#this is simply dehumanizing and should be a crime

[xclowniex]

So if that terror attack on Lebanon is justified for the death of those 12 Druze children (which I'm sure you wouldn't be as heartbroken about them if they were killed by the IDF instead), what should the IDF punishment be for killing thousands of Palestinians children and how many Israeli civilians are you willing to let die in order to get to those Israeli terrorists? Assuming you think Israelis should even be punished for killing children (or that the word terrorists can be used to describe someone that isn't Muslim)

I wasn't going to answer this as I know it's obviously in bad faith but I'll bite

Stop putting your US centric views onto me. Here in New Zealand, we considering March 15th a terror attack. If you don't know what happened that day, a white supremist opened fire on two mosques in Christchurch. The white supremist who did it? He is a terrorist. I consider him a terrorist. All the media here considers him a terrorist. He is a terrorist.

New Zealand has designated a few white supremist groups and individuals as terrorists

Do you know who else is on this list?

Hezbollah.

Do you know who is not on this list? The IDF. You can check for yourself too

To quote the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, which is ya know, laws surrounding terrorism, the IDF currently is exempt from it.

"However, an act does not fall within subsection (2) if it occurs in a situation of armed conflict and is, at the time and in the place that it occurs, in accordance with rules of international law applicable to the conflict."

(Sub section two refers to civilians being harmed or killed)

Fun fact about war crimes! Individuals get arrested for them and designated as war criminals, not everyone who is apart of the military. Bibi can be arrested for war crimes. Any individual IDF member who did the war crime can be arrested for war crimes. Whatever the Israeli version of John Smith is, who has never committed a war crime during his service, cannot be arrested for a war crime, and therefore cannot be labeled a terrorist.

But wouldn't Hamas and hezbollah be excempt from being a terrorist group as they're in an armed conflict? They've both committed terrorist acts outside of armed conflicts, ergo, terrorist organizations.

Also, you can read the act I was quoting if you want

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0034/latest/DLM152702.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_terrorism+suppression+act_resel_25_a&p=1

So, now that we have established that the IDF has not committed a terror attack as they're currently in armed conflict with Hezbollah, the rest of what you said falls apart, but to address it.

1. I would be equally as sad if the IDF killed 12 druze children

2. I think that any IDF members who have committed war crimes + bibi should be arrested for war crimes as I've stated so many times

3. If I lived in an ideal world, all hezbollah members would simply be arrested and there would be no loss of life. But we don't live in an ideal world. Hezbollah won't allow themselves to be arrested. Hezbollah also remains an active threat. If IDF members who have committed war crimes + Bibi refuse to be arrested and are still an active threat to people (key word active threat), yeah killing them would be best. Considering the exploding pagers had a mortality rate of 0.3%, and not all of that were civilians, I would expect a mortality rate of less than 0.3% of civilians near the individual war criminal to be killed.

Oh whats that? Not the answer you expected yeah I thought so. How about instead of frothing at the mouth trying to find a gotcha you can use to dehumanize me, you actually A) read up on laws* and definitions and B) read through my blog first because I've said many times that individuals who have committed war crimes should be arrested

*I know that NZ law may differ from laws elsewhere but they're pretty similar in the US, Canada and the UK

[marsivian]

I don't understand the appeal and the need that people, usually rich people, gays, or sometimes straight people due to sterility or whatever the reason is (for the vast majority that I see) have to have a surrogate. What's wrong with adopting a child? There are many children in the world who need a family and deserve to be loved and cared for. It's a long process, it is, obviously, but it's worth it If you want a child so badly, and what's wrong with waiting? Besides, surrogacy isn't quick either. And it's extremely inhumane for women who will carry the baby and it's a disgusting practice that shouldn't even be considered a possibility and shouldn't exist at all. The whole argument of 'but we want a child of our own' or whatever is ridiculous. A child, your hypothetically adopted son or daughter, for example, isn't and wouldn't be your child in the same way that a biological one would be? It makes it sound like families with adopted children aren't a real family or something because they don't have the same blood, when blood doesn't define a family. Blood doesn't make a family and never did or will

[esyra]

These days, I have long debated what to write regarding Palestine-Israel, and questioned why I should write anything at all. The idea that celebrities and the loudest chronically online people you've ever met, blessed in their ignorance and indifferent to livehoods different than theirs, feel the need to opinate on social and geopolitical issues is absolutely insane. Most of the time, they do more harm than good—spreading misinformation like wildfire. Such opinions are what convinced me to ultimately talk about it.

Rest assured I'm not particularly qualified to talk about any of this, then again no one seems (or tries) to be. This is not a statement, simply questions about selected nuance. Full disclosure: I am of Palestinian descent. And I tried my hardest to be all-encompassing and empathetic; if I fail at any moment, my sincerest apologies.

All around social media I've seen only two kinds of posts regarding Palestine and Israel; they're either completely favorable to Israel and dehumanize Palestine or they treat Palestines as a footnote, in which it's made to assure its author doesn't endorse murder but also to point out that Palestine "deserve what's coming." There's a certain nuance required to support Palestine that's not asked when supporting Israel.

I've seen Jamie Lee Curtis reposting a picture of Palestinian children watching Israelis air strikes as if they were of Israeli children. There's no doubt it was a malicious-intended post considering she credited the photographer while deleting the original caption which explicitly explained who the ones pictured were. After being severely corrected in the comments, she simply deleted and made no mention of it. Guess children don't matter if they're Palestinian. I've seen way too many celebrities responding to the conflict with worries about how they might be affected by it, as self-centered and selfish as you can imagine.

I've seen a journalist claim that 40 Israeli babies were beheaded and multiple newspapers (many of them British, because what else can you expect from them?) and public figures reposting as a fact, only for the same journalist to later claim she actually "never said that" (she absolutely did). Also the IDF explaining they have no information confirming the allegations that 'Hamas beheaded babies'. I've seen people using statements from Sabra and Shatila massacre survivors and trying to rewrite Palestine, which were the victims of said crime, as the perpetrators. I've seen people using videos of Russian attacks as Palestinian ones. I've seen a British journalist fabricating a harmful statement from a Palestinian Ambassador to help dehumanize Palestine, and being proud of such. I've seen BBC using the nuances of language to their liking, reporting how Israelis were 'killed' while Palestinians 'died'. Always heard journalists avoid adjectives in favor of being unbiased. Again, guess that's unimportant when it comes to Palestine. Most of all, I've seen people equate supporting Palestine to anti-semitism.

If that belief steams that Palestine and Hamas are one-and-the-same, and the latter is a anti-semitism organization, then that's another concern I'd like to add the recently appraised 'nuance'.

