#stop victimizing the wrong people | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dykedvonte · 1 month ago

Note

You ever just see a Mouthwashing take that makes you want to bang your head into a wall? I literally just saw someone claim Curly couldn't have been emotionally abused by Jimmy before the crash because he was in a higher position of power than Jimmy.

-Shrimp Anon

The mouthwashing fandom has shown me that people genuinely do believe that certain types of abuse are not as detrimental as other types especially when they deem those immune/resistant, ergo, believing one is objectively worse no matter how it affects the person nor the intersections of power, history and dynamics at play.

Get ready cause this is a yap session:

Cause like it's heavily implied that Curly and Jimmy's friendship was toxic and abusive, pointedly in the direction of how Jimmy uses Curly's belief/comfort in him. Curly wasn't forced to enable Jimmy but he was emotional and mentally on edge around him in almost every scene in some way. Mental and emotional abuse are not contingent on what positions you have at work. Yeah, he's Jimmy's boss but he was Jimmy's friend first and it's like getting into Psych discussion to talk about how social power tends to overshadow any perceived organizational power in the human mind. People are concerned about their jobs ofc but they tend to hang onto and put more value/investment into their personal relationships, hence why there tends to be laws and restrictions around mixing the two.

I always see the sentiments that "Curly is a grown ass man", "Curly is bigger than Jimmy", "Curly is Jimmy's boss", "He just needed a backbone" as criticisms of Curly and while I do agree that on the surface level all of these to be true and viable ways Curly could've taken more control of the situation, I often look at the parallels of Anya and Curly as victims of Jimmy pre/post crash.

The way Jimmy talks to Anya post crash is how he talked to Curly in the pre-crash segments. It's hard to pin-point mainly because we know he hates and wants nothing to do with Anya compared to his contrary but similarly handled obsessions with Curly. It's a weird sort of "honey-moon" effect of abuse Jimmy does in terms of emotional and mental victimization. He is always horrid to Anya, always talking down or questioning her abilities and thoughts in a situation, this of course includes the harassment and assault. However, he has a moment of attempted gentleness/conditioning when he question her about the mouthwash when she's contemplating drinking it at the table. The key difference is he has no personal investment in Jimmy outside wanting nothing to do with him, meaning there is no sort of romanticized version of him that he can condition her off of. He knows this, hence, why he always reverts to trying to make her to scared to oppose him.

This sort of give and take of "kindness" doesn't work on her because she knows he is just doing it to take more from her than whatever he could possibly give but it reflects even the "softer" scenes between him and Curly where he always rewords or rephrases Curly's sentiments and concerns to sound more shallow. He is feigning a deeper understanding by reworking Curly's emotions into something bad and needing to be hidden. Everything is laced with envy and resentment, an outburst just around the corner, I mean he even slams the table in the birthday party scene, a tactic in emotional manipulation to set the victim on edge and cloud their ability to respond. Even if Curly knows Jimmy won't get physical in that moment, the physical actions is intended to make him back down in the confrontation in case it does. This is something that is just not person specific. It ingrains itself into how you interact with the world and life and it shows in major and minor ways with Curly.

Post-crash, the abusive nature is more in tandem to the physical victimization Anya went through and the stripping of voice and autonomy we see take place. Like the parasite in HFIM, Jimmy speaks for Curly most of the time and puts words in his mouth, similarly to how he takes Anya's plans as his own. He very commonly, with the both of them mind you, supplements the worst aspects of himself into them; pettiness, selfishness, lack of understanding... And tries to cover himself with their best qualities; kindness, planning, initiative, etc...

These parallel are just to say that positional power has little to do with if a person can be abused and how it can even be flipped to further the abuse. There is no doubt that Curly could've picked up on Jimmy's envy of his position hence another reason he never confronted him as a Captain but as a friend as doing so would immediately put Jimmy in a space to be confrontational/combative.

I think the disdain some people have when they talk about the heavily implied if not implicitly stated emotional/mental abuse Curly experienced being Jimmy's friend is when treating it as an excuse to why he didn't do more. I can understand that completely because it is not an excuse to why he didn't do more but is a very real reason people in his position in these scenarios can experience whether in the context of a work or social environment. However, I also think the way people talk about it really does demonstrate a bigger problem when talking about abuse when somehow who is/was abused is either part of the issue or enabled it.

Harkening back to the sentiments about Curly's inaction regarding Jimmy, I think the exact phrases I used/have seen show how there is an inherent belief that it is easier to overpower the effects of emotional/mental abuse that go in tandem with the perception of Curly as someone who should be able to. There is not an age you suddenly stop being susceptible to abuse nor a set point or low where you realize how it has affected you. You don't suddenly know to stand up or put a face on to face your abuser nor admit that you inadvertently enabled them to subjugate someone else to the same treatment. Maybe it's my psych brain but their is this growing belief that direct action is somehow easy or always the best method with the game shows you instances where it is not always the case. In real life that rings true too. He should have done more, but it's not impossible to see why he struggled to find a way or didn't even if it makes us mad.

