#terrorism apologia

[lordadmiralfarsight]

So, this is something I've been sitting on for a good while. Mainly because I got too heated each time to write a post about it.

On the 7th of February 2024, France organized a memorial service for the Franco-Israeli killed in the 7/10 attack. That was a good thing but, like many people in France, I personnally felt that it was a bit late. Still, better a memorial service than nothing at all. A nice touch was inviting the famillies of hostages and putting them front and center. That was positive, in my opinion, and a good show of solidarity.

So, you might be wondering what about this has me heated. Two words : Far left. or, in three words : La France Insoumise. LFI is a far left party that has a worrying amount of weight in France, right now. They have some of the common hallmarks : revolution fetishism, radicalist talking points, repeated attempts to delegitimize the election system (like Mélenchon claiming the 2022 presidential election was "stolen" when he ranked 3rd), etc... Recently they have also refused to condemn Hamas' attack. While they didn't openly support it like some fring trotskyist parties, they refused to condemn it, and at least one of their PMs went to Tunisia to basically parrot Islamist talking points blaming Israel for everything. They have overwhelmingly expressed support for "Palestinian liberation", because saying they support Hamas wouldn't be good press, so they skirt around it. But everyone gets the message, really. So, what did they do for that memorial service ? Well first off they participated against the wishes of the famillies of the victims and hostages. That's bad, but it gets worse. Because of course. See, their main representative in Parliament, Mathilde Panot, felt the need to also put front and center Palestinian victims. Now, I do believe Palestinian victims of this war should be remembered, and honored (provided they weren't terrorists). But ... is the memorial fro the 7/10 victims really the place ? No, no it fucking isn't. And that's what has me heated : this was a memorial for Jewish victims, and they were looking to appropriate it. And it gets even worse ! Because you see, Miss Panot had the perfect exemple : two Franco-Palestinian kids from her constituency that had died in Gaza. Why is that worse ? Because of why the kids were there. They were there because their mother fled to Gaza, from ISIS, after embezzeling money meant for Syrian refugees. Let me rephrase : the mother created a charity to support the victims of the Syrian civil war and of ISIS attacks, then made off with the money to deliver it entirely to ISIS. Then had kids with her ISIS assigned jihadi husband. And when ISIS collapsed, she sought refuge with Hamas. And because of that, her kids were in harm's way when Hamas launched a pogrom. And LFI thought that THIS was the correct exemple to bring to that memorial service. Is it tragic the kids died ? Yes. But maybe, just maybe, putting their terrorism enabling mother up as an exemple of martyred mother, during a memorial for the victims of an antisemitic pogrom perpetrated by said terrorism enabler's allies is a profoundly shitty thing to do. And that, among other things, is why most of France considers LFI to be antisemitic.

[bijoumikhawal]

"no one reblogs anything nice about biden" that's because none of you post about the good things the decrepit sack of flesh has done without jerking yourselves off about it. You can't let the good thing speak for itself, which alienates others from spreading that information because they dont agree with the unnecessary shit you added on. You're doing the electoral politics equivalent of "reblog this or you're a bad person" additions (which we have all agreed are incredibly annoying) on posts that are otherwise good and have a point.

[youngerfrankenstein]

“Zionist” really does just mean either “Jew I don’t like” or “the Jews but I don’t want to make the dog whistle too loud” here huh?

Anyway these last few months have been a good reminder that Tumblr is not a reliable news source, and that there are always bad actors. And just as many people willing to be chill about bad actors so long as it looks like they’re doing anything.

Not sure which is worse really. The bad actors or the genuinely well-meaning people.

[queer-geordie-nerd]

It really is upsetting to me just how many people I've previously respected have went gleefully and fully into terrorism and rape apologia since October and the amount of people I've had to unfollow is unreal.

Like, they were just waiting for an excuse to unleash their glee at unimaginable violence.

And a lot of them are quite happy for there to be no peace, for the cycle of violence on both sides to continue - so they can unironically call for the genocide of Israelis and think that's a superior moral position. Here's the thing: you either believe collective punishment is a heinous evil or it isn't.

It's wrong when Israel does it, it's wrong when Hamas does it. You don't get to excuse the mass slaughtering of human beings when it's "your side" doing it. The end result is the same: immense suffering. And I’m sorry, if you actively want that, for *anyone* you’ve given up all pretense at having a functional moral compass.

I don't understand anything anymore.

[mejcinta]

The Prophecy No One Asked For!