Hamas first appeared during the first intifada, a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. The signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 marked the end of the uprising—an agreement between Israel and Palestine meant to lay the groundwork for the formation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Instead, it has erased Palestine's recognition as a State. In its history, Hamas have equate the liberation of Palestinians with the destruction of Israel, likely the reason they're a highly divisive organization that has often been at oddens with more mainstream Palestinian politicians. However, Hamas backtracked on its aims in a 2017 proclamation, making it clear that what it wants is to end a “racist, anti-human and colonial Zionist project.” In its 16th topic, they state "Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine."

The description of the Israeli occupation as fascist most likely comes from the similarities of Palestine to an "open air prison". They have no control of their own borders (IDF controls who and what enters or leaves) and are deemed stateless. "In defiance of international law, Israel considers all Palestinians inhabitants of the occupied Palestinian territory as non-citizens and foreign residents." Meaning if they leave their territory, they won't be allowed back in. Their rights in the Arab World are uncertain, particularly in Lebanon and Egypt where they are denied rights to secure residency, employment, property, communal interaction and family unification. Procedures to allow non-residents to apply for naturalisation in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia do not apply to stateless Palestinians. So while those asking for Palestinians to be evacuated for their safety certainly have noble intentions, I ask of you: where they will go? Can you imagine walking away from home knowing you're heading into nothing? What's the difference between living in the rumbles of their homes and being homeless in another country?

The ones who decide to stay (and the ones unable to leave) are likely not making it for much longer. According to the United Nations, roughly 6,400 Palestinians and 300 Israelis have been killed in the ongoing conflict since 2008, not counting the recent fatalities. Is it truly a war if one side is so overpowering in its resources and retaliations? I feel the need to point out these stats to question why the notion that "violence is never the answer" is only used now. When it has been the only response until now.

Then again, Hamas remains a polarizing force in Palestinian society. They're an organization that's slaughtering families and less than a third of Palestinians think the group deserves to represent them. There has not been an opportunity, however, for elections to change their representatives. Palestinians living in Gaza must endure an unstable political reality with an unrepresentative government implementing repressive policies against LGBTQ people and abusive policies against detainees. Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu purposefully propped up Hamas and there has been speculation that Iran has supported them. I've seen many post as if it's a fact, so I'd like to reinforce that it's speculation. In essence, Hamas is a terrorist group with questionable history and even more questionable allies. None of which has the Palestine's best interests at heart.

This has been overly long, and I still haven't touched on all topics I wished to address. Some I probably couldn't express properly since it's such a complex geopolitical issue. Then again, no one seems to try while all seem very comfortable in being as biased as they wish to be. So I thought I add my compassionate two cents in favor of Palestine and all the years of oppresion they've endured. I still hope you'll read this to the end, and extended to Palestine the same sympathetic hand you've rightfully extended to Israeli citizens.

My heart aches for the innocent people murdered, Palestinian and Israeli. Settlers aren’t innocent, but people who were born there didn't really choose to be one. Jewish people following matters of faith don't deserve to die. No one has (or should have) the right to take someone's life away. People at the Gaza Strip that are either just trying to survive or attempting to protect their homes also don't deserve to die, as flawed as their logic and actions might be, and many are missing that nuance. The denial of food, water, and medical aid, violates the Geneva convention. And it's a kind of retaliation that Palestine in its entirety will never be able to match.

Currently, the Israeli government is preparing a ground invasion of Gaza. An anonymous Israeli official said they would turn Gaza into “a city of tents.” A parliamentarian said that Israel should not concern itself with the safety of any Gazans who “chose” to stay in the Gaza Strip, as if every crossing hasn't been blocked.

Soon, the 'war' will end. And when it does, I can assure you Palestine won't be the last one standing. They've never had a real chance. I'd like to remember everyone that, despite Netanyahu's claims that they are "human animals", Palestinians are human beings. People. All of which deserve to live, deserve compassion and deserve protection. They also deserve to be remembered.

[probablyasocialecologist]

The backlash is in full swing. People who speak out for Palestine, for Palestinians, for Gaza are being punished simply for using their voices to advocate against genocide and for the preservation of life. Many of the high-profile examples of people being punished for their speech involve absurdly banal statements. Some folks didn’t even mention Israel by name. The CEO of Web Summit has resigned after tremendous backlash over the comment, “War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies, and should be called out for what they are.” It would be comical if the implications weren’t so disastrous. Forced out for saying war crimes should always be called out. This obviously correct statement should’ve received no backlash at all, and instead cost this man his job. And yet, as we’ll get into here, the response to such a mundane statement hints at Israel and Zionism’s immense fear over public opinion turning, and on an even greater scale exposes the vulnerability of Western hegemony in this moment. Paddy Cosgrave, the Irish entrepreneur and CEO who stepped down at Web Summit, is not alone. Authors, workers, and politicians who speak out against Israel’s actions in any way are being censured and forced out of their jobs. The famed 92nd Street Y in New York City canceled the talk of Pulitzer Prize-winning author Viet Thanh Nguyen for signing an open letter condemning Israel's "indiscriminate violence" against Palestinians in Gaza. The editor-in-chief of eLife, a scientific magazine, told the world he is being replaced for sharing a piece from The Onion that called out indifference to the lives of Palestinian civilians. There is again a comic tragedy to someone firing an editor for sharing a headline from a satirical magazine that reads, “Dying Gazans Criticized For Not Using Last Words To Condemn Hamas” and not realizing how they are proving the very point they hope to suppress. In short, by suppressing, firing, and attacking those who uplift the humanity of Palestinians and condemn war crimes, powerful people are making it clearer than ever that they are not in fact on the side of justice. Even more plainly, when they condemn Hamas as barbaric again and again, but then go after people who oppose crimes against humanity and say that thousands of innocent people in Gaza should not be slaughtered, they expose themselves as barbaric and depraved. I hesitate to even use the language of barbarism, as implying the absence of civilization has over centuries become synonymous with dehumanization. But as Israel runs ads in Times Square that say “Be Human. Stand for Israel” and relentlessly bombs Gaza, killing thousands, it becomes hard to ignore how nearly every move made both by the state of Israel and many Zionists has the opposite of its intended impact.

[fortunatelychaoticphantom]

Why is the fact that Jesus and Jews were from Israel considered controversial? It’s what we’re taught at school (and for Christians - church) in the US.

I’m genuinely asking, this isn’t sarcastic. No one I know has ever disputed that fact before.

Hello!

You're referring to this post.

It's controversial because denying the connection of Jewish people (especially Ashkenazim but not only) to the land of Israel is a fundamental aspect of post-modern antisemitism.