It's not easy to suddenly gain a "back-bone". You don't immediately want to resort to aggression, especially if it mirrors the type you were a victim to. You don't want to believe you allowed yourself to be treated this bad, let it get that bad or allowed something bad to happen to someone else. It is easy to be in denial, to retreat to your thoughts or make excuses to avoid the painful truth. It's frustrating but in a way we know is relatable. It why we both hate and love Curly for it. We know we'd be better, we think we'd be better, we like to think we wouldn't falter in the same ways but it's always easier to say that from the outside looking in. It's easy to see what he was doing wrong because we are seeing it, not him, but the game really does make you picture what you would do if this was your raw reality and it's why this debate about Curly seems so never ending/contradictory. We can all say what we'd do but bottom line is that's much different when you're in the moment with all the emotions and human feelings attached.

I personally think Mouthwashing tackles the themes of rape culture, enabling, toxic masculinity, types of abuse and patriarchy in ways that are meant to deconstruct the typical straightforward views we mostly have of these concepts and how little subtilities of them are just as, if not more, detrimental than the overt/obvious parts. The game deals with the idea of little details and bigger picture in a way to show that sometimes the bigger picture is not the issue but the little details that make it up. It's why I have a personal dislike of depictions of Jimmy as the typical horrible person who would of course do something like this because the game is about noticing the little warning signs, the foreshadowing and foresight.

It's why I dislike the typical discussion of "bro code" and "boys will be boys" for the game because the game makes a point to avoid the standard depictions of such. It is about the type of men who still enable despite not condoning, agreeing or even perpetuating harmful beliefs because they can't see the little details or the ways it seeps into their everyday. The severity is not obvious to them as it was not obvious to Curly, Swansea or even Daisuke the way it was to a woman like Anya. There are little details about Jimmy that should ring alarms but if you are too naive like Daisuke, too distant like Swansea or too conditioned like Curly, they are just off markers.

There is 100% more constructive/concise ways to say "Curly was a victim of Jimmy's abuse on an emotional and mental aspect that clouded his judgements and perceptions in the scenario" while also critiquing on the side of "Curly still had a responsibility to protect Anya as a crew mate and Captain that he failed to do due to biases and stigma's he failed to surpass" without the weird condemnation people give him about should've knowing better than to let himself be manipulated by a person he considered a close, if not family/best-friend and had his own reasons to trust initially. Also stop being weird about victims of abuse in general with this fandom, like sorry not everyone has a like social epiphany the moment someone's nasty to them. People are treating it like you immediately know when you are in a toxic relationship immediately or comprehend when a person is actively dangerous and either it's your fault for not knowing how to leave/cut them off or you deserve it. Like the hypocrisy of people believing how certain fans treat the story reflect their irl views but not their own is crazy.

End statement is: I honestly don't even know man, I've been writing this too long and just like no man on that ship was perfect or really helped Anya when it mattered and I feel like pitting them against each other in discussion on who did the least or most or how it was justified sucks cause in the end Anya always did the most and best thing for herself.

#i also think it is because mouthwashing is first and foremost a game about rape culture and the patriarchy especially in work spaces #regarding women and centering conversation around Curly a man rubs people wrong because it does overshadow that commentary #but it still mixes other topics into its initial theming and message on how abuse conditions you to accept certain things that are harmful #and how getting used to a culture/enviornment does not mean you are happy healthy or most importantly safe in it. I personally like to #explore those aspects where it mixes all the themes so we can discuss the ways you have to watch out for things because there is a differen #in the idea Curly enabled Jimmy just because they were bros and because he was an example of another man afraid to step out from what #is a still oppressive system that does try to punish those who act against it even if they fall in the category of those who would benefit #from it as Jimmy and PE 100% represent that sort of misogynistic system where men that would be “good” are altered until they follow line #in a way both on the personal and professional level as PE is the corporate lock out and Jimmy represents the social and its just the issue #that the discussion of it sounds like “in defense of men” when I am more so trying to discuss how it is much deeper than men being scared t #upset other men but complacency is rewarded by not becoming another person subjugated hence as all the moments Curly does try to do #something we can tie it back to how Jimmy reacts and a possible penality from PE where we now need to address the ways to combat those #two concepts so we dont get cases like Curly or Daisuke or Swansea where male avoidance of the issue is considered neutral or even good.#i think most of this boils down the perfect victim mentality to where if someone who underwent or is being abused is not a perfect example #or accpetible type than their abuse can not be considered a valid or substantial reason for effects on their behavior compounded with the #fact that Anya's abuse at the hands of Jimmy is a systematic issue that Curly is a part of even if unwillingly and was more physically #violating and topical cause sometimes i have to remind myself that all media is still critiqued through the lens of the culture it came out #in cause i do think about what if this game came out inlike 2014 like the conversations would be sooooooo different could you imagine it?#but back the before statement Curly isn't perfect but I feel like boiling it down if hes a good person or man is not the point of the game #but more so good people can still be part of the problem and the idea of condemning a person for one act creates a false sense of #rightouesness and justice that does not aid the victim and in fact aids the abusers in escaping blame for their mulitple behaviors as we se #how the men on the ship tend to blame Jimmy for just one act against them including himself while there is a plethora of things Anya is #concerned about with Jimmy #and its not that Curly just made one mistake with Jimmy but more so we consider his actions more damning because he didn't stop Jimmy #instead of focusing on the fact Jimmy did what he did regardless of Curly and the consequence because we already know he's bad n maladjuste #which is problem in the conversation where the individuals are blamed but the system and perputrator are overlooked in a sense of acceptiab #complacency as we know how they are and the lack of tangibility to personally affect them on a larger scale like I should just make a post #on like cutting out the face when it comes it confronting systems of oppression rather than tag talking but just ask me to clarify if #you want that like im jus trying to say we avoid talking about Jimmy and PE so much cause it is obvious what they do wrong that we make #the initial and inherent problem out to be one aspect someone in this case Curly does and the the constraints they use to force actions

