics, however, as some topics are just not discussed often, even within their field.

6. Are the claims being made UPG (Unverified Personal Gnosis)? Wikipedia defines UPG here. Not everyone will state when something is their UPG or not. A good way to immediately verify a claim is to search it up. Does have any root in the actual history of the deity? If not, do many people still have the same or similar experiences? If yes to the second question, it may be considered an SPG (Shared Personal Gnosis) which is a belief or experience shared between several or many people but is still historically absent overall. Just because something is a UPG also doesn't automatically make it misinformation; it's simply a part of that person's individual practice and belief system. It only becomes an issue when the person with the UPG is masquerading it as full-fledged fact. It's still important to be able to tell the difference between concrete fact and UPG - fact or belief. I feel earlier information covers this topic better, but I figured I'd at least address it more directly.

7. Keep yourself educated. As much as it would be great to not ever have to research things or read more about them, the fact of the matter is that paganism, of any sort, kind of requires some level of research. Even if you are only looking up who a specific deity is and what their domains are, you're still doing research on that deity. For some pagan religions, information is also rather hard to come by. Norse paganism, for example, doesn't have much information on it, mostly due to the fact that it was more oral-based. That's why it's crucial to educate ourselves, at least to some extent, by reading educational books and articles or even researching ancient art, ensuring that we don't fall into the traps of misinformation by, hopefully, already knowing the answer ourselves. If we already have the base knowledge required to debunk something, then we're less likely to be tricked. However, we can't know everything about every pagan religions, and some religions, such as Greek/Hellenic paganism, have A LOT of information about them, to the point where it can be overwhelming. Regardless, knowledge is power, and the more you know, the more power you have over misinformation when it rears its ugly head.

-

I hope that fellow pagans and polytheists alike are able to find use in this post. It took a lot of work to make, but my goal is to hopefully help people stay educated and avoid misinformation. I'm sure it's not perfect, but nothing is. I wish the best for you all. Take care, and thank you for reading. <3

[edenfenixblogs]

outside of the general principles of credibility and fact-checking (or including those if you want) and looking for commitment to peace and shared prosperity like you mentioned in your pinned, do you have any other advice on gauging the reliability of sources regarding israel/palestine? or any particular sources you recommend as reliable or warn against as unreliable? there's so much misinfo and disinfo out there that i often end up getting overwhelmed and sharing nothing specific - and i know that's not exactly helpful, i'm just not sure where to start.

This is SUCH a good and important question!!! Thank you so much for asking it. I’ve been waiting until after work today to answer, so I can give it the attention it deserves.

This is an incredibly complex topic. It is completely ok to tackle only one item of this at a time. It is ok to spend more time listening than speaking. It is ok to only do basic fact checking until these things become second nature. It seems like a lot. But it actually becomes quite simple when you realize that, as a member of a non-affected group, your only job is to steer the conversation toward truth and peace.

That means most of what you are doing is rejecting sources and individuals engaging in bad faith discourse by simply not engaging with them. Your next most common task will be to publicly fact check bad faith discourse or incorrect information that has spread too far.

It is tempting to become outraged when you become familiar with bad faith discourse and data and see it spread widely. However, remember that this is incredibly complex and even the most experienced people get things wrong on this subject all the time. If you notice an error in what appears to be someone trying to bring attention to a cause they care deeply about, approach with kindness first. Always.

Try a reblog or a personal message with a link to the problematic post and say something like,

Hey. I care a lot about [issue] too. And I am trying really hard to make sure everything being spread right now is verifiable and accurate so nobody gets upset about things that aren’t true. Did you know that [thing you said+link to the post where you said it] was actually proven false by [reliable source+link to that source]? I’m really glad that didn’t happen. Of course, terrible things are still happening [to Palestinians/Israelis/Jews/Muslims/Arabs] on/in [college campuses/diaspora/Palestine/Israel/etc] there all the time. But at least nobody has to suffer through [incorrect info]. By the way, I’ve found a lovely organization run by actual Palestinians/Israelis/Arabs/Muslims/Jews working together to find peace for all. Check it out, I think it has promise! [link to reliable cause/organization]

Here is a wonderful site for MENA-based organizations geared toward fostering a shared peaceful future in a variety of ways.

Give the poster a chance to self correct. You will be wrong in the future. Model the way you would like to be informed of an error.

I briefly touched on the basics of identifying any source as reliable here. I won’t reiterate because this may be a long post and I wanna save space. But it contains the basics of what I learned in college.

One of the most important things to keep in mind is that no source is objective. No source is without bias. And there is no way to make any source objective or without bias.

News is written by people. And all people have viewpoints. Giving all voices in a conflict equal importance is not inherently unbiased, because that risks giving support to more harmful ideas and equating harmful ideas, ideologies, and organizations with reasonable ones. Likewise, asserting that one viewpoint is correct and being unwavering in this belief no matter what is obviously no way to cultivate a balanced and well informed viewpoint.

Your job is to use critical thinking skills to examine the level of bias in a piece of media as well as how responsibly the source handles that bias. Your job is also to do your best to be aware of bias as well as what bias is relevant to the subject matter being reported. A source that is left leaning, but never shares fake information and is always verifiable is preferable to a source that is moderate but consistently shares half truths or faulty information.

Sometimes, information from a less than ideal source can be shared, but if you are sharing that source, you must explicitly state that source’s flaws and why you chose to share that information anyway. And if you are unable to find a better source, you should state that you are sharing information that may be incomplete or inaccurate and you are happy to update the post you are sharing if and when more information or confirmation from a more reliable source emerges. There are very limited situations where this is appropriate. Usually I would suggest not sharing information from such sources at all unless it can be backed up by better information.

One example of such a case is information about antisemitic hate crimes from the ADL. The ADL has a very problematic history and one should be aware of it when they share statistical data from the organization. However, that doesn’t make their information inherently unusable. It makes their information inherently suspect, though. In order for anything shared from the ADL to be worth sharing, you should be able to evaluate the data collection method and the sources of the data. And if there is any information in the data you are sharing that is not appropriate, you should explicitly draw attention to it, not try to hide it.

Case Study: Global Antisemitic Incidents in the Wake of Hamas’ War on Israel

This list contains very useful data on incidents of antisemitic violence against Jews in diaspora since 10/7/2023. I trust this data because: it links to each individual news source it references, often with pictures of the attacker/attack/incident and time stamps. It’s data is open to questioning and its sources are available to check individually. This is in line with the ADL’s mission statement of tracking antisemitism. Documenting antisemitism is not an inherently biased practice nor do I have any reason to believe that they lie about the antisemitic incidents they document. As that is not one of the things that critics accuse the ADL of, I do not see a reason to question its record on antisemitic incident reporting. I have never heard a critic make a substantiated claim against their formally collected data as falsified. I am willing to be proven wrong on this, but I will interrogate a source claiming this as thoroughly as I interrogate the ADL as a source itself. I am skeptical of this source because: the title of the article uses extremely biased language that makes the war seem one sided. The advantage of this source is: it is one of the few sources existing that collects data on antisemitic violence and hate incidents of Jews in diaspora. A sign of good faith from the organization: they dedicate a page to addressing criticisms of their organization, which means they feel confident that criticisms of them will stand up to scrutiny. It is not sufficient to use this page to absolve them of any of the listed criticisms, but it should help you find articles that critique the ADL as well as relevant information that supports their defense. Thus, you must come to your own conclusion on whether or not that information is trustworthy on the matter you are commenting on. A sign of possible bad faith from the organization: their page devoted to confronting myths and inaccuracies about their organization’s history does not address accusations about supporting South African Apartheid or failing to call the Armenian Genocide a genocide. An acknowledgment of my own limitations: I am not an expert in South African Apartheid in any way nor am I an expert on the Armenia genocide. Any other relevant information: Any reputable news sources verify information before reporting. If a news source that is verifiably responsible in its reporting cites information from the ADL, I will assume they have made adequate inquiries to verify that information as accurate enough to report. For example, if AP reported information and cited the ADL statistics, I would assume that the ADL made sure the data fit its high standard for reportage.

Conclusion: I find the ADL to be a trustworthy enough source of data about antisemitic attacks and incidents on Jews in diaspora, but only in cases where their sources and/or methodology are made public and/or another more regulated or otherwise more reliable source of statistical information partners with them. Because I lack expertise on South African Apartheid on the Armenian Genocide, I will not share information from the ADL about Palestinian apartheid, segregation, oppression, or genocide (until or unless I become more well-versed in these topics or am able to devote substantial energy into fact checking each claim in what I share. If I ever choose to do this, I will share every source I used to verify the information so that others may check my work and inform me if I’m wrong. At this time, I do not foresee a situation where I would refer to the ADL for matters about Palestinian concerns). The ADL in general and the linked source in particular seems to be an overall worthwhile source to cite on matters of antisemitism. The ADL does not meet my standards of a reliable source on Palestinian suffering. Check each link/source on an ADL source you want to share and form an informed conclusion on its reliability before sharing.