The prophecy is nothing but an excuse for Ryan, Sara (and Miguel's) revisionism and GRRM was fooled by this too at first (not any more lol).

The prophecy of the 'prince that was promised' is a way of justifying Rhaenyra's cruel actions in her search for power e.g the bloody Red Sowing event. In the writers' minds she is the good girlboss queen that everyone should throw their weight behind in the attempt to overthrow the wicked patriarchy. So anything she's known to have done that is evil in the book immediately became a problem for them, but through this prophecy they can wash her of any responsibility and maintain a good, tortured, heroic image of her even as she continues to rain terror upon the kingdom.

And even Alicent is not spared. The writers read the book and could not FATHOM that a woman could be opposed to one of her own kind rising in power in an era ruled by men!!! So, they turned the story upside down and made Alicent Rhaenyra's well meaning friend, forced into opposing her by the evil patriarchy.

Oddly enough, Alicent is made to exempt Viserys when it comes to the evils the patriarchy have committed against her. Why? That is because Viserys is not only Rhaenyra's daddy, but also the conveyer of the PROPHECY to Alicent.

Yes! Alicent's rejection and betrayal of her own SONS, her family, her background, her religion etc. will all be because of that darn prophecy!!! This is tailored as Alicent apologia because this poor woman did not know she was on the bad side, and now with this prophecy she will know Rhaenyra is the one to follow.

Without heirs left and with Aegon iii being a mere babe, Rhaenyra will be in peril and lack anyone else to tell the prophecy to. I wonder WHO else she finds worthy of sharing this information with so as to preserve it and have it passed to her son when he comes of age...? You guessed right. Alicent!

If you thought Ryan and Sara's vision of House of the Dragon respects the book and GRRM's theme, just let it go. To them this is a show about Girl Power, the forgotten women that actually managed to pass on that dreaded prophecy down the Targaryen line, even as they were sidelined for their sex!

King Aegon ii and his evil Maesters erased Rhaenyra and Alicent's Girl Power role from history because 'evil patriarchy', settling instead for a more traditional and misogynistic representation of them where Alicent was the loyal, loving Mother and Rhaenyra the evil 'bitch queen' that started a war out of her arrogance and detachment from reality of how their feudal era works.

Ryan and Sara intend to whitewash Rhaenyra and Alicent with this prophecy and pretend that these two women 'saved' Westeros in their own way, when THIS is the level of ambitious, cunty antagonist queens fighting for the survival of their family lines that we should've gotten.

[ophthalmotropy]

what's happening in argentina?

I don't fault you for the broad question because I'd ask too, but I need you to know that as a non-smoker I've never felt so strongly the need for a cigarette as I did just now thinking about answering this question. But I'll do my best.

In November of last year, the country elected Javier Milei as president. He would swear into office the next month. Javier Milei is a self-identified anarcho-capitalist and libertarian, although he states he is a minarchist in the short term (meaning he thinks the only functions the State should serve are those of law enforcement: no public education, social development, market regulations, etc etc). Some of his most controversial campaign statements included projects to legalise the free and unregulated sale of organs, and, along with his vice-president Victoria Villarruel (who in her youth organised visits to Jorge Rafael Videla in prison), apologia for the 1976 military dictatorship by revindicating the theory of the two demons (fair warning that from what I skimmed that article is biased in favour of the theory) and casting into doubt the estimated 30.000 victims of state terrorism (torture, disappearance followed by death) (also warning that that article uses the name the military junta gave this process) during its duration.

Since he took over six months ago, the population's purchasing power has dropped by 38%, plunging millions of people below the line of poverty. In stark contrast to this, Milei has been travelling around the world using public funds to visit his ultraright idols; most notably, Trump, who is not the political leader of any country at the moment (making his trip to see him a personal visit and not a diplomatic one, thus invalidating his arguments for using our money to go there).

On the subject of diplomacy, his government has been swinging quite a lot of bats at hornets' nests, accusing China and Brazil of communism and insulting the wife of the president of Spain. All of this is an international relations nightmare that will take endless apologies to undo.

Another interesting resolution deregulates the operations of foreign companies, SPVs, and offshore companies (article in Spanish), with the stated goal of attracting investments. Those types of companies have historically been used to conceal illicit activity, so resolutions in that vein pave the way to effectively turn Argentina into a fiscal paradise. This isn't the only problem they pose (offshore companies don't pay taxes, so there'd be a loss in the public sector, for example), but it is the most worrying to me because they also eliminated restrictions for Sociedades de Acciones Simplificadas (simplified stock companies), most of which have historically been used to commit crimes among which is the drug trade. Once you have narcos in your country, there's no taking it back--Argentina would be at real risk of ceasing to exist as we know it.