310 notes · View notes

seagreenstardust · 10 months ago

Text

“When toxic behavior is portrayed as romantic, it’s problematic. When problematic behavior is portrayed as a character flaw for a character to work through, it’s good storytelling.”

Katsuki Bakugou, my friends.

His behavior was problematic but never once portrayed as romantic at the same time. Katsuki said and did awful abusive things, and he also chose to be better when he was given the chance. If you’re still hung up on chapter 1 Katsuki now then I don’t think you’ve been reading the same story I have.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m not shipping Izuku with an irredeemable abuser. I’m shipping him with his most important person. His narrative foil. His childhood friend who made awful mistakes and then made it right when he saw he was wrong. The person Izuku looks up to and strives to emulate, despite their past struggles.

Bakudeku is so good because of how flawed these boys are, and how hard they’ve worked to get over it, and how much they matter to each other after it all

#perfect stories about perfect people who never do anything wrong are usually boring #stories about growth and mistakes and redemption and forgiveness and progress are lit #bkdk #bakudeku #the quote is from cinema therapy on YouTube btw #love them so much #they look at media and talk about what is and isn’t good from a real life human perspective #and boy did this quote slap me in the face #anyway this is my thought literally any time anyone says something about shipping Izuku with his abuser #if he was still being abused then I get it #but he’s not #and saying he needs protection from Katsuki is honestly doing his character dirty #and this is not to say that every situation with an abuser and a victim should turn out romantic #obviously not #the world is not black and white and neither are people #sometimes you have to get yourself out and never look back and that is valid and healthy #but sometimes you’re talking about two boys in a manga who literally cannot stop thinking about how good and incredible the other is #bro I get it #surface level chapter/episode 1 Katsuki is literally the worst #but his glow up has been literally meteoric

448 notes · View notes

itsabouttimex2 · 5 months ago

Text

“You need to do better.”

(This gets vitriolic, and is a full-blown criticism of Macaque’s portrayal in Season Four and Five. If criticism of a character/franchise you like upsets you, I do not recommend reading.)

Wow. I had no faith in his character writing, and I’m STILL disappointed.

And it only took one episode! How impressive!

Macaque, who has put in ZERO on-screen effort to become a better person or make amends to his victims, is criticizing Wukong for being a bad mentor! And does Wukong criticize him back? NOPE!

After getting screamed at and berated, does Wukong defend himself? NOPE!

Ooh, but there was a second long reference in a dual yelling match that mentioned that Macaque was a genuinely bad person who took glee in hurting innocent people! Oh, fucking delightful! Ooh, Wukong even points out in one episode that Macaque goes without consequences!

Pointing out a flaw in your writing does not make it less of a flaw.

Macaque will always be allowed to do whatever he wants to anyone he wants- power theft, attempted murder, insults, deceit, assault-

And the narrative and characters will never hold him accountable or force Macaque to look inwards or become a better person.

Macaque will always fall upwards into redemption without any obstacles or pushback.

There will never be a struggle to goodness with a satisfying conclusion. There will never be a moment where falters in his newfound goodness and questions going back to his old ways. There will never be explicit remorse or regret. He will never have deep introspections on his crimes and atrocities that provide a reason for him to want to change.

The sum of his “arc” will always be “you were a good guy all along”, and that lack of depth is where it will stay.

RIP Seasons 1-3 Macaque. You were fun and interesting and cool and lovable.

But the man they replaced you with was destined to be a boring and brooding “anti-hero” who has no real connection to the actions you selfishly and violently performed with your own two hands-

And you will always be a less interesting character for it.

The execution of the actual arc boils down to a single heroic (but ultimately self-serving) moment and then Macaque is immediately forgiven for all the crimes he’s committed and is a magically better person without any effort and nothing he’s done is ever brought up again.

It severely weakens any character’s arc to cut them off from their past actions. If MK forgot his traumas every season instead of carrying them forward- we’d all agree that doing so was a case of poor writing.

It was the reason that people disliked Mei’s portrayal in Season Four- she immediately moved on from the Samadhi Fire arc and “no longer wielded it” after spending a whole season gathering and learning to use it.

Why can’t we agree that it’s bad for Macaque, too?

You can’t “develop” a character by dropping an entire plotline and writing it off with one line.

You can’t “redeem” a character by pretending that they were a good person right from the start.

Sorry, bud.

I really did like you. I just wish I could like your writing.

——————

And, what is more clear to me now than ever?

People only defended Macaque’s shitty writing because they think he’s hot.

I know this now, because I’ve seen white-hot Li Jing arc hatred from fervent Macaque arc defenders.