Also, be aware that primary sources with biased information are extremely valuable but never objective on their own. A tweet from the IDF or a statement from a released Palestinian prisoner may both be true! But sharing them as if they are definitely true without fact checking the information through the most trustworthy sources available is irresponsible. Do not share any social media information as fact. You are free to share social media information and publicly explore its implications in a responsible manner, but it is not responsible to discuss them as facts.

Case study: When something in Gaza or Israel is bombed, be sure that you know who the key players and commentators are.

When the IDF releases a statement blaming Hamas for bombing their own citizens, know that the IDF has a vested interest in not being perceived as an aggressor. When the Ministry of Health in Gaza accuses the Israeli military of being responsible for the attack, be aware that the Ministry of Health in Gaza is run by Hamas and is not a third party neutral source. Do not post anything about an event like this until the information is fully vetted by a neutral third party source (or as neutral as you are likely to find on such a hot button issue).

The best way you can help during an emerging story is to urge others to wait for full details, call out people irresponsibly casting blame before the facts are in (especially politicians), and repeatedly verify every source of information as they are named so that you know if they are trustworthy. Do not trust politicians who espouse inflammatory and prematurely accusatory information and do not make a public retraction and apology when they are found to be wrong.

That said, it is always appropriate to express sorrow for loss of life. You do not need to accuse a killer in order to do this.

There are also sites geared toward helping you identify the source itself fairly. Note: sites like these will help you evaluate the publication or news entity (eg New York Times, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, etc.). They won’t help you evaluate an individual journalist or article.

Some sites to help you verify credibility:

Media Bias Fact Check: Allows you to verify sources based on the news source’s political bias in terms of a left-right spectrum as well as by their reliability on matters of science, their use of questionable sources, and use of satire. Also, you can check how reliably factual the source’s reporting is. You can also sort by country, media type, general credibility, and how well trafficked the source is. They also publicly offer insight into their methodology of coming to these conclusions.

The Associated Press (AP) fact checks individual claims. Other news organizations fact checking claims include Reuters, The Washington Post and AFP. While AP is a gold standard and generally reliable, be aware that news organizations are also subject to bias. The advantage is that news organizations have investigative reporters on staff to investigate claims. The disadvantage is the bias inherent to the publication itself.

Other third party cites checking facts in news reports and in politics include:

FactCheck.org

Politifact

Snopes

Lakehead University offers an entire site devoted to developing media literacy as well as many ways to search fact checking sites. So does Kansas State University, and UMass Amherst. Many universities offer sites like this. I urge you to look into them.

Once you find a news or data source you trust, do a quick google search on the journalist’s name and a relevant phrase to the aspect of the conflict being reported on. For example The Newspaper Tribune Times Chronicle may be trustworthy. Veteran reporter, Ima Journalist may have written an article about Israel Bombing Gaza. So, before sharing it, just Google: “Ima journalist” + Israel Palestine Jews antisemitism Islamophobia. Make sure you don’t see something like “Ima Journalist photographed screaming ‘Hitler was actually a super good guy!’ anywhere in her history. When satisfied, feel free to share the story.

Other points to keep in mind:

Be aware of crappy tactics on both sides of the i/p conflict.

The IDF is often accused of excessive violence and planting evidence on Palestinians. This often leads to Palestinians being unfairly accused of terrorist intent and criminal violence.

Hamas uses civilians as human shields — both by using individual humans as shields and also launching bombs from civilian buildings (like hospitals, preschools, and libraries), building militaristic infrastructure in or beneath those same civilian buildings, and instigating conflict with IDF soldiers positioned near residential and civilian locations. This allows Hamas to escape criticism by framing the IDF as mindlessly bloodthirsty and eager to kill Palestinian civilians.

And finally, make sure accusations and talking points never conform to antisemitic conspiracy theories.

The universal aspects of antisemitic conspiracy theories (detailed more fully in the source linked above and also in another post I made) are:

Accusing Jews of replacing another group or population

Accusing Jews of pretending to be something they are not

Accusing Jews of dominating or attempting to dominate a prominent or essential aspect of a society or the world at large.

Accusing Jewish people of genocide and bloodlust in pursuit of personal gain

Accusing Jews of undue privilege or if appropriating something belonging to others.

Dehumanizing Jews by grouping them under a collective name or identity.

I hope this helps! Feel free to share it!

[pearlescentpearl]

Political Pawn AU

Hello! And welcome to my next bullet point fic; my take on a Fëanor lives plot! To no one’s surprise; Beleriand is on fire.

The Balrog that would have dealt Fëanáro a mortal blow instead takes an arrow to the eye, forcing a crack in the press of fire demons wide enough for Nelyafinwë to reach in and pull him out

Fëanáro is full of fire and wrath still, but his body shakes from pain and blood loss, vision swimming at the edges, hand cramped around his sword. It’s almost like coming out of a creative fugue; tired and hungry and disoriented, and he thinks, reflexively, ah, where’s a fortifying cup of spiced wine when you need it?

But there is only ash, and pain, and his faithful sons carrying him away from what he feels, from what he knows, would have been the death of him

His wounds are many but he will live; his will is too strong

Barely has he been tended to, and settled in his tent, when the message comes; that Morgoth has sent an emissary, claiming parley and teasing about surrendering the Silmarils

It sounds too good to be true, and so it must be a trap

Nonetheless, Nelyafinwë begs leave to go

“Of course, Morgoth is lying,” he says, eyes alight with his own inner flame. “But don’t you see? He will send more than he promises and so a credible force will be moving outside Angamando. Are we to let them roam free, unchallenged? I mean to crush them, and so convey our contempt at this thinly veiled trick!”

This is true enough enough that it persuades Fëanáro to let him go, despite faint misgivings

Later, of course, they learn they should not have. All who went with Nelyafinwë have been slain, the bodies desecrated and arranged in cruel parody. The only one missing from them is Nelyafinwë himself

Fëanáro truly thought he had known anger before, when his father was slain

It is nothing compared to knowing his son may yet live, but who knows in what condition?

Fëanáro has been up to the Gates of Angamando just that very day, and his memory is impeccable. There is no forcing those doors open with what siege supplies they’ve cobbled together so far

So far

Fëanáro will change that

The Mithrim Sindar are welcoming, numbers decimated as they are from Morgoth’s initial flood of his monstrous forces, and the mountains of Hísilómë are rich in metal ores

They can make something great here; it is only a matter of time

Time the Enemy seems keen not to grant them

it seems Fëanáro can dedicate his forces to building, or wiping out the enemy, not both at once. How aggravating

There seems to be a roaming raiding party just close enough to concern them every other day

Eventually, enough is enough; Fëanáro puts Kanafinwë and Turkafinwë in charge of a cavalry force with a significant number of the remaining horses, and commands them to keep Hísilómë clear as far as they can safely roam

They are not his most useful sons for building fortifications anyhow

Under Morifinwë’s baleful and exacting directions, the possible foundations for a great fortress are mapped out; it is misty, and often rainy inside the shelter of these mountains that trap cold and wet wind from the west and north, not especially favorable building conditions when their only source of illumination comes from starlight

How the Mithrim Sindar eke out an existence in such darkness is a wonder that merits studying

Fëanáro glares down at a map; there are few eastern entrances into Hísilómë, the main one is what the locals call Eithel Sirion, the headwaters of a river. If any eastern pass shall be the greatest concern it will be one with a water source

“Does any claim the great grassy plains that encircle Angamando outside the Wethrin?” He asks of Aewendir, the surviving Lord of the MIthrim Sindar

Not that they use the word ‘Lord’ exactly. Lathron, he is called, ‘listener, hearer,’ a pun on both his function; to hear his people out that he may resolve their troubles; and the fact visibility is often terrible by the lake on account of all the mists

“No,” Aewendir says dryly. “And don’t let anyone blow smoke up your ass otherwise. We’re the only folk crazy enough to live so close to the shadow of Angband, and reviled are we for it by the southern king and his court.” He spits on the ground. “And yet it is our word the southerners rely on for news of Angband’s movements when orcs are abroad.”

Fëanáro is growing very fond of Aewendir; he has a steady practicality about him that puts him in mind of Nerdanel, and a bitterly amused yet philosophical way of looking at the world that both intrigues and disconcerts 

“We shall build at Eithel Sirion then.”