Classical and modern antisemitism, particularly in Europe, relied on the Jewish people's foreignness to dehumanize them. It was obvious they were Not From Here, despite living there for centuries and longer, and many demanded that they Go Back To Where They Came From. And then they did.

But antisemitism didn't go away just because Israel was founded, it simply morphed, just like it had between its classical phase (centered on religious otherness, religious "crimes" and blood libels) and its modern phase (centered on race theory and economics).

Of course, right-wingers are still classically and modernly antisemitic. They usually don't bother to hide their hatred, it's pretty fundamental to their ideology and identity (though there are aspects of hiding, especially with holocaust denial). But the left has always been just as antisemitic as the right. But it has also grown in the post-modern age, after world war 2, with specific ideologies, centered around notions of humanism and the importance of human and minority rights. And antisemitism doesn't sit well with these notions, especially not after the holocaust... So something had to change. Unfortunately, it wasn't the antisemitism.

This is a classic cognitive dissonance; I feel something (hatred for Jews) that is inconsistent with my ideology (hating people based on their ethnicity is bad). In such instances you can either 1) work to change your actions (it doesn't matter what I feel, as long as I don't harm Jews, and eventually I might change my feelings for them); or 2) change your believes (Jews aren't a category worth protecting).

Now, "hating Jews" is still a big no-no in western left circles. Even now you can't actually directly say it (obviously this was true before October 7th. It seems like even these rules are changing as we speak). So westerners needed to do two things: 1) white-ify the Jewish people (especially the Ashkenazim) and 2) shift the focus on Israel.

The white-ification of the Jewish people is a major theme is western leftist circles in the past 70 years, especially in the US because of its complicated history with race and ethnicity, but it's prevalent in many other countries as well (it should be noted that Jewish people themselves have contributes to this phenomena for many reasons, but this is not the place for this discussion).

In the post-modern age, "whiteness" means "evil" and it is connected to European and western imperialism and colonization. So, essentially, they change what being a Jew is - a white person, as opposed to a Levantine person. This is where some of these people will do mental gymnastics to deny where Jews are originally from, whether denying modern Jews have anything to do with the historical ones (and many choose this route) or somehow both admitting they are from Israel but saying it doesn't matter because it happened a long time ago and then with the same breath talk about how Palestinians are the indigenous ancient people of the land (they are both indigenous, the world is just that stupid). Now, since white people are evil, they are open for criticism, especially if they are colonizers. And since Jews are white now, it makes no sense for them to live in the Middle East.

Which brings us to refocusing their criticism on Israel. Here, people have to walk a fine line between a legitimize political criticism of the Israeli government and the society itself throughout the years (and there are MANY justified criticisms...) and just being antisemitic. Unfortunately, western leftist circles tend to lean more heavily into the latter. And, again, as has been particularly evident for the last three weeks, their focus is on identifying Israel as colonizing enterprise, not just beyond the 67' Green Line, but by it's very nature of existence, since Jews are white now and don't belong there.

And now, once again, they call us to Go Back To Where We Came From (just to be very clear - Palestinians and the rest of the world are doing it as well), despite that part of the world literally saying "don't bring them here, they are not from here", like they always did, just like the post OP was sharing. Only those Europeans aren't saying "Jews are from the Land of Israel and they deserve to live there", they are just saying what the entire world has been saying for the past two thousand years - we don't want Jews anywhere, period.

They don't give a shit about where Jews are from. Some of them say we're from Europe for the sole purpose of destroying Israel. And they would gladly displace millions of Jews and send them to live again with the people who tried and nearly succeeded to annihilate us. Everyone else just don't care, as long as they can hurt us, but also refuse to accept us as their own. And trust me - if and god forbid when millions of Jews will once again become refugees, not a single nation around the world from which We Came From would take us in. Not one.

I know that people know where Jews are from, but the fact remains that huge sections of the world right now, especially on the left side of the political map, will actively deny it.

Because the truth is - the world doesn't give a shit what Jews are or are not. The world doesn't give a shit where Jews are from or aren't from. The world doesn't want Jews in Israel, and it doesn't want Jews anywhere else.

The only place the world deems the Jews to belong to is their graves.

[general-cyno]

ehh it's just me musing but. I do find it a little curious that (depending on who likes whom I guess) cora is usually either seen as some saintly flawless goofy figure or a brainwashed cop who got killed because he refused to try and save his brother. I do think his character is not exactly easy to pinpoint, considering he appears for a very short time and in a flashback nonetheless, plus the fact that he's dead means no further fleshing out of his character - broadly speaking - outside of the people who knew him and are willing to provide insight on what he was like, though that'd still be kinda biased.

however I believe there's actually a bunch of things that were straight up shown and some that can be pieced together from what little panel/screen time he had: ie how he's seemingly more bad tempered, impulsive and violent than he's portrayed as in fanon at times, albeit motivated by his own priorities at the moment (trying to kick the shit out of law to stop him from exposing cora to doflamingo) + his sense of what's right and wrong and to whom it applies (punching medical staff and setting hospitals on fire for mistreating law, whom he'd been trying to help).

specifically about the navy and doflamingo part... it irks me a little, tbh. partly because it removes what little agency cora had during the flashbacks and sort of waters down his motivation to stop his brother. it's not just whatever crimes doflamingo was committing or planning to back then and the navy wanting to put a stop to that - the thing is that cora was influenced, at least to an extent, to oppose doflamingo based on their childhood experiences with (ofc) the more negative ones, which include doffy murdering their father right in front of him, overshadowing anything else. as he tells law, cora can't fathom how their kind parents could've borne someone as evil as his brother. and yet. that's the other thing. cora was very much a child, and younger than doflamingo at that, when the elder DQs chose to leave marijoa and all that it entailed after. between all the traumatic events he lived through and later being raised by a marine (sengoku of all people), I'll be the first to say his perception of those events, of their parents and doffy himself is not really the most unbiased or reliable. we don't see him questioning the existence of celestial dragons (beyond warning law he's in danger when cora finds out about the D) nor the nature of the WG/the marines and the antagonistic role they play in OP's universe. we didn't have him long enough for those things to be put to question deeply anyway, especially not wrt to doflamingo, so imo it makes sense that his focus wasn't on "saving" but stopping him.

that said... he does witness the worst of it, kind of. through law. law is the very reason why I don't agree with the idea of cora being simply a brainwashed cop. this guy watched how people (those who should care) mistreated, dehumanized and demonized a sick child over prejudices caused by the lies the nobles and WG itself relied on to sweep their own corruption under the rug. he saw first hand how all those doctors ran to call the WG to kill the child and how they answered to do that. and what did he do? he lied and betrayed the organization he'd been part of (presumably for more than the years he spent undercover) and the man who'd raised him like a son just to save the kid that everyone, even the so called justice, had turned his back on and would've gotten rid of if given the chance. heck, when he first brought up the topic of law with sengoku, the man basically told him not to favor him too much for it could jeopardize his mission.