So we all agree that an “I didn’t really mean it!” isn’t an excuse to abuse the people around you? That you don’t get to mistreat innocent people just because you’re stressed and upset?

Hmmm.

Hmmmmmmm.

I wonder why people despise Jing for his dogshit “one nice thing redeems all your bad actions” arc but love Macaque for his??

(Because they think the monkey is hot.)

The funny thing, though?

Li Jing apologizes to at least one of the victims of his actions. He expresses regret and remorse.

Macaque doesn’t even have that.

——————

Anyways here’s a line that I hate because Macaque has in no way developed enough to have the right to deliver it-

AND NO, SUDDENLY HAVING AN AFFINITY FOR PERFORMING KIND OR SACRIFICIAL ACTS IS NOT GOOD CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

HIM MAGICALLY OFFSCREEN BECOMING A GOOD PERSON WHO CARES ABOUT INNOCENT LIFE IS NOT GOOD CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

IF ALL IT TAKES TO “BE BETTER” IS ACTING LIKE A HERO, WUKONG IS LITERALLY A THOUSAND TIMES BETTER OF A PERSON THAN HE IS

THIS LINE IS DOGSHIT

“You need to do better.”

Really, Macaque? Maybe you should take your own damn advice- try apologizing to one of the people you tried to hurt and tried to murder in cold blood!

Like when you trapped MK under his staff after stealing his powers and tried to murder him when he was helpless?

Or when you kidnapped MK’s friends and tortured the kid by forcing him to fight them?

Or you led a violent assault against a palace full of innocent people?

Or violently beat his dear friends until they were screaming in pain?

Or assaulted Tang, who posed no threat to you?

Or threatened to murder an innocent girl if you didn’t get your way, then ran away (and encouraged MK to abandon her) first thing when it put her into a life-threatening meltdown of raw power?

(Isn’t it cool how NONE of these people have interesting or varied reactions to him doing this and ALL immediately are cool with him like a gelatinous hivemind.)

(Oooh ONE mildly questioning line from Pigsy but no anger over his adoptive son nearly being killed multiple times over)

(Isn’t it cool that no one has complex or interesting thoughts on this.)

(Isn’t it cool that by robbing them of unique feelings on the matter they robbed Macaque and the Monkie Kids of compelling and interesting interactions that could’ve helped flesh out their personalities and strengthen their characterization.)

(Isn’t it cool that Macaque and the Monkie Kids are actively denied intriguing character dynamics so Macaque’s shitty “redemption arc” can happen faster.)

(Isn’t that cool.)

Why don’t YOU do better, Macaque?

(In a way that is more satisfying than “one kind-hearted speech from a kid that I tried to murder changed my mind and now I am a better person but all my character development happened offscreen and without personal introspection”, at least.)

Also what the fuck do you mean by “do better”?

Be heroic and put your life in danger? He already does that! He’s done it more than you have!

Just tell MK that he’s not alone? YOU COULD DO THAT YOURSELF, MACAQUE!

Help MK with his traumas and fears? MK doesn’t tell anyone about those! He keeps them bottled up, lock and key, and actively refuses attempts to help!

Wukong TRIED to reach out to him, and MK PUSHED HIM AWAY! Was he supposed to tie the fucking kid down and torture the information out of him?

He respected MK’s boundaries by not pushing any further and letting him leave!!

WHY IS THAT A BAD THING??

What the fuck, man

#Lego Monkie Kid #LMK #Lego Monkie Kid Season Five #LMK Spoilers #Lego Monkie Kid Spoilers #LMK Analysis #LMK Critical #Sun Wukong #Macaque #Please prove me wrong Season Six #I want people to look back on this post and laugh at me #I fucking hate not liking things #I want to be wrong when I say things are bad #But I’m starting to… not like Monkie Kid?#Because I like LMK and JTTW!!!#And I like Sun Wukong!#But LMK is starting to feel like Beowulf (2007) where the creator actually hated the original work #And now it feels like the writers just want to shit in Wukong by making him a walking disaster who does everything wrong #And I’m worried that Macaque will be what the fandom wants him to be- a perfect precious baby victim who does no wrong #And Sun Wukong will forever be a ‘mistake’ who is punished again and again and again #While the Bullfam and Macaque get away scot-free with all their crimes and no punishment #Anyways if the writers AND the fandom could stop treating Sun Wukong like a fucking punching bag #That would be nice

178 notes · View notes

dreamingofthewild · 26 days ago

Text

I had to make it brief to fit the sign.

Can we normalise critiquing the media we consume and being open to other people's perspectives?