It’s yet more work to keep roving orc bands at bay, but the fortress must be built if Fëanáro is to have the facilities to devise siege weapons capable of cracking Angamando

The mountains are generous with stone, and the Land of Echoes with wood, but the constant attacks are tedious and slow things down

His Ñoldor are split three ways now; the wandering cavalry under Kanafinwë and Turkafinwë, the builders at Eithel Sirion under Morifinwë, and the rest on the western lake shore with Curufinwë, Telufinwë, and Pityafinwë directing necessary domestic efforts 

It’s all a finely oiled machine just barely balanced on a knife’s edge, the slightest upset--!

Fëanáro goes over the numbers again and again, but there’s really no help for it. If only Nelyafinwë had not gone to--

But there is no help for it so they make do. They will get through this if Fëanáro has to will it into truth

One year slips by before he knows it, and a messenger from Angamando is on their doorstep once more

The fact it is a Maia is all that keeps Fëanáro from having it slain on the spot, but that is as far as he can deduce of its identity, its fána so twisted and befouled there’s no telling what it started as

It holds an iron chest in its hands

“One year has the rightful King of Arda held the Crown Prince an esteemed guest in his home,” the being rasps through torn lips and blackened teeth. “But all good guests must leave eventually to stay a good guest. His Majesty offers your son back to you, Finwion, if you but agree to forget your Oath, depart Beleriand, and never return to darken His Majesty’s doorstep. What shall it be, Ñoldorán; your son or your jewels?”

For a shameful moment, Fëanáro’s conviction wavers. Could it truly be that easy--?

But no

Morgoth’s last offer to surrender what he stole was a lie. It was a lie then, and it is a lie now

Fëanáro will not be fooled. 

He will drive open the Gates of Angamando and rescue his son himself, and whatever miseries he has suffered will be inflicted on Morgoth fivefold! Tenfold!

“Úmaia you are, and Úvala I name your thrall-keeping master!” Fëanáro scoffs. “Slink back to your hole and tell him to stuff his false offers back behind his teeth where they belong!”

The being laughs, a horrible scraping croak that’s half a wheeze. “Very well, Finwion. A souvenir to tide you over then. A token of His Majesty’s consideration.”

The chest is tipped open and a wealth of loose red hair, vividly bright even in the light of the Fëanorian Lamps, spills out upon the ground like a bloodstain half tossed by the wind

It reeks of blood too

The breath catches in his throat. All that hair, Nelyafinwë’s pride and joy. It didn’t seem real to see it bereft of his son, to see it tossed carelessly on the ground where-- where anyone could trample it

He feels numb

The anger is too strong, there are too many directions he wants to shove it at once

Behind him, Telufinwë lets out a cry and looses an arrow into the Úmaia’s mangled torso

Fëanáro reorients. Draws his sword and shoves it through the being’s throat and cleaves its head clean off. There’s an eruption of fouled power upon its death, but it must be the weakest in Morgoth’s enthrallment for it barely rocks him on his heels

“Pay what it said no mind,” he tells his sons, the lot of them wet eyed and reaching for the hair on the ground. “The Enemy is a liar, dishonorable, and a cheat. Even if we agreed to the deal, Nelyo would only be returned to us dead. The only way to get him back is to wrest him from the pits ourselves!”

Their spirits firm. Good

[meddwlyngymraeg]

Vocabulary - to want

A few different ways (that I know) to express wishes and desires.

eisiau - to want. One of the standard ways of saying you want something, all across Wales. In truth, it’s not actually a verbnoun like many others, it’s really a noun. That’s why you don’t need the ‘yn’ before it ad you would for any other verbnoun: ‘yn mynd’, ‘Dwi’n mynd’. ‘Dyn ni’n aros.’ Etc.

‘Dwi eisiau cysgu.’ I want to sleep.

I believe the reason for this is an older construction that is used in literary Welsh, but that got shortened and dropped off over time in colloquial Welsh. ‘bod ... ar [rhywun]’ was the construction used, roughly meaning to have ‘a want upon you’ (very roughly).

Double checking this with Wiktionary (beloved), they do have a credible literary source demonstrating this: the Welsh bible (which thanks to a frenzied linguistics and orthography-fuelled spiral down Wikipedia, and oddly enough, the Welsh comedian and radio broadcaster Elis James (unrelatedly), I know was first translated in the 1500s and directly led to the loss of the letter ‘k’ from the Welsh alphabet).

‘Yr Arglwydd yw fy Mugail; ni bydd eisiau arnaf.’ The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

Close enough to colloquial Welsh to understand, that's using ‘eisiau arna (i)’. Over time, colloquial Welsh has dropped the ‘ar’. The example sentence above could've been 'Dwi eisiau cysgu [arna i]'.

A note. Some people have a misconception that eisiau should cause a soft mutation in the word following it, because it is an exceptional case of an action (of sorts) that doesn’t need an ‘yn’, and so must follow a pattern similar to a few other conjugations out there like ‘dylu’ (should).

‘Dylet ti ddweud rhywbeth’ (You should say something), ‘Galla i wneud rhywbeth amdano fe’ (I can do something about it), ‘Ga i rywbeth?’ (Can I have something?), the past tenses of gwneud, ‘wnaethon ni ddysgu Cymraeg’, ‘Mae rhaid iddyn nhw dduhino’n gynnar!’ (They must wake up early!)

And so on. This isn’t the case, as eisiau is not a conjugated verb. It’s just a noun for desire! (*not exactly. I’m trying to explain this as best I can)

There is a south Walian usage of ‘eisiau’ that makes this idea clearer.

In some southern dialects, the construction ‘mae eisiau i…’ is used to mean that someone needs something. E.g. ‘Mae eisiau i ti fwyta’ means ‘you need to eat’. What it literally means is ‘there is a need for you to eat’, and so you can see the noun eisiau (a need) in use.

North Walian Welsh uses the same structure, but with the noun angen instead. ‘Mae angen i ti fwyta.’ ‘Mae angen iddyn nhw sosban’, literally, ‘they are in need of a saucepan’.

Speaking of dialect differences, especially in north Wales Welsh, you might come across spelling variants of eisiau: ‘isio’, ‘isia’, (N) ‘isie’ (S), ‘isho’, etc. Perks of a phonetic language are that nothing’s a misspelling really if it sounds alright when said out loud. I did raise an eyebrow at the last one a little, ‘sh’ isn’t the English ‘sh’ in Welsh, is it? (Is that Wenglish?)

Other forms!

moyn - to want. Used pretty much only in the south and valleys, but this one is a regular verbnoun. ‘Dwi’n moyn cwpla fy ngwaith gytre’n fuan’ (I want to finish my homework soon)

(Just realised there are a Lot of dialect words in that sentence! Cwpla -> gorffen, gytre -> cartef)

It seems simpler than the exceptional eisiau construction, why isn’t it more widely accepted?, you ask. (Most people I’ve said it to say it immediately places you geographically to them because they never hear anyone else say it.) It derives from an older verb, ymofyn, which itself comes from the word gofyn (to ask), ‘ym’ + ‘gofyn’ = ‘ymofyn’, which sort of goes away from the original idea of wanting, and into one of asking. Still, language evolves, and so you will still hear moyn in South Wales. In fact, the Say Something In Welsh course teaches it (which is how I know it. Probably worth giving a disclaimer that I’m simply mad about linguistics and Welsh alternative bands, before anyone starts to think I live in Wales just because I occasionally write long grammar posts!)

Awydd - a desire. Used similarly to eisiau, no ‘yn’ precedes it. The whole point of making this post was that I just came across this sentence: ‘Ti awydd mynd i Gastell Caerfili?’ Meaning, do you want to go to Caerphilly Castle?

And those are the ones I know!

[genericpuff]

Sorry but I think you’re being super negative about the whole “Rachel Presents” announcement.

Rick Riordan is a white author who is passionate about mythology. After Greek mythology and briefly going into egyptology, he used his influence to give People of color a chance to write modern mythology stories from their own culture and experiences—and most importantly he stayed in his lane.

I think Rachel choosing to step back and give other people a voice is a great outcome, considering you guys all joked about how horrific it would be if she tried to appropriate another culture in her next series.

You also said she should have given LO to another creator who had the passion and dicipline to finish for her. That’s ESSENTIALLY what she’s going to be doing with RP. Maybe her true calling is just…being an Idea guy. She has wonderful concepts and cool ideas, but lacks commitment. In this scenario, we could end up with super amazing stories, with proper editing from Random house and proper commitment from new creators. I don’t really see the issue here, everyone wins.

(And lots of authors do the whole “___ presents” format. I don’t think she deliberately copied RR. Most likely her books sales did well and Penguin House approached her with this offer.)

lmao what? I was against the folks saying she should give it to another creator. I don't think not liking the series should mean she's obligated to "give it to someone else." The series is hers and so it's her responsibility to finish it. I do think she should have ended it a long time ago or if she was really miserable making it then she should step away, but she shouldn't be giving it to someone else to finish for her just because "boo you suck at writing your own comic". She started this, she should finish it.

