#the false hierarchy of the oppressed

[faelapis]

first three eps of the season were good. after that, arcane season two just completely fell apart.

it ignored all themes of oppression, police violence, cait's slip into fascism, the zaunite revolution, etc. all in its need to introduce a bunch of pointless league lore and create 762 new storylines, despite only having one season to tell them. and so it told zero of them well.

idgaf about the black rose. idgaf about it suddenly being about stopping the robot uprising. idgaf about warwick (vander is effectively already dead. the only purpose of this false hope was to bring him in line with league canon). ambessa started off as an interesting character, but as soon as the caitlyn storyline fell apart, so did any motivation of hers that actually made sense.

jinx became a tragically pointless character who ended up in the exact same self hatred-spiral she started the season in. except instead of being brought on by silco's death, now it's isha's death. sevika gets a pointless minority seat on the council, but it's only one seat, with no assurances that anything will actually change for zaun. ekko gets no character arc whatsoever. he's just a generic good guy who does good guy stuff. the viktor/jayce story had a sweet ending, but it took up far too much screentime in a show whose main characters are supposed to be vi and jinx. vi never gets to have a moment where she either accepts or learns from her failures. she ends up a surprisingly passive role the entire season, which could serve an interesting internal character arc, but that never happens. her only "arc" is to be comforted by her cop gf.

and really that is the original sin here. because the season's first three episodes promised so much about cait. it promised not just her slip into authoritarianism, but to explore why and what impact it has on her relationship with vi. who vi wants to be, in relation to this person and this system.

this image is the embodiment of what i wanted this season to be. it's a conscious reference to macbeth, the shakespearian tragedy in which the main character's obsession with becoming king and remaining in control results in war and bloodshed. if told carefully, it could be brilliant commentary on cait, on fascism, on social hierarchies, personal trauma and the nature of power.

we get none of that. instead, her fascism arc is lazily resolved by just undoing it as soon as she sees vi again - and no, this does not count as a "love conquers all" resolution. i'm not opposed to that ending! but cait's heel-turn came out of nowhere!! it felt like a cowardly move on the writers part, because they didn't want to make viewers uncomfortable with the main ship.

vi became a complete mush of a character. she just reacts to whatever others (mainly cait) does. she has no motivations of her own. and like i already said, this does not fuel a compelling arc about her depression or trauma. the question of whether she should believe in others never goes anywhere. except of course, to be comforted by cait. so vi, in her own right, does not exist for any narrative purpose this season. she just... is sad and looks good. she puts on her big punching gloves and does a few show fights. download league of legends. unlock the depressed punk vi dlc costume today.

[gayiconwaluigi]

I think it’s powerful in the end that they try to tell the protagonist that killing the corrupt leaders is equal to the violence the leaders perpetuate against the oppressed. There’s a false equivalency there because one side is using the power of the system to preserve the violent hierarchy and institution, while the other is trying to destroy the state. The protagonist isn’t trying to preserve the hierarchy or institute himself as a leader. The news labels him a terrorist because of his relationship to the state and his desire to destroy it to protect those harmed by it.

[branwinged]

I've actually been meaning to ask this so might as well lol, but why are there such different readings on Dany as the exception, or antithesis as you put it and as the culmination or the best of her house especially since it doesn’t split neatly dowm a anti or pro Targaryen stance. I'll see fans who love Dany and even the Targaryens but still think she's the antithesis and fans who hate Dany but still think she's different from the rest of her house. I honestly reads very random to me.

i tried answering this but i'm just not familiar with any antithesis readings of her which are not interpreting 300 years of targaryen history as a reign of a series of bad actors. and like, in a sense, it would also be incorrect to say she's not different from her ancestors. she's using the symbol of her house, of the claim to her ancestors' power, for the dismantling of an oppressive institution in slaver's bay. some of the antithesis readings are probably coming from there. and she's obviously, deliberately written to contrast aerys, who was symbolic of their dynasty in its death throes, having lost all their magic and grandeur—especially through his obsession with wildfire, which aims to mimic dragonfire but is a poor substitute for it. but i don't find much value in criticising the targaryens before her for having used the dragons the way they did—because they were all kings with the priorities of kings, and dany's characterisation follows from theirs, not as a reversal, but as something that builds upon 300 years of history. asoiaf is asking how do you wield power judiciously within an unjust hierarchy, and all the targaryens before her are involved in answering that question. notably, egg, whose formative years spent among the smallfolk made him conscious of his place in that power hierarchy and what responsibility he owed the people because of it. dany follows from there, except grrm also others her in the first book when viserys sells her to drogo. unlike most of her ancestors, dany has experience with dehumanisation. how violence is enacted upon outsiders, those who live on the margins of society, who don't fit normative social codes. but this is true for a number of our pov characters, the ones the series terms "cripples, bastards, and broken things". bran, tyrion, jon, arya, brienne, even sansa (once she becomes a traitor's daughter and no longer fits the perfect image of a chivalric maiden) have all been made familiar with the systemic violence of the world they live in through an act(s) of violence against them, which makes them all especially conscious of prejudices in a way most highborn people in westeros aren't. it's what i said about ned, that his children's heroic tendencies are different from him, which is not a condemnation of ned, simply the narrative transitioning from an older kind of fantasy hero to a new archetype(s). dany too, is inheriting rhaegar's legacy—whose dream of spring had been false, but perhaps this time they'll make it true.

[hyperions-light]

Good riddance to that mess: Thank the Dread Wolf we’re done with the Mage-Templar conflict

(because magic in Thedas is more interesting this way)

Okay the people who love conflict have won and I am going to talk about this now lol

I've decided to stick within the framework of the world/story for this particular post, because I think you could talk about the issues with the mages/templars in connection with how they relate to real-life groups for an entire essay AT LEAST, and I want to focus on magic here, so I don't think it's that germane to the discussion. If you all want to talk about that later, I can put it on the pile.

It turns out that Jenny Nicholson was 100% right about the efficacy of numbered lists on the internet, so this essay will be hybridized into a list. Here are the reasons I'm glad the mage-templar conflict is gone and hope it never returns:

It limits storytelling avenues I understand how they arrived at this dichotomy as the logical extrapolation of a minority of people in Thedas being born with magic BUT it's very boring and it doesn't facilitate interesting stories. If you have this strict system and hierarchy that means that every mage has to live in the tower or they're a) a criminal or b) Dalish, that seriously limits the kind of characters you can make who are mages, which is dull as both a player and a writer.

Trying to make it nuanced is difficult Attempting to show that everyone has a point in a situation is difficult when one group has absolute power over the other and can kill them whenever they feel like it. Also, with the abuses the Templars regularly perpetuate against the mages established in DAO and DA2 any attempted justification reads as the story sanctioning an oppressive force. If they try to demonstrate the danger of magic, they end up with the 10,000 blood mage problem from DA2. It's a hard thing to do within the framework they set up, but they also haven't been particularly successful with it, imo, so abandoning it is a better choice.

It's the most reductive version of the conflict Reducing the entire discussion to whether magic is good or evil, whether mages should be free or confined is really boring. It's a false dichotomy that promotes extremism in characters on either side of the conflict who never interact with one another. "Is magic bad?" is a useless and uninteresting question. Who cares? What does it do?; Where did it come from?; What different ways can you use it? are all better questions.