#fandom critical #If I see another post discrediting everyones critisisms because they don't align with the posters personal opinions #I am going to explode #No piece of media is absolutely flawless or above criticism #A lot of things are subjective but the key word is SUBJECTIVE #Veilguard is not perfect yes it may have been the victim or review bombing at the start #But it is not a perfect game by far #If you think it's the best game that has ever existed then good for you #But please stop acting like anyone who finds fault is wrong in every way #I get that it is not nice to see people criticising something you like and finding fault with it #But they are not attacking YOU personally because they're being critical about the thing you enjoy #Instead of misunderstanding and misinterpreting what other people are saying #Is that hard?#media literacy #veilguard critical #dragon age fandom critical

109 notes · View notes

claymton · 2 months ago

Text

Sometimes I think about the person who whined to me on twitter when I posted the bloberta and clay """rape comic""", for the lack of a softer word, about how "everyone wants to paint bloberta as a rapist" and bla bla "misogyny" and then blocked me before I could say anything; seems like some people cover their ears and eyes when they watch shows or something, Are you that brain dead

#Don't get me wrong there is definitely a lot of misogyny in the community that distorts their views on Bloberta-#but this is not the case. lol #and literally no one is calling her a rapist. I've legitimately only seen like 2-3 people talk about bloberta victimizing clay #anyway i just wanted to be angry #mumbles #stop fighting with imaginary people

60 notes · View notes

ocpder · 4 months ago

Text

Non-traumagenics stop acting oppressed for being a system/disabled when you are not disabled because you're not a system challenge

#sick of them acting like victims of anything stfu you are literally mocking an entire community of disabled people #by pretending to be disabled and walking all over us and acting like it's our fault that you treat us like shit when you don't belong here #cuz ur not a fucking system you are not disabled you are all ableist pieces of shit and there's nothing wrong with real systems not wanting #to deal with you or your bullshit #leave us the fuck alone #“you want us to unexist” bitch NOBODY is asking you or forcing you to fake being a system EXCEPT FOR YOU #you don't have to pretend to be a system but real systems cannot just stop being a system because it's a real disability and not a game for #you disrespectful idiots to play make believe and invent OCs and imaginary friends because you're bored #get a fucking hobby #endos not for you #endos do not interact #endos fuck off #endos dni #anti endo

93 notes · View notes

butwhatifidothis · 1 year ago

Text

It really is strange how Edelstans simultaneously dig hard into people that don't agree with their specific interpretation of 3H to the point of being happy they manage to drive those people away... and be so upset and baffled that people become generally disinterested/actively hostile towards 3H content.

If folks get repeatedly driven out of a fandom, and that group of people repeatedly calls anyone who disagrees with their specific interpretation of 3H stupid/illiterate/"acting in bad faith"/sexist/racist/homophobic/etc., and it is repeatedly done by a group of people who insist that 3H's fandom problem is a "both sides" thing, with all of this being dragged into spaces that have nothing to do with 3H, well... obviously people are then going to start to dislike interacting with either 3H in general or its fandom in particular?

Edelstans are the ones spreading the idea that 3H's fandom in totality is shit. They keep trying to make their hands look cleaner than they are by claiming that everyone else's hands are just dirty as/even dirtier than theirs. Of course people who are unaware of everything are going to then assume that everyone's hands are dirty, thus making people not exactly want to shake hands with anyone.

Like, really now. What did they think was going to happen when they directly go after fanartists/fanfic writers who create/say things that go against the Approved Edelstan Status Quo, to the point that a non-zero amount of these creators just up and leave social media entirely? Or after they nitpick every single Disapproved Post and then lie about the post's OP? Or after it becomes a consistent pattern that people who even remotely disagree with Edelstans' opinions are always, without fail, buried with insulting and harassing anons? Or after they're shown time and time again to defend their worst actors with "well their/our victims deserved it because they said a 3H opinion we didn't agree with"? Or when they say that everyone does this shit in 3H's fandom except for them (which is either not believed because it's demonstrably untrue or is actually believed and now those people think the overwhelming majority of 3H's fandom is filled with shit)? Or when they drag 3H discourse into literally actually everything no matter how unrelated?

That with less fandom creators within the fandom space they'd get more content? That harassing and insulting people and accusing them of being this-and-that bigot is going to magically "correct" their minds into seeing The One Truth about 3H? That people are going to just look over all the shit they did just because they allocate the blame of their action on all of 3H's fandom? That people would like 3H more if they constantly remind people of the inarguable worst thing to come from 3H? That this would help 3H's general perception?

Fuckin' no, of course that's just going to make everyone fuck off from 3H. And would you look at that, a shit ton of people have fucked off from 3H since everything has been swept under a "well it'sth a bolth thides ithue tho what can ya do?" rug. And it's been swept under that rug by pretty much the only people who are pulling this shit, who then get shocked - utterly gobsmacked! - that that made them look bad too. That crying "both sides!" included themselves too and not just the people they've been harassing. That saying that the entire fandom is bad everywhere made the entire fandom look bad everywhere.

If Edelstans are really so upset that no one talks about 3H positively anymore, then maybe they should stop being the reason no one likes 3H anymore. Just a thought

#edelgard discourse #just to be safe #like I'm sorry the other parts of the fandom are of course not perfect and should ALSO be called out when they pull shit #but NO ONE is as bad as Edelstans as a group (in 3H's fandom). like. objectively #I say this as someone who is ALSO sad to see 3H become such a heated topic:#it's honestly annoying as hell to see them bitch and moan about how nobody seems to want to talk about 3H anymore #cuz like I'm sorry you do NOT get to whine about people leaving your house after you forcefully pushed them out #like this is obviously what YOU wanted!! a fandom space that is bereft of anyone you disagree with!!#if that means that the fandom is way more empty of new art maybe that says something about YOU and the people YOU wanted to be around you #maybe no one likes y'all because y'all are insufferable and not because y'all like a certain set of pixels and lines on a screen. perhaps #''they hate us because we like Edelgard'' actually it's the harassment and open sexism and victim-blaming and superiority + victim complexe #the entitlement the refusal to ever admit you're wrong about literally anything the dogpiling #the never-ending need to remind people of discourse they want to move away from #and about a million other fuckin' things #simply stop being the problem you're complaining about

58 notes · View notes

rosenecklaces · 7 months ago

Text

I think gwynriels victim complex phenomenon needs to be studied like it's probably where the projecting into Azriel white-savior and fuckboy made-up personas came from. it's all clearer now...