And this is literally her doing exactly that - appropriating other cultures - with extra steps. Just instead of being on the front lines with her own work, she's sponsoring other works based on her own bar for quality (which we know is EXTREMELY low) and slapping her name on them so she can take a "backseat". It's really icky to see from a creator who practically failed upwards and is now using "herself" as a selling point, when she has no real legitimacy outside of LO, which was only as successful as it was because of WT constantly sinking money into it and advertising it over other series on the platform (and because it's based off a story that was VERY popular to romanticize at the time, the H x P myth. Like it was literally what was popular on Tumblr when it started as a hobby comic on Tumblr.)

I'm outlining all of these posts with "speculation" because obviously I don't know what's really going on behind the scenes here, but I think it's really disingenuous of Rachel to sell herself as some top tier brand name for mythological works as a whole when she's caused so much actual harm to the Greek myth community and its sources. It's furthering the notion that she has any credibility as a "folklorist" when really she just pulls whatever comes off the front page of Google. And the similarities between herself and Rick Riordan do matter here because of how commonplace it is these days for Rachel to rip off other works rather than take inspiration and make it into something that's organically her own.

That's my two cents. It's not me trying to be "negative", it's me being genuinely concerned over the blatant appropriation from a white woman gaining even more control over the depictions of cultures and mythologies that she claims she's educated on and isn't. Unlike Rick Riordan, Rachel does not have any formal education in the subject she's claiming to be educated about. Unlike Rick Riordan, Rachel allows her fanbase to use her work as a source on Greek myth and she obfuscates the line between "fiction" and "fact". Rick Riordan started Rick Riordan Presents after he had multiple hits under his belt that were celebrated and loved. Rachel is starting Rachel Smythe Presents after a one hit wonder that could be chalked up to a total fluke that wasn't even able to go out with a bang.

Rick Riordan writes fictional stories inspired by Greek myth for children. Rachel is writing fictional stories claiming to be "retellings" of Greek myth - and now other mythologies if the implications of this project follow through - for adults. It's disingenuous and it frankly deserves to be paid attention to and called out.

I do genuinely want to see creators given an avenue to monetize their work and that's why I think the thought of it is nice, but any amount of further digging just makes this feel like a grift that will lead young and inexperienced creators down a path that won't benefit them (or take advantage of them) due to the blatant lack of care and management exhibited by Rachel over the past 5 years. Just because Rachel had one massive hit that lined her pockets for years does NOT qualify her to be a titan of the industry. Not by a long shot.

To quote Super Eyepatch Wolf,

"Let's say you decide you want to become a carpenter, and particularly, how to build a nice chair. Think about the kind of person you'd want to learn that skill from - would it be from someone who's built nice chairs every day for 30 years, or would it be the guy who built ONE nice chair 5 years ago out of a special kind of wood that doesn't exist anymore, who has NO experience with the kind of wood available to you now?"

EDIT to add: it was more likely Rachel's representative, Britt Seiss who landed this deal for her, not Penguin House themselves. That's what agents are for.

EDIT EDIT: this is ALL assuming she even FOLLOWS THROUGH with this project, because god knows the only reason LO has even gone on as long as it has was because she was being held responsible via a contract, she's NOTORIOUSLY bad for committing to things and has even admitted to it in interviews. She barely even works on LO as it is. Spring of 2024 could roll around and this project could entirely fizzle out. Again, not me trying to be a negative nancy here, I'm just stating my own concerns based on what we all know about Rachel at this point and how she operates.

[hopefull-mindset]

How do you feel about the difference in Nagito's confession in Japanese and English?

In Japanese he kinda pauses saying something along the lines of 'in love with y...' before going on about hope inside.

But in English it's straight to loving the hope in Hajime.

I was hoping I’d be able to talk about this! If anyone needs a further explanation on the translation error, I recommend reading this first. It’s my favorite explanation because it deconstructs the Japanese to English process thoroughly, and the ambiguity of the whole thing really explains why Hajime was so confused. I’ve seen doubt as to fan translations being right at all, so I hope this helps out.

Now there isn’t many new things to say about a game this old with a large fanbase like this, but with new fans means more information to be spread (and misinformation respectively), so I’d be happy to speak!

UMMM I have no idea if anything I said down below is even what you were asking me, maybe you were just asking me about the decision of changing it, which um I don’t blame the official translators for going straight into it because it’s a fairly ambiguous line and most japanese fans go straight into it too when they qoute it, but official translators are not credible for their care of finer details that could be clearly translated into English, so it’s whatever I guess. Japanese fans also shouldn’t be our guide to consuming media of their language since they’re also just people, and I think it’s probably just easier to quote it like that without it sounding confusing the way it does in text.

This has been practically common knowledge by now to know that it was an aborted love confession, meaning there isn’t much to be said on its own. With all that’s been spread about this, a common misunderstanding is with the use of “Aishiteru” (愛してる) being “more romantic” than any other form of “I like/love you” (Suki/Daisuki), which is not true. It’s much more intense than the other two because of it directly using “Ai” (愛) and in turn used less compared to them because of its intensity. In same line of thinking, usually it’s reserved for serious occasions like marriage, a loved one on their death bed, a final goodbye for someone you care for deeply, etc. but none of it makes it anymore romantic because all three can be used platonically. It’s solely dependent on the context it’s used for.

It’s just like how we use “I love you” in English and how many things it could mean at once, albeit we don’t have three separate ways to express it. Well there’s actually more ways to express love, but you only really need to know these three. I know a lot of sources tend to say “Aishiteru” (愛してる) is romantic, but that’s most likely because you’re looking at sources that are talking about it in a romantic context. It’s not platonic in the sense that you’d go up to your friend and say it, that sends a lot of mixed messages and real odd to attempt, but platonic in that someone you truly have a deep connection with, family member or otherwise.

On the contrary, it’s much more common to use Suki/Daisuki (好き / 大好き) in a love confession and everyday life. Usually you wouldn’t even use “Aishiteru” (愛してる) in your entire life, that isn’t uncommon. So typically the most you’ll see or hear “Aishiteru” (愛してる) used is in fictional japanese media or songs. Using it in a confession like Komaeda almost did is like… imagine going up to someone and telling them that you want to spend your entire life together, meet their parents, fully commit to each other, raise children (if that’s what you want), and die together before you’re even in the relationship or even had your first kiss yet. Like obviously you’re not saying all of that, you might not even mean that, but it’s implied with the intensity of it. It’s that extreme and would definitely confuse someone if you tried. It’s not exactly for someone you just started dating either.

Why does “Ai” (愛) make it so intense though? Compared to other ways of saying love like “Koi” (恋) for example (not gonna explain that one), it’s the purest, most heightened form of expressing love verbally in japanese culture because of the giving and profound nature of it. It’s loving in a way that encases a warm feeling all around you, so painfully genuine yet committed. Its something that’s formed over time with much care, and doesn’t ask for anything back. It’s that big to use, but siamotainously it’s awkward and a little embarrassing to use because it’s practically unsaid irl. There is a lot to personal reservations and such, but as a culture, japan is more reserved with their verbal expressions. This doesn’t speak for the entire country, but just in general actions speak louder than something as literal like “Aishiteru” (愛してる).

I had to go over that before I talked about Komaeda because I don’t want there to be a misunderstanding with what I’m about to say. Sorry to break the news to anymore who was star-eyed after learning what “Ai” (愛) meant in context, but the reason I went over that first with extensive context is because Komaeda is not at all liberated when he uses it. Not only does he use it here in the infamous error of all errors in sdr2, he uses it when he talks about hope, talent, and Junko. Shocking I know, but that’s why I had to go over that “Ai” (愛) is not just romantic love so this will be less awkward for all of us.

Ignoring the oddness of it and how dramatic this usage is, it’s incredibly in-character for Komaeda to use it like that considering his sincere and devoted nature when it comes to hope and talent. He says himself that what he feels is selfless, so that’s going to reflect in his speech, but he uses it so casually that it feels like a joke. It’s a quite poetic expression of love, even with all the cultural context, so it’s fitting. He’s pretty no filter with how he talks about it, but with anything else with Komaeda—it’s more complex than that. While being 100% honest with everything he says, his deep connection with hope and talent is borderline obsessive and that brings into question his relationship with love.

I have many thoughts on how his hope/despair stuff works, but let’s stay on topic this one time because a lot is intertwined. With his usage of “Ai” (愛) with reference of Junko, we should all know he doesn’t love her. He doesn’t love the embodiment of despair and despises it in the same breath he even expressed love for it at all. What he feels for Junko is obsession through and through, but what he feels is still genuine connection, it’s just absurdly twisted. It’s why he still uses it, even though at most what he feels for her is contempt. He “loves” it because it’ll be destroyed for what will truly shine in the end. The connection is deep enough for him to take her hand and finally become one with it.