Makes it difficult for the audience to learn more about magic If the only characters the audience ever meets are people who come from the Circle, Dalish mages, and apostates, the amount they're going to learn about different perspectives on magic and its various uses is limited. Part of the reason Jaws of Hakkon was such an interesting DLC for DAI is because the Avvar have a completely different philosophy about magic and spirits. It was refreshing after several games of having the same ideas about magic shoved down our throats to hear someone give a different perspective and ACTUALLY NEW information. Everything I needed to know about the mage-templar conflict, I already knew by the end of DAO, but I had to sit through two more entire games while people discussed it at length.

Magic in the North is fascinating Now that we're finally rid of that conflict, look how many different kinds of magic we get to see in DATV! We get to meet a Rivaini Seer, a Mortalitasi (who can use magic to TALK TO REAL DEAD PEOPLE!!!), a non-Altus mage from the Tevinter Imperium; we get to see magic as it was utilized by the ancient elves and how it interfaces with technology. We got DWARF MAGIC!! Finally, an answer to what Sandal was doing! We found out you can use it to turn yourself into a LICH!!! All of that stuff is so cool, and we had never encountered it before this game! It brings up so many new questions about the nature of the Fade, the source of magic itself, the strength of magic in Thedas relative to other places in the world. And NONE of it could be discussed in the South because they are too busy arguing about fucking towers!!!

tl;dr: The mage-templar conflict was a boring and reductive lens through which to view magic in the DA universe, I'm glad it's gone, I hope they continue what they started in DATV and explore different ways magic can be used in the future.

[sankofaspirit]

Black Power vs. White Power: Why They’re Fundamentally Different (A Garveyite Perspective)

"A people without knowledge of their past history, origin, and culture is like a tree without roots." – Marcus Garvey

When uneducated people compare white power to Black power, it’s usually an attempt to dismiss the Black liberation movement or to paint both as equally harmful. This comparison couldn’t be further from the truth. From a Garveyite perspective, white power and Black power are opposites: one enforces oppression and domination, while the other is rooted in liberation and justice.

The false equivalence stems from ignorance about history, power structures, and the very different purposes behind these concepts. Here’s an in-depth breakdown of why white power and Black power are not the same, along with the historical and modern context of each, and examples of present-day Pan-African movements carrying forward Marcus Garvey’s vision.

White Power: A System Built on Oppression

White power is not just a phrase; it is a system. It has been embedded into global structures for centuries, designed to benefit white people at the expense of others. Its roots lie in the exploitation and domination of non-white people through systems like:

Colonialism: The plundering of Africa, Asia, and the Americas for resources and labour, paired with the erasure of native cultures.

The Transatlantic Slave Trade: The forced removal and enslavement of millions of Africans to build the wealth of Europe and the Americas.

Systemic Racism: Modern manifestations of white power include institutionalized racism in policing, housing, education, and healthcare.

White power exists to maintain dominance. It enforces hierarchies that privilege whiteness while dehumanizing and exploiting non-white populations. It thrives on exclusion, control, and violence.

Black Power: A Movement for Liberation

Black power emerged as a response to centuries of oppression. It is a movement rooted in survival, dignity, and self-determination. Black power is about:

Reclaiming Identity: Celebrating African heritage and resisting cultural erasure.

Self-Reliance: Building independent Black institutions and economies.

Unity: Strengthening solidarity among African-descended people worldwide to fight against systemic oppression.

Unlike white power, Black power doesn’t seek to dominate or oppress others. It seeks freedom, equity, and justice. It’s about dismantling systems of exploitation and creating opportunities for Black people to thrive.

Why They’re Not the Same: Key Differences

1. Historical Context and Intent

White Power: Rooted in colonization, slavery, and global domination. Its intent is to control, exploit, and suppress.

Black Power: Rooted in resistance to oppression. Its intent is to liberate and empower.

2. Power Structures

White Power: Maintains and enforces hierarchical systems that privilege whiteness. Examples include Jim Crow laws, apartheid, and voter suppression.

Black Power: Seeks to dismantle these systems and create equality. Movements like Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) emphasized self-determination and freedom from white dominance.

3. Economic Foundations

White Power: Built on exploitation—slavery, colonialism, and the extraction of resources from African nations.

Black Power: Focused on empowerment through self-reliance and economic independence. Garvey’s Black Star Line was a prime example of creating Black-owned infrastructure.

4. Cultural Impact

White Power: Enforces cultural erasure and assimilation. For example, Indigenous languages, African spiritual practices, and traditions were systematically destroyed.

Black Power: Revives and celebrates African culture, from Afrocentrism to the global embrace of Black art, music, and fashion.

5. Use of Violence

White Power: Systematically uses violence to enforce control (e.g., lynching, rape, genocide, police brutality, military invasions).

Black Power: Advocates for self-defense and survival against white violence but does not seek to harm or dominate others.

6. Psychological Effects

White Power: Creates internalized racism, generational trauma, and systems of dehumanization.

Black Power: Focuses on healing, self-love, and rebuilding the collective identity of African-descended people.

A Garveyite Perspective: Why Black Power Matters

From Marcus Garvey’s perspective, Black power is not just about resistance; it’s about building a new world for Black people. Garvey’s vision for Black liberation included:

Global Black Unity: Connecting African-descended people worldwide to work toward shared liberation.

Self-Reliance: Encouraging Black people to build their own businesses, schools, and governments rather than relying on systems built to oppress them.

Reclaiming Africa: Garvey believed in a liberated Africa as a central hub for Black self-determination.

Garvey’s dream was echoed by later leaders like Kwame Nkrumah, Malcolm X, and Patrice Lumumba. Their work laid the foundation for modern Pan-African movements.

The False Equivalence: A Harmful Misunderstanding

When people equate white power with Black power, they ignore the power dynamics that define these terms. White power has always been about domination, while Black power is about freedom from that domination. To say they are the same is to erase history and perpetuate the very systems of oppression that Black power seeks to dismantle.

Conclusion: Liberation, Not Supremacy

White power and Black power are fundamentally different in intent, history, and purpose. White power thrives on exploitation, hierarchy, and exclusion. Black power is about liberation, justice, and reclaiming dignity.

As Marcus Garvey said:

"Up, you mighty race, accomplish what you will!"

Black power is not about oppressing others; it’s about undoing centuries of oppression and building a world where Black people can thrive on their own terms. Garvey’s legacy reminds us that this fight isn’t just historical—it’s ongoing. The question remains: What are you doing to contribute to the liberation of Black people globally?

[talisidekick]

The patriarchy isn't gendered in it's evil. It's a collaborative approach. It can't uphold itself if there aren't women and men supporting it's views.

We talk about toxic masculinity and the threats men pose with the power and privilege given to them under patriarchal systems, but what about the toxic femininity wielded by misogynistic women? What about the unique level of power the patriarchy gives to women who conform, and strips from women, men, non-binary, etc. who do not?

There's women who uphold the patriarchy, and they are the backbone to the whole structure. The validation and vindication to do the harm it does to others.

