#opposite ends of the propaganda machine

[eskildit]

i think a lot about hot sauce and jeannemary. two young girls so ready to kill and to die. a comparison made all the worse when you recall that hot sauce lost all her family to the cohort, that she can specifically recall fourth style necromancy (using corpses as bombs). a fourteen and thirteen year old that could easily have been on opposite sides of the same front line. 

#the locked tomb #the loss of childhood! senseless violence! #opposite ends of the propaganda machine #eskildit posts tlt #all of nona the ninth #how am i supposed to tag hot sauce #jeannemary chatur #ok to rb #edit: okay im actually gonna use these tags to ramble a lil #in many ways i feel alecto the ninth is gonna be the hardest book to actually pull off #first for the obvious reason that its an ending and endings are always hard #but second because nona the ninth was by far the most political book of the series #books 1 and 2 following harrow and gideon mean we're following characters on the outskirts of the empire #gideon is individually oppressed by the ninth and even harrow is considered a black sheep outsider of the nine houses #but they are still WITHIN the houses gideon has dreams of the cohort harrow has dreams of of revitalizing her house #nona was our actual introduction to the real consequences of the empire that characters like judith like jeannemary like corona herself #have their livelihoods and status entirely built on the imperial violence we see first hand on new rho #anyway i say all of this to say it means coming back to these characters might be kinda tricky! #the cost of the empire is no longer abstract its extremely palpable! #how does one return to our core cast we've know for multiple books now that we understand that #idk. interested to see where we go!

[opencommunion]

since zionists want to act obtuse about why we're criticizing a superbowl ad, here's an explanation from before the ad even aired. it was openly designed to act as pro-genocide propaganda. fighting antisemitism is a worthy goal but that's not what's happening here:

"The New England Patriots’ 81-year-old owner, Robert Kraft, writes seven-digit checks to the right-wing Israeli lobbying machine AIPAC, but his personal, political, and financial ties to Israel run deeper than the occasional donation. The multibillionaire married his late wife, Myra, in Israel in 1963 when Kraft, then 22, was older than the nation itself. Together they set up numerous business, athletic, and charitable ties to Israel, a record of which is proudly proclaimed on the Kraft company website. In particular, the Kraft Group boasts of its 'Touchdown in Israel' program, where NFL players are given free, highly organized vacations to see 'the holy land' and come back to spread the word about 'the only democracy in the Middle East.' (Not every NFL player has chosen to take part.) Kraft also attends fundraisers for the Israel Defense Forces, currently—and in open view of the world—committing war crimes in Gaza."

Now, as Israel wages war against the civilians of Gaza—more than 25,000 Palestinian have been killed with at least 10,000 of them children—Kraft is again flexing his financial and political muscles in order to defend the indefensible. His Foundation to Combat Antisemitism (FCAS) will be spending an estimated $7 million to buy a Super Bowl ad titled 'Stop Jewish Hate' that will be seen by well over 100 million people. Under Kraft’s direction, the ad’s goal is to create a propaganda campaign to counter the reports and images from Gaza that young people are consuming on social media. 

... The content of the Super Bowl ad is not yet known, but FCAS has afforded Kraft the opportunity to make the rounds on cable news saying things like, 'It’s horrible to me that a group like Hamas can be respected and people in the United States of America can be carrying flags or supporting them.'

This is Kraft enacting the mission of FCAS: fostering disinformation. He is far from subtle: A Palestinian flag becomes a 'Hamas flag,' and people like the hundreds of thousands who took to the streets of Washington, D.C., last month to call for a cease-fire and end the violence are expressions of the 'rise in antisemitism.' Without a sense of irony or the horrors happening on the ground in Gaza, Kraft says he is giving $100 million of his own money to FCAS, because 'hate leads to violence.'

Let’s be clear: What Kraft is doing politically and what he will be using the Super Bowl as a platform to do is dangerous. He appears to think any criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic. For Kraft, it is Jews like myself, rabbis, and Holocaust survivors calling for a cease-fire and a Free Palestine that are part of the problem. Kraft seems to think that opposition to Israel, the IDF, and the AIPAC agenda is antisemitism.

... Right-wing Christian nationalists, with their belief in a Jewish state existing alongside their conviction that Jews are going to Hell, are welcome in Netanyahu’s Israel and Kraft’s coalition. Left-wing anti-Zionist Jews are not. The greatest foghorn of this evangelical right-wing 'love Israel, hate Jews' perspective is, of course, Donald Trump. Kraft, while speaking of being troubled by events like the Charlottesville Nazi march and the right-wing massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue, counts Donald Trump as a close friend and even donated $1 million to his presidential inauguration.

No one who provides cover for the most powerful, public antisemite in the history of US politics should ever be taken seriously on how to best fight antisemitism. No one who funds AIPAC and the IDF and opposes a cease-fire amid the carnage should be allowed a commercial platform at the Super Bowl. But given that the big game is always an orgy of militarism, blind patriotism, and big budget commercials that lie through their teeth, perhaps that ad could not be more appropriate. We can do better than Kraft’s perspective on how to fight antisemitism. Morally, we don’t have a choice."

#zionism

[mhsdatgo]

Hotd writers choosing to adapt Mushroom's records out of everything they had in hand is the worst decision they could've ever come up with btw.

It's been stated time and time again that while F&B is purely built on records and gossip and morphed retelling of events out of bias and propaganda, Mushroom is the LEAST reliable of all the sources. He's a fool at Rhaenyra's court, his job is make people gasp and laugh, not retell historical events.

We're talking about the same guy who said that he had a penis large enough to match the size of his head, mind you. Also, he's obsessed with little girls giving BJs to Targaryen men somewhere in Flea Bottom. It's happened twice according to him.

The writers' reasoning for this choice is basically that F&B was written by Maesters and Septons, who were all greedy men, apart from being Green supporters. So anything they say is false, anything they say is written with sexist intent. Writer's intention was to do the exact opposite.

Then tell me, for the love of God, tell me, why is every woman apart from Rhaenyra, who is clearly whitewashed and I can go into heavy detail about that, basically shunned?

The Maesters claim Alicent left Viserys' body to rot and swell for days preparing and LEADING Rhaenyra's usurpation. She's the leader of the Greens, she and she alone. Not Otto. The Green Council answers only to her orders, they are loyal to HER.

I've seen people argue that since Alicent is what Maesters view as an "ideal" woman, then they would try anything to paint her in the best light possible. While I agree that this may be true, I don't think this is the case. In history books, even in real life, women are rarely painted as leaders or important figures.

For Queen Alicent to be written as THE face of the Greens, you know this mama wasn't playing around.

Now, how is this:

In ANY WAY, even comparable to THIS?:

At the end of ep.8 and quite literally the entirety of ep.9, Alicent is shown as a lost woman who doesn't even seem to know what she's doing, pushed by Viserys' last words about prophecy rather than SHEER DESIRE to get her hands dirty for her children's safety (which by the way will always be superior imo). The Green Council conspires behind her back, and on top of it all, she's yelled at by one of her own men and is made to take it like a beaten dog.

Moreover, we had Helaena's ROAST (yes it was a roast, my Queen inherited cunty lines from her cunty mother) against Aegon and her coronation, the latter being addressed as something quite wholesome, if you ask me. Alicent places her own crown upon her daughter's head and calls her "my Queen" after kissing her cheeks and kneeling. Afterwards, her and Alicent are literally written to be the only ones who could get through Aegon II's thick skull when he wanted to start the war right then and there as a result of Rhaenyra crowning herself on Dragonstone.

You hear me??? Aegon sat down and fucking listened to the two women in his life. Not the Council, them. These two were dogwalking him, the KING, on the daily, how is that sexist writing on the Maesters' part????

Yet these things are nowhere to be seen in Ryan Condal and Sara Hess' "progressive" show. We got beaten dog Alicent and Helaena being nothing but a walking spoiler machine other than yet another instrument to paint Aegon as the big bad wolf and usurper. Not a single scene of them counseling Aegon.

Baela and Rhaena have nearly no lines or scenes that don't show them in the presence of the Strongs. They are seemingly okay with anything Rhae throws their way because it's Rhae. The one and only scene about Baela openly speaking to her grandma about her wish to fight for Rhaenyra was deleted.

Meanwhile, Rhaenyra is stripped of her rage and thirst for vengeance, and instead made to negotiate for peace while in the books she was the one pushing to go to war first.

Can you tell me, again, how the fanfiction that is Hotd supposed to prove that they want to be "progressive" in contrast to the Maesters' "sexist" work, when literally all they do is whitewash Rhaenyra and sideline any woman who isn't her?