#acotar #they are like if the boy that screamed wolf didn't stopped lying it's kind of that #i say it before and i reiterate: they are this worked up for a ship that literally was made BEFORE acosf was fully out and the BC wasn't #known yet... let that sink in #if book text directly is contradicting your words. the characters are. the casual readers are. the readers before you are and now published #articles (made by people professional in their field and probably with their own degrees too) are saying what you think MIGHT be very wrong #idk girl i would think a little of why is that instead of calling someone a misogynist for DARING to tell “no ellen that didn't happened”#everyone have biases even elriels that also had studied literature will have it but the diff is that no one is using that to proof how a SA #victim is mated and gonna have a quick heal of her trauma for your book bf.... AAAaanyways this the last post i gonna make about this #*btw i think that user mentioned being harassed which of course hope she stays away from those that insult her and don't let them get to he #but yeh the degree situation was unserious and silly. no need for anyone to get mad or hate anyone for that just laugh and let's move on

25 notes · View notes

msfcatlover · 3 months ago

Text

Putting both hands on your shoulders. Hey, listen. Sometimes, characters have tragic backstories. A lot of villains are victims. It’s reasonable to see that, and it’s good to acknowledge what made them the way they are. I completely understand wanting to give them a happier story, where they get the love & support they needed to live a healthier, more fulfilling life. Especially if you relate to their troubles, giving them an unhappy ending can feel like the author is condemning you for what you’ve gone through.

But—listen—I need you to understand: You are not the character. You can connect with them, relate with them, love them even, but you are not them. And a lot of the time, the thing that drives them to that unhappy ending isn’t actually the trauma they went through—it’s an inability to change. They don’t grow, they don’t get better, they don’t learn the thing the story is trying to say. And it sucks to see yourself in a character like that, but you are not the character, and you can change, learn, grow, and constantly be bettering yourself. Because humans have that capacity.

But also, the same way you cannot save someone who doesn’t want saving, it’s important to recognize that in fiction. Would this character want to change? Can they see anything wrong with their methods? Their goals? Because if the answer is no, while you can feel free to write happier AUs (I certainly do!) then they were never going to get ‘better’ in canon.

Because they don’t want to.

#Been thinking about Calla again.#You cannot fix her. She doesn’t want to be fixed. She doesn’t see anything wrong with her behavior. You cannot change her mind.#She’s been through some horrifying shit. I wouldn’t say it /broke/ her but it definitely rewired her brain #and she learned all the wrong lessons about human connection from those experiences.#Calla is a tragedy and the tragedy is the cycle of abuse.#Hurt people can hurt people.#Calla’s trauma taught her control & power are the only ways to feel safe in any kind of relationship #and if you tried to convince her otherwise she would only see it as you trying to take that control & power away from her. To hurt her.#And she so desperately wants to feel loved. Valued. Cherished. /Safe/. It doesn’t matter to her if she hurts other people to get that.#She’s a victim. She’s been hurt. That explains it but doesn’t justify it. And unless someone stops her she will not stop hurting people.#//#tv tropes #my writing #mine

11 notes · View notes

wickmitz · 5 months ago

Text

was once again glancing at the lackadaisy reddit and i genuinely feel a little crazy about how people perceive the wick and mitzi arc from retinue to sneakthief? or, honestly, their arc in general. to act as though wick is some patron saint greatly amuses me when it’s implied by mitzi and the comic that wick had either proposed a business deal himself or had been very amendable to talk about it after their kiss and / or other intimate acts last night … mitzi didn’t pull this out of her ass! she did not put this upon wick randomly. it was something they mutually agreed to do, and given how hard wick tries to wiggle away from the conversation without outright saying no ( aka giving excuses to stall ) i would even guess he essentially already agreed to such a deal, in the throes of passion, only for him to not fully mean it later. this doesn’t mean it was right at all for her to then steal from wick! this isn’t me excusing that! but wick isn’t some poor meow meow either in this scenario, even if he is the ‘lesser’ evil overall.

and tbh i also think the conversation was doomed from the start : wick was horrifically exhausted and was still too shaken up by rocky’s ‘joke’ to fully engage with mitzi, as well as finally having church’s warning start to weigh on him … and then there’s mitzi, who wasn’t faring any better! what with viktor out of commission, asa turning on her, mordecai threatening her, and then having spent most of the afternoon hearing her dead husband’s name be thrown around. in order to hurt her and scare her into obedience, mind you. like, neither were in any state to discuss business or romance!! so it’s no surprise it went poorly. especially when both of them were equally sore and testy during their date.