If you need a taste, take a look at how 'gender critical' and transphobic women justify why trans women aren't women. They use 'biological essentialism', the same ideology that gives patriarchal men the absolute ability to prey on women citing a biological need that absolves them of guilt and wrong doing, to paint transgender women as nothing but predatory men by matter of biology. That by being born sexually male, an AMAB person can never be a woman because they are bound exclusively by biological whims they cannot control that AFAB people do not have. They don't chastise cisgender men for this supposed biological difference, as if it's okay to have these supposed 'uncontrollable urges' being a cisgender man. They further back up this false claim by pointing to any behavior if transgender women that is loud, flashy, gaudy, dominant, etc. claiming that even identifying as women, we're unable to act like women, as if to say that being a woman is to act modest, quiet, submissive, etc. I remember not men, but women and mothers telling their children not to speak unless spoken to, not to complain, not to dress flashy, etc, to their daughters growing up. Never their sons.

Toxic femininity is real, it exists, and it supports the same system toxic masculinity does and I want to see crumble. I want a world filled with just as many loud, gaudy, flashy, and rebellious girls, women, enbies, etc. as I see men.

I need three things from the world:

I need cisgender women and men who are staunchly against the patriarchy to stop treating the transgender assault by 'gender criticals' as a "trans only issue".

I need people to recognize that men, cisgender and transgender, aren't an inherent enemy, which means learning to identify toxic masculinity from masculinity. Which is essentially learning that anytime masculinity or an aspect of it is framed as "above women" or "above other men", and "below women" or "below other men"; that it's the toxic kind of masculinity.

I need people to recognize women, cisgender and transgender, aren't the inherent victims, which means learning to identify toxic femininity from femininity. Which is essentially learning any time femininity or an aspect of it is framed as "below men" or "above other women", and "above men" or "below other women"; that it's the toxic kind of femininity.

Ending the binary gender hierarchy is how this system fails. Masculinity and femininity under a patriarchal system is oppressively wielded against women, men, those outside the gender binary, and those that exist within but don't conform, but masculinity and femininity are not it's tools. It appropriates them, and redefines them to hurt those it wants to force into a mold. It makes existing outside it's definitions painful where the easy salvation is conformity.

I propose a different tactic: rebellion.

[queersatanic]

you should do some research about the legality of transition in algeria before you claim an algerian cis women getting transvestigated at the olympics cant be tme. theres a whole lot of shit that algerian trans women go through that imane khelif simply does not. hell you should question why there are zero trans women competing in the olympics.

You’re responding to this post, and it sounds like you’re claiming that it’s not transmisogyny unless someone experiences every or maybe just the worst aspects of transmisogyny, even if they experience some aspects.

Because literally, news orgs are calling an Algerian cis woman "transgender," and she's receiving hatred from some of the most prominent transmisogynists worldwide on the false basis that she is trans.

Almost definitionally, this is a woman affected by transmisogyny despite being assigned female at birth and living her entire life as a girl and now woman. This is true even, as you point out, though Algerian trans women have a different experience in Algeria than she has and does.

Again, the original post you're replying to did not say that “transmisogyny-exempt” and “transmisogyny-affected” were useless categories, just that they aren’t essentialist, binary categories. They are not fixed. They are categories some people move back and forth between. The explicit point is that there is overlap especially in different contexts that makes it impossible to use TME/TMA as “legitimate trans women” and “everyone else”.

A skinny white trans fem in Los Angeles or London who has been on HRT for years and able to afford surgeries she wants won’t be exempt from every kind of transmisogyny in the world around her, but she likely would be exempt from some of them by virtue of meeting other standards of (white) femininity, so she might be able to more safely use bathrooms in public than a butch woman with a short hair cut, even if that butch woman is cis (or even straight!). That doesn't make the trans woman less trans or the cis woman more trans. It just means "transmisogyny" is a club and not a scalpel.

It's important to recognize that systems of oppression aren't concerned with locating something real or actual and punishing that real, actual thing; they're about enforcing hierarchies with arbitrary boundaries, and they don't bother to use any consistency or rigor because the whole point of having power is that you don't need to appeal to anything superior to exercise that power.

This is going to seem far afield, but about a decade ago, a man from India visited his son in Alabama and a cop put him into a coma by slamming him on his head into the sidewalk because neighbors had reported a “Black man” wandering suspiciously around in their neighborhood. The man "didn’t comply" because he didn't speak English, so naturally cops assumed he was intoxicated or combative. (From memory, the only person actually punished in that was the police chief who said the cop in question had done something wrong; the cop was cleared of all-wrongdoing.) In India, the father may have had a completely different social status, possibly even one that looked down on Black or African people. He certainly didn’t experience all of the worst elements of anti-Black racism in the white South. But in a white neighborhood in Alabama suburbia, he was dark enough to be treated like a Black man, dangerous and transgressive.

White supremacy, like transmisogyny, isn't concerned with whether you are the ultimate version of a thing just if you’re enough of a thing to be punished. Of course we need to recognize when other people have challenges that are different or more intense than we go through, but our coalition ought to be built on unified resistance to shared oppression rather than policing the boundaries of categories people who hate us aren't even bothered to learn or care about while they hurt us.

[remusinfurs]

[emphasis mine]

“The decolonization narrative has dehumanized Israelis to the extent that otherwise rational people excuse, deny, or support barbarity. It holds that Israel is an “imperialist-colonialist” force, that Israelis are “settler-colonialists,” and that Palestinians have a right to eliminate their oppressors. (On October 7, we all learned what that meant.) It casts Israelis as “white” or “white-adjacent” and Palestinians as “people of color.”

This ideology, powerful in the academy but long overdue for serious challenge, is a toxic, historically nonsensical mix of Marxist theory, Soviet propaganda, and traditional anti-Semitism from the Middle Ages and the 19th century. But its current engine is the new identity analysis, which sees history through a concept of race that derives from the American experience. The argument is that it is almost impossible for the “oppressed” to be themselves racist, just as it is impossible for an “oppressor” to be the subject of racism. Jews therefore cannot suffer racism, because they are regarded as “white” and “privileged”; although they cannot be victims, they can and do exploit other, less privileged people, in the West through the sins of “exploitative capitalism” and in the Middle East through “colonialism.”

This leftist analysis, with its hierarchy of oppressed identities—and intimidating jargon, a clue to its lack of factual rigor—has in many parts of the academy and media replaced traditional universalist leftist values, including internationalist standards of decency and respect for human life and the safety of innocent civilians. When this clumsy analysis collides with the realities of the Middle East, it loses all touch with historical facts.

Indeed, it requires an astonishing leap of ahistorical delusion to disregard the record of anti-Jewish racism over the two millennia since the fall of the Judean Temple in 70 C.E. After all, the October 7 massacre ranks with the medieval mass killings of Jews in Christian and Islamic societies, the Khmelnytsky massacres of 1640s Ukraine, Russian pogroms from 1881 to 1920—and the Holocaust. Even the Holocaust is now sometimes misconstrued—as the actor Whoopi Goldberg notoriously did—as being “not about race,” an approach as ignorant as it is repulsive.

Contrary to the decolonizing narrative, Gaza is not technically occupied by Israel—not in the usual sense of soldiers on the ground. Israel evacuated the Strip in 2005, removing its settlements. In 2007, Hamas seized power, killing its Fatah rivals in a short civil war. Hamas set up a one-party state that crushes Palestinian opposition within its territory, bans same-sex relationships, represses women, and openly espouses the killing of all Jews.