Junko didn’t twist his concept of love completely, it was already a little off, she exploited the potential of it. I’ve mentioned this point before in my twitter thread, but when faced with the motivations in trials 1, 2, and 3 he cannot see past their motivations other than their “hopes”, rather than their actual reasons: various forms of love. My immediate thought while writing was, “was it not really absolute hope that he needed or wanted, but instead the selfless love people like Naegi or Hajime could wield for others?” I can’t tell you how correct that is, but it holds close to when he said what he wanted was somebody’s love before he died.

To really talk about that with more depth, I’d have to do a separate post about his view of people in general. If you’d like to see that, just let me know. I really would like to stay on topic, and you weren’t exactly asking about that.

Now don’t be weird guys, it doesn’t make his confession any less genuine just because his concept of love is kinda fucked due to only being able to feel it through his obsession with hope since all genuine connection is very limited (non-existent) for him, it just puts into more context as to why Hajime was confused. He’s said something similar about his feelings of hope as early as chapter 1.

Does this mean he really did just meant the hope that sleeps inside Hajime? Well obviously not, otherwise I wouldn’t be talking about this. It also doesn’t mean that his love for Hajime is on the same obsessive level as Hope, talent, or freaking Junko for the matter. Junko was a whole other situation when his mental stability was at its worst. Here’s what actually happened: right when he admitted he wanted somebody’s love, he immediately backpedaled that claiming everything he said was just something he lied about because he started to see that Hajime might want to grow closer and forgive him, and then then started rambling about total bullshit about Hajime killing him and the potential hope in him, even though he just said that he didn’t get the same feeling from him as other ultimates.

Very funny Komaeda, though I don’t think he wasn’t being genuine there. Maybe he did think that regardless of the “both miserable bystanders” comment because he also thought he himself could be ultimate hope in chapter 5. I feel like we knew this part well enough, so I’ll talk about the confession finally. I don’t know what compelled him to try and confess like that, but maybe he was trying to be more honest after what he did to derail him and backtracked again? Who knows.

He was starting with an actual confession, but why did he backtrack the way he did? I have two potential answers. First answer was that he didn’t want to weigh Hajime down with the burden of his feelings, and made it sound like his typical Komaeda bullshit instead. Second answer is that Komaeda doesn’t know how to express his love for Hajime and derailed it to Hajime’s hope instead because that’s the only context he’s used “Ai” (愛) in and is used to that. Him using it here doesn’t make it less sincere in his almost-confession, it’s just… complex.

Maybe if this was his only hint of loving Hajime, his feelings for him would be more controversial as “canon”, thankfully it isn’t! Maybe both answers are right in their own right, it would definitely correlate with my own thoughts about his stupidly complicated justification’s for getting closer to Hajime and making excuses for him. If you haven’t read it, I said that while Komaeda was catching feelings for Hajime as an individual, he made excuses for himself that the reason he cared for him was because he was an ultimate (meaning someone who carried potential Hope), but the only reason he let himself be close to a “supposed ultimate” was because we felt that they were similar and that he had “an air unlike the others”. Which was probably why he was so confused as to why he still cared after finding out what he did in chapter 4 because his justification no longer worked.

Although we know that Komaeda absolutely does love Hajime, I am relieved that they used different expressions of love here (both Suki and Dasuki) to make sure we know he does love him. Can it be used platonically? Sure, but the context does not position it like that.

That’s my um opinion I guess?? Hope you got more than what you were expecting? I wonder why I keep making long posts when it’s not going to get that much attention…. I was originally going to say that what’s important about him using “Ai” (愛) is the genuine intent there and not the romantic implication of it since context matters more, and that hasn’t changed at all, but this turned into a completely different conversation. My bad.

[zorawitch]

FYI, emperor Elagabalus was a sadist. He made women by stripping them naked and then use them to pull his chariot, set loose poisonous snakes the audience attended the colosseum, and brutally and mercilessly tortured his female servants by whipping them, stuck them with pins and sharp objects he could find, and then poured boiling melted wax on them till they died.

I’m gonna need sources on that because I have done some research on her, and no credible source I’ve seen has any reference to this.

The issue with her contemporary Roman chroniclers is many of them were active in the political scene at the time and because Elagabalus was an extremely ineffective and incompetent emperor, they have a lot of reason to slander her, and there wasn’t exactly a peer-review system at the time. The trick with her is to find where the stories match up. If they don’t, it’s probably a lie.

Who she was is hard to pin down as a result. Historians disagree on how many times she was married, so minutiae like how she treated her servants is probably lost to time, because these weren’t the people the Roman elite cared about unless they were being weaponized against Elagabalus. The only people I’ve seen claiming this are TikTok “historians” who also say that she was worse than Caligula.

TLDR: the Roman elite were in the practice of slandering Elagabalus both during and after her lifetime, which means that everything we know about her is ancient gossip. Was she an extremely fucked up person who sucked ass at her job? Probably, but we don’t know for sure and get in the habit of checking your sources before you come on my blog lecturing me. Seriously, everything you just said sounds like it’s from Game of Thrones.

[ladydeath-vanserra]

yeah see seeing all these ✨️city people✨️ and people with a lot of privilege and classism routinely calling rural iowans (SPECIFICALLY iowans) 'hicks' makes me angry and it makes me sad

we're not fucking STUPID. and a lot of the "stupidity" is often intentionally CREATED by making sure our schools are underfunded without access to proper education to build critical thinking skills and proper RESEARCH skills and limited access to news outside of newspapers and fox news. it's intentional. it's by design.

Educated rural folks who have the luxury (yes LUXURY and PRIVILEGE) to go to college to get educated LEAVE the areas where they could be the most beneficial for change and making communities diverse and more progressive and it furthers right wing, republican agendas by keeping people without access to resources and desperate and angry with the wrong people

"well you have access to the internet" yeah and the internet is full of misinformation and a lot of people are not taught how to look for credible sources or websites or how to look at biased language in writing so they ARE more susceptible to propaganda via fox News and the internet. you know what the internet also has? targeted ads and algorithms making sure you keep seeing the same kind of content and people who don't know DON'T know

however a lot of practical skills? knowledge that isn't BOOK SMART? I know plenty and they're so, so, so smart. but all I see from liberals and leftists is the refusal to use layman and simplified terms and "um! actually you need to educate yourself ☝🏻" and use unnecessarily difficult phrases

you say "defund the police" and people hear "be lawless and have no safety networks to prevent crime" instead of trying to find less #edgy slogans for what you ACTUALLY mean

you don't know what you don't know and calling us fucking hicks and ignorant isn't helping anyone. Tumblr was my first experience outside of Facebook where I learned about asexuality? it Didn't have an algorithm so I'll was able to be immersed in different cultures and view points

I'm not trying to make excuses for anyone being in rural Iowa for being hateful or racist or queerphobic but after living in the city for the last few years, I still see the same shit. it's just less covert in rural Iowa and in your face and I see leftists and liberals using their proximity to cities, and the problems in rural america as a Shield for their own bigoted and hateful behavior

I remember being on Tumblr, slowly inching into the queer community spaces, bec I wasn't used to online spaces, i was too poor at the time to have access to computers [2013+] and I came across the terms "trans man" and "trans woman" and I thought that meant a someone assigned male at birth who was trans and identified as a woman was called a 'trans man' bec I didn't know the terminology or how it was supposed to be used. I didn't know "transsexual" was considered a slur and I got attacked online for accidently using the wrong terminology because I couldn't remember the term transgender

I was from rural Iowa, a notoriously white, cis het area, fairly religious area, without a lot of access to the internet so I just. didn't know. and then i was afraid of ever saying anything again or asking questions. pls for the love of God use discernment and don't immediately vilify and attack well meaning people for not knowing what they don't know. that is EXACTLY how you can prevent people from ever being willing to grow and become educated

I remember watching the movie "Boys Don't Cry" with my mom about Brandon Teena, a trans man, and we both didn't know enough or understand enough about trans people we were unintentionally misgendering him when we talked about it but we both were so empathetic and heart broken for him

rural people I know are Prideful! they're constantly working to make ends meet and they have pride in themselves and their communities, often to the point it's at their own detriment and republican law makers KEEP it that way and rely on the classism and anger and diversion to keep it that way

a yt rural American in Appalachia is going to have more in common with a black American living in the city in the Projects more than we ever will with upper class yt folks. the wealthy yt #liberals will mock us and call us fucking stupid and ignorant and get in their own way of wanting any kind of progression. it! is never! black and white!!! PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BE KIND

why do you think rural Republicans don't trust the government? couldn't possibly have anything to do with the government IGNORING us or preying on poor folks who live paycheck to paycheck. of COURSE it makes sense they'd be leery about government wide programs. the government DOESNT CARE ABOUT US. and most rural "Republicans" I know aren't even republican. they don't have the time to invest in politics when we have to Work and can't Miss Work to go vote or find ways around road blocks.