#anti hotd #team green #alicent hightower #helaena targaryen #queen helaena #hotd discourse #asoiaf discourse #queen alicent

[azulas-lightning-bolt]

GUYS. you need to sit down and listen to me right now. I had another idea for the 100yr war mako aus but I didn’t want to add any more to that longass fucking post but. but zuko+azula/mako+bolin swap. not really swap but like. mako and bolin take the royals’ place. now ik this doesn’t make sense but !!!

okay so dad is still ek. how does that work? well ozai and iroh have a sister named naoki now, apparently. naoki runs away b4 azulon dies to go live w handsome earthbender (out of want for rebellion more than love, despite what san thought), but then azulon dies and she knows that his wasn’t a natural death. she’s got 2 kids and she wants them to be safe, so back to the palace we go! sorry san, you get to stay in your backwater town. the princess returns… with two half-breeds⁉️⁉️ the fn is enraged, and naoki, to avoid exile, claims she was assaulted and impregnated twice by an ek brute. the fn easily buys it, not wanting to look closer.

but her family is still scorned, especially by ozai, and she grows to resent her sons more than she had before (because of typical fn conditioning n propaganda), forcing bolin to live as a nonbender and pushing mako to his absolute limits. she ends up growing paranoid of ozai as well, after he ascended the throne and makes remarks about how her pulling another disappearing act would put the nation at ease, and kills him with poison similar to ursa’s. iroh is still gone, no one able to contact him to return home for his brother’s funeral. ozai doesn’t have any heirs here btw—it’s just lu ten, mako, n bolin.

naoki grows crueler and pushes mako to his limits, still demanding more. when he is unable to continue surpassing perfection, she sets her eyes on bolin. mako deflects the worst of her attentions onto himself, but she still trains bolin for a future as an infiltrator the the ek army, so that he’ll use his bending to kill whatever unit/squad he’s placed in, mako coming in to make it look like firebending casualties.

mako takes care of bolin as best he can, but living up to naoki’s expectations lead him to develop an apathetic exterior, conditioning himself to commit acts of war indiscriminately and without flinching. he becomes analytical, cold, and unsympathetic. he tries, at one point, to get annoyed by bolin’s ‘incompetence’, but it ends up just being a show he performs for naoki, to cover up that bolin was his one soft spot.

because of his apathy, bolin grows to resent him, training harder and distancing himself from his ‘machine’ brother. naoki only worsens the rift, tearing into bolin for not being born a firebender and mako for not being a natural prodigy with his bending like bolin, pitting them against each other like ozai did with zuko and azula.

neither of them actually get banished by canon (still 14+15 like zuko and azula) because mako knows to hold his tongue and bolin follows his example out of spite. however, when zhao proves to be incompetent after the avatar’s existence is revealed on the solstice, bolin and mako are sent to retrieve him, much to both their chagrin. mako has, over time, grown out of his desire to protect bolin and into a wariness of his bending. bolin just hates mako’s guts. they want to be on opposite sides of the palace again, but they are efficient. they would have probably been unstoppable, capturing the avatar within the first week, if that was actually what naoki wanted to happen.

she knew what was said about ‘impure blood’ being the next to take the throne of the fn, and she knew bolin and mako were talented, dangerous together. she knew there was no way they would be dying on their search without any… outside help, which she was happy to provide. and it would paint a lovely picture for her citizens; the firelord’s sons, despite their tragic heritage, loyally sacrificed their lives in facing the evil avatar for the sake of their nation’s prosperity and goals. check, check, check, on the propaganda list and an easy way to clear the air of nasty whispers. who would gossip about a grieving mother seeking comfort in a loyal consort, and just happening to sire new, fully fn heirs?

so instead of zuko’s banishment causing problems, it’s the fact that everyone literally wants them dead. also, bending brothers in fn regalia… was havin thoughts,,, thinking thoughts,,,

but anyway the avatar is suddenly the least of their worries when there are literally assassins everywhere. at first, they think the other nations know about their voyage and are sending troops to try and dispose of them, but when mako inspects the bodies one day he discovers… (dramatic reveal) the corpses of a specialized fn assassination unit that answers directly to the firelord. he’s not naive enough to hope they went rogue—he was no stranger to their mother’s hatred of them.

he doesn’t tell bolin, obviously, knowing it’s easier to let his brother believe whatever he told himself after the first attack, but suddenly protecting bolin is priority no. 1. and no. 2 after that? they can’t, under any circumstances, go home, until naoki is gone. she’s fanatic, at this point, set on destroying the ek as ‘revenge’ (kind of like amon; fake story, real hatred. her revenge is revenge, but it’s for ruining her reputation, not .. yk) and mako knows uncle ozai’s death wasn’t a natural misfortune as they were told. he took after his mother more than his father, after all. he had her brains and her eye for patterns.

the hunt for the avatar turns into a desperate ruse. they’re on his trail, almost there, but mako missteps during the battle, completely understandably and due to the avatar’s interference entirely, and they are thus unable to capture him, bolin gets angrier, not able to put his finger on why mako is throwing every battle, or what’s throwing him, but he doesn’t say anything because he doesn’t really want to go back to caldera.

I think mako would still take over ba sing se. bolin plays up his charm and naïveté, lulling long feng into a sense of security while mako spreads his influence. when mako sits and long feng bows, bolin is at the throne’s side, seething. the earth is his domain, and the one time his earth affiliation is a good thing, mako steals it and sits proudly as though he has suffered through countless scolding for not being born a firebender.

in the caverns, instead of being forced to choose between helping fn or the gaang, bolin attacks with the dai li, channeling his rage into each boulder, until mako turns on him. lightning is in his fingertips, swirling (mother was always willing to spare a tilt of her lips for that, he thinks bitterly) threateningly at bolin. lightning is the only thing mako has ever been able to make that bolin could not make himself impervious to.

whole dramatic scene where mako asks if bolin wants to be free or to return to a mother who wants them dead. she doesn’t want us dead, you’re crazy! what about those assassins she’s been sending? I feel like that’s a pretty clear message, and it sure isn’t ‘I love you’.

the dai li are suspended, unsure which brother to listen to. mako demands they restrain bolin, bolin demands mako be captured. bolin is the earth, and mako is the fire. ultimately, it is the charms of the younger brother they adhere to. mako is captured in earth kind of the same way azula was to the gutter in the finale—unable to use lightning without harming himself and roaring fire at anyone who got close. mako is screaming at bolin that he doesn’t understand what he’s doing, mako’s job is to protect them both and his job is impossible to do like this. maybe even,, crying. maybe even,,, disheveled. maybe even,,, unstable looking,,, maybe even reflecting azula’s breakdown in the finale,,, bolin turns a deaf ear.

but rock was never impervious to lightning, as bolin had previously realized, and the charged electricity was still buzzing, tightly packed, beneath mako’s skin. it hurts, and he’s screaming with the pain as the rock is shattered, but mako gets out and clobbers bolin in the head with a chunk of rock he picked up, covered in lightning burns and twitching, barely standing.

he calls off the dai li (and they have no one to listen to but him now), tells one of them to let his stupid fucking uncle go, get his brother sedated until mako wakes up again, and promptly passes the fuck out.

I don’t have the rest of the series fleshed out from there but that’s basically the idea. I’m still going really ultra insane about mako so. perhaps expect more to come.

#atla #avatar the last airbender #mako lok #bolin #zuko #princess azula #azula #the gaang #briefly #sibling swap au #that’s what I’m gonna call this #zuko and azula #bolin and mako #fire hazard siblings #bending brothers #fire hazard siblings and bending brothers swap au #okay I think that’s enough tags for tn #slug’s stuff #slug azulaposting

[screamingfromuz]

Was listening to an interview with West Bank settlers, and I fucking kid you not, even the "moderate"* (ie they aren't actively intimidating/attacking Palestinians, but they certainly would be happy to see then gone) ones essentially victim-blamed the majority of those killed/kidnapped on the 7th because they were "leftists and peaceniks". I wouldn't be surprised if for some, it went beyond "Well what else do you expect?" to active glee that their political opposition got killed off to allow for pretext for more violence against Palestinians.

So the irony is that they end up mirroring the sociopathic rhetoric from many Western Leftists on here calling the victims "settlers and colonizers".

And I'm just thinking how pro-Palestinian activists (esp those in the West) could actually strive in a constructive way by supporting Israelis who oppose those settlers and their coalition backers. Yet largely...