Very strange company for leftists.

Of course, some protesters chanting “from the river to the sea” may have no idea what they’re calling for; they are ignorant and believe that they are simply endorsing “freedom.”

[…]

I should also say that Israeli rule of the Occupied Territories of the West Bank is different and, to my mind, unacceptable, unsustainable, and unjust. Settlers under the disgraceful Netanyahu government have harassed and persecuted Palestinians in the West Bank: 146 Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem were killed in 2022 and at least 153 in 2023 before the Hamas attack, and more than 90 since. Again: This is appalling and unacceptable, but not genocide. The Palestinians in the West Bank have endured a harsh, unjust, and oppressive occupation since 1967.

Although there is a strong instinct to make this a Holocaust-mirroring “genocide,” it is not: The Palestinians suffer from many things, including military occupation; settler intimidation and violence; corrupt Palestinian political leadership; callous neglect by their brethren in more than 20 Arab states; the rejection by Yasser Arafat, the late Palestinian leader, of compromise plans that would have seen the creation of an independent Palestinian state; and so on. None of this constitutes genocide, or anything like genocide. The Israeli goal in Gaza—for practical reasons, among others—is to minimize the number of Palestinian civilians killed. Hamas and like-minded organizations have made it abundantly clear over the years that maximizing the number of Palestinian casualties is in their strategic interest. (Put aside all of this and consider: The world Jewish population is still smaller than it was in 1939, because of the damage done by the Nazis. The Palestinian population has grown, and continues to grow, at a substantial and healthy rate. Demographic shrinkage is one obvious marker of genocide. In total, roughly 120,000 Arabs and Jews have been killed in the conflict over Palestine and Israel since 1860. By contrast, at least 500,000 people, mainly civilians, have been killed in the Syrian civil war since it began in 2011.)

If the ideology of decolonization, taught in our universities as a theory of history and shouted in our streets as self-evidently righteous, badly misconstrues the present reality, does it reflect the history of Israel as it claims to do? It does not. Indeed, it does not accurately describe either the foundation of Israel or the tragedy of the Palestinians.

According to the decolonizers, Israel is and always has been an illegitimate freak-state because it was fostered by the British empire and because some of its founders were European-born Jews.

In this narrative, Israel is tainted by imperial Britain’s broken promise to deliver Arab independence, and its kept promise to support a “national home for the Jewish people,” in the language of the 1917 Balfour Declaration. But the supposed promise to Arabs was in fact an ambiguous 1915 agreement with Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who wanted his Hashemite family to rule the entire region. In part, he did not receive this new empire because his family had much less regional support than he claimed. Nonetheless, ultimately Britain delivered three kingdoms—Iraq, Jordan, and Hejaz—to the family.

The imperial powers—Britain and France—made all sorts of promises to different peoples, and then put their own interests first. Those promises to the Jews and the Arabs during World War I were typical. Afterward, similar promises were made to the Kurds, the Armenians, and others, none of which came to fruition. But the central narrative that Britain betrayed the Arab promise and backed the Jewish one is incomplete. In the 1930s, Britain turned against Zionism, and from 1937 to 1939 moved toward an Arab state with no Jewish one at all. It was an armed Jewish revolt, from 1945 to 1948 against imperial Britain, that delivered the state.

Israel exists thanks to this revolt, and to international law and cooperation, something leftists once believed in. The idea of a Jewish “homeland” was proposed in three declarations by Britain (signed by Balfour), France, and the United States, then promulgated in a July 1922 resolution by the League of Nations that created the British “mandates” over Palestine and Iraq that matched French “mandates” over Syria and Lebanon. In 1947, the United Nations devised the partition of the British mandate of Palestine into two states, Arab and Jewish.

[…]

The concept of “partition” is, in the decolonization narrative, regarded as a wicked imperial trick. But it was entirely normal in the creation of 20th-century nation-states, which were typically fashioned out of fallen empires. And sadly, the creation of nation-states was frequently marked by population swaps, huge refugee migrations, ethnic violence, and full-scale wars. Think of the Greco-Turkish war of 1921–22 or the partition of India in 1947. In this sense, Israel-Palestine was typical.

At the heart of decolonization ideology is the categorization of all Israelis, historic and present, as “colonists.” This is simply wrong. Most Israelis are descended from people who migrated to the Holy Land from 1881 to 1949. They were not completely new to the region. The Jewish people ruled Judean kingdoms and prayed in the Jerusalem Temple for a thousand years, then were ever present there in smaller numbers for the next 2,000 years. In other words, Jews are indigenous in the Holy Land, and if one believes in the return of exiled people to their homeland, then the return of the Jews is exactly that. Even those who deny this history or regard it as irrelevant to modern times must acknowledge that Israel is now the home and only home of 9 million Israelis who have lived there for four, five, six generations.

Most migrants to, say, the United Kingdom or the United States are regarded as British or American within a lifetime. Politics in both countries is filled with prominent leaders—Suella Braverman and David Lammy, Kamala Harris and Nikki Haley—whose parents or grandparents migrated from India, West Africa, or South America. No one would describe them as “settlers.” Yet Israeli families resident in Israel for a century are designated as “settler-colonists” ripe for murder and mutilation. And contrary to Hamas apologists, the ethnicity of perpetrators or victims never justifies atrocities. They would be atrocious anywhere, committed by anyone with any history. It is dismaying that it is often self-declared “anti-racists” who are now advocating exactly this murder by ethnicity.

[…]

The open world of liberal democracies—or the West, as it used to be called—is today polarized by paralyzed politics, petty but vicious cultural feuds about identity and gender, and guilt about historical successes and sins, a guilt that is bizarrely atoned for by showing sympathy for, even attraction to, enemies of our democratic values. In this scenario, Western democracies are always bad actors, hypocritical and neo-imperialist, while foreign autocracies or terror sects such as Hamas are enemies of imperialism and therefore sincere forces for good. In this topsy-turvy scenario, Israel is a living metaphor and penance for the sins of the West. The result is the intense scrutiny of Israel and the way it is judged, using standards rarely attained by any nation at war, including the United States.

But the decolonizing narrative is much worse than a study in double standards; it dehumanizes an entire nation and excuses, even celebrates, the murder of innocent civilians. As these past two weeks have shown, decolonization is now the authorized version of history in many of our schools and supposedly humanitarian institutions, and among artists and intellectuals. It is presented as history, but it is actually a caricature, zombie history with its arsenal of jargon—the sign of a coercive ideology, as Foucault argued—and its authoritarian narrative of villains and victims. And it only stands up in a landscape in which much of the real history is suppressed and in which all Western democracies are bad-faith actors. Although it lacks the sophistication of Marxist dialectic, its self-righteous moral certainty imposes a moral framework on a complex, intractable situation, which some may find consoling. Whenever you read a book or an article and it uses the phrase “settler-colonialist,” you are dealing with ideological polemic, not history.

[…]

The Israel-Palestine conflict is desperately difficult to solve, and decolonization rhetoric makes even less likely the negotiated compromise that is the only way out.