but perhaps the biggest proof is that he lied to law about being a marine when the latter directly asked if cora was one. as he later admits, cora lied to him about this because he didn't want law to hate him - and knowing all law lived through (flevance), seeing some of it himself (their hospital shenanigans) and what law told him as well, cora knew he had plenty of understandable and justified reasons to hate anyone ever slightly associated with the marines or the WG, including cora. to me, someone who's completely blinded by the navy/WG propaganda and follows their every order to the letter without thought wouldn't have denied his own affiliation nor been so determined to ditch being a marine and make an enemy out of those institutions (even if that also meant betraying his father figure) just to save, protect and do right by a child who'd been clearly failed by them. at no point did cora ever try to argue that Not All Marines, much less express any other sentiments of that sort to law.

on a similar vein, despite insisting doflamingo was evil and an agent of destruction - law is also the proof cora was somewhat aware that his brother (and people like doflamingo) normally don't pop out of nowhere and do Terrible Things just because. that maybe in other (better) circumstances, doffy might've become someone different and/or made different choices. after all, cora is the one who points out the similarities between doflamingo and law, and eventually does his best to turn law's life around so that he won't follow the same path. should he have tried to save doflamingo as well? when? how? would it have worked? who knows. and if you ask me, regardless of their similarities at that moment in time, doffy was already a grown ass man compared to law and cora himself was just an even younger kid when shit hit the fan in their childhood. I'm not sure doflamingo (as an adult) would've been particularly receptive of "help" either, considering his disdain for the kindness in cora and their father that he saw as a weakness. not to mention waaay too many other factors that come into play also (trebol and co's grooming and influence for example). still, one of them did pull the literal trigger in the end and it wasn't cora, so there's that.

all in all, for a character with such a short lived amount of time in the story - cora is quite the complex one and so very compelling. characterizing him as just strictly one thing or the other can be a little reductive but the fact that his character can be explored beyond that in the first place (once more, despite his lil bit of alive and onscreen moments) is what's fun and says a lot about the writing itself.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

@wayward-wren that other post was getting to be a chore to scroll through, so I hope you don't mind that I'm moving my responses to a new one. If I've missed something you'd really like a response to, just remind me about it and I'll do my best. I think I've pulled everything that I wanted to go over here.

> Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1:22-23  "For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles..." You're not alone in your skepticism, and that's why we have to rely on God.

I understand why you think that way, but my skepticism means that I can't rely on god. I can't appeal to something that hasn't met its burden of proof in order to explain other things that haven't met their burden of proof either. This just doesn't work, it's not a logical conclusion to make. In the absence of evidence for the claims, I must reject them until they can be shown to be true.

> Where does your morality come from? You can't claim God is evil without defining what evil is. Is evil hurting others? Then being a personal trainer would be evil, because exercise hurts.

This is hard to explain briefly. I mean, philosophers have been trying to nail down morality for about as long as all of written history. But what we see is that morality is an ever shifting social construct. There are things that we understand now to be morally bad which were seen as good or neutral in the past. And in the future I'm sure there are things we won't look upon favorably that are totally fine today.

Morality can't exist in a vacuum, so it needs a goal in order to sort of ground it. For me, it starts simply; the goal is to promote human flourishing and well-being while mitigating as much harm and suffering as possible. The evidence that this is a worthwhile goal is this: we, and even other mammalian species, have an awareness that individual suffering diminishes the chances of group survival, so in order to make sure we all flourish we ought to care for one another.

So I really don't believe in evil, though this might be a semantic point. With respect to my goal stated above, how can I see any moral value to a commandment that tells me that people should be used as property? This degrades and dehumanizes both subject and master, maybe even irreparably, and does nothing to promote human flourishing.

And this view is capable of accounting for nuance, whereas "don't look at someone and think they're sexy," is a harsh, black and white statement that amounts to thought crime, which is something that has no use other than to mentally dominate people and make them subservient. And for what? Thoughts like this cause no harm as long as the thought doesn't lead to any external, non-consensual action, and most of the time if not all, they're completely involuntary. It's control for the sake of control without even approaching being a moral value.

The nuance comes in as well with your personal trainer example, though I'd argue that the trainer is not harming directly but guiding a person through a process that will indeed cause some self harm, but with a positive goal. It's contractual and the recipient knows that the slight harm is to their benefit. Similarly, we consent to surgery which can be very risky harm, with the goal of becoming well. Absolute, black and white commands don't leave room for this and should ultimately be rejected in favor of a reasoned approach that takes all available information into account.

If god commands us not to lie, did he know that in 1930's Germany a great number of compassionate people, often devoted believers, would hide people in their homes who were taking refuge from a fascist regime? Did he expect those people who lied to the officers banging at their door, in order to protect innocent lives, to beg his forgiveness for misleading men with murder and torture in their minds? If my friend is in an abusive relationship and they've come to my place to call for help, and their enraged partner comes to me asking where my friend is, what forgiveness do I need for telling them that my friend isn't there? I've done no wrong, but this imperative given with no caveats or grey areas allowed brands me with the title of sinner and I object. Real life application of morality is rarely, if ever, as cut and dry as these ancient edicts would imply.

> If there is a God who created the world and is so much more powerful than the beings He created, why can't he make the rules?

I don't think that there is a god, or that the world was created, but to entertain the hypothetical; of course, I'd have no choice but to accept that those are the rules, but I'd also have no obligation to follow the rules if I have the free will you say I do. I don't necessarily believe in free will, but I would never follow an immoral command. If a god told me to go and do a genocide on the Canaanites or to keep slaves, for example, I would have all the information I needed to conclude that this god is a tyrant and undeserving of obedience or worship. I'd be damned, but my conscience would be clear.

> The thing with Christianity, is it's a story of God reaching to man. Every single other religion is man reaching to God. Every single other religion is a works based religion. Every single other religion is focused on how we can be Good Enough for God.

I don't have much to say here, except this: do you know every single other religion that has ever existed? Have you studied the Vedas of Hinduism, or whatever texts are foundational to Shintoism? How about ancient religions of fallen civilizations lost to time? Is it not more than a little bit dishonest to make broad, sweeping claims about "every single other religion," especially when your own's adherents can hardly agree among one another on what the official doctrine demands? These things are complicated and we shouldn't make such generalizations given the vast amount of study one would have to go through in order to truly know what you're claiming to know here.