I have once explained them as "Jewish KKK". Nowadays I call them "Israel's Hamas". They are vile horrible people that leach off of the Israeli public and encourage violence. the shit those people say... And I understand why people get swept with them, they are populists, but FUCK. They have been planning on taking over on the destroyed communities (some of the most left wing communities in Israel) and rebuild them in their image. They have been saying that being a peace activist is inviting the violence. And don't let me start on the conspiracy theories.

Funny enough, them and the BDS often unknowingly work together to prevent people from being exposed to art. I remember that a Palestinian musician had to cancel shows in Palestinians cities because the BDS and the right wingers were so apposed to a Palestinian artist preforming within Israel. It's a shame because the only thing that happened is isolating Palestinians that live withing Israel.

And that is not the only example of them feeding each other, no! Right now, for every western leftist screaming "from the river to the see" they are holding as prof to why you must expel all Palestinians and that the whole wold is antisemitic, so they do horrible shit to people, that fuels the calls to abolishing Israel... and we stand on the side, watching our supposed allies feed into the propaganda machine of the extreme right wing and not support solidarity groups.

#israel #palestine #West Bank settlers #global leftism #i/p #it's not a horseshoe it's a funhouse mirror #Israeli left

[transmutationisms]

ok i apologise if this is a bad question because i don’t know anything about politics but i liked your bourgeois failpolitics post and would love it if you could expand further especially on how their ideological horse blinders lead them to justifying/reproducing what’s trapping them in the first place especially given how some of them, in theory, have “principles” & i guess how the show explores politics in general. again sorry if this is poorly formed i know nothing!!

hmm, not a bad question, but many directions to go in here.

first of all, none of them claims to be anti-capitalist ideologically. shiv wants to be a moral capitalist, kendall wants to be a coolguy capitalist, connor wants to be a virtuous capitalist (different from shiv's morality), and roman wouldn't identify with any ideological term but thinks capitalism is inescapable and omnipotent, and therefore not worth objecting to in any way. so even aside from their class interests, there's no ideological inconsistency between any of their political positions and the actions they take to preserve or strengthen waystar.

since shiv and connor are the ones with political principles, i think they're a good place to start.

shiv is a liberal, meaning she believes in individual liberty, private property, and equality under the law. her line "what if a good person ran waystar" is telling: she doesn't want to alter the fundamental structure of the economy or waystar, but she thinks someone with (her own) principles should be running the propaganda machine. she's being genuine when she talks about reform and wanting the company to be better, but this should not be mistaken for any kind of opposition to the economic structure.

connor self-identifies as a libertarian, so he's in the liberal tradition but with an increased emphasis on individual liberty. by this, he means private property rights, so his politics broadly oppose government intervention (regulation, social welfare policies, labour protections) except where the police / military state and the carceral apparatus are concerned (these are necessary to protect property). connor never had any real hope of inheriting waystar, but his politics are still broadly in support of it, insofar as it's a corporate interest and connor sees 'creating wealth' as a political virtue.

roman and kendall are simpler in this respect. as i've written before and many people have pointed out, kendall wants to kill dad and wants to be a 'good person,' but has no concrete sense of what that means and therefore no principled opposition to anything about waystar or its economic functioning. roman sees capitalism as totalising and inevitable, so it's not something he would ever bother taking a stance against, plus taking any kind of stance is lame anyway. fundamentally he wants daddy's love (kendall is motivated more by daddy's respect, which is why he needs to become a killer).

so the siblings' tendency to reproduce and reinforce their own oppression basically comes from the fact that none of them has the ideological or epistemological creativity to espouse any kind of anti-capitalist critique. there are nuances here (shiv places more value on the idea of market competition, like when she opposes the move to buy pierce in s2; connor sees flows of capital and flows of reproduction as part of the same political economy, hence his usury and onanism line), but at the end of the day they all accede to logan's economic worldview. in their minds, there's no reasonable or viable alternative. they have extremely limited understandings of political ideology, as evidenced by them all thinking that shiv's liberalism is, like, radically different from logan's. in many ways the intra-familial ideological disputes are a smokescreen distracting from the underlying economic convictions they all share.

as to the show's handling of politics in general: it's strange to me that more people don't point out that jesse armstrong has at least a passing familiarity with marx and has referenced him in discussing the show. the main narrative drive for the show is psychological, not ideological; nevertheless, it rests on a view of politics that basically builds off marx's base-superstructure distinction, with politics as an ideoological superstructure determined by the economic base. this doesn't mean people with the same class interest will have exactly the same ideology (obviously, the sibs don't; idt armstrong goes in for that type of crude determinism), but capitalism has a tendency to narrow the field of envisioned possibilities, hence the way that all four sibs fail to see any other economic arrangement as viable or even worth considering.

#in re: the last paragraph i obviously mean the presentation of Politics Proper #which is distinct from the way the show explores the internal functioning of liberal capitalism as articulated via the family #sorry this is kind of rambly it's hard to deal with 4 fully nuanced characters in any depth without like.... just going insanely long lol #tripping the light fantastic

[companion-showdown]

Who is your favourite companion?

TOURNAMENT MASTERPOST

propaganda under the cut

Compassion

Imagine this you are a Remote who is very happy being a space time anarchist punk thank you very much. Hanging out with their pal Kode and then suddenly in comes this British Twink talks your pal in to committing suicide so they can get their boyfriend back and then unplugs you from your culture and plugs you in to their Time Machine so you have to start travelling with these people who you hate. And this time travelling Brit keeps trying to stop you being Aromantic. Then suddenly bam you get turned into a TARDIS and now British Twink’s ex best friend turned Genocidal Dictator (who looks like she is from the 1920’s) try’s to turn you into a breeding slave to make more TARDIS’s from the war that is yet to happen for them but you have already experienced. So the Twink makes takes away your autonomy and ability to control where you land in a brutal and unconsensual act of needless cruelty and cowardice because they think they know how to look after you better than you a space time anarchist punk from the future so. Oh and they also seal of your primary means of defending your self from War Queen Romana who wants to make You a breeding slave. Eventually you break their conditioning and kidnap an unwilling time lord saving them from the destruction of their home before/after the war you came from. Now you have fun times and occasionally visit the war. Then you get board and become all of humanities afterlife and make everyone immortal after they die. Also you are the 5 A’s Aromantic, Asexual, Agender, Autistic, Anarchist. (anonymous)

Mind-links with the TARDIS and becomes a TARDIS herself. Travels with a human companion of her own and becomes a key player in the War. Later turns herself into the City of the Saved, an afterlife for all humans in the universe. What more can you ask for? (anonymous)

repressed bisexual from the sixties who's in love with the Doctor (anonymous)

Roz Forrester (joint propaganda with Chris Cwej)

Even though I never really followed the New Adventures books (so am probably not the best person to speak up for them) I've come to love these companions and their dynamics with Seven just from the three novel adaptation audios and the boxset of four new stories with them. Two 30th Century Adjudicators (basically military police) who end up leaving their job and journeying with the Doctor instead. They're pretty much polar opposites to each other but work together well and are both competent and likable. The actors both do a great job of bringing them to life and despite how little they've been used by the audios I think they've made a great impression with their limited time. I certainly hope we'll be hearing more from them beyond the one announced boxset where they're appearing with all of Seven's other companions. (@seven-times-champion /@elden-12 )

#showdown 2k24: round 3

[homoer0tic]

good omens s2 spoilers below

.

.

.

.

.

I wanted to write something about the "coffee theory" that's been going around, where some people believe that Aziraphale only decided to become the Supreme archangel because the Metatron spiked his coffee. I really dislike this theory for a few reasons, mainly:

1. Its purpose is to absolve Aziraphale of any guilt - yes, I love Aziraphale just like everyone else, but a good character isn't infallible. A good character makes mistakes. A good character can be mislead or manipulated without being spiked somehow. I personally believe that the Metatron gave him coffee to manipulate him, yes, but it wasn't spiked with any miracles - he used something he knew Aziraphale would like & would get him to trust him. That's why he mentioned that he too had 'ingested' things from time to time - he wanted to say to Aziraphale, look, even I did those things that you feel guilty about (because Aziraphale certainly does feel guilty about partaking in earthly pleasures). But note that the Metatron, when convincing Aziraphale to become the archangel, doesn't tell him that it's okay to be close with the demon Crowley - he tells him to make Crowley an angel again. This is the Metatron doing the exact opposite as he did with the coffee - telling Aziraphale that no, it is not okay to be close to a demon, only an angel, and in doing so he reinforces the guilt that Aziraphale has over his loving a demon (I also believe this is why Aziraphale looked so upset after the kiss, I think he was angry at himself)

2. It rejects what we already know about Aziraphale - he has always been too forgiving, especially of Heaven, and he always acts 'holier than thou' when it comes to their two separate sides. Since season 1, Aziraphale hasn't been able to relinquish the idea that Heaven is innately good even when Heaven had hurt him and Crowley, and all of the earth to boot. Partially because Aziraphale is too forgiving, and partially because Aziraphale is subject to Heaven's propaganda machine. He deeply believes that Heaven is always in the right, and therefore he must be in the wrong when he goes against them. Most importantly, Aziraphale is constantly trying to change Crowley into someone he isn't in order to pacify the guilt he has over being so close to the 'enemy' and on the side of evil.