Since its founding in 1987, Hamas has used the murder of civilians to spoil any chance of a two-state solution. In 1993, its suicide bombings of Israeli civilians were designed to destroy the two-state Olso Accords that recognized Israel and Palestine. This month, the Hamas terrorists unleashed their slaughter in part to undermine a peace with Saudi Arabia that would have improved Palestinian politics and standard of life, and reinvigorated Hamas’s sclerotic rival, the Palestinian Authority. In part, they served Iran to prevent the empowering of Saudi Arabia, and their atrocities were of course a spectacular trap to provoke Israeli overreaction. They are most probably getting their wish, but to do this they are cynically exploiting innocent Palestinian people as a sacrifice to political means, a second crime against civilians. In the same way, the decolonization ideology, with its denial of Israel’s right to exist and its people’s right to live safely, makes a Palestinian state less likely if not impossible.

The problem in our countries is easier to fix: Civic society and the shocked majority should now assert themselves. The radical follies of students should not alarm us overmuch; students are always thrilled by revolutionary extremes. But the indecent celebrations in London, Paris, and New York City, and the clear reluctance among leaders at major universities to condemn the killings, have exposed the cost of neglecting this issue and letting “decolonisation” colonize our academy.”

Simon Sebag Montefiore is the author of Jerusalem: The Biography and most recently The World: A Family History of Humanity.

[vegantinatalist]

Life is so fucking hard when you have a very specific and fleshed out cocktail of moral and ethical nuance and understanding. What you said about hyper empathetic people is so true…

I see it as an inversion of injustice. a sort of intolerance paradox coping mechanism where good people get psychologically tortured by The Mob and converted (like a cult, but on a more personal level as they don’t even have to interact with you to drive you insane. it’s something that tortures you just by virtue of existing in society).

I have a theory that a lot of hyper empathetic people initially hold themselves to the unconditional empathy standard because they have an internalized, trauma based moral scrupulousity that tells them they’d become The Archetypal Bad Ones if they didn’t… Bc of DARVOism in our culture. Every single hierarchy uses DARVO to manipulate the narrative (ie abusive parents that make their children feel like they’re the ones who are abusive for wanting to be treated better, who are also supported by the public due to their nefarious plausible deniability and comfortable position in the hierarchy. this also applies to members of oppressed groups. hyper empathetic people are brainwashed and abused into believing they’re meanies for wanting revenge and justice, bc of how relentlessly, shamelessly, and confidently the victim complex response from the oppressor/abuser always manifests & how much support and worship they get from their populist flying monkeys.) for people who care severely about being just and fair, this is something that abusers can easily exploit. It’s a trap. A false god. Traumatized empathetics who struggle to trust themselves feel co-opted by this psychological demon; the unwavering confidence of an oppressor in their absurdity and cruelty. It is a unique type of torture.

Also, many hyper empathetic people have an internal audience/judgmental God archetype that tells them they’re evil for feeling their righteous anger and indignation. That’s a symptom of trauma and abuse, and I believe a lot of hyper empathetic people end up growing and healing from it. Most hyper empathetic people were victims of deep, suffocating, hierarchical injustice and abuse. That doesn’t make it any less frustrating and painful to witness.

I’m saying this because I have hope that they too will transcend that phase in their healing. I feel like the more you mature the more you embrace justice in a way that isn’t childlike and trauma based. When you grow you learn that the unconditional sympathy for everyone including abusers is nothing more than a traumatized and manipulated brain making sense of an awful position to be in. It’s a fawn response in a way. A sort of existential defeat. Because we live in a unique world where there is too much plausible deniability for those who do commit the worst acts of evil, and their power, their control of the mob and of the narrative, can truly drive you insane in the membrane.

We’re in a pseudo polite, hierarchical society that operates on an insidious and latent way of hacking morality. We’re expected to pretend that we all just exist in a vacuum and everyone is just A Neutral Person Who Has Their Valid Reasons and Their Valid Opinions, no matter what they’ve done or who they are. Like they’re untouchable, sacred, just because they’re a hooman beeing. It’s deeply connected to post modernism too, and the way abusers desperately hijack the good faith of society’s progress. They aren’t speaking the same language that the empathetic people are speaking, they’re just pretending they are, but only when it suits them. They can sure dish it (oppression, cruelty) out, but they can’t handle even the most milquetoast of criticism against their long unquestioned tyranny. The abusers get to have their cake and eat it too: plausible deniability while still being cruel and evil.

All hierarchies have one governing principle: might makes right. They think that just because they can, they should, and it’s justified and it’s their divine right. So can those hyper empathetics stop pretending like sympathy and compassion is a reasonable response? THEY SPEAK THE LANGUAGE OF CRUELTY, BAD FAITH, AND VIOLENCE AND THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THEM IS TO ANSWER THEM IN THE ONLY LANGUAGE THEY UNDERSTAND. Good faith, morality, intellectualism and diplomacy are mere playthings for them. They don’t take morality seriously unless they can use it to manipulate those who DO take it seriously into not holding them accountable.

The traumatized and confused empathetic, repeating the cycles of their past trauma, places the pain and subjective experience of the abuser above their victims. Just like they did to their abusers in the past, when they were the victim. They may not even realize it, this invisible and subconscious pedestal they put the cruelest people on. It’s a sick defense mechanism. Bc the anger they have behind that dam is way more painful to reckon with.

I swear, all of the “B-BUT THEYRE A HUMAN BEING” bullshit is a fucking twisted psyop, deeply rooted in speciesism (and all forms of oppression too). The ones without the power are expected to play nice and fair with those who have an unjust amount of power over them. And many of us are truly brainwashed by this nonsense intolerance paradox narrative that gives us a huge moral blind spot and only promotes apathy and turning a blind eye to true injustice. It’s all a psyop that only serves to uphold the status quo. Fuck that. Kill all pedos, kill all rapists, and topple all hierarchies. They don’t deserve sympathy, they deserve a knife turned in their chest. They don’t deserve validation or rehabilitation. They have two choices: get punished and evolve, or die and be a lesson for others. Society will not improve otherwise.

Sorry for the long stream of consciousness !!! I feel like you are someone who genuinely understands and recognizes these ethical and psychological issues that most people don’t.

I LOVE when someone truly sees one of my posts and has a fucking perfect essay response that does all the work in fleshing it out more deeply for me. You nailed it. Completely dead bang on nailed it, down to every detail. It's beautiful, I want to make this my desktop wallpaper lmao. I dont know why yall always send these kinds of things anonymously when they are so great and you should be credited! If we arent already added on discord, I want to hang out with you bad lol please consider dming me! Understanding company is a precious resource to me.

[aita-blorbos]

AITA for trying to improve people's lives?

I've been told that it is possible to make an entirely anonymous inquiry on this blog. I do hope that is true.

I have been entrusted with a position of great responsibility on my planet. I try my very best to remain attuned to my people's suffering, wants, needs, grievances, and regrets. I hold in my heart only the purest of hopes for them; all I wish is to grant them eternal, unshakable, everlasting happiness and joy.

Unfortunately, the harsh reality is that there is no such thing as a harmonious, peaceful life. Not within the confines of reality itself. Resources are scarce, suffering and struggle is all too common, and one cannot even consent to the conditions under which one is born. As such, I have concluded that it is cruel, harsh, and unreasonable to expect the people of this world to live under these conditions.