[intersectionalpraxis]

The current CEO of Mattel has said he is proud of his "Israeli heritage." This was from an article I posted a while ago, and I just saw that someone had re-blogged my post with their commentary -about how it is borderline antisemitic to call someone a zionist because they are proud of their Jewish identity... which, I am incredibly confused by because the post said NOTHING about his religion, and was more of a call out of the fact that he takes PRIDE in having grown up in a space where the IOF has and continues to systematically oppress Palestinian people -and for the past few months have massively accelerated a genocide, while continuing to commit heinous war crimes (like bombing hospitals and murdering journalists and their families), and regularly/routinely dehumanizing and torturing Palestinian people for simply existing and resisting the occupation.

I need some of these people to get a grip, because there are many anti-zionist Jewish people all around the world saying the occupation must end and that Palestine must be free -there are even a few who have revoked their 'Israeli' citizenship because they know that the entire state has been built through systematic violence. Being critical of anyone 'proud' to be from a settler country that has and continues to commit genocide against an Indigenous population should be something we're ALWAYS calling out.

Someone also posted this in a huge thread of information -where the CEO of Mattel, Ynon Kreiz co-signed this statement, so THERE you go:

"Spyglass Media Group founder Gary Barber, Mattel CEO Ynon Kreiz and a group of other leaders in the entertainment industry denounced the “brutal attacks” by Hamas in Israel in a joint statement Thursday received exclusively by TheWrap." “We denounce the brutal attacks by Hamas in Israel. These atrocities will have a devastating impact on future generations,” the statement read. “We unequivocally stand in solidarity with Israel in the global fight against terrorism. Am Yisrael Chai.”

[majachee]

Trying to moralize what's happening in Palestine really shows one's own lack of, well, morals.

"Israel has the right to defend itself!" — self defense does not include bombing hospitals with children, doctors, families, the injured, etc. inside. That is a war crime. Self defense does not include bombing and shooting evacuation routes. That is a war crime. Self defense does not include bombing churchs and cultural artifacts. That is a war crime. Self defense does not include cutting off all access to food, water, electricity, humanitarian aid, etc. That is a war crime and a crime against humanity.

Israel has been doing this shit for years, decades. They are using Hamas as a tool for propaganda. The West hates Arabic countries and its people, it's blatantly obvious here in America with depictions of the Middle East post-9/11 and even before 9/11. Israel is taking advantage of this blatant bigotry and xenophobia.

Every country has it's own unique issues regarding human rights, equality, and separation of religion and the state, unofrtunately. The Middle East is not "uniquely evil" or even UNIQUE for whatever issues the Western media decides to hyperfocus on. I assure you, you can find an equivalent in America or any European country — whether in the modern day or throughout history. This does not make the civilians any less human, this does not make anyone less human. You're not at fault for simply being born in a country the world has unfairly deemed as "evil" or "subhuman." Your purpose in life is to live freely and happy, it is your birthright to live. You do not have to justify your existentence. You don't have to moralize your life. You shouldn't have to. You are human, you were born, and you should be free to live to life you were given.

You cannot moralize killing an entire population of people. Every person on Earth has their own beliefs and values, their own stories. Their own families, histories, passions, hobbies. You can't justify killing an entire civilization of diverse people because of one singular, small ass group. And even then, Israel has lied about Hamas again and again and again. We cannot trust a word that the Israeli government says. Nothing Israel can say about the Hamas will ever justify what they've done for 75 years.

People have the right to live. It's basic human rights and yet so many zionists and self-proclaimed "liberals" in the West refuse to acknowledge that. I suppose it's easier to ignore/justify genocide when you remove the personhood and individuality of the population. They're not people to you if you justify genocide, they're just faceless, void concepts.

Trying to moralize genocide is the same shit Hitler did. It's what Nazis and Neo-Nazis did/are doing. It's what Klansmen are doing. I don't give a flying fuck what Hamas did or did not do, the Israeli government is full of lying scumbags and nothing will ever justify the 75 years of bloodshed that stains Israel's stolen borders. In a parallel universe, everything they're saying about Hamas could be true and it still won't justify shit, because they aren't acting in self-defense and they're killing civilians in the tens of thousands.

By moralizing genocide, you are actively dehumanizing the victims. You don't see them as real people with real personalities. You are justifying murder, rape, torture, cultural erasure, historical revisioning, and wiping out entire societies off the face of the planet. It's blatant eugenics and facism.

[hologramcowboy]

I usually stay far away from Twitter and fandom drama and I don't follow fandom groups but given the dehumanizing posts I've been seeing online, I am going on a fairly long rant, this is just my view, of course, so please discard it if not relevant to you:

The people making posts like these:

are at the core of the bully mentality. You are dehumanizing a Human Being with the entitlement that you get to define how a negative experience affects them. You do not, in any universe, get to tell someone who has been affected by something at what level they have been affected. Simply because you are not them. Furthermore, you are biased and discriminating against Jared Padalecki because he is a celebrity. Jared is a human being first and foremost and, as we've seen in the past, he does do social listening. This means death threats and other cyber crimes do affect him, not to mention the very real stalking some of you do when he moves from country to country. You end up following him under his hotel or even worse situations.

This discussion happening within fandom should include him because he is a direct victim. Also, the intent to commit cyber crimes and sending death threats does not get cancelled out just because that person may or may not have read the thread/post. Do you get this? Do you understand that if your intention and energy is vile, whether the content reaches your target or not, your cyber crime is still in effect? "Jared is a big boy and he doesn't care". Really? In what universe would you be okay with receiving death threats, would your family love that for you? Oh, they would not? So why on earth would you say it is alright that Jared received death threats? Fans do affect an actor's psyche, actors live to bring you joy and when they see you go toxic and dangerous it does affect their psyche.

Aside from this, as mentioned earlier, some of you actually stalk him at cons and at different locations and do so with hateful intent. The gravity of your actions is what causes actors to hide in public, avoid open spaces, reinforce their security, have panic attacks and fear for their life. Yet here you are, online, claiming that it's all good because said person is a celebrity so who cares.

If you dislike Jared, that's a matter of taste and your business but if you dehumanize Jared to the point of denying the very real atrocious actions perpetuated towards him, then you are no different than the perpetrators. You are, in fact, the enablers so you are even worse. A bad intention or idea cannot form into action unless people enable it and you played a key part with your bias and lack of care.

Think of all that evil hitting your child or loved one or even yourself, is it still nothing now? Do you see how wrong it is to minimize the abuse people perpetuate? Jared is a kind human being, so he avoids getting into drama as much as he can but that doesn't mean he is not affected. Also, someone not being affected is never, ever, an excuse to abuse said person. It's pretty interesting how someone suddenly doesn't count as human in your eyes. Talking about the abuse Jared gets in no way takes away from the other victims, in fact, it provides evidence of the intent and maliciousness of the people who attacked those victims. So it is highly important to consider as well as discuss. If you actually care about the topic at hand and the people involved that is. If you actually cared about shifting paradigms and improving fandom experience.