This administration is also slashing public spending, resulting in some universities suspending their activities temporarily. They also failed to deliver oncological medicine, depriving cancer patients of assistance the state is obligated to provide. As a result of this, several people have died already. In this climate of extreme poverty, soup kitchens have been shutting down en masse due to the withdrawal of state funding, and laws that protected tenants' rights and regulated rent prices have been severely modified to the detriment of the tenants.

The violent decrease in public spending also resulted in thousands of state workers being fired overnight. The attack is especially centred on state organisations that promote the arts or whose purpose is to fight discrimination. On this subject, 10% of the transgender and travesti workers who had their positions guaranteed by the law were fired illegally, and government members are outspoken about their opposition to this law--which isn't surprising. Diana Mondino, the current chancellor, has compared same-sex marriage to "the right to having lice" while she held a position in Congress. Ricardo Bussi, a current legislator, compared homosexuality to disability in October 2023. Coming to this year, Francisco Sánchez, the Secretary of Religion, said that the laws protecting the right to abortions, divorce, and same-sex marriage "seek to pervert our children and damage society". Milei is also on record describing abortion as "homicide aggravated by the bond".

Also recently, Milei's biographer, Nicolás Márquez, gave a one-hour interview in which he characterised homosexuality as a disease, claiming that when the State "promotes homosexuality" (as it allegedly did before Milei came to power), it is aiding a "self-destructive" conduct, supporting these claims with unfounded statistics about the correlation between STIs and homosexuality; he also denied the existence of homophobia and described lesbians and gays as being "against nature". For the sake of full disclosure, I will say he explicitly freed Milei and his government of responsibility for his declarations--but I think it's really important to point out the kind of people and rhetorics this government is giving a platform to; after all, nobody knew Nicolás Márquez before he started writing for Milei. In approximately the same time frame, and in response to a horrific hate crime that resulted in the death of three lesbians, Manuel Adorni, the presidential spokesman, said that he "doesn't like" to talk about a hate crime because men suffer violence too--and he said this in a press conference.

I'm probably forgetting something important--so much has happened in the past months--but I hope this is enough to give you an impression of the changes our society is undergoing. Please let me know if you have follow-up questions. <3

[izzyliker]

people still genuinely thinking that what made ed go off the rails was izzy being mean to him and that izzy being a dick to him is some vital crucial context that the crew should know before judging edward is so goddamn wild to me in a way i can’t even fully explain. like that the crew knowing it would make them side against izzy and suddenly decide that ed terrorizing them & causing the loss of izzy’s leg is fair play and actually all izzy’s fault is LAUGHABLE. it’s ABSURD. why would it matter that ed and izzy had a fucking fight? like getting your breakup sore spot poked at either immediately post it or by someone after you’ve been using your own pain to hurt others for however long doesn’t make you less culpable for your actions. like this isn’t a normal response and ed having trouble regulating his emotions isn’t actually izzy’s fault in a way that would make him deserve losing a limb. like “he shouldn’t have provoked him” is just classic domestic abuse apologia do y’all not hear yourselves 😭

[theerurishipper]

I’m gonna wait to see the special before drawing any more finale conclusions but for the moment everything we got from the leaks is just so… weird? and nonsensical? 

So the only reason why our Marinette didn’t turn evil was because of Alya. Which contradicts everything TA and his team have been saying about abuse. Why does Alya being a positive influence for Marinette works but Audrey being a negative influence for Chloé doesn’t? They had Mylene say, “Having a bad mother doesn’t justify your actions” so neither should bullying. The lesson with Chloe is that abuse is ok and children that turn out ‘wrong’ because of it should just be left alone with their abusers because they somehow deserve it by not being able to turn out perfect on their own. Why shouldn’t the same logic apply to Emonette and Emodrien? (I believe they’re the names the fandom’s been using but I’m not sure) You’re being bullied? Doesn’t matter. You shouldn’t lash out and become evil. It’s 100% on you now. Like seriously, am I missing some piece of information here? If I am please correct me! Because as of now it just doesn’t make sense to me. The lessons TA wanted to teach its fans is that sometimes people are just bad and no amount of tragic backstory justifies their actions, but every single choice he’s done from season 3 is just proving over and over that this logic only applies when it’s time to diminish Chloe. Chloe is 14 and has decided to be evil. Emonette and Emodrien are 14 have decided to be evil. “But they tried to show Chloe the right path and she didn’t take it, she’s evil” Gabriel seems to be a good father in the other universe, so shouldn’t be this the same for Emodrien as well? How did he even end up being a ray of sunshine with an abusive terrorist father but ends up being a villain with a good father? How does that even work? I really hope there’s more to the special because if they’re really going for the message that somehow Gabriel’s abusive parenting was a good thing for Adrien… I’m going to scream. 