3. It doesn't make thematic sense for this have not to have happened - as I said above, Aziraphale has been doing this since season 1.

4. It's an easy way out - I don't think Neil Gaiman would try to reduce the meaning of this interaction and important character development by reducing it to "oh, it was Metatron all along".

I've also seen a lot of people mention how impossible it would be that Aziraphale would give up his bookshop and earthly pleasures to go back to Heaven - and I'd like to note something I found significant. Aziraphale told the Metatron "but I don't want to go back to Heaven" originally, but then the Metatron, fully aware he was manipulating Aziraphale, told him "but you can make Crowley an angel again". This would make Aziraphale think he is sacrificing what he loves on Earth for the sake of Crowley - which certainly changes things. He believes that by giving up these things, he can make Crowley a "good guy" again and thus relieve himself the guilt he has over loving a demon. Aziraphale loves the bookshop, yes, but he loves Crowley more.

Anyways, I don't mean to hate on anyone who believes the coffee theory, I just don't think it would make a lot of thematic sense and would kind of diminish the whole meaning of the interaction to begin with. I get it, I'm sad too. I'm devastated. But this is a lesson that Aziraphale HAS to learn in order for there to ever be a happy ending with him and Crowley.

#good omens spoilers #good omens season 2 spoilers #good omens s2 spoilers #good omens #good omens s2 #gos2ep6 #ineffable husbands #aziraphale #crowley #coffee theory #metatron

[warsofasoiaf]

Thank you for all your extensive replies about politics, they’re fascinating. Do you think Putin’s framing of the Russo-Ukrainian war as ��anti-Fascist’ (de-Nazification etc) is a deliberate callback to Soviet propaganda where all opposition was termed Fascist? Such keywords must appeal to the old Soviet generation, but most soldiers nowadays would’ve been born post-1989. Is ‘anti-Fascism’ still a powerful motivator in modern Russia to your knowledge?

100%.

Even though the Soviet Union might be gone, the "Great Patriotic War" as Russia calls the Second World War still looms very large in Russian cultural history. Many Russians see the Great Patriotic War as a wholly Russian endeavor, that the back of the Nazi war machine was broken by the stalwart Russian soldier. This ignores that the Soviet Union had plenty of non-Russians in the Red Army, to include Ukrainians, whose contributions are minimized by Russian revisionist history, as well as Soviet revisionism which glossed over the alliance that the Soviet Union had with Nazi Germany from 1939-1941, which included a joint invasion of Poland (hence why the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact should be considered more than a mere non-aggression pact). It also neglects that the bulk of Soviet casualties, particularly in 1941, were not due to Soviet sacrifice but Soviet incompetence. Stalin didn't prepare for an invasion and ignored intelligence both from his own domestic military intelligence and the West. While I understand and appreciate the need for a soldier to sell his life dearly if indeed it must be spent, the early Nazi incursions into the Soviet Union were defined not by heroic self-sacrifice but by abject stupidity.

Soviet, and later Russian, narratives of the Great Patriotic War portray Nazism as a distinctly anti-Soviet and anti-Russian movement. In many cases, the anti-Semitism of the Nazi regime is downplayed; the victims of the Holocaust were primarily considered to be Soviets, not Jewish. Part of this is because Stalin embarked upon his own anti-Semitic pogroms, and part of it was due to the differing conception of Nazism between Soviets and the West. When the West thinks of Nazism, they primarily conceive of it in terms of the Holocaust because of how utterly abhorrent it was. When a Western observer thinks of a Nazi, their immediate response is: "Who are they murdering? How many? What methods are they using?" This really couldn't be done in the Soviet Union, because the Soviets also had an institutional policy of extermination - not only the Great Purge by Stalin, but dating all the way back to Lenin's categorical exterminations. So Nazism was conceived as anti-Russian to square the circle, and everything from Soviet covert support of Nazi rearmament to allowing Japan to resupply Nazi Germany via the Trans-Siberian railway to the joint invasion of Poland was just ignored.

This continued into the Cold War, where the Soviet conception of Nazism as anti-Russian was able to be easily transferred to the West and NATO. Soviet conceptions of fascism exemplified that fascism was capitalism with the veneer of participatory democracy stripped away, thus the West were simply Nazis who pretended harder. It served a very useful purpose in keeping the Soviet public mobilized against the West, who were predicted to invade soon after the end of the Second World War (the West also believed the Soviets would invade Western Europe while it was still rebuilding, hence the formation of the Western Union and NATO following the installation of puppet regimes in Eastern Europe).

So in the modern day, Russia tries to harp that the Ukrainians are a far-right, nationalist, and Nazi regime devoted to exterminate Russians to sell their war to the populace. They try to latch on Ukrainian far-right movements that gained prominence after the Russian annexation of Crimea in one of the best modern examples of the chutzpah defense, despite the diminishment of the far-right in Ukrainian politics in the intervening years. This isn't surprising, it's right out of Hermann Goering's playbook to denounce the opposition as unpatriotic. For all their pronouncements of wanting to destroy Nazism, Russia is one of the best examples of a fascist state that we have, in the sense of a state striving against the decadence of liberalism that was the hallmark of early Nazi propaganda (whereas China is the best example of a large power ethnostate).

The Russian cultural zeitgeist today still believes that the West largely dismisses Soviet contributions to World War II, and this is before you get to the very real and quite prominent phenomenon of Russians who wish for a Nazi-Soviet pact that endured and destroyed the West, with a special emphasis on Great Britain. In the 1950's, this had a kernel of truth, the West largely dismissed Soviet sacrifices. In the modern day though, this is largely inaccurate - military scholarship largely acknowledges Soviet contributions. However, it acknowledges Lend-Lease aid, which does little to stroke Russian egos, so in this sense, we actually have a reversal of the old 1950's US textbooks. That era definitely did minimize Soviet contributions, but these days the primary source of historical disinformation is from pro-Russian and pro-Soviet sources which reduce the Second World War almost entirely to Soviet contributions, often forgetting about the Pacific Theater save in the invasion of Manchura. This is supported by tankies and campists in the West who conceive of the Second World War as a means by which to glorify their own tribe. Coming from a warts-and-all historical enthusiast like myself, I find it disgusting.

So yeah, the Soviet Union may be gone, but the damage it created endures.

Thanks for the question, Vincint.

#modern politics #russia #russo ukrainian war #fascism

[queer-geordie-nerd]

A nuanced and insightful interview with Mira from November 1996, in the middle of filming S4 of Babylon 5 - it touches on her war time experiences in Yugoslavia and the events that drove her from her home, and the similarities between her own life and that of Delenn. Once again, I am bowled over by the incredible integrity and courage she possessed:

STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND

It's the one subject that pains Mira Furlan to discuss. The one subject that invades her privacy. The one subject that so violates her very soul.

And yet, it's the one subject that can't be avoided.

Nearly five years to the day of this interview, Furlan left her homeland of Yugoslavia, which was about to be engulfed in a bloody and horrific civil war. Ethnic passions restrained by decades of Communist rule had been unleashed by its collapse. Fascistic Nationalists arose to take its place, many of them former Communists. In their lust for power, they tore apart a nation of disparate republics and peoples that had once been a dream of poets, intellectuals and writers.

As one of Yugoslavia's most prestigious actors, Furlan risked her life and fortune to perform in cities on both sides, in Croatia and in Serbia. She hoped that she could be a bridge of unity, a symbol of pacifism, a clarion warning what terrible price their country would pay for unleashing the war their leaders were about to start.

Except for her husband, Goran Gajic, no one supported her.

Her colleagues abandoned her. Nationalist demagogues threatened to have her killed. Anonymous death threats were left on her answering machine.