Lastly, Jared does deserve an apology too, the behavior displayed towards him is inhuman, degrading and damaging. He's no different than all the other persons at the receiving end of atrocious behaviors. The fact that you cannot comprehend that shows you lack humanity and empathy. If this was you or a friend at the receiving end, you would do the right thing but because you resent Jared, you are trying to twist an important discussion to damage him further. Jared doesn't know you and never did anything against you yet you feel entitled to dehumanizing him.

Then there's this: The people who perpetuated these behaviors displayed them publicly as well, especially towards him, thus providing a horrible example for others to follow. If you really cared about resolving bullying you would know those were seriously damaging paradigms being disseminated online and encouraged. Those people felt entitled to tell others to end their existence and the reason this happened was because you chose to ignore it thinking "people are grown ups and they can defend themselves" and "that's a celebrity, I don't care". So you saw the very clear signs but ignored or encouraged. You enabled. Now you are trying to create drama centered on one of the victims instead of owning your part in all of that and working on ways to create healthier fandom experiences.

Let's look at this one:

"We can attack Jared haters(or Misha haters or Jensen haters) on any other day of the week" Not only is this person directly admitting to being no different than those perpetrators, she is actually saying that attacking is what they do on a daily basis. Is that supposed to be the normal response? To attack? So bullying is the solution to bullying? Since when? Since when has mobbing people become the norm? Behaviors can be addressed without even remotely attacking someone. If you've created vicious cycles where you gang up on each other then that's only going in one direction, the same one those cult girls had.

My point is, please gain awareness and focus on creating healthy paradigms rather than on victim shaming/blaming, attacking whoever you disapprove of (same pattern those cult girls had, silo mentality and one sided views) and stop enabling the people who created such a negative impact within fandom by allowing them to display disempowering behaviors. Stop feeding into negative patterns and starts building healthy ones. Change starts with you and, whether you are aware of it or not, your choices affect others.

It is truly heartbreaking how people can twist their love for a show into hating actors and other people instead of using that passion to connect with like minded souls and create beautiful experiences together.

[zweiginator]

The way in which Israel is actively citing H*tler as their muse for murdering tens of thousands of Palestinians and then Zionists deny deny deny a genocide that they are complicit in is fucking terrifying. I’ve seen plenty of Zionists online belittling and bullying anti-Zionist Jewish people, stating their ancestors would be ashamed of them, that they are not “real” Jews…

How far removed are we? The holocaust was not even 100 years ago and Zionists wholeheartedly believe that their ancestors would be proud of a stolen state representative of Judaism committing a genocide.

Not only that, but the denial stage of genocide is ramping up in full force, ironic since Zionists don’t realize that their vehement denial is further proof that a genocide is what is occurring. Any form of cognitive dissonance that disproves their denial—statistics from international organizations, indictments from the ICC, primary sources of Palestinians giving firsthand experiences of their family members and friends being slaughtered—will not stand for them. They simply deny it. The UN is a terrorist organization to them. Everything is rooted back to October 7th and Hamas and the hostages. No understanding or acknowledgement of the context surrounding this conflict or how it has been going on for over 75 years. No nuance.

And the release of the hostages and the dismantling of Hamas is not in Zionists’ best interests. It’s the only thing they can somewhat grasp onto as a driving force as to why Israel is systematically murdering Palestinians, targeting aid, and bombing civilians (all war crimes, by the way). Without Hamas, their arguments become even more obsolete.

I weep for Palestinians and the land that was robbed from them. The lives that have been robbed, the innocence. I can only pray that international law will, for once, act not as a puppeteer for western interests, but as a driving force to ensure that history doesn’t repeat itself, as it already has. The ICC has a duty to prove itself (especially as a relatively new body of enforcement of international law) as competent to try Israel and their accomplices (AMERICA!) to the fullest extent of the law. I have to admit I’m not very optimistic, but I am hopeful.

And lastly, I think this proves a psychological truth that’s hard to swallow—that really any group of people can and will commit atrocities like this. Any form of fervent nationalism will exist at the expense of an “opposing” group. Then the us v. them dynamic begins. Zionists use western hegemony and racist connotations of the word “terrorist” to scapegoat and dehumanize Palestinians and Arab people at large, although their actions can and should only be categorized as terrorism and blatant ethnic cleansing.

Thus, we need to dismantle our racist conceptualization of terrorism and the propaganda we have been taught. I have seen many people who were formerly pro-Israel become pro-Palestine as more information and resources come to light. We need to do academic research and come to properly informed conclusions that don’t keep us in echo chambers, but which inform us of the context of the conflict in today’s world, as well as the post-WWII world in which Israel was created.

Human rights are not inherently political. This is humanity, empathy, and being staunchly on the right side of history.

[helly-watermelonsmellinfellon]

Furina, and Genshin Stans' Inability to Handle Criticism

*SPOILERS*

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The introduction of Focalors as a character in 4.0, did what it should. She was a very polarizing character and had people forming very specific opinions that would be damn near impossible to change.

Most everyone enjoyed the fact that she wasn't kissing the Traveler's ass, wasn't flirting with the Traveler from the jump, and was dramatic. However, that did not mean that many of them came away liking her as a character. It wasn't translated as 'simply bratty' or 'adorable tantrums' to many of us.

People are capable of liking the fact that she was written differently even if we didn't like her personality.

Personally, I still don't like Keqing even after everything that's happened so far. I find her attitude to be very annoying, and her stances on many things piss me off, but it's also nice for her to not be up the Traveler's ass when they come around. It gives every scene a nice air to experience.

Furina's story ending up incredibly tragic does not mean people have to suddenly pander to her.

At most, she was disliked by many for appearing to be lazy and not actually doing anything useful for her people the whole time. And Arlecchino had a right as a citizen of Fontaine, to call her out for her inaction and chosen lifestyle. Just because it was revealed that Furina was playing her part in order to fool Fate and the Heavenly Principles, does not mean Arlecchino is in the wrong for what she said(attempting assassination is another matter entirely).

Furina still called Paimon an object and tried to ignore her living, breathing sentience just so she could try to get the Traveler on trial for a fake accusation. Even if that law actually exists(per Neuvillette's voice lines) Paimon is not an object. Those of us with common sense recognized how fucked up that was, and how bullshit it was to try something like that just to... prevent the Traveler from wandering around and getting involved in stuff.

Y'all realize the Traveler would have ended up in the Fortress of Meropide for a crime they did not commit, right?