I have meticulously maintained a truly safe space, away from the pains of reality, under the guidance of my mentor, whom I see almost as a father. In this space, there is no suffering nor illness, no poverty nor worries— only satisfaction and safety.

...Or, that's how it should be. Even now, the bitter resentments of reality manage to leech their way into this beautiful space. No matter how dutifully I work to stamp it out, there will always be such things brewing in the shadows. Even here, in this beautiful land of dreams, there remains those who would trick and abuse the weak, those who would exploit and oppress those with nowhere else to go. I have heard many accounts of this... and nothing I have done seems to resolve this filth. The only conclusion I can come to at this point is that it is purely human nature, human ego, which is propagating this need to induce the suffering of others.

As such, I have come to a conclusion with my master. Together, we shall ensure that this beautiful world is able to flourish and prosper for eternity. I shall sacrifice myself, personally, to the role of maintaining this sweet fantasy for everyone else. Under my gaze, there shall be no more suffering, no more misery or oppression, no more vile acts under the name of human will. Only the perfect image of peace and order. Everything, and everyone, in perfect equality and bliss.

My only hesitation... is that my sister does not agree with me. She seems rather horrified by the idea, clinging to naive ideals of "freedom" and the meaninglessness of a "false reality." But what she falls to understand is that not everyone is granted the privelige to thrive in reality. There are the disabled, the impoverished, those without friend or family, those who are hunted by their past. For the terminally ill who only have but a few days of life remaining, can you really say it would be better spent in "reality," where they will merely die slowly and painfully in near isolation, instead of a sweet dream in which they can do all they ever wished?

My dream is to grant a safe haven, a pleasant and worthwhile existence, to those who suffer endlessly due to "reality" itself. A benevolent refuge, away from the oppressive nature of free will. There is a difference between a meaningful existence and the distasteful tragedy of anarchy— the lack of order and regulation cannot be what gives life its "meaning," for what then of those that are trampled by this anarchy itself? A lack of order is an order in and of itself: it is simply a hierarchy founded on strength and brute force, in place of benevolence, kindness, or compassion for others.

But... I do waver somewhat, knowing that my sister holds such distain for my ideals. My hope is that one of you kind voters may be able to explain her frustration to me better than she could. She is incredibly dear to me, and I would like to resolve this as soon as possible, such that we can remain on good terms once my New World is established, and we can see one another's point of view more clearly.

Many thanks for your time.

[- submission by @spaaaaaaaark-uwu ]

[aslitheryprinx]

Space Hermits woo!

so I don't have full worldbuilding for everyone yet, but I have ideas for most of the hermits. I do also know who the humans are (see if you can guess them lol) and who is in which group. Let's get some worldbuilding out!

Lab Experiments:

False, Grian, Impulse, Zedaph and Doc are the unfortunate victims of an unethical science lab. All of them have been experimented on; none of them are the same as they once were. Two of them are humans... no. Two of them were humans. These five alone managed to escape the lab and steal a small ship. They make it as far as they can before they have to make an emergency landing on an uninhabited planet...

The Rebels:

Floria [planet name might change] has a very strict hierarchy. There are quite a few sentient species native to the planet, all more similar to plants than animals. Not everyone is happy with this oppressive system, however. Stress, Iskall, Keralis, and Xb, who are all on wildly different levels of this hierarchy, are a small but determined group of rebels. When they become too notorious, they have to flee the planet. After days of aimless traveling, they take a pit stop at an uninhabited planet...

~~~~

there are 4 more groups, but this is it for now :3 feel free to send asks about this au!

Edit: part two here!

[dailyanarchistposts]

B.7 What classes exist within modern society?

For anarchists, class analysis is an important means of understanding the world and what is going on in it. While recognition of the fact that classes actually exist is less prevalent now than it once was, this does not mean that classes have ceased to exist. Quite the contrary. As we’ll see, it means only that the ruling class has been more successful than before in obscuring the existence of class.

Class can be objectively defined: the relationship between an individual and the sources of power within society determines his or her class. We live in a class society in which a few people possess far more political and economic power than the majority, who usually work for the minority that controls them and the decisions that affect them. This means that class is based both on exploitation and oppression, with some controlling the labour of others for their own gain. The means of oppression have been indicated in earlier parts of section B, while section C (What are the myths of capitalist economics?) indicates exactly how exploitation occurs within a society apparently based on free and equal exchange. In addition, it also highlights the effects on the economic system itself of this exploitation. The social and political impact of the system and the classes and hierarchies it creates is discussed in depth in section D (How do statism and capitalism affect society?).

We must emphasise at the outset that the idea of the “working class” as composed of nothing but industrial workers is simply false. It is not applicable today, if it ever was. Power, in terms of hire/fire and investment decisions, is the important thing. Ownership of capital as a means of determining a person’s class, while still important, does not tell the whole story. An obvious example is that of the higher layers of management within corporations. They have massive power within the company, basically taking over the role held by the actual capitalist in smaller firms. While they may technically be “salary slaves” their power and position in the social hierarchy indicate that they are members of the ruling class in practice (and, consequently, their income is best thought of as a share of profits rather than a wage). Much the same can be said of politicians and state bureaucrats whose power and influence does not derive from the ownership of the means of production but rather then control over the means of coercion. Moreover, many large companies are owned by other large companies, through pension funds, multinationals, etc. (in 1945, 93% of shares were owned by individuals; by 1997, this had fallen to 43%). Needless to say, if working-class people own shares that does not make them capitalists as the dividends are not enough to live on nor do they give them any say in how a company is run).

For most anarchists, there are two main classes:

Obviously there are “grey” areas in any society, individuals and groups who do not fit exactly into either the working or ruling class. Such people include those who work but have some control over other people, e.g. power of hire/fire. These are the people who make the minor, day-to-day decisions concerning the running of capital or state. This area includes lower to middle management, professionals, and small capitalists.

There is some argument within the anarchist movement whether this “grey” area constitutes another (“middle”) class or not. Most anarchists say no, most of this “grey” area are working class, others (such as the British Class War Federation) argue it is a different class. One thing is sure, all anarchists agree that most people in this “grey” area have an interest in getting rid of the current system just as much as the working class (we should point out here that what is usually called “middle class” in the USA and elsewhere is nothing of the kind, and usually refers to working class people with decent jobs, homes, etc. As class is considered a rude word in polite society in the USA, such mystification is to be expected).

So, there will be exceptions to this classification scheme. However, most of society share common interests, as they face the economic uncertainties and hierarchical nature of capitalism.

We do not aim to fit all of reality into this class scheme, but only to develop it as reality indicates, based on our own experiences of the changing patterns of modern society. Nor is this scheme intended to suggest that all members of a class have identical interests or that competition does not exist between members of the same class, as it does between the classes. Capitalism, by its very nature, is a competitive system. As Malatesta pointed out, “one must bear in mind that on the one hand the bourgeoisie (the property owners) are always at war amongst themselves… and that on the other hand the government, though springing from the bourgeoisie and its servant and protector, tends, as every servant and every protector, to achieve its own emancipation and to dominate whoever it protects. Thus the game of the swings, the manoeuvres, the concessions and the withdrawals, the attempts to find allies among the people and against the conservatives, and among conservatives against the people, which is the science of the governors, and which blinds the ingenuous and phlegmatic who always wait for salvation to come down to them from above.” [Anarchy, p. 25]

However, no matter how much inter-elite rivalry goes on, at the slightest threat to the system from which they benefit, the ruling class will unite to defend their common interests. Once the threat passes, they will return to competing among themselves for power, market share and wealth. Unfortunately, the working class rarely unites as a class, mainly due to its chronic economic and social position. At best, certain sections unite and experience the benefits and pleasure of co-operation. Anarchists, by their ideas and action try to change this situation and encourage solidarity within the working class in order to resist, and ultimately get rid of, capitalism. However, their activity is helped by the fact that those in struggle often realise that “solidarity is strength” and so start to work together and unite their struggles against their common enemy. Indeed, history is full of such developments.

[notchainedtotrauma]

However, empire thrives off black oppression, possession, repossession, and prepossession. It demands that black people make themselves over and require that black survival and black progress ground themselves in false sex and gender hierarchies. And because it demands an Other, empire will never be a source of black diasporic thriving.

from Jezebel Unhinged: Loosing the Black Female Body in Religion and Culture by Tamura Lomax

[grandwitchbird]

On Textual Ethics.

Texts have their own ‘ethics’. We can think of this as undergirding values and motivations that create a work’s approach to its subject/s and demands on its readers. It’s flavored by culture, the influences the writers themselves may not even be aware of, the priorities they very much are aware of, the very process of creating art etc… And it’s not about content or plot. You can tell a story about rebels against fascists and make it so ethically confused there may as well be no ethic.

I can’t emphasize enough that this is a matter of how/why a work is doing what it’s doing. It’s not about the surface level details like wether someone becomes god or fights god or gets crushed by their god. You also can’t just read an ethic into the text. It’s about defined values. Trying to read an ethic into a text that can’t support it is how you get tumblr’s idea that marvel movies are somehow anything other than ethically impoverished nonsense meant to farm Chinese theater dollars. To understand textual ethics, you have to know something about textual context: you have to historicize your reading and you have to be well-read in a given genre and you need to genuinely understand values systems. There’s some easy giveaways re: ethical weakness though.

Lord of the Rings is comfortingly conservative in its retreats from moral disturbance, and that makes it likable for most people. We can indulge in its attempts at romanticism because the text goes out of its way to avoid any real discussion of its values. Our romantic pastoral world is threatened by a suitably vague evil represented by, whoops technology and industry. Let’s not think about that too much because it might raise questions about why all our heroes are land owners and land inheritors. Except for the ever-loyal manservant straight out of a Victorian novel. Of course. The text does not want you to think about its implications. It could say something interesting if it did, but it’s not going anywhere with any of that. It wants only to comfort you by activating a false nostalgia for an innocently pastoral England that never existed. It can’t resist reduction as a result because it lacks defined values. It also ends with a complete resolution that escapes both the trouble of living and the material finality of death. This is a weak ethic. (I finally read Epic Pooh right after I drafted this and had a good laugh. Moorcock and I are in agreement. I’d like to cite him here even though I technically landed on the same thing he did in isolation. Go read Epic Pooh).

You can tell a story about cops that’s explicitly leftist and make it stronger for resisting reduction and preachiness. You can tell a story about systemically oppressed underdogs, ending with a revolution, and say absolutely nothing at all by getting muddled in your values and execution. You can write a children’s story that does have something meaningful to say about systems of oppression and make it about magical pirates. You can do anything. It’s how you do it that matters. Strong ethics resist retreat. They prod at our uncertainties and provide meaningful answers and are happy to make us uncomfortable in the process. They have defined values.

And yes conservative ‘ethics’ are weak. Inherently. Conservativism is a set of impulses towards retreat (from anxiety, from the self, from others, from change) into hierarchy, both practically and ideologically. It relies on your squeamishness about all the problems of being human. It seeks the false virtues of purity and innocence. It’s not a viable ethical framework. That’s why textually conservative stories avoid providing philosophically clear motives. They seek to subvert anxiety by simply retreating from it into nostalgia or hierarchy or by appeals to common sense. If they defined motives they’d have to define what they think ‘evil’ actually is. See? Retreat. There’s no answer but death in that retreat, and the text will find a way to run even from that. It’s a reflection of real world human weaknesses and the systems they engender and enable. Looking that reality in the eye and interrogating the line where weakness turns us into monsters would be the kind of project an ethically strong text might take on.

[pluralsword]

Months Later, Earthspark...

So... we didn't forget about Earthspark.