most people don't know enough and vote for people they know and most don't Know democrats or their policies or their progressive goals and you know WHY that often happens? BECAUSE DEMOCRATS IGNORE THEM IN FAVOR OF CITIESSSSS. they call them STUPID and IGNORANT and can you really blame people for "not voting in their best interest" when the people who "care about their best interest" are people calling them stupid and ignorant and HICKS

I've been around Republicans in the city and Republicans in rural Iowa and if you look and listen close enough the *reasoning* for their racism (especially) tends to differ. racism is a social construct (that does NOT mean it isn't real or not important) and it was used specifically as a tool to create tension and a divide between the poor yt folks and the poc *by* yt, wealthy capitalists. the Irish were finally allowed to be #white bec they were identifying with the struggles of the marginalized folks being targeted just like THEY were in Ireland by Europe

the cold hatred I have seen from rural Republicans vs city, wealthy Republicans has been vastly different. don't get me wrong there are plenty of rural Republicans that are just as disgusting (I'm related to some lmao). often a lot of racism i see from rural folks is tied to anger and desperation from the lack of jobs and its designed that way. a lot of the racism from yt wealthy folks is tied to greed and wealth and capitalism. Donald Trump is a blaring example of an unchecked, racist, vile, classist man

I'm sorry I've had a REALLY bad week and living in a city with people who are so self centered and selfish and refuse to help has only made me miss home and despite all of the raging issues of rural america, I know a lot of kind and well meaning people who are just doing their best and willing to help you because we fucking know the government doesn't care about us

just. be kind. you don't know what you don't know and I think a lot of well meaning people shouldn't be getting attacked for it. empathy and grace should be given (when able) and people should be allowed to grow from innocent ignorance and mistakes

intersectionality and empathy and grace are so important and honestly rural america can be really beautiful and it really sucks to see it given up on in such a cruel way

I follow a person on tiktok who really embraces the idea of radical love and I think more people should too

[teeth--thief]

I would be interested in so called “hater diaries”.

- Rodka

[Referencing this post] Of course you would, you absolute angel... Imma tag you now that you have a blog @atomshchik ☆

The channel I was talking about is Chernobylite (yes, as in the Chernobylite - the game one). Listen... if anyone should be able able to criticise this guy, I think it should be me. Pole on Pole violence 👊💥👊💥

Let's get cracking... under the cut.

One thing you have to keep in mind when watching anything on the internet about Chernobyl: if they bring up HBO's show as a credible source, quote it, use mostly stills or photos of the scenery or actors instead of of the real stuff etc etc - that is a flag more red than that of the Soviet Union, okay? HBO in thumbnails? Unless it's a "this show is extremely inaccurate" kind of video, that's most likely due to a) the lack of knowledge about actual credible sources or b) need for profit (monkey sees, monkey does clicks - the show is incredibly popular, putting imagery related to it means a higher chance people will choose your video).

To keep it short and (not at all) sweet: this guy is like the evil brother of That Chernobyl Guy. This is That Bare Minimum Chernobyl Man, though. He uploads a video at least once a week and they always JUST BARELY hit the 10 minute mark. But they always do. Hm... I wonder why... I sure do wonder what the number 10 and YouTube have in common... oh. Oh yeah. It starts with MONETI and ends with SATION Need a hint? Mhm, I didn't think so. Speaking of time, the intro is usually almost 2 minutes long, the outro a minute and, there you go, suddenly there's actually even less content than expected.

He has some genuinely bad takes sometimes, too. I don't know if I'm just sensitive about Toptunov specifically (I very clearly am) or if his video on him is just especially offensive to me... and it's 12 minutes 😍😍 two more than usual! And so, I'll use this video as an example. (edit during drafting: he had just released a video on N.M. Fomin which... I'll watch once I'll have some time to waste and we'll see how bad that one is...)

>Not even 20 seconds in and he just HAD TO hit us with that ThAt Is ThE cOsT oF lIeS, of course, you know it brother 💯🔥‼️ Oh get over yourself. Find another quote. And stop putting pictures of my favourite operator next to his blonde twink counterpart from the show. I'm offended on his behalf.

>I like how he just takes random pics off of Google Images or something. The photo he uses at 2:00 is from a Reddit post on r/chernobyl, and it's a picture of a picture - didn't feel like looking for a better one, huh? Someone's a little lazy?

>The video ACTUALLY starts at 2:30. Girlllll (gn) you are so slowwwww, pick up the peace, we're all getting old waiting for you to start.

>The picture slideshow we're getting is almost never relevant to what he's saying. He's saying where Toptunov was born and all we see is the reactor after explosion. Like, okay brother, I didn't know that's how SuMY, in BuRYN, as he says, looked like then. A map from Wikipedia wasn't available? That's the best you can do? Not to mention a few of his videos literally have the same b-roll. It feels like the same video over and over again.

>He claims that "his father's connection probably were useful" when it came to him pursing a career in science... would you like to show me when exactly they could have been useful? When he was taking an entrance exam for uni just like everybody else? Or was it when he had to work his way up from the very bottom of the NPP food work chain? Unless you were a child of someone real high up and wanted to pursue a career of doing fuckall then your nepo baby status wouldn't help you all that much. Your party connections would help you move up faster, sure, but you wouldn't be able to not pass the necessary training and/or exams.

"(...) no good scientist could dream of a good job in a nuclear programme without being somewhat involved in local politics." We don't even know if Toptunov himself was in the party. We know that Akimov was quite the dedicated party man, sure. But Stolyarchuk wasn't in the party at all and Dyatlov wasn't cool with the party and the party wasn't cool with him. How many more times can I say party? Too many parties. I hate parties. He also goes on to say that, after graduation he could only get an entry level position because "He would need really good connections to acquire higher ranking job without any previous experience" I am very sorry to inform you but that's just not how real life works. Maybe if you have a good degree, you can immediately become the CEO of all the janitors in the building but that's about that when it comes to the seriousness of the job.

>Now, the part that made me audibly GASP starts at 6:30:

(...) many power plant staff were dismissed, including those from the night shift at unit 4. Including Toptunov, many were labelled non-essential personnel and sent home. That was probably a part of managing the disaster from a propaganda perspective. Fewer people on site, fewer witnesses.

This is an actually DERANGED take. This was my breaking point... like, you cannot be serious right now. Not the evil Soviet scientists and their evil propaganda...! The evil propaganda of safety...! I'm sorry to inform you but ever single person in charge there wasn't immediately thinking "By Lenin, how can we ensure these horrible bottom feeders, also known as our colleagues, we're employing at our power plant don't say a word to anyone outside?" They were most likely thinking "If this part of the personnel is literally useless, why would they stay in this potentially dangerous zone? Let's get them out - for their safety and liquidation organisation's sake."

>"As he later stated (...)" We don't know what he stated. We don't have a single word that came out of his mouth recorded anywhere. It's all they said that he said. Or the authors of books want to show how much they think they know (look no further than Medvedev's "acording to Toptunov..." yes, I'm sure you know exactly what he thought about everything. Surely. You must have spoken to him. Through a Ouija Board, clearly). We'd need the statements from the KGB and whatnot to actually determine what any of them said or thought.

>"(...) During that time when he felt better, he had spoken multiple times to both Akimov and Dyatlov (...)" Acording to some book, I'm sorry, I don't remember which one, he was one of the few people that actually didn't get up from his bed to participate in the discussions, probably because his legs were already in a bad shape. Take this with a grain of salt, though. Nobody explicitly said he NEVER hang out with anyone at the hospital. It's just that worth noting that there's a possibility he at least didn't do that as much as the rest of the guys.

Overall grade: read a book. Change the boring ass b-roll shots. Change the stock sounding "creepy" music. Put some effort into everything. Stop relying on HBO's Chernobyl.

Conclusion: you'll never be That Chernobyl Guy xoxo That Chernobyl Guy for the president

[wanderlust-----witch]

3, 7, 12 and 20! polytheist asks >:D

Oh you want me to THINK? You want me to use my BRAIN??? You are EVIL Cheshi lol

3: Is your practice more ritualistic or casual? What does it look like?

Oh my practice is extremely casual. I always hated the strict religious upbringing I had. "You do it this way, or else!". Nah fam, that's not cool. Everyone is gonna have their own way to worship, have faith, and perform religion (Yes I believe religion is a performance, but that's for another time lol). Anyways, I don't generally do much in the way of ritual because that's so much fucking work. I prefer just kinda chilling with Nyx on the full moon and calling it a night lol.

7: What does your ideal altar look like?