No one held a gun to Furina's head to make her do that. She could have completely avoided the Traveler entirely, but instead SHE CHOSE to make that their first meeting. The Traveler and Paimon base their impressions on her off of that meeting. And even after months in Fontaine, she did not prove to be much better at anything else.

In the end, Focalors' plan proved Furina wasn't being useless. She was actually doing her part as faithfully as possible, but that's all it really did. The accusations of her not caring and being lazy were wrong. She cared a lot and she worked very hard to exhaustion(both mental and physical).

But Furina spent 500 years treating people a certain way, and that has results. Those not from Fontaine are not as blinded by the glamor of her behavior and don't see it as acceptable. And guess what? Her introduction to the Traveler involved racism and dehumanizing the Traveler's companion(even if Paimon isn't human, she's sentient and living and humanoid) for the sake of a farcical court trial.

Then, she made false accusations against Lyney not long after. And the investigation by anyone but the Traveler was truly lackluster with barely any effort put in. To make things worse, she couldn't find any proof for her claims, so she just threw a group of orphans under the bus because... for some reason the Fatui has to be the ones to take in Fontainian children so they're not living on the streets.

It's not a good look.

Furina has suffered and has done her part to save her people, but she's also done some fucked up things and hasn't apologized for them.

You can't clamor for Arlecchino to apologize for what she said, or for Paimon to apologize for pestering her over and over to help out that theater troupe, and then sit there quiet over her behavior that had NOTHING to do with her cover as a 'god'. She could have easily kept up that cover while demanding for the case to be investigated better(NO ONE thought to look into the possessions of the troupe members before the Traveler asked? NO ONE thoughts to look in ALL the boxes while down int he basement?).

Many people got to learn that Furina is not a shitty Archon. She protected the people in the only way she knew was possible. She held that secret and was willing to take it to the grave.

She's also made some mistakes and never apologized.

The Traveler and Paimon not really knowing who the real Furina is or what her personal values are, doesn't mean they're being callous to her. Paimon saying she had no idea Furina would feel a certain way over something that happened, isn't her being mean. It's her literally not knowing and saying it in surprise.

The Traveler and Paimon thinking of Furina first after hearing that someone needs an expert in drama and theater, isn't them being mean. She's literally a celebrity known for performing on stage and is the only actress they were aware of in Fontaine. Common sense, people, learn to use it.

At most, the constant pushing was the actual bad part, and even then, this is Paimon... who needs things said 2 or 3 times in different ways before she(and by extension the playerbase) understands what's going on. That's just her character to repeat things just to get the clear picture. She's been doing it since the start of the game, and we all hate it. This isn't new.

Adding on... Neuvillette literally also did the same shit when he heard Furina was involved in a theater troupe's last performance. He tried to urge her to take to the stage once again and was quite insistent over it as well. He even used his own emotional ties to her to try and get her to change her mind. Yeah, he's hot and cool, but if Neuvillette doing the pestering is perfectly okay, then it was never the pestering and 'guilt-tripping' y'all had a problem with. It was just the people it was coming from.

Apparently, if it comes from a stranger that you aren't friends with, it's evil and horrible and despicable, but if someone you've known for 500 years keeps bringing up how they wish you'd change your mind on doing the thing you said you won't do anymore, all because they enjoyed watching you do it, then it's alright and just friends looking out for friends.

Furina is complex and more compelling as a character now, but she's still got a long way to go and all the time in the world to get there.

[eretzyisrael]

by Suzanne Downing

In an era marked by women’s rights militancy, a deafening silence looms over the savage atrocities experienced by Jewish women and girls at the hands of Hamas terrorists.

The United Nations commemorated the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women on Saturday, while a blatant contradiction stared the world right in the face: The systemic rape and murder of Israeli women and children by Hamas terrorists, in what appears to have been a preplanned part of the terror campaign launched by Hamas on Oct. 7.

The systematic dehumanization of Jewish women and children challenges the selective activism that plagues the global women’s rights network. The failure to even acknowledge these war crimes contrasts with the movement’s relentlessly shrill stance on other women’s issues. Whatever happened to “Believe All Women”? (RELATED: BRYAN LEIB: The World Is On Fire And Biden’s Spineless Foreign Policy Isn’t Helping)

Do the women’s organizations not believe the account of a survivor, who hid during the Oct. 7 raid on Israel, but could see from her hiding place a girl who had been captured and was being passed from Palestinian to Palestinian terrorist, who took turns defiling her?

“As I am hiding, I see in the corner of my eye that [a terrorist] is raping her,” the witness recounted to Times of Israel. “They bent her over and I realized they were raping her and simply passing her on to the next [terrorist],” the woman recounted. Her story is not isolated.

Such accounts should catalyze immediate outrage and action, from the White House to the United Nations, yet there remains a baffling silence, a betrayal of the very principles that women’s rights movements say they believe.

On Oct. 13, even though the torture of Jewish women had already been documented, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres equated Hamas’s brutalities with Israel’s self-defense.

Guterres said of the situation in Gaza that Hamas had killed more than 1,200 people and injured thousands, but, on the other hand, Israel had killed 1,800 people in response and injured thousands. He went on to say that Israel was being unreasonable to call on Palestinians in Gaza City to move to the south of the territory within 24 hours.

[paperstorm]

You say you wish Ronen (and presumably other Israeli Americans) showed the same outrage for the attacks on Gaza as they do for the attacks on Israel.

I’m curious, do you hold White Christian Americans do the same standard? When they remember the lives lost in 9/11, do you require them to mention the 70,000 civilian lives lost in the war in Afghanistan, which was started as a result of that attack? Does it put a ‘pit in your stomach’ when they don’t, or do you simply go about your day without thinking it worth mentioning?

Because as a Jew I’ve never supported Israel, but I’m starting to wonder why Israel is held to a far higher standard than any Western nation that retaliates against terrorism. The loss of innocent lives is terrible and should be condemned, but why is it worse than the innocent lives lost in Afghanistan? Is there something in particular about Israel that you and other left-wing Westeners don’t like?

As far as I can see, Ronen’s country was the victim of a terrorist attack. He reacted with sorrow and anger and supports his country as it seeks to punish those responsible and rescue those taken hostage. But why is he deserving of condemnation for an emotional response when Americans and Westeners can mourn and be angry about their citizens killed by terrorists without attracting any of the same vitriol? The West has done terrible things in the Middle East, and yet when the Middle East strikes back against its enemies only Israel and its people are not allowed to be angry.

Maybe you don’t have any answer, but if you do and are willing to respond I would like to know. What is the difference between an Israeli ‘coloniser’ responding to being a victim of terrorism and an American ‘coloniser’ responding to being the victim of terrorism? Why does one attract criticism and hatred and the other not?