Like, I understand the story they were going for with Chloe. Unfortunately, it's true that some people don't change. But then they began stating that she's not an abused child and it's not the influence of her mother that made her this way, it's just that she's Evil™. And her "consequences" ended up being more abuse. It's so fucked up.

And you're exactly right about Chloe being exempt from the justifications and explanations that the rest of the cast receives. Emonette gets to commit terrorism, and all this can be explained away by her having been bullied by Chloe, but Chloe isn't influenced by her mother's abuse, oh no, she's just born evil and is unworthy of change! The Chloe equivalent of Emonette's story would be for her to be sent back in disgrace after committing all her crimes to be bullied by Chloe some more, but you just know that ain't gonna be how it goes down. The characters are going to downplay Shadybug and Claw Noir's crimes, offer them compassion and insist that they are good people, and they're gonna get off scott-free. And of course, Emonette wouldn't deserve more bullying as a consequence, and that's the truth. But apparently Chloe's deserved ending is more abuse? It's horrid.

And the Gabriel-Adrien implications are a step further into the abuse apologia category. I just wrote a whole post about it, but you're right on the money about the implications. And I really think that's what's going to be portrayed, unintentionally or not. It sucks.

Thank you for your ask!

[canichangemyblogname]

People need to realize the label "terrorist" is, more often than not, a political label. When you point this out, people often accuse you of terrorism apologia, but it's actually quite the opposite.

If we were to- say- define a "terrorist group" as "a non-governmental organization that violently targets civilian populations as a tactic to score political points, often relying on 'propaganda by deed,'" many more people and groups would be included under this definition. It would rightfully exclude the Ukrainian military as it engages directly with the Russian military, in direct contrast to Russia's rhetoric, while it would rightfully include groups like the KKK, which has been excluded from official terrorist organization lists.

It is not a perfect definition, but it is one of many working definitions proposed to counteract current political labeling. Current political definitions and usage often result in organizations like the PLO being included on the list for a year before the US government waived it or non-violent protesters in Georgia, USA, being hit with the label. It also leaves out several groups of violent extremists, providing them with more of an air of legitimacy and more discretion in their operations than those groups with the label.

Labeling a group as a "terrorist" group often legally allows a government, like the US government, to heavily surveil the group's members, freeze group and member assets, imprison group members, and engage with the group militarily. The label also often serves to justify any treatment of group members under a government's authority, like denying them due process. Some will argue it is a necessary evil. Others will point out how many men have been released from places like Guantanamo without charge. Or how the US "No-Fly" list appears to racially profile people and primarily target Muslims.

As long as labeling a group "terrorist" allows a government to legally circumvent certain rights, like that of a free and speedy trial, it will be used politically and ideologically, often against civilian separatists and opposition to the state, as we see in Georgia's Stop Cop City protests. But the US is not the only country that does this. Nor is it the only country primarily focusing on Islamic Extremism to the detriment of National security and democracy.

"Terrorism" is the pretext, but involvement in "terror"-related occupation has objectives other than stamping out terrorism. Just as there are socio-political gains in labeling common Georgian protesters as "terrorists," there are geo-political gains in the primary focus on Islamic fundamentalism and violence, like an unwavering international gaze on the Islamic world and multiple different military occupations in the Islamic world. If people's gut assumption is that Muslim = terrorist, they won't think twice about something like US military strategies in the Islamic world. It has led to 30% of Republicans and 19% of Democrats supporting things like the bombing of the fictional nation of Agrabah in polls. It has also led to US militarized counterterrorism in 85 countries worldwide with limited Congressional oversight and next to no public knowledge.

When I point this out, most people like to straw-man my argument to assume my goal is to let listed terrorist organizations prance around and kill people indiscriminately. The goal is not the absence of justice, but strengthening protections for the accused so a label is not an automatic guilty sentence. No government or military should simply be able to invade another to play judge, jury, and executioner on the people of that country. Morally. They also shouldn't be able to justify suspending due process for anyone. It sets a precedent.