#my posts.#lackadaisy #anyway i have WAY more to say about this and wick & mitzi’s arc in general but this’ll do #my very illiterate rambles lol #i think the fandom is so enamored with wick that they fail to see he’s someone who is flawed #and someone who ( as tracy’s said a time or two ) isn’t morally superior than the other characters in any way #yet people act as if wick is only some quirky little guy who’s just sooo sweet and that’s it you guys :)#he needs SAVING from the big bad evil woman!!! he is just so blind to her wicked intentions :( he’s being led on …#which to me is so far from the truth. wick had no issue throwing his investors at mitzi for her to schmooze up #and even tried HELPING her schmooze them!! he knew her intentions either the second he got her letter or soon thereafter & was cool with it!#like i love wick so bad but just like rocky there’s a habit of woobifying him …. which is tragic and sad to me #lackadaisy is full of complex characters PLEASE stop dumbing them down into helpless victims who just stand there waiting to be saved!!!#wick can still be complex and a little fucked up and it can still be wrong that mitzi stole from him #him being a flawed character who can and does do wrong doesn’t cancel out mitzi’s bad act #and vice versa #anyway. i love them SO BAD they could never make me hate you wickmitzi #( if none of this makes sense my apologies its 9pm and im sleepy and im overwhelmed by my thoughts about them <3 )

15 notes · View notes

martyrbat · 6 months ago

Text

habeas corpus – detective comics #1086

(ID in alt!)

#loved this back up feature so much and seeing that bruce timm shit made me annoyed enough to actually transcribe it #first the way hes depicted as having to stand trial and ARGUE and fight for the rights of using the coin #rather than it just being a compulsion and something he must do before a decision....#like every time. every time when he's 'leaving it up to chance'—thats a time when harvey won. thats a time when harvey fought for the right #to use the coin and make it at least a 50/50 chance instead of 'crawling away until the hard part is done' like two face pushed for #every single time. regardless of the results regardless of knowing theres only a halfway chance of it actually achieving anything #or lessening the damage two face can/will do. every time hes fighting for and still believing in a fair trial and that everyone deserves on #it isnt him being weak. it isnt him avoiding responsibility. its him fighting and forcing and pushing for it as hes internally at war #with himself 24/7. even when two face wins he doesnt give up & continues to fight for what he believes in despite the injustice done to him #the way he tells Judge Janus that it isnt about HIM (himself!) while defending the right of existence to the jury of other societal rejects #the way he gestures to himself only at the very end. he asks the judge does that sound like anyone he knows and janus replies in two faces #voice but harvey keeps going. he keeps fighting for others. but at the end in actually acknowledging two face being part of him #(and by extension harvey being part of two face) and how harvey is fighting just as much to have a place as two face is #(but more within his own mind & upholding his belief system still despite knowing how it continues to fail them) and just FUCK #and two faces snaps! how theres no jurisprudence system above there either ! just no one will admit it!#how harvey knows!!! look what happened to him when he was doing the right thing!#look how many criminals and mob bosses paid their way out! look how the police are corrupt!#but still believing in it and how a system has to be in place despite being a direct victim of it as well and just GOD #I LOVE YOU GOOD HEARTED AND WANTING TO HELP PEOPLE HARVEY DENT YOU WILL ALWAYS BE FAMOUS TO ME !!!!!!!!#taking away how he genuinely wanted to help people and bring wrongs to rights takes away literally everything hes built on #it takes away the entire fucking tragedy of his character (and in many ways it changes how bruce himself operates and believes because #harvey WAS a good man doing everything by the books. he was trying to bring justice in the 'right way' and believed in the system. he was #what people tell bruce he should be and look where it got him. look how the system failed 'even the good ones' because the system itself is #corrupt. it isnt flawed—it was operated to oppress and thats why it cant just be fixed but must be entirely rebuilt and why bruce must #operate outside of it. it also gives more depth because harvey is one of batmans first and biggest failures. he didnt protect him.#he didnt save his parents as a helpless child (as bruce) but he couldn't save his parents as BATMAN.#it wasnt just random chance like his parents tragedy but this was calculated and something bruce didnt stop. its ALWAYS going to eat at #him if he could of prevented it by telling harvey his identity. by doing something different. by being more prepared or somehow #knowing it was going to happen. harvey is the face of tragedy in so many ways that cant fit in these messy rambly tags but its ALLL!!!!!!!#bc harv was (and still is despite it all! despite two face!) a good man!! because he originally was a glimmer of hope to bruce & the city!!