How could we? We've said we think it's the overall best Transformers show so far in 2023 CE, we were very excited at how it tackled how gender and alt-mode can relate to each other (except the Jawbreaker episode was a disappointment what with how masculinity problems were basically substituted for dinosaurs and mixed up with what should have been a PTSD narrative for Grimlock separate from Jawbreaker's aesthetic journey, and on the subject of rage that came here you would sure think the warrior teacher gal Robbie's asks if she'd show her "beserker rage" would have had some advise), the prison abolition stuff is cool, Arcee was fantastic and so very clearly drawing on her IDW iterations to the point we were hoping she'd talk about gender stuff onscreen and it would unfortunately seem that is not likely to happen... So we were enthused, but also frustrated, with how the Terran and Cybertronian aspects of life are almost always only seen through the lens of anatomy, vague history, or the oppression they go through under an ICE allegory, and qualms that have been touched on how the Terrans are basically raised without connection or celebration of transformer societal practices along with false equivalencies of the Transformers to human immigrants to the USA and uh well... ...there were some things that squicked us about some of the threats the characters faced that reminded us of childhood traumas from media and socialization growing up and we don't feel like getting into it directly too much.

We wanted to write something that honored the parts we liked while navigating how we think the bots in-universe would feel about the stuff the show didn't cover or the traumas they were put through, and how they may have tackled that offscreen, if only because we feel the deep want to. So... several months ago, after writing part of the first chapter but not being in the emotional headspace to actually finish it what with other things in life going on, we got back to it in November:

All Souls' Reforging is Neverending, which you can read on Ao3, here's the summary:

After the events of Season 1 Episode 19 "A Stygi Situation", Grimlock and Jawbreaker are in the forest when Grim gets a call from his close friend and old revolutionary war pal, Arcee, who's checking on him and offering to hang out beyond the notice of GHOST to help with his healing process, as Grimlock had done for her twice in the past. Grimlock happily agrees, and Jawbreaker goes along as well. In the Autobot's hideaway, Arcee and Grimlock detail to Jawbreaker some of the depths of peaceful transformer history and society that overlap and differ from humanity, the hierarchy that disrupted that legacy, and the Autobot rise after. Arcee also gives him some tools to embrace his strength to be gentle. As a neurodiverse trans system with some gal gender stuff & a second generation immigrant background who navigated anger and rage and pain over otherness and alienation, it was a bit saddening to see how awkward the guy-gal dynamic was in "A Stygi Situation" and that Arcee wasn't present with her own insight on rage as a tool with reason and ethos. So we wrote this, Chapter 2 and 3 will be about Arcee, Nova Storm, & Skywarp navigating traumas from episodes after, and how they seek closure.

For people who are okay with chapter spoilers, you can find the chapter 2 summary below. we dunno when we're gonna write chapter 3, rather busy:

Nova Storm and Skywarp have been through a lot. Veterans of the war against Functionism, they fell from the ethos of solidarity then by helping fight for the Decepticon Empire. In the aftermath of that war, they ended up on the run from GHOST on an unfriendly world, had to turn to the cruel and hateful Dr. Mandroid for sustenance and vengeance, endured imprisonment, faced off against the terrifying and repulsively invasive Dweller of the Depths, and finally became part of the reckoning that brings down GHOST. Trauma hits differently for everyone, and for Nova Storm, her encounter with the Dweller has left her unable to enjoy embraces and kisses from her partner Skywarp, and she still struggles with anger and sadness over how helpless she felt. So, when the dust settles after the Season 1 finale, Nova Storm turns for help from one of her old combat unit friends among the Autobots, Arcee… and she and Skywarp realize almost immediately that the violation of autonomy by mind control that Arcee experienced from GHOST likely left her in need of help as well, so mutual healing and reconciliation is sought… along with resolve to make joy and mourn for all that has come to pass.

So uh, yeah, this chapter also deals with how icky the Dweller in the Depths episode was (particularly but certainly not limited to the way the Dweller held Nova Storm reminded us of sexual(ized) violence. to be honest) in a way that we think the characters might in retrospect.

Again, you can read All Souls' Reforging is Neverending, which you can read on Ao3. Also, please feel free to reach out to us about this writing or comment, we know it covers sensitive topics even if with a g-rated framework.

[sankofaspirit]

Nonsensical Justifications for Colonialism and Slavery

White supremacists have long used flawed and ridiculous arguments to justify colonialism and slavery. Here’s a breakdown of some of the most common ones, including the infamous “Romans colonized Britain” argument and why they fall apart under scrutiny:

1. "We were civilizing them!"

The myth of "civilizing the savage" suggests that enslaved and colonized people benefited from European influence through exposure to Western religion, language, and culture.

The Reality:

Many African and Indigenous societies were already advanced with their own systems of governance, art, education, and spirituality. Colonizers erased these traditions, claiming “superiority” to justify their theft, exploitation, and violence. The idea that destroying someone’s culture equals “civilization” is absurd.

2. Twisting the Bible

Slavers and colonizers misused scripture to justify their actions, with the “Curse of Ham” myth being one of the most infamous examples.

The Reality:

The Bible was weaponized for greed. This so-called "curse" doesn’t justify anything. Religious distortion was a tool to sanctify oppression—not a moral basis for it.

3. "Might makes right!"

This argument suggests that European colonialism was justified because they had the power to conquer others.

The Reality:

Just because you can conquer someone doesn’t mean you should. Moral superiority has nothing to do with military or technological strength. If anything, it highlights the colonizer’s lack of ethics.

4. Pseudoscientific Racism

During the 18th and 19th centuries, pseudoscience claimed Black people were biologically inferior, using fake studies to justify enslavement and colonization.

The Reality:

Modern science has long debunked these racist myths. Race is a social construct. These ideas were nothing more than fabrications to support systems of white supremacy.

5. "Slavery built the modern world, so it was necessary!"

Some argue that slavery and colonialism were essential for progress and economic development.

The Reality:

Yes, slavery enriched European nations—but at the expense of millions of lives and cultures. Calling theft and exploitation "necessary" ignores the humanity of the people whose labour and resources were stolen. Progress didn’t have to come at this cost.

6. "They were doing it too!"

This argument points to the existence of slavery or conquest in other parts of the world to claim that European colonialism was no different.

The Reality:

Slavery in other societies wasn’t on the same industrialized scale as transatlantic chattel slavery. European colonialism was uniquely dehumanizing and global, driven by racial hierarchies and capitalism. This deflection doesn’t erase its unprecedented brutality.

7. "Europeans brought railroads and roads, though!"

Colonizers often argue that colonized countries "benefited" from infrastructure like railroads, roads, or education.

The Reality:

These infrastructures were built to extract resources, not to help local populations. Any "benefits" came at the cost of cultural genocide, violence, and systemic exploitation.

8. The Roman Colonialism Argument

One of the most common deflection tactics is: "Romans colonized Britain, so why is European colonialism any different?"

The Claim

Britain benefited from Roman roads, infrastructure, and culture—just like colonized nations benefited from European colonialism.

The Reality:

False Equivalency: Roman rule wasn’t rooted in racial hierarchies or global dehumanization like European colonialism.

No Cultural Erasure: Britain retained its language and cultural identity after Roman rule. Colonized nations often lost entire civilizations.

Infrastructure for Whom? Roman roads benefited the Romans, just like colonial railroads served European exploitation—not the local populations.

Context Matters: Roman colonization happened 2,000 years ago in a different historical context, whereas European colonialism was industrialized, racialized, and left lasting global scars.

9. Dehumanization as Justification

Colonizers argued that enslaved or colonized people weren’t fully human, making it “acceptable” to enslave, exploit, and kill them.

The Reality:

This was a deliberate tactic to suppress moral opposition. The humanity of colonized and enslaved people has always been undeniable. Dehumanization was simply a tool to enable greed.

10. "It was legal back then!"

Some claim that colonialism and slavery were justifiable because they were legal in their time.

The Reality:

Legality does not equal morality. Systems of oppression were legalized to protect the interests of those in power—not because they were just or ethical.

11. "Colonialism helped ‘discover’ these lands!"

This claim suggests that colonizers “discovered” places that were already inhabited.

The Reality:

How do you discover something that already exists? Indigenous peoples have been living on those lands for thousands of years. This argument erases the sovereignty of entire civilizations.

12. "Colonized people should be grateful!"

Some claim that colonized nations should feel grateful for the supposed “progress” Europeans brought.

The Reality:

Grateful for what? Centuries of genocide, stolen wealth, and systemic underdevelopment? This argument ignores the violence, exploitation, and long-term harm caused by colonization.

13. "It was God’s will."

Some argued that colonization and slavery were divine mandates, claiming God wanted Europeans to dominate the world.

The Reality:

Using God to justify theft and murder is not only morally bankrupt but blatantly self-serving. Divine will conveniently aligned with their greed and conquest.

14. "Slavery wasn’t that bad!"

Some argue that enslaved people were "better off" under slavery than in their own cultures.

The Reality:

This is a grotesque lie designed to downplay the horrors of slavery: forced labor, families torn apart, physical torture, and complete denial of freedom.

15. "Colonialism brought democracy to the colonized!"

This suggests colonization was necessary to teach “uncivilized” nations about democracy and governance.

The Reality:

Colonizers imposed authoritarian rule, crushed resistance movements, and stifled independence for centuries. Any “democracy” was designed to serve colonial interests, not the people.

Final Thoughts

Every justification for colonialism and slavery is rooted in greed, pseudoscience, and distorted morality. These arguments were never about bringing progress or civilization—they were excuses to legitimize theft, genocide, and exploitation. Calling out these nonsensical defences is essential to dismantling the lingering effects of colonialism and racism today.