Chaotic, unhinged, and personal. I don't need it to be set up perfectly or invoke certain vibes, unless trash fire goblin is a vibe lmao. I really just put whatever on my altar I think fits. Right now, unfortunately, my altar isn't exactly what I want, because I don't really have space and the last time I set up an altar, Goose knocked it over. She was a brand new baby then, but even so I'd rather play it safe. I have this great cabinet at my parents house I plan on repainting and using when we have a house of our own. Its a really great size, glass doors so I can see what's inside, and bonus: cat's won't break any glass bottles on my altar lol. Rn I just have this very cue little moon shelf about 3 inches wide on a windowsill.

12: How important is mythology in your practice? How much credit do you give it?

I mean, mythology is the sourcework of all of my beliefs. I wouldn't have found Nyx, Hekate, Athena, and Artemis without Greek mythology, Bast without Egyptian mythology, or Loki without Norse mythology. Do their stories have any bearing on my beliefs? Not really. Them being the deities of their respective realms is all I really need. I know Nyx as the night, Hekate as magic, Athena as wisdom and intelligence, Artemis as the protectress, Bast as the keeper of cats, and Loki as chaos. How I interact with them is more based on my needs, versus what they have "done" in the myths that survived. Myths aren't any bit literal, just like any other religious text. We as humans are always interpreting things based on our own preconceived notions, our own beliefs, and that's not always what the original source intended. In fact, I'd argue that any human interpretation of the divine is automatically wrong. No single human belief can 100% be accurate. We will all have our own ideas of how things work. I, as a singular person, should not put any undue influence on myths that I personally think are worth "more" just because they are considered to be valid religious texts (cough cough Christians and the Bible cough cough). Myths are stories. They're fun, its fun to imagine our deities in various human scenarios. But the Divine are much more complex than their myths. I give the myths the same level of credibility I would any other that indirectly influenced my way of viewing the world. I wouldn't be who I am without the sum of the things I've read and learned over the years.

20: List a few of the deities you worship and associate each with a quote you think represents them best!

Oh lordy, you're killin me with this one Chesh lol.

Nyx: "I see the moon and the moon sees me/Nyx bless the moon and Nyx bless me" (see what I did there lmao?)

Bast: Specifically the same noise my cat makes when shes singing in the mirror. That it that's the quote lol.

Athena: All that bullshit about "tomato is a fruit but you don't put it in a fruit salad" lol. Also "Ho don't do it... oh my god" for whenever I do something (even mildly) foolish lol

Loki: OKAY SO little bit of backstory here: when I was just getting into my paganism, I was in a really shitty spot in life, physically, mentally, you name it. I came up with this phrase to help get me through it, and I generally proclaimed that anything wrong in my life was because of Loki (AS A JOKE, THEY LOVED IT). The quote was: May the deity who looks upon me in disdain look upon you with favor. It got me through shit, still does, and I still love Loki, even if they aren't my main deity anymore.

CHESHI YOU ROCK

[threetrenchcoatsinatrenchcoat]

was just scrolling thru one of those tag games and saw this!

Penny for ur thoughts? 0.0

OK SO!(tm)

I. first the data. in 1978, a gallup poll found that 11% of american adults believe in ghosts. today it's around 40%. that's an incredibly fast rise, so let's look closer. women are much more likely than men to believe in ghosts. democrats are more likely than republicans. less educated people and northwestern americans and almost every minority ethnic group (Latinos are an exception) are more likely to believe in ghosts. also non-christians. i stared at this set of demographics for a long time originally. modern, non-christian, female, liberal, poorer people tend overall to have beliefs i agree with. i don't believe in ghosts. no shade if you do. but does this data mean i should start? i'll fast-forward through my crisis for you. my conclusion is almost all of these correlations are actually just a result of one of them. the non-christians. non-christians tend to be female and liberal and non-white and more common today than the 70s. the same people who don't have a jesus to believe in have something else.

II. so the big question, what causes a belief in ghosts? we know gas leaks help. and there's a huge leap in the late nineteenth century. and christianity seems to anticorrelate. perhaps humans just need to believe in bullshit! maybe! maybe a belief in ghosts is a sublimation of spirituality in want of a religion. and maybe that's fine. maybe we need faith more than we need a god. i think this is why it's so hard to meet other queers who aren't into astrology. maybe one of the constant societal struggles is finding something to worship that won't cause harm. i'm still looking for mine.

III. let's step back. life lesson in all of science and meaning-making: any time you notice a system has two factors heavily correlating, ask if causation could be going both ways or if there's a confounding factor (and sample size and if you trust the source etc.). it makes sense to say leaving the church makes you more susceptible to believing in ghosts, and it also makes sense to say believing in ghosts would make you doubt a tripartite afterlife. and i think it very much makes sense to say when a culture based in christianity goes through a major change for any reason, maybe people get shaken out of the dominant religion and start believing in something else in tandem. this change is what would be called a confounding factor in statistics, and a statistician would now look for what it exactly is. but i don't think there's a big single moral here, i think it's a lot of change happening for any reason change happens, then patterns existing only in the wake lines.

IV. let's step further back. let's look at that late nineteenth century part i mentioned. a lot was changing and industrializing, especially science's relationship with religion. a bunch of deliberate hoaxes led by women convinced the public ghosts were real and could be spoken with. this was by no means an american exclusive, but the late nineteenth century is when many americans had just suffered a war and for the first time had to learn to mourn a loved one without a body to bury, just a letter they were told to trust. this was a people primed for a haunting. another reason mediums gained so much credibility is because of misogyny itself: it was an informal religious movement without gates to keep, and it favored feminine intuition and mystique. and these lowly servants from the simpler sex were regularly seen channeling eloquent, confident speeches. what explanation could there be but possession?

and yet this misogyny meant the weekly life of an upstanding gentleman began to include going to a woman's house, shutting up, and listening to her explain the ways of the world. it was not even a secret that almost all such mediums were advocates for women's rights. one clairvoyant named Victoria Woodhull was the first woman to found a newspaper, became the first woman to address a congressional committee when petitioning for suffrage, she supported paid sex work, she was against abortion, she was against several other spiritualists, and she believed all sex should be consensual. and so the first wave distanced themselves from her for these extremely radical, not-entirely-progressive beliefs. but if you know her, it's probably because she, largely as a stunt, was the first woman to run for president of the united states. her background was as a carnival medium. one might say she could see the future.

on the opposite side of first wave feminism, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Sojourner Truth (the latter reluctantly) publicly embraced spiritualism. Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, in History of Woman Suffrage write “…the only religious sect in the world that has recognized the equality of the woman is the spiritualists.”

V. i don't know that ghosts aren't real. i do believe that a currently rising belief in ghosts speaks less to an afterlife than it does to a cultural, spiritual inflection point among us living. i don't know if i'd say faith is necessary. i think faith definitely makes a lot of living easier. but if i have a point, my point is everything you do believe comes from somewhere.

[northwest-cryptid]

im sending a cute moth to cheer you on while you're high

Oh man I love moths, fun fact; in my Native language the word for moth roughly translates to "The Night Spirit Butterfly" and I unironically think that's such a great name for moths

I wanted to see about the credibility of this however since a lot of the time I've heard people say that "the Native american word for this is [generic mystical sounding animal thing]" and then I look it up and it's like "nah we just kinda call that a bird." So I did some digging and located the original text it's sourced from:

I've been learning Lakota since it's my Native language and I was forced to learn English directly after learning barely enough Lakota to be conversational; since I wasn't able to keep up in school when it came to learning English. This is why I will always say English is my second language, because I was literally taught Lakota first and it made learning English significantly harder.

As a quick aside, I think it's interesting that after learning Lakota I had much more trouble learning English; while my brother who did not learn Lakota had no trouble picking up English as a first language. I believe this is honestly because English uses a completely different sentence structure and since my brother didn't have anything to compare it with it became the first and only structure for sentences he knew; it was the only pronunciation he knew. Meanwhile I had learned that wášte is pronounced like "Wash-teh" with a very subtle "ee" after the h, so then I went to school and they said "okay here's the word "Waste" how do you say that?" Not to mention the word wášte basically means "good" so learning an entirely new concept of a word made no sense at a young age.

Regardless, now I'm older and have a better grasp on how language works since I've spent my life learning a good few now (memory problems be damned) translating everything from games to web comics and novels for fun. So I've picked up Lakota and boy I forgot just how much of a weird language this is.

Like okay I know we're on a tangent here, but hear me out right; I need to explain this because it baffles me why they would do this.

So the word tȟó means blue, the word zí means yellow, and the word šá means red.

So then if we know what Blue, Yellow, and Red are; what do you think the word tȟózi means? It means Green right? because Blue and Yellow make green! Alright so then what about tȟóša it's gotta be Purple right? Yea exactly! Because Blue and Red make Purple! Okay one more here, zíša You probably already know this is Orange because of how this has been working so far; and that's 100% correct! It's a really simple and effective system right?