Additionally, the goal is not to let a terrorist organization operate without impunity, but to admit that the "War on Terror" was a failure, in large part due to its violent and indiscriminate strategies. That is the second thing people need to realize.

This theoretical war against this nebulous force has been nasty, brutish, and long. It has also been ineffective. The "War on Terror" has only contributed to more violence and extremism worldwide. In fact, terror-related incidents have increased fivefold worldwide since 2001. The number of existing terror groups is at the highest level since 1980, and they've seen their numbers swell. And they have become increasingly transnational.

We've learned that it is impossible to win any terror-related "conflict" without destabilizing a nation or region. It is impossible to win any terror-related "conflict" without inflicting a tremendous number of civilian casualties, especially due to modern governments' aggressive military strategies. It is also impossible to win. Period. You cannot defeat terrorism. An organization, sure (although only about 7% of terror organizations have been quelled by military action). Terrorism itself? No. Mostly due to the diversity, scope, and decentralization of the threat. It is simply not possible to eliminate armed terror groups through the use of force and armies. It's quite literally counterintuitive.

The Hot War on Terror replaced the Cold War on Communism. And leading powers in the Global North are repeating the same failed tactics they used between 1950-1990. An overemphasis on military force to achieve state goals (most terror planning *does not* take place in a dedicated physical location, which military force primarily addresses). Neglecting non-military instruments of statecraft (terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology, so you can't "war" against a tactic). Focusing so narrowly on military action, you practically ignore other foreign-policy goals (like economic and political stability, anti-corruption, and nation-building because terrorist groups thrive in instability and disaffection). Creating the state's enemies of the future (see: arming Afghan rebels to fight the Soviets). And disowning and contradicting their country's own stated moral values to achieve its goals abroad.

Declaring war on terror is nothing short of a forever war. It ends only when counterterrorism measures stretch governments so thin they collapse.

[finalgirlsamwinchester]

@ardentpoop god yeah like thinking on the perpetual suspicion/monitoring/surveillance present re: sam over s1-5 (and tbh. never goes away, with each season it just becomes a new issue standing in for what makes him untrustworthy. all different metaphors for the same thing!). sam can never win! you will always be marked as a threat! ('it's not what you're doing/'it's what you are') like, his arc is a tragedy on assimilation!! (it's too real rip)

(^ from 7.03. but then now im also thinking on. how they had a literal suicide bomber metaphor with the angels in s9 lol.)

(^ from 5.02. the way this show also pathologises sam and his anger as something inherently monstrous. the view of the racialised Other as inherently ruthless/backwards/savage in their violence, compared to the righteous violence of state brutality) also the show's nuclear family standing in for an authoritarian state (that justifies its nature by perpetual war -> the dogma at the time: there will always be terrorists, America will forever be at war). sam as the scapegoat, a metaphorical muslim american stand-in, whose freedom gets sacrificed at the altar for the greater good.

the BMOL arc is sooo annoying bc it taps into the show's central hypocrisy! critiquing institutions but refusing to examine hunting as essentially authoritarian. like the classic american vein of fascist justice masked as community mob violence, while deriding government control lol. and the cole arc is also incredibly annoying! but that episode also makes those War on Terror = monstrosity associations explicit!! the layers!! oh no the soldier picked up a monster :( while fighting an imperialist war in an arab nation :( and his PTSD/domestic violence gets sublimated into a literal pathogen (tying in with the show's revised stupid MoC lore being really about military/cop apologia. the just soldier descends into monstrosity, for the sake of protecting a brother from the influence of monstrosity)

[gratisdiamanten]

just something about Jos career being completely fucked over by his managers, and him making sure for that to never happen to Max

Right. And NONE of that is abuse apologia to understand. Like to me it is part of Max's story, that he's the success after a long line of failures...

There's this guy who's like. Fleshed out only the part of his family tree that relates him to Max Verstappen. And to me this is extremely useful because I'm a freak historian. His great great grandfather was named Franciscus. His great grandfather was named Johannes Franciscus (his nickname was Sjef). His grandfather was named Franciscus (nicknamed Frans), and Jos was named Johannes Franciscus. Just literally generation after generation of perpetuating trauma onto their kids.