She could not go silently. Before she left Yugoslavia, Furlan picked up her pen and wrote a farewell letter to her country. The letter was published a few days later in Zagreb (the capital of Croatia) and Belgrade (the capital of Serbia), cities on opposite sides of the coming war. It began:

“I hereby wish to thank my co-citizens who have joined so unreservedly in this small, marginal and apparently not particularly significant campaign against me. Although marginal, it will change and mark my whole life. Which is, of course, totally irrelevant in the context of the death, destruction, devastation and bloodchilling crimes within which our life now goes on.

This is happening, however, to the one and only life I have. It seems that I've been chosen for some reason to be the filthy rag everyone uses to wipe the mud off their shoes. I am far too desperate to embark on a series of public polemics in the papers. I do, however, feel that I owe myself and my city at least a few words. Like at the end of some clumsy, painful love story, when you keep wanting, wrongly, to explain something more, even though you know at the bottom of your heart that words are wasted; there is no one left to hear them. It is over.”

In Yugoslavia, Furlan was a leading actress of film, television and stage. She appeared in over 25 films, and won two Golden Arenas for Best Actress, their equivalent of the Oscar. Among her acclaimed theatrical roles were Ophelia in Hamlet, Celimene in The Misanthrope, and the title role in Euripides' Helen.

Under socialist rule, the arts were state-funded. "Your star status didn't mean that you were making money. But there were other advantages. Money was not the main obsession. The absence of money gave you a certain degree of creative freedom. We had all the time in the world. Movies were shot forever. Theatre plays were rehearsed forever. I personally was bored with that; things were not quick enough for me. But you had the luxury of having time to explore, to enjoy the creative process. These were the few advantages of living in socialism."

The notion of "freedom" in the arts in a socialist country may come as a surprise to Americans raised on Cold War propaganda asserting the opposite. "With my generation, the Communists were dying off," Furlan said. "Their grip on the artists' community was not as strong as after the war (World War II), when you could be in prison for just saying the wrong sentence. So we didn't feel it. I grew up totally despising them - the so-called them - and not having anything to do with them. And they left me alone. So there was relative freedom. Theatre was free because no one cared, basically. It was so marginal to the cause of the regime that people were left to do what they wanted. Film was much more dangerous, thus much more controlled."

That started to change when the Nationalists came to power. "The Yugoslav Communists didn't have the force that these new Nationalists now have, because these new leaders feel that the world is starting from them. They're creating new realities, new history, new language, new values. There's always this passion in the beginning; as a citizen, you don't want to be touched by that passion, because it can cost you your life."

Life in the former Yugoslavia was a political lifestyle largely unknown to Americans. "It was a double life. People had their own private thoughts. Publicly, they behaved as was prescribed; the majority were members of the Communist Party. Opportunism ruled. I think all Eastern Europeans have that built in — no confidence in any government, in any politicians. But, a contradiction! When Communism collapsed, Nationalism was born out of the old Communism. Trained in opportunism, people easily converted from Communism to Nationalism. That's the irony of it. Nothing has changed. The same people, the same names. The same faces. They just converted, switched just like that. That's what's so ugly in that whole situation. You just watch it and cannot believe that people don't remember what they were saying just two months ago. They didn't learn anything. They actually jumped into the first trap, completely surrendering to those new Nationalist leaders that brought them only pain lsss and devastation."

“I have no other way of thinking. I cannot accept war as the only solution, I cannot force myself to hate, I cannot believe that weapons, killing, revenge, hatred, that such an accumulation of evil will ever solve anything. Each individual who personally accepts the war is in fact an accessory to the crime; must he not then take a part of the guilt for the war, a part of the responsibility?”

"Historically, there were all kinds of frustrations on all sides, among all the peoples of the former Yugoslavia. There was a general feeling that each of these peoples who lived together in the former Yugoslavia had been somehow abused by the others. And there was a lot of truth in that. Nationalism is always partly grounded in truth. The Nationalists' politics manipulated the existing anger and frustration of the people and put their emphasis on that, and that's how the war started. The new Nationalists, who were for the most part converted Communists, took all the media. Journalists, I think, and media in general, bear an incredible responsibility for what happened."

The Babylon 5 episode being filmed during this interview, "The Illusion of Truth," has some eerie parallels. An ISN news crew films a documentary on B5, only to use the footage in a propaganda film for President Clark's fascist regime. It's an allegory for how America was consumed by Senator Joe McCarthy's witch hunts in the 1950s. "Sometimes I'm so appalled by what Joe (Straczynski) knows. I happened to experience a witch hunt — as an object! — but it's nothing new. Old stuff."

Furlan drew the attention of the Nationalists after she travelled from her home in Zagreb, Croatia to Belgrade, Serbia to perform at the annual BITEF Festival. BITEF was an international theatre event attended by actors from across Europe. She believed that her participation was a statement that her profession should not be drawn into supporting any political or national ideas. She felt it was her responsibility to establish bridges and ties, "for the sake of something that would outlive this war and this hatred which is so foreign to me," she wrote at the time. But the political leaders in Croatia were furious with her — and targeted her as an example of what would happen to others who chose the same path. Fearful for their careers, if not for their lives, and perhaps even sympathetic of the Nationalist cause, none of her colleagues spoke up to defend her.

“I think, I know and I feel that it is my duty, the duty of our profession, to build bridges. To never give up on cooperation and community. Not that national community. The Professional community. The human community. And even when things are at their very worst, as they are now, we must insist to our last breath on building and sustaining a bond between people. This is how we pledge to the future. And one day it will come . . .

I was willing and I would still be willing to undertake all and any efforts, if the hatred hadn't suddenly overwhelmed me with its horrendous ferocity, hatred welling from the city I was born in. I am appalled by the force and magnitude of that hatred, by its perfect unanimity, by the fact that there was absolutely nobody who could see my gesture as my defense of the integrity of the profession, as my attempt to defend at least one excellent theatre performance.”

"People's behavior is mainly built on fear. People think, 'Let them destroy her but just leave us alone.' When the media went crazy in Yugoslavia, I was a good example. I was a perfect target. I was a totally unprotected woman. Woman, that's very important. The war propaganda was constantly in search of 'internal enemies' just to homogenize the people, and to put fear in their heads so they could manipulate them. It's interesting that the majority of the 'internal enemies' were women. It's a very misogynist culture. It's a very misogynist world. I happen to be partly Jewish, and that came into the picture nicely. And I was never very obedient in my life and career. I left projects that I didn't really believe in. I made some unexpected choices in my work and in my life. All of that got wrapped up - Liberal. Feminist. Whore. Jew. Everything. The media combined it into this juicy bundle and served it to the people, who devoured it."

Abandoned by her friends and colleagues, and living with the threat of assassination, Furlan and her husband left Yugoslavia on November 15, 1991 for New York. She left behind the open letter explaining her departure.

“I am sending this letter into a void, into darkness, without an inkling of who will read it and how, or in how many different ways it will be misused or abused. Chances are it will serve as food for the eternally hungry propaganda beast. Perhaps someone with a pure heart will read it after all.

I will be grateful to that someone.”

American life and culture were a difficult adjustment, both in her profession and her personal life. Furlan has found the acting profession, indeed the entire entertainment industry, radically different from what she knew. Unlike in Yugoslavia, she found that diverse acting talents in the United States were rarely appreciated, much less rewarded.

"It's a European tradition among actors. Serious actors build their career in the theatre," Furlan said. "It's a completely different thing in America. The theatre is so marginal. The theatre doesn't matter because it's not mass culture. It's not the money-making machine. So yeah, I've learned that. We had a crash course in capitalism in the toughest spot. Hollywood is probably the toughest spot on Earth that way, the most cruel. It's a struggle, it's a fight. It's all about publicity and agents and names. That's what I really hate about being an actor here. I hated many things about acting in Yugoslavia. I was frustrated, and felt hopeless as an actor in socialism. I hated many things there, but I really miss concentrating on my work, which should be enough ideally, and it's not. Here, it's just a tiny part of everything else. Everything else is much more important, and you have to do so much of it yourself because no one else cares. Doing stuff that takes away your energy and your concentration and your precious time. These telephone conversations with people who have no interest in you, who don't have interest in anything but quick and easy money."

Babylon 5 is Furlan's first major television role in the United States; in fact it was one of her first auditions. It was also her introduction to science fiction. "I'm completely new to this whole thing. I knew the basics of science fiction literature — Bradbury, Clarke, just general culture — but there wasn't anything remotely similar to this. I was shocked when I went to my first convention."

The similarities between Furlan's life and Delenn's travails are striking. But it seems that it's no more than an amazing coincidence. According to Furlan, Straczynski didn't even know about her personal history when she was hired to play Delenn. "He surprises me so many times. And sometimes I feel as if he's written something directly for me. But he didn't know anything about me. Nothing. When the series started, we talked and he found out."