Alright, so then if we look at Black which is sápA and White which is ská we should be able to discern Gray!

So then what would Gray be? Based on what we know; there are two possible answers right? So we all agree that it's ȟótA right?

...

...

...

Wait, oh no it had such a good system it can't just NOT use it...

SURELY Pink would just be Red and White right?! Skasa or Saska or something...

WHY IS IT šamná?! In fact why is it šamná / šásaŋ / šástaŋ?!

Yea so anyways color system was so cool until they decided to just not use it and I am forever baffled by why this is the case.

So knowing what I know let's look into our case of the Night Spirit Butterfly.

Well right off the bat we can see it uses the word for Butterfly, that being Kimimila and I happen to know very well the word Nagi or "Wanagi" means Shadow or Spirit. So that gives us Wanagi and Kimimila but we're still missing that bit in the middle, where does that Ta come in?

Well the only example of ta being used is in the word Tatanka, which is literally the word Tanka and the word Ta which is cited as making it possessive. My best guess is that in this case it's being used as some kind of particle but I don't necessarily see how it making the word Wanagi possessive would fit that translation. That would make it closer to The Spirit's Butterfly, or something of that sort.

Of course this source actually does know what their talking about upon further reading through the document they have a lot of translations that are perfectly accurate so I believe them on this one but personally the inclusion of the "ta" particle there makes me wonder if it was suppose to be something closer to seeing the night in a possessive sense.

As to say Butterflies are to the day what Moths are to the night, they are The Night's Butterfly. The only issue there is that we need to remember that Nagi and Wanagi don't really mean "Night-Spirit" like that they do mean Shadow or Spirit and in some cases even Soul or Ghost depending on the context so I see even "The Ghost Butterfly" as being more accurate than to say The Night-Spirit. However this might just be a case of it being context sensitive as it does get across the fact that they're nocturnal rather than just being a dark butterfly.

Bonus fun fact, Mothman is my favorite cryptid.

tl;dr

[tylerjeauxburreaux9]

Ik anon .. it bc I’m the only with very little proof that they broke up and that he cheated on her.. but it what ever they believe and if they choose to not to believe me and call me a liar and say my screen shot is fake then that’s on them .(it’s bc they’re in denial) … and your right its no body business

I genuinely just wanna know why in the world you thought people were going to believe you? Again it’s nobody’s business if they’re together or if they’re not or if he cheated or if he didn’t. Why do you feel the need to tell us business that has nothing to do with us and has nothing to do with you? And why did you think that people were going to believe some random Joe Burrow fan account on Tumblr That had “proof”? People are in denial because I think they’re together. People are in denial because we have no reason to trust you because you were just a random weirdo who claims that they have “proof” that isn’t credible or reliable. It’s very clear that they’re not together, but most people aren’t saying anything because it hasn’t come out of Joe and Olivia’s mouth so people are just waiting to see what happens.

I’m only going answer the first half first anon .. u asked why would I share my proof right… well it because people kept asking and telling me to dm them my proof..and I did but when I did people started to get mad at me for posting my proof and calling me a liar (which I never did) and say my proof is fake (which it’s not)… but I’m not only proof with proof and source of evidence.. but when Deauxmoi posted this on her story(Deauxmoi is not the only source with this proof)the same thing I did… I didn’t believe her until weeks later… the msg someone (not saying who) sent saying the same thing as Deauxmoi (not the exactly same thing but part where it say Olivia was going around telling people that they broke up)then I realized it started to make sense everything started to make sense.. but refuse to believe me or say I’m lying or say my proof fake.. but it’s right in our faces.. end of discussion.. I don’t wanna hear it anymore..

Here’s my proof and Deauxmoi proof… keep in mind I the msg that was sent me was sent weeks after Deauxmoi posted her proof

Now second half ofc the people not going believe a Joe Burrow fan but be quick to those Olivia Stans and blogs of whatever they say with no proof literally no proof…but I’m the one who is a liar oh ok then ..I have actual proof 👀💀🤷🏽‍♀️…but also yet it still non of our business ( which is true it not our business) but when people where get worried about why Olivia never posted or being ghost the passed few months people started making rumors or asking this or that about Olivia and Joe and wanting answers or proof.. then what the hell ..bc it was kinda weird at first that she hasn’t posted in while but now it starting to make sense.. it’s clear they are not together and

Now for the 3 half duh it clear they are not together anymore and people will wait until Joe or Olivia say something.. but it obvious that they aren’t going post anything about them breaking up…..💀😭

And also Ik this doesn’t have nothing to do with what you said.. but people don’t have to unfollow their ex just because they broke up.. it their choice and decision if they choose to bc not everybody unfollows their ex’s if they are broken up 💀 and this also has nothing to do with… why should I stop supporting joe just because something he wrong doesn’t mean I have to stop supporting him and posting TikTok or ect .. ngl I was disappointed about what he did and it not right what he did or a good thing of what he did bc if yk you’re in a relationship and you’re following OF girls on your ig .. ect because that very disrespectful of what he did..💀 but that doesn’t mean I should stop supporting bc it a strong reason why I should stop supporting.. if going take a whole lot worse for me to stop supporting him…. 💀😭 but other than that I won’t stop supporting him…

and also this has nothing to do with what you asked.. but if you knew your bf was cheating on you then why waste 7 years with him and staying with him for 7 years after he treated you like dog water and wasn’t really into you and you were the only one showing affection to him more than he was ..why stay with him 😭🤔(and don’t say he was showing affection.. they’re clearly other photos where he was uncomfortable with her) anyways

Now thx for wasting my time … 💀😭 and have a good and blessed day and enjoy the rest of your day or night or evening.. good day respectfully…

[paperstorm]

I don’t feel comfortable coming off anon cause honestly some parts of this fandom have been fucking brutal if you express anything outside of falling exactly in line with how they think you should feel. Zero nuance allowed. My ask was in response to you referring to the “Isreal propaganda machine” as one of the “biggest in the world” and that just felt really close to another form of the “Isreal owns the media.” antisemitic tropes I was referencing. I don’t think you meant it that way but other people certainly do. and what I meant by sources about the human shields is that I genuinely haven’t seen anyone explain how that is propaganda? I’ve seen very reputable info about how Hamas does in fact store bases and supplies nearby and beneath places like schools and I haven’t seen any good information or sources explaining how that isn’t true (sources other than “Hamas spokesperson said this”)… and I was just asking for sources to link to if you had seen that information somewhere so I could be better educated. But almost immediately after I sent that I went and did my own research. I don’t think I have the same conclusion as you but maybe we’re taking “human shields” to mean something different. (but also I’m not saying this would excuse any kind of violence btw. human shields or not, the air strikes need to stop)

Ah okay, that may have just been unartful language on my part and I will be more careful with that.

I don't have specific links on hand because this is an opinion I have developed over many years of reading on this issue but I will explain what I mean about the human shields thing, so at least you know where I stand on it.

Israeli leadership often claims that they have no choice but to bomb hospitals and schools and residential buildings because Hamas is hiding in them, that is the essence of the ‘human shields’ claim. And as far as I know, it is a factual claim that Hamas militants are in those kind of buildings. But there are two points I think are important to contextualize this claim.

The first, is that Palestine is not a real independent state. It does not have sovereignty in any of the ways we use that word. It doesn’t have a capital city. It doesn’t have an elected central government or an independent judiciary. It has no control over its own resources (the mere fact that Israel can cut off fuel and water is deafening evidence of that, because what other country has the ability to cut off water to another state?) Where this comes into play in this conversation is that Palestine has no military, due completely to the occupation and Israel not allowing it to be a sovereign state. This is not in defense of Hamas. They are not defensible and any leftists pretending they’re freedom fighters immediately lose any credibility in my eyes. But it is factual that Hamas operates in residential areas instead of military bases because military bases have not been allowed to exist.

The second, and more important, point, is that I don’t accept that a terrorist potentially being in a residential building is justification for dropping a bomb on it. Extrapolate that logic to any other situation. Let’s say the FBI thinks Ted Bundy is maybe hiding in a 20-storey apartment building. They don’t know this for sure, but they claim to have intel (which they refuse to make public) that shows he’s in a unit on the third floor. Does that give them permission to drop a bomb on that building and kill all 300 people who live there? If it turned out they were right and Ted was among the lifeless bodies they pulled from the rubble, would they be allowed to say “see we got him, so we made the right call and had no other choice”? I would argue, fuck no. Tbh I kind of don’t know how to empathize with someone who would argue yes. But that is the argument the Israeli government is making when they cry human shields. They’re saying they have to slaughter thousands of children, because a Hamas militant might be hiding in that elementary school. It is my opinion that that’s indefensible, regardless of whether they’re right about the presence of Hamas.