Frans and Jos, while close, were notoriously chilly towards each other, and were entirely estranged later in life. Not a lot of love lost between them. Jos, for all his abuse, was warmer. I see this get lost a lot in fanfiction, that Jos calls him schat/schatje easily and routinely, would tell him to look out and stay safe before races, sang with him in the car, increasingly minimizes his role in making Max an F1 great, etc. NONE of these things negate the harms he did to Max, and his failures to not terrorize his family. But he did make a conscious attempt to break the cycle set a hundred years before.

Franciscus->Johannes Franciscus->Franciscus->Johannes Franciscus->Max Emilian

Honestly kind of a stupidly poignant way to announce the end of that cycle, and that he was determined to make it different this time even if nothing he would do would be enough and he would never distance himself enough from what his father did to him (If you look at the names of the other Verstappen children, I think Jos is responsible for the millennial white mom baby naming. If you have proof that Sophie picked his name I would greatly appreciate!!).

Max is happy and still affectionate with his father and calls him regularly (this does not mean he wasn't abused. This does not mean Jos isn't horrible). Relative to the environment he grew up in and lives in, he's strikingly well adjusted. Symbolically, the WDC represents to his whole family the breaking of a family curse, and the whole family has seemed to relax and gentle since then.

TL;DR: Jos didn't want Max to hurt (at his hand or another's) for nothing, if he was going to hurt. And if he was going to hurt, he would still be loved.

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

What are the most neutral biographies on Robespierre that you would recommend? I'm interested in some that highlights his ideas and good deeds, but that also doesn't hide under the carpet the controversial decisions he took during the terror.

My favorite Robespierre biographies are Robespierre (2014) by Hervé Leuwers (in French) and Robespierre (1935) by J.M Thompson (in English). I feel like they both do a good job of acting neither as a huge denounciation of an evil man nor as huge apologia of his actions (perhaps in response to the former category), but instead as ”OK, here we have this controversial historical figure who played a decisive role in the French revolution. Let’s see what the sources tell us about his story,” captured rather well by the following words from Leuwers’ preface: 

It is therefore not a question of defending or accusing. Far from any praise and any diatribe, it is a question of dismissing the black or golden legends, in order to paint the portrait of an 18th century man in the different stages of his life.

Thompson’s biography makes use of almost every source on Robespierre that was avalible for the time (each chapter does for example end with an overlook of all of Robespierre’s conserved letters from the period studied), meaning there’s very little in Robespierre’s life/role in ”the terror” that gets glossed over, while Leuwers’ more recent biography has had time to catch up with newer sources and historiography.

[loving-n0t-heyting]

epistemic status: i wish this weren’t true but can’t see how it isn’t, more emotive than analytic

The western response to Putin’s annexation speech is fucking with me simply bc, afaict, setting aside the topic of the annexation itself, the speech is 95% true and pertinent and damning and the press (and others I would expect better from) is reacting to it like it’s a bunch of borderline psychotic word salad or a form of verbal terrorism or both at once

You have the guardian describing it as the rambling screed of an angry taxi driver, but idk, having read the actual text I think it has a pretty clear and straightforwardly argued thesis: US military and financial hegemony is just the latest phase in a continuous 500yr-long history of western international subjugation and terror and vassalage, which western elites look upon as their very life and will fight to the last of their subjects to preserve, while Russia will refuse to be cowed. And the core claim here about western hegemony is absolutely correct! He’s just right! Right, and damning

I mean, yes! I, too, would like to see some of these rules! I think these are some reasonable points! (“Well, but he’s a hypocrite! He started the war!” Ok, who is whatabouting now?)

No two moments of the speech have attracted more attention than the “barely concealed nuclear threat” and the concluding batshit remarks about gender and sexuality. Let’s look at those in turn shall we?

Putin does, indeed, state outright that the US has set a nuclear precedent, but look at the context:

Is there some whataboutism going on here? Sure. Does it carry some implication of willingness to escalate? Yea ig. But what could any hs students scoring above the 50th centile on the reading comprehension portion of the ACT divine as the clear overall message being argued here? That the US abd its allies since WWII have demonstrated a total unrenounced and gratuitous disregard for innocent human life in the course of subjugating their enemies and lording over their “friends.” And it’s fucking true!! Mass murder has been the calling card of US interventionism for the last sixty some years, and all in the service of a network of vassal states it cynically presents to the world as its peers and allies! Any threat of aggression here is secondary to the correct and utterly pertinent analysis of American global rule being decried!