Furlan was an only child, raised among adults in a family of university professors. What was it that led her into acting? "It was a game! I always wanted to study languages. I studied English and French when I finished high school. I did them together, languages and acting. I went to the Academy for Film, Theatre and TV, and the University. But it was the other part of me, the part that wants to play, that finally won over the serious part, the one who sits at home and reads and learns and does research. It started as a game, it started as 'Let's play.'

"When I started at the Academy, they always used me for comedy, for light, playful stuff. Then I did a play in which something clicked in me. It was an English play in a famous little avant garde theatre, with only me and another actor. It was a very heavy play about marriage, marriage in three stages, which ends with this woman committing suicide on stage. I was so much younger than the part I played, but it completely opened this world of reality in acting. It started a journey inward for me. Once you experience that, once you open up in that way - people talk about getting in touch with your emotions, that's what you do in acting. That's your main job. That's your profession.

"That's why I miss theatre. That's the beauty of doing theatre. You are in touch with the greatest writers of world literature. Their thoughts, their characters. That's unbeatable. That's a pleasure in itself, no matter in what way it forwards your so-called career. I miss film. I miss having time to try things to discover subtleties, layers, little things. The comforting thing on Babylon 5 is Joe's writing, which sometimes touches the depth of the classic literature."

If Straczynski were to ask her to write a B5 episode, what story would she tell?" I have an image for some reason of the set for The Wizard of Oz. I'm in the middle, kind of a Dorothy figure. On one side is G'Kar, and on the other side is Londo, and we walk towards some incredible adventure. Having them on each side of me would make me feel strong and protected, and I would dare to go anywhere!" She suggests that her cat could play Toto, and we agree that cats are very Minbari.

Babylon 5 is fiction. But much of that fiction is rooted in reality, the reality of our 20th Century. It's easy to turn off the TV each week at the end of the hour, put away the popcorn bowl and say, "Aw, that couldn't happen here." But it has. It does. And it will.

Delenn is a fictional character, but Mira Furlan is not. It's easy for a fictional character to risk her life for a cause. For a living human being with friends, family, and a successful career, that decision is much more difficult. Fiction often poses for its characters the question, "Will you sacrifice all for what you believe?" In the fictional world of Babylon 5, that question is, "Who are you?" Reality rarely presents any of us with that challenge. Few of us will ever know what our answer would be.

All Mira Furlan ever wanted was to experience the pure joy of acting, the inward exploration of her soul, and to share that exploration with her audience. But history forced her to explore down unseen paths, paths of darkness, the same paths that took countless lives in her homeland. History demanded, "Who are you?"

Mira answered, and suffered for it. She and Goran have started a new life in America, strangers in a strange land. Their experience reminds us that life may one day demand a test of our integrity. If it does, let us hope that we are equal to their courage.

#mira furlan #babylon 5 #delenn #incredible woman #may her memory be a blessing

[kissyougoodnight]

you're literally a puppet of the hamas, Iranian, propaganda machine. they pray on 'open minded' liberal people because you are such an easy target. Whilst you think the media is fooling you, in fact its all your social media feeds that are fooling you. Occupation must end, civilians caught up in the line of fire during war is horrendous. But waking up in the morning with a plan to commit the worst war crime since ww2 is something else. There is no place or room for comparison. there is no whataboutism. The only governments that support or stay quiet about this act are russia/iran/lebanon/syria/north korea. Wake the fuck up, do you align your beliefs with these governments??? hamas is worst than isis, you puppets jsut dont get it yet. For as long as they exist there will never be an end to suffering of the Palestinian people. unarmed civilians, including kids, women and toddlers were brutally murdered. shot on their homes.

https://www.facebook.com/100001831699563/posts/23932970166347372/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v

proof that hamas took themselves because they are proud of murdering civilians and desecrating dead bodies

I will try to be brief;

Firstly, criticising my use of social media and then linking Facebook posts is A+ critical thinking.

And I agree that Hamas is a large part of the problem and that is no fault of the Palestinian people. Hamas is a militant group of Israel's own creation and they are not helpful to either side. While they have updated their manifesto to say that they want freedom for the Palestinian's rather than their land returned, Hamas is very much a hindered regime.

That is not to say that they are equal in size or power to their opposition, the IDF. Hamas is not a military, they are not funded by any government/s, they are not representatives of the people. In fact, Palestine has no governance over Gaza and the West Bank, all of their resources are controlled by Israel, as demonstrated by the most recent blockade. (Which by the way is a war crime but just like all the other times Israel has enforced such a thing this will go unpunished.)

It seems like we agree on a lot stances, yes occupation must end, civilians should not be caught in the line of fire. But who is the occupying force? Surely the Zionist state that controls what is known as the world's largest open air prison? (A counterproductive name as this implies the innocent civilians have committed a crime deserving of a sentence but I digress.) You cannot believe that Palestine or Hamas has the power to end the occupation?

You claim that there is no room for "whataboutisms" but this is a genocide over 100 years in the making. How is the Palestinian anger towards Israel unjustified when they have been treated as lesser citizens by the Israeli government? How do we expect them to behave towards a people who's only interactions with them have been filled with hate and violence?

And beyond that, where was this outcry in 2018, 2009, 1967 and every year in between? Calling this incident the worst war crime since WWII is not only a gross exaggeration but also an ignorant statement. The state of Israel that you defend so readily has done worse things than this and you don't even have to look that far back. (I will not even begin to list the hypocrisy of the countries speaking out in Israel's defence and stick to only the parties involved.)

Palestine and their allies all over the world have been calling for an end to the apartheid for many years, any time they have been close to a solution Israel has upturned the negotiations (as the controlling state they have the only power to do so) or the US has used it's veto to stop UN intervention.

Your anger at the way things are is justified, you are just aiming it at the wrong target.

#sorry for going off on a tangent but i do hope you read this with an open mind #before i get hit with the a word i have no hate towards jewish people #and i would never wish harm on any innocent person #my anger lies with the israel uk and us governments #israel #free palestine #palestine #gaza

[dragynkeep]

Hey I've been "anti-ship" for as long as I've been in fandom (so like ten years) but I'm trying to change my views. For the record I've never engaged in anti communities and I don't condone or engage in harassment simply because while I am technically anti ship I just think it's a real non issue compared to like real actual abuse. I'm likewise morally opposed to drawn and written nsfw depictions of minors but do not believe it's CSEM and again it's comparatively just not that big of a deal(cont)

(cont) so basically I just want to challenge my opposition. I said I haven't engaged with anti communities because I believe they're toxic and aside from harassing people they have been demonstrated to harbor actual predators projecting. Your blog is one I often read to help me challenge these views. A few days ago you said something about it being scientifically proven that the fiction you consume doesn't have an impact on you and I had no idea that had even been studied (cont) (cont) and I was hoping you'd be able to provide some sources for the publications. I'm an academic, so having actual data to demonstrate that this type of fiction isn't harmful would go a really long way in helping me get past my hangups. As much as I'd just like to be able to take the word of other survivors, it's just way harder to trust hearsay. Anyway, thank you for time. I really enjoy reading your opinions and they've been really helpful in reframing how I think of this (end)

Honestly, from what you described, it sounds more like you just have certain hangups on certain tropes than being an "anti". Being an anti isn't just not liking certain fictional things, but a mindset that liking said things means you condone them in real life. Because you know that harrassment is wrong and people will simply like what you don't, and that's fine, is honestly more of a proshipping mindset to me.

Whether you identify with the term or not is entirely up to you, that's just how it reads to me. I think you're perfectly valid in not liking nsfw, especially around minors, as I am, and I don't think you should feel like you need to be challenged in that mindset because you're not actively going after people who don't think like you.

Simply, you're just putting down standards and letting people live.

As for the scientifically proven mention for how fiction impacts the reader, this post that has all the scientific links should give you something to read over. Fiction ultimately cannot put in new ideas into your head unless there was a space for them to begin with, which is where propaganda and ignorance comes into play.

Like the Jaws argument. The book and the movie didn't push people to suddenly wanna kill all these sharks, but it played on the already existing fear of sharks, something that is dangerous and lives in places that people do not naturally come from, and makes it seem cool and justified to go out and kill these sharks.

Because people did not have the knowledge that the portrayal of the great white in the movie is extremely inaccurate, and already played on their prenotion that sharks are monsterous human eating machines that need to be eradicated.