13 notes · View notes

dorkycreature-89 · 2 months ago

Text

fellas, i understand wanting to not put the ENTIRE blame on PD and acknowledge that she was a victim of child abuse, trust me, i really do get it

but......the way some of y'all be acting when steven wants to distance himself from his mom and acting like he's just disregarding everything she went through be wild

have y'all forgot the shit that PD unintentionally left for steven to deal with????? UNINTENTIONALLY. i wanna be clear, she UNINTENTIONALLY left her issues for steven to deal with. wether she meant to or not, she still left it for steven to deal with, which resulted in him getting traumatized by her actions

i understand that she didn't mean to, but just because she didn't mean to hurt the people she loved, doesn't mean she still didn't do it. i swear, people act like that victims of trauma can't do anything wrong and hurt the people around them and it's kinda annoying as someone who's also been through trauma and abuse

the way i see it, PD's whole route is a cautionary tale about being too deep in your self loathing and how you can harm others without meaning

idk. i just wish fandoms would stop acting like trauma victims can't also hurt people without meaning to

#steven universe #steven universe future #pink diamond #fandom discourse #this is from a PD defender too #it shouldn't be controversial to say that she also hurt people too even without meaning to #please please please stop acting like trauma victims can't do no wrong #ranting

9 notes · View notes

anarchonist · 4 months ago

Text

That post about guilt and shame only being effective as deterrents but not in inspiring anyone to change their behavior in any meaningful way got me thinking about those other posts about progressive circles consisting way too much of people not with a desire to do something right but instead with a fear of doing something wrong, and...

Yeah. Those two are related. Guilt and shame are the weapons of the status quo, designed to instill in everyone with a conscience a fear of failure, of hurting others, of being a bad person. And it's pretty fucked up when people are being shamed for that, since, well, shame doesn't inspire any meaningful change. So the problem persists, deepens, even. Since by shaming someone for not getting over that shame, you've now discouraged them from thinking about that instilled shame and maybe finding a solution.

It's shame and guilt all the way down. Perhaps shame and guilt could be used against people who tend to shame and guilt others in order to shame and guilt them out of shaming and guilting others? I don't know. And that's a true shame.

#random thought of the day #shame #guilt #toxic guilt #yeah it's a pickle #i kinda feel this way of thinking is deeply ingrained in the modern hyperindividualistic worldview #which ignores everything we know about humans as a social species shaped by our social circumstances #in favor of this very catholic guilt inspired 'stop being naughty' mindset that whips people into obedience never into self-actualization #as i wrote in the tags of the other post frustration is one of the most dangerous feelings since shaming and guilting starts there #if you look at the world around you and think you see the problem and the solution but others won't listen to you #it's natural to feel frustrated #the desire to shame and guilt others in a twisted way try to make them spring into action seems like a natural response #but it's stupid and wrong #shame and guilt are primarily ways to make yourself feel good in the moment to stroke that sense of superiority #i look back at how i was raised and i understand that a lot of the hesitancy and self-doubt and other paralyzing feelings are guilt #if you were raised to always doubt yourself always assume that you're in the wrong always take others at their word #you were raised to be a perfect victim #it's really hard to push through that and the metacognitive capabilities one must have to monitor all of that are staggering #meanwhile people who were raised through inspiration and motivation can be immune to guilt and shame #so what are we even doing here why is it so easy to fall back on a method that at best has little effect at worst increases the problems #there is a lot to say about this and i wish i had an answer but alas

9 notes · View notes

infiniteglitterfall · 10 months ago

Text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me: "Why??"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me: "Uuuuggghhhhhhhhh. Yeah, it will."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me: "OGH MY GOD"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"And IT'S NOT EVEN TRUE?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"NOW I'm done."

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

#i hate people misrepresenting history in general #i extra hate it when people do it with malice aforethought #ilan pappe #is a lying liar and people need to stop recommending his bullshit when it's been so thoroughly debunked #this is a good example of anti-Zionism being antisemitism tbh. I have yet to see anti-Zionist accounts of history that are accurate #like if you have to victim-blame people who were baked in ovens during an anti-Jewish riot you are PROBABLY in the wrong #I was looking for a piece explaining the 1920 and 1929 anti-Jewish riots that I could link here that wasn't from an explicitly Jewish sourc #because I don't trust people to take an article from the Jewish Virtual Library or whatever without being like “this is Zionist propaganda!#even if it's about an extremely violent massacre of Jews #so I clicked specifically on the Encyclopedia of the Palestine Question and similar sources #and what all of them did was gloss right over the massacres and violence and just vaguely mention “the demonstrations in 1920”#or not mention them at all of course #I guess that makes sense but wow. now I understand more of how ignorant people are about the entire history here #not only has it all been presented to you as “this started in 1947 or 48! the Jews stole all the land! it's been genocide ever since!”#so that people literally tell me “they invaded in 1947 and kicked out the Palestinians and took their land”#but also you have to fill in anything before that yourself #and the only propaganda you have access to usually is this myth that everyone was perfectly happy together until Israel... killed everyone?#it's really super weird to see people say that Jews and Muslims and Christians all lived happily together before this #like what do you think happened? everyone was happy and suddenly the jews were like “fuck you we're taking over and killing everyone?”#that probably is what people think happened tbh #they don't need for there to be any motivation or for that to make sense because they've bought the idea that it's just pure evil ig #for some reason people have to reverse-engineer hamas's massacre and imagine that israel did even worse to justify it #a terrorist group doesn't come out of nowhere! i don't think you know what terrorism is tbh #but they're happy to assume that whatever they think israel did came out of nowhere #god i'm fucking tired #anyway fuck ilan pappe #there are WAY BETTER HISTORIES OF PALESTINE #i've heard good things about Gaza: A History but of course that's not all of palestine #long post #such a long post

23 notes · View notes