I don't speak for anyone else but my personal answer to this question is yes. Unequivocally. I haven't been talking specifically about the Iraq/Afghanistan wars this week because that's not what's happening right now, but yes. People mourning/honouring victims of the 9/11 attacks should absolutely also be mourning the (by some estimates) nearly a million innocent people who died in the Middle East in the wars started as retaliation for that attack, in some cases in places like Iraq that had literally nothing to do with it at all. If someone feels sadness in their heart every day for the 9/11 victims and feels nothing for the innocent Muslim people who paid the price for something they had nothing to do with, I feel very comfortable saying that person has fallen prey to American imperialist propaganda campaigns or is just outright racist. The hoopla that followed 9/11 is almost beat-for-beat what is happening right now, all over again. We learned nothing. Once again our leaders are dehumanizing brown people, cheering on imperialism and violent colonial occupation, and using a terrorist attack to manufacture consent for war crimes. (Anyone wanting more info on how they do this should read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.)

The loss of innocent Palestinians is not worse that the loss of innocent Afghans. They are the same. They are both being murdered as payback for something they didn't do and their deaths were/are both being cheered on by the Western war machine because it makes money for defense contractors and because it's politically convenient to see brown people as expendable pawns in the game of Risk world leaders are always playing. So yes, I absolutely do condemn both and mourn for both.

Additionally, I know you didn't ask for sympathy but I know how difficult this is. I know it's a lot more complicated than white online leftists like to make it seem, and I know a lot of Jewish people personally who are struggling right now, as they have before, with their complex feelings for the state of Israel. I hope you're taking care of yourself, as best you can in these awful circumstances.

[gryficowa]

People with Disabilities: Why is he a villain as a character with a disability? It's ableistic that his experiences change nothing in the world he finds himself in and he won't be redeemed for his crimes!

Also people with disabilities, when a person with a disability (mental illness or disorder) commits a crime, even though their history shows how society sucks:

Welcome to the absurdity where we dehumanize people in real life but cry over media tropes that are too "Ableistic" when the same thing happens in the fiction we consume

Let's start by changing our approach in real life, because it doesn't look very good, that when it happens in fiction it is ableism, but when it happens in real life, suddenly it is not, yes, we can not support it (Because murder or other crimes are bad, there is no doubts about this) but strenuously erasing this person's history and how stigmatization destroyed them is as ableist as this trope, when will we, as people who fight against ableism, finally understand it?

I simply don't like this approach in this fight, when we fight against ableism, we also fight for people who didn't have a chance and help like us, and not only for the chosen ones who we "like"

This pisses me off, as a person with ASD I hate how people try to erase many of these people as victims (Yes, they became perpetrators, but because they were victims of many terrible things before), and this shouldn't be the case if we are demanding this change. clue, let's change our approach to what's happening in real life, let's change and let's not allow ourselves to be divided (What ableists did to us autistic people), because what is happening in the true crime fandom on the part of other people with disabilities is ableism to feed your ego, yes, you can hate the crimes someone has committed without being ableist and erasing the fact that we failed this person, when they needed us, if they had gotten the help they needed then there is a good chance she would not have committed these crimes, it could have been us too, if no one had helped us, and then we would have been hated even more than before, no one would have looked at our experiences that destroyed us, and what we did made us feel bad

Yes, nothing is an excuse for the crime, but it is an explanation, although we, as people with disabilities, should not do to them the same things that were done to them in their lives before the crime, let's just learn and change the world for the better, without rejecting people like the protagonist reject the villain and ignore his experiences, to maintain the status quo of this world

Let's be better than ableists, not like them

[dolphin1812]

The atmospheric aspects of this chapter are really impressive; the combination of the full moon, the constant threat of being shot, and the awareness of the destroyed villages around Waterloo that are never mentioned in the context of the battle is at once spooky, tragic, and suspenseful.

As is usual when Hugo writes about Thénardier, I feel conflicted. On the one hand, Thénardier truly is despicable, so criticism of him is justified. On the other, Hugo slips into dehumanizing language that feels inflected with classism. Take this section, for instance:

“Every army has a rear-guard, and it is that which must be blamed. Bat-like creatures, half brigands and lackeys; all the sorts of vespertillos that that twilight called war engenders; wearers of uniforms, who take no part in the fighting; pretended invalids; formidable limpers; interloping sutlers, trotting along in little carts, sometimes accompanied by their wives, and stealing things which they sell again; beggars offering themselves as guides to officers; soldiers’ servants; marauders; armies on the march in days gone by,—we are not speaking of the present,—dragged all this behind them, so that in the special language they are called “stragglers.” No army, no nation, was responsible for those beings [ . . . ]”

The people doing these acts are defined either as definitively inhuman - as “bat-like creatures” - or as what they are/pretend to be (”half brigands,” “pretended invalids,” “beggars”). Not only that, they’re outside of any “army” or “nation,” further othering them (and sidestepping the issue of actual soldiers doing this, even though Hugo is aware that they do). While we know that Thénardier specifically is simply a horrible person (from his treatment of Cosette), it’s not too difficult to imagine someone else doing this out of genuine need. Given the risks of death for those following armies (Hugo says that Wellington orders that anyone caught robbing should be shot), it is precisely the most desperate who are likely to take that risk. It’s understandable that Hugo focuses on characters who’ve committed “sympathetic” crimes: Valjean is a thief, but he stole food to feed his sister’s children; Fantine’s prostitution is less sympathetic in and of itself from the perspective of a 19th-century audience, but it’s framed as a sacrifice for Cosette, which ultimately keeps her in the sympathetic role of “mother.” A large section of his readership (and who he was aiming to convince with his work) was the bourgeoisie, and he had to be attentive to the risks he was taking in justifying different acts that would be classed as immoral. Robbing the dead is certainly up there as far as reprehensible acts go, but it’s still frustrating to see Hugo neglect to extend some care to these people. Even worse, he says that “discipline” is the only thing that could change them, which feels particularly bourgeois and is so out of place in a novel about the power of compassion. As much as I hate Thénardier, the issue with this depiction is that (1), dehumanizing language is risky in general, and (2), Hugo extends this to a class of people, almost inadvertently villainizing groups within the lower classes.

I also find Pontmercy’s interaction with Thénardier so sad. Of course, it’s upsetting that he thinks he saved him when he really was just robbing him, but the extent to which he’s worn out is tangible? For instance, when Thénardier says that the English have won, Pontmercy doesn’t even react; he automatically goes to the next matter, which is compensating Thénardier. As an officer, we can assume he was dedicated to the Bonapartist cause; it’s even the first thing he asks about when he regains consciousness. The fact that he doesn’t even have the energy to mourn this defeat, then, is crushing in itself.