Ships and fiction follows the same idea. If someone reading an adult/child ship and is already a victim being groomed, they are in a different mindset that will almost glamourise and excuse what's happening because it's happening to them. Compare that to someone who already knows that pedophilia/incest/rape is bad, the fiction they consume won't suddenly make them want to do it.

Like with Game of Thrones depicting the Lannister incest or the gratuitous rape, that didn't suddenly make fans think it's okay to fuck their sibling or go out and rape someone. If someone who consumes this fiction then goes out and does it, they were already struggling mentally to begin with.

Hope this helps!

#proshipping #answered #luke.txt

[lettucedloophole]

i've thought about going on t before, as an average liberal then as a terf and now as a trans inclusive radical feminist. and with these three perspectives, i have no idea of what to make of any personal decision like that anymore.

it was pretty easy as a liberal. do what makes you happy, "no critical thoughts, just vibes" and all. as a terf, it's very strictly no, sometimes to the point of matyrdom. if you find yourself with dysphoria, knowing transition would help you, you are supposed to run in the opposite direction and just try to embrace yourself harder until it goes away, nevermind gender being a part of you. it's dishonest in a more insidious method than liberalism, in my opinion anyway, as it posits itself as the correct subversion of liberalism when it's really a spin off of conservative thought. of course, you can't get too prescriptive (i am not using this word in the conventional sense. perhaps in no correct sense) with ideas-- someone having a certain opinion is one thing, but why do they have it? their life experience or disposition, ignorance, propaganda? and what do they plan to do about it? but in the case of terfism's Transgender Bad opinion, the formulation of it is very similar, if not almost identical to typical conservatives, which is odd given the demographic of terfs generally being variously marginalized women, but that just proves the efficacy of propaganda leveraged in the culture war against the minority (trans people as of now, of course)-- no one is immune. *insert garfield here.*

between and or outside of brain empty and transphobic martyrdom, there is the increasingly complex scope of radical feminism and other theory on gender, sexuality. increasingly complex to Me, at least, as i think it is correct, and correct things are the hardest to grasp. i take one step forward and fourteen back the more i learn about this stuff. i was so certain before, but good theory breaks down your reality into parts and pieces to bring cohesion to a machine as a whole. society.

terf thought = being trans isn't like being gay or being a gnc wo/man, being gay and/or a gnc wo/man is natural and innate and not harmful and being trans is a social imposition of patriarchy. but upon digging deeper... sex is a social construct. and if sex is a social construct? sexuality is a social construct. nothing is innate, at least, we could never really say as that would be to push society's assumptions on Unsociety. thus, gender, sexuality, transness, all become quite similar– there is at least purpose in the social construction of sex that's blatantly evident, thank you simone de beauvoir; patriarchy. however, personal gender, conformity and nonconformity, is hopelessly skewed by the human spectrum of being, and coping. terf thought = transness is artificial as it is a defilement of the authentic self, but what is the authentic self? being against bodily modification is one thing, but this concept of authenticity-- it is assumed gay and gnc people have this authenticity that trans people lack. they're Just Like That. but, why are people gay? why are people gnc? when these questions are asked, homophobia & misogyny is assumed, because (much like the question of "why are people trans?") they are often asked in search of justification for someone else's existence. i will say the most crude samples aloud; you're gay because you were sexually assaulted as a kid, you're gnc because you're too insecure to be a real man, you're gnc because you feel too ugly to embrace femininity and thus, hate yourself enough to resort to masculinity. and the answer we come up with to these questions is, no. there are of course many gay and gnc people who don't feel an inkling of this. but, what about those who do? i will use myself as an example: i used to be more feminine as a child, but i got fat and depressed and put less effort into my appearance, less vibrancy, ending up at androgynous. now i am that or masc-y, and i feel disgusting in feminine clothes likely because of this insecurity. i am bi because patriarchy = brainwashed into being submissively attracted to men. i cannot rid myself of this part of me and i hate it, and along with the social reality of patriarchy, this is more than enough reason to force myself out of internalized homophobia. so, taking these two things into account, my gender nonconformity and sexuality are essentially inseparable from patriarchy-- does this make them inauthentic? unhealthy? how many other gnc & gay people feel similarly? if it was the majority, or a lot, would you then say it's not genuine or healthy for them to be gay?

and here lies the problem, because the exact same things are said about trans people by (usually) transphobes; you're trans because you're traumatized from sexual assault or internalized misogyny / patriarchy. but holding onto the label of man and woman so strongly as gnc (cis, to clarify) people, is also informed by patriarchy, these labels are made up and, dare i say, meaningless.

except, they're obviously NOT meaningless. these categories OOZE importance for people everywhere, they're what relegate half of the population, and terfs agree with this too as they hold on so strongly to being women and sisterhood. so, why is it only artificial when trans people acknowledge a very real system, and find a way to fit themselves into it?

essentially, all of gender and sexuality is a choice. you can choose to be gnc, you can choose to be gay, and you can choose to be trans. i know this, as i have in some sense chosen to be gnc and gay (by being a bi woman who doesn't date men, though i don't literally identify as gay) but it just boggles the fucking mind because of the essentialism that's applied to these categories. and yes, this essentialism is often applied to protect these groups, but it is also what forms the very oppression of these groups, which is why it doesn't fucking work.

obligatory disclaimer as that was a Touchy subject, saying you could choose to be gay, trans, gnc also doesn't mean conversion therapy works or is right, because there's the simple matter of what you want to be. sure, you could materially be straight, gay people fake this all the time. but it's not fulfilling. dare i say, it's inauthentic...

so the force of want is authentic, as innate is not real and therefore, not authentic. self-actualization may be authentic, and it's separate from want at least in that it can't be hollow.

but this begs so many more questions. for example, as a radical feminist, you're anti-kink. however, if we disregard root in patriarchy as a sign that an action is, well. bad, anti-feminist. then does kink become okay? (i don't think so because i am aggressively sex-negative and thus i will consider things like, lack of self-actualization in this action, material harm and danger, the collective submission of women never being a neutral as opposed to an evil. but, it is an interesting thought.)

so, back to t. i want to go on t, i think i would like the changes for the most part, but would it self-actualise me? is feeling obligated to stick it through as a weird little woman remnants of terf brainworms, or can it be a lifestyle choice without subconsciously damning people who live differently? do i, in some personal way, feel obligated to transition?

i am perpetually confused. i got some interesting advice today, "understand what you need to understand," i don't think it meant much to the person saying it, but to me? i wonder if i need to understand an experience through living it to be happy, or if i can learn from the sidelines. either way, i won't do anything rash, as i must find the correct choice to satisfy the ethics demon that screams at me in my head to live an "authentic" life. whatever that means

you learn upon unterfening how cisgender (gnc or otherwise) identification can be rather restrictive as compared to the subversion that terfs sell it as, but i am interested now in thinking of what ways transgender reality is subversive in patriarchal society. i don't know if i'll have many thoughts on this, but the biggest one i've come up with so far is the wedge it shoots between the idea of sex/gender being innate. though some people manage to make it sound otherwise, it is anti-essentialist at its core. i'm interested in seeing this whole picture of the cis and trans subversiveness and typicality comparisons, as i feel getting this done should even the scales for them in my brain, theoretically speaking. all gender oppressed people have their own strengths and subversions-- you learn that they don't need to be identical to be meaningful. allyship isn't a zero-sum game.

#trans inclusive radical feminism #gender dysphoria #transphobia #homophobia #patriarchy #misogyny #trans inclusive radfem #tirf #radical feminism #vent

[ijusthavesomanyblorbos]

I wonder about sg!optimus. For example, he could be coptimus prime, who gains the matrix because the senate sees him as more complicit to their system, as well as easier to side with or use.

There would be propaganda saying megatron turned evil and destroyed cybertronians because he got salty optimus got the matrix and not him.

Sg!optimus would think what makes his killings different from megatron’s is the former does what’s necessary while the other’s gone too far or lost his way. Even though, it’s more the opposite.

Sg!optimus would make these grand speeches about how they’re all cogs of a greater machine, even if it costs them their bodies and spirit.

Absolutely!

I've been thinking about Optimus a lot throughout this whole brainstorming session, because I've been trying to come up with a balance between preserving his original good-hearted and pure personality, while still presenting an intense and abrupt transition into autocratic warlord. It's difficult because I want where he starts to be genuinely moral, and where he ends to be genuinely evil. Where I've kind of landed in that is that the two most important factors in his prewar character would be nativity, and a love of cybertronian culture.

Optimus definitely starts out as a higher class citizen of Cybertron. Probably not a noble, as corruption is more common place the higher up you go, but at least well off enough that he doesn't truly understand what it's like being at the bottom of society.