And finally he does end the speech by dredging up homophobic panic about the end of traditional families and gender roles that could have well been copypasted from one of the more articulate screeds on /pol/. Ofc this is stupid. But what, to be even-handed, is the unspoken claim of the media reports harping on this globohomo fearmongering despite its occupying a tiny overall fraction of the text itself? What is the obvious implication of fixating on putins nationalist fag-hatred in the midst of characterising his speech denouncing American world domination as the conspiratorial ravings of a lunatic? That the evil he is castigating, the international system of unilateral military and economic terror on the part of Washington and her friends, is the true guarantor of queer liberation. And if putins bigotry is revolting this cynical pinkwashed apologia in return has to come close

None of this, ofc, excuses the annexations or legitimises the phony electoral veneer, let alone the invasion itself. But my God! Truly this makes me understand where the tankies are coming from!! It’s one thing to decry the act, another to suggest this speech is anything worse than a litany of truths in the service of a lie! But these swine, these vampires, these bloodthirsty warmongering brutes are so totally accustomed to the presupposition of their own common sensicality and so inured to criticism they cannot perceive a list of fair charges against them for what anyone with eyes to see can readily acknowledge it in fact is

[lemonhemlock]

Thoughts on otto?

i really enjoy komsomolka's take that otto is a failed girldad

i think both otto and tywin are deconstructions of machiavelli's prince. but otto is very much tywin-lite. he is not as ruthless as tywin, not as cold, not as sly. his schemes are childlike compared to tywin's. never in a million years would have tywin suffered such a fool like daemon for so long. otto is a conniver himself, but he does genuinely care for his duty to the realm on a conceptual level as well and he does care for viserys, both as his friend and both as an embodiment of the crown. that doesn't preclude him from doing all he can to advance himself and his own - he is a noble lord, after all.

otto gets a lot of flack in the fandom & we should totally acknowledge the imprint traditional masculinity has on the less-privileged around him. but i have this pervasive, terrifying feeling that otto is actually... he is our father!! you take any reasonably-gentle, reasonably-decent man, who loves his daughter, and put him into the shoes of the second son of a noble lord, in a fantasy middle-ages setting, and he becomes otto. and that's what i find so bloody tragic about otto - this is the story of a man who is separated by societal mores and structures from the one person he loves the most in this entire world - the apple of his eye!! his bbygurl! nobody wins under feudalism! nobody wins under patriarchy! not alicent, but not even otto either! would mine own father do that to me were he in otto's place? would yours? what a completely alarming idea!

otto doesn't completely understand alicent because he doesn't understand women, not fully, not ever & he never will because he lacks the psychoanalysis tools & the critical paradigm through which to objectively assess society & re-arrange his world view. every character in the show has this problem and faces this wall eventually. this is not otto-apologia or trying to find excuses for him, but, equally, not accounting for this in our commentaries does a disservice to all of us, because it utterly fails to account for how our behaviours and beliefs are constitutionally conditioned by socio-economical structures. a person living under patriarchal feudalism, where war is a common occurrence, medical science is rudimentary and mental health non-existent, making life itself a very perilous affair, is conspicuously NOT going to have the same beliefs as a person who has (hopefully) gained critical-thinking skills as a result of their university education in modern-day capitalism. no matter how kindhearted or empathetic they might be.

that is to say that otto genuinely believes he is doing the very best for alicent and for his house and for the realm. he is providing the realm with an exemplary queen, he is connecting the hightowers to the crown via blood and he is giving alicent away to (in his eyes) a kind, good, gentle husband. he is making her the most important woman in westeros with the most amount of power, should she learn how to yield it. he doesn't understand alicent's terror because he doesn't understand abuse the same way she does - viserys never yells at her, is never violent to her, always treats her politely, is a jolly enough man and seems like he'd be fun to drink a beer with. alicent now has all the wealth, all the jewels, the finery, the security and the obeisance of those around her. that's how otto conceptualises happiness and he is giving exactly that to his daughter. would otto agree that it would have been ideal for alicent to be a few years older before getting married? probably, yeah. but an opportunity like this comes only once in a lifetime and, as fucked up as this may seem, this is an act of love in his eyes.

alicent knows her father doesn't truly understand her, doesn't speak "the language of girls", but goes along with it because she is in an uneven power dynamic with him, she is young & inexperienced and is primed to trust that her father's decisions are for her own benefit. there is anxiety-inducing conflict here bc the reality doesn't live up to otto's idealized and superficial understanding of what marriage to viserys entails. what this means for her relationship with rhaenyra, her soul mate. but, even so, alicent knows that her father is the only person in the whole wide world who will love her no matter what & never abandon her, no matter their disagreements. people don't understand why alicent loses her shit when she loses otto. this is why! he is not viserys, he is not rhaenyra. the only reason he leaves is because he is banished. and she (unknowingly & without her sanction) pays a terrible price to get him back

alicent is otto's pawn but she is not just a broodmare to him. he wants to actively work with her. he includes her in his schemes. he allows her on the small council. they have their own power struggles & disagreements, but he mostly rules with her. he wants her on his team so bad. together, you and i will prevail. whatever our differences, our hearts remain as one. he honours their stupid bet and delivers alicent's v generous peace terms to rhaenyra himself. he has been bested by his daughter, he respects that & doesn't undermine her. she really is his queen!!

just bc daemon & rhaenyra oppose otto doesn't mean he is a "snake". daemon is a true nepo baby & incompetent in every job he gets handed. rhaenyra is pissed otto "spied" on her, but that's literally his job as Hand, to be on top on things, act like the CIA and inform the King of any potential trouble. he has his own faults, but i wouldn't call him the evil mastermind the fandom has decided he is

[coldresolve]

A huge part of the whump being torture apologia discussion comes from the fact that people exoticize torture. It's foreign. It's something you see in spy movies and read about in thrillers. It's a pain that most people can safely distance themselves from in order to experience emotional catharsis or simple enjoyment. The thing is, some people don't get to have that distance.

It's hard for me to describe the sheer grief that comes with it all. I know a man who was tortured in prison. People who faced abuse from family so severe that it amounted to torture. Someone whose torture was to watch their friends be deliberately hurt. I wish whump writers could learn to have compassion for these people as well, even if their lived experiences are not exceptionally common or openly spoken about.

If an author portrays domestic abuse in their writing, it's generally considered necessary and responsible for them to either write the abuse in a realistic way or to state outside their writing that their portrayal of this very real issue is unrealistic. This respects people's lived experiences with abuse and prevents creating a culture of normalizing and glorifying abusive behavior.

It's most definitely not too much to ask of whump writers to uphold those same standards when writing about torture.

you have no idea how nice it is to get someone well spoken and well thought out in my inbox every once in a while. uh im on like hr 30 of being awake and kinda struggling piecing my thoughts together right now, so forgive me if i dont make a lot of sense, but i wanna say sth

the tone of your ask for some reason really hit a nerve for me. like getting slapped in the face, kind of. i think its the fact you come across really compassionate and just. calm, thoughtful in this. kinda puts my approach into perspective lol

i think im just angry about this topic. like ive got a passion for wanting to get it right, but its driven by anger and frustration. having ppl nitpick the fuck out of everything i say instead of actually having the sorts of conversations that should be had about the topic. i know me being angry edgy tantrum controversial oh whats he gonna say now guy and all that, turns people away from listening to me but i dont know how else to approach it sometimes, i don't want to make excuses for people who i feel should know better. i dont have that kind of patience i guess, at least not right now

i think that anger is like a manifestation, symptom. im angry about the people this happens to, and how catastrophic it is. angry at the people who let it happen. the systems that are built around it. people don't see how systemic torture can be. im angry that the fucking war on terror media frenzy was so effective, because your average person still fucking believes in all the bullshit. or the idea of torture survivors being "broken" like its a personal failure, like its the result of their own shortcomings when they're some of the strongest people you can meet. just all these unfair ideas about it that are everywhere. and people still somehow find it necessary to keep spreading those ideas, even if they know theyre wrong. when it doesnt add anything of value, youre not saying anything about it, youre not actually adding something to the conversation by going along with the bullshit, youre literally just entertaining yourself

i dont know how to not be angry about it, i think. thats the growth goal for me i guess, cause i know this isnt the sorta thing thats gonna fix itself tomorrow. and i dunno your ask just made me think about that, like how i handle this on a personal level. and i think itd be healthy for me to step away from the discussion for a couple days at least and just. accept that i tried to reach people this round, maybe it didnt really work, thats fine, ill try again some other time. also i am writing all this very slowly cause my skull is kinda collapsing in on itself so to speak and maybe that has something to do with me being sorta hopelessly frustrated lmfao. apologies

[spot-the-antisemitism]

Putting UNRWA and Standing Together is the same category as "pro Hamas" doesn't make sense

Idk when one of the members wanted their kid to martyr herself and the other aided and abetted hamas seems pretty apt to me

I'm sorry your fave peace org supports terror but

cope and seethe and get your standing together apologia the fuck off my blog