I think he would become a cop, because he wants to contribute to his home. And I even think he would reach out and support Megatron, for the same reasons! He might be naive, but he's not blind. He knows that things are pretty bad for some people- and he doesn't want that!

But I think his assistance would be founded in a fundamental misunderstanding of what's actually causing his people to suffer.

Whenever I'm writing prewar, I always love to shove Megatron and Optimus as close together as possible, simply for the dramatic irony it causes. We already know how this story ends- which means every tender moment they share is just DRIPPING with angst. There's always tension underlying their interactions, of the audience wondering, where is that point of no return? What event is going to happen to make them go from this to that. There's a tragedy in their friendship that's just so FUN to watch play out.

So I would go so far as to say that Optimus even comes to be seen as one of the heads of the movement. I mean, there is no better symbol of unity than a high class enforcer, working in tandem with a low class miner for the betterment of Cybertron. Their comradery is the very foundation of what the Decepticons are supposed to represent.

So obviously, the Senate decides that the best way to weaken the cause would be to drive them apart. And offering Optimus the Matrix is the best way to do that! It would confirm the fears of every lower caste member of society- that the higher classes don't see them as equals, and will always, eventually, default to power over equality. And what a blow to Megatron! His closest friend, his most trusted ally, becoming the very thing they swore to fight against.

But get this- Optimus refuses. He values Megatron's friendship too much, and while he has the utmost respect and reverence for their holy symbols, he knows what accepting would do to their friendship. And furthermore, what it would do to the cause. (Besides, his goal, as of right now, is not supreme power. While he does think the position of Prime is an honor, he most certainly does not believe himself worthy of it.

And that's that!

Just kidding.

Because then, the functionalist massacre happens. And it's bad. More than bad, it's unprecedented. The Senate has run their society back before their oldest citizen's oldest memories. For the traditionalist upper class, not only is this a massive blow to their power, it's a complete dismantlement to their way of life.

And that's what Megatron wants.

And Optimus is horrified.

And the betrayal is worsened by the fact that he wasn't even consulted. In fact, he didn't even learn of the attack until it was over- a purposeful action by Megatron done to prevent his interference. They're supposed to be a team, but all the sudden, Megatron is running the show and Optimus is left floundering. This is a devastation that destroys any trust Optimus had for him- but more than that, it destroys any notion in Optimus's mind that Megatron is doing the right thing.

This is the end of their unity. Permantly.

Right, and then things get even worse. Because yeah, the functionalists sucked, but also, they kinda managed everything? And now their society is missing it's entire government. And the Decepticons mean well, but an early stage revolutionary part isn't exactly suited for bureaucratic administration. So things like uneven energon distribution, and crime rates, and a lack of medical care (which were already problems) get much, much worse.

Basically? Cybertron is crumbling.

And Optimus is realizes somehow has to step up.

So he finds the Matrix. And he accepts the role of Prime. And as pretty much the sole proprietor of Cybertronian justice, he cracks down hard. Restrictions are now worse than they ever were under the functionalists. On the bright side, their cities aren't actively burning down, but it's a HUGE step back for the Decepticons.

Optimus has become exactly what the Senate wanted- a perfect little autocratic puppet for them to control. (Shame they're too dead to enjoy it.)

He is, frankly, traumatized by the quick and jarring loss of stability. He is terrified of losing his home. His worst fear is seeing the culture and traditions he values above all else crumble into anarchy.

Things progress about how you'd expect from there. An ever increasing of the stakes- more crackdowns from Optimus, more push back from Megatron, until their world can't take it anymore and devolves into full on war. A war which, eventually, 4 million years and countless lives later, Optimus will lose- ironically, as the murderer of the very world he sought to protect.

Rough break.

So! In summary.

-Optimus is a naive, yet pure hearted high class citizen who loves and values his home and traditions of all else.

-This blinds him to the oppressiveness, inequality, and deep corruption inheritant in it's system.

-He joins forces with Megatron in an attempt to peacefully and law abidingly assists society's lowest citizens, yet ultimately feels betrayed when Megatron resorts to (what he belives) is anarchy as a solution.

-He reacts by violently polarizing, leaning into oppersive policies in an attempt to restore the stability given by law that is the foundation of his world view.

-Unfortunately, this clashing of values between him and his former ally leads to an all out war, that ultimately destroys their home and way of life.

#and THATS the prewar SG! timeline ive been working on #theres a few things i left out because GODDAM this is long #but thats about it #i really really wanted to make optimus's character arc believable #the most important part of the autobots #to me #is that they believe theyre in canon #they truly see decepticons as this destabalizing #corrupting force #and thats so powerful to the audience because we READ canon #we KNOW exactly how they feel #and we KNOW that in this case? #they're WRONG #and it just really hits home that everything is a matter of perspective #this was a super cool ask! thank you very much :) #i feel like i didn't really address what you actually said #so i am sorry about that :( but i loved your interpretation of him #idw transformers #shattered glass #sg! optimus #sg! megatron #maccadams #hbrambles #hbanswers #hbsg

[papirouge]

Not sure what anon calling your racial slur has to do with anything but your whole argument is sending links from biased news sources and using caps lock. It’s travel with my wife yearly to Israel and her family does occasionally as well but we could not this year because of what happened. You’re entitled to your opinion and I could send you links from other biased news sources arguing the opposite of what you’re saying. I was trying to have a discussion with a person not a propaganda machine. I have my biases as well.

By that I mean that I am sickened by the casualties on both sides and while you blame whoever it is you want to blame I blame Hamas. The state I live in sends immense support to Israel and overall we don’t tolerate extremism here and the city is nice compared to places flooded with slacktivists. Some of us are just upset the protests are harmful to both Muslims and Jewish people. I worry about the antisemitism and the type of Islamaphobia we saw happen after 9/11.

The protests and the online wars are not helping bring Palestine and Israel closer to peace. It is causing division and hate. The ceasefire did not happen because of everyone spray painting swastikas and vandalizing the White House. It happened for an amount of time because Hamas was releasing some hostages. I truly hope for peace and I believe Israel has a right to seek justice for what happened.

I’ve seen footage from both the bombings in Gaza and October 7th and what I would say is it’s going to get worse before it gets better. America will continue to be a strong ally to Israel like it has in the past. Idk how you do it in France and I get that there’s a lot hate for Americans but I do love the country that I live in and the freedoms I have here. 🇺🇸 🇮🇱 🇵🇸. This is what I want. Peace and understanding for everyone. Your slacktivism isn’t going to change a goddamn thing no matter how many links you copy and paste. The people who really make changes don’t care about likes and reblogs.

First of all : miss me with your unasked for lecture about my typing style OR MY USE OF CAPS, THANK YOU. That's MY BLOG and I DO AND TYPE HOW THE HECK I WANT💜 You already walk on thin ice here so you better watch your tone. I'm not your friend and you're just lucky I chose to entertain your annoying presence on MY space.

Now. Here's the thing anon : there's no unbiased media source. EVERY media has a director of publication AND a financier who pretty much has the last say on the 'orientation' of that media. People like you pulling out the "unbiased" source card come off very unaware of how journalism work. If the same information is shared in several publications from a various of countries and political spectrum, blaming the information at hand as being "biased" is ridiculous. But hey, weren't Israeli officials saying the UN and Amnesty International was the pro Hamas ? 💀Just say you're mad at this information and go.

I mean, it's extremely revealing you're like "no matter how many link your copy paste" because it shows 1) you're not interested in educating yourself (and it shows) 2) you don't even value information for what it is. Those are just "copy past links" which ultimately explains why your takes are so stupid and uneducated. I wouldn't be surprised you're American bc you guys often have that wicked mix of arrogance and sheer stupidity.

Also a question : are you White? Because the way you use "slacktivism" shows you don't know the slightest what it actually means and think. I'm asking bc like you, Whites haven't shut up about woke so I ended up with the conclusion they just love hopping on internet slang and rehashing it left & right without grasping their actual meaning ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Here's a clue : you realize that people talking shit on the internet..... don't necessary claim the "activist" title right? Do you realize that Palestinians THEMSELVES ask us to TALK about Palestine, and that unlike entitled brats like you thinking they can lecture anyone about how they should correctly support Palestine cause, are just grateful we keep talking about them? So why should I acknowledge your opinion? You're not a Palestinian. You are foreign to the equation at hand. Shut up.

"the protest and online wars aren't bringing Palestine and Israel closer to peace" .....but bombing Gaza will? Are you out of your mind? Do you realize you're literally breeding a new gen of radicalized kids who will hate Israel for wiping off 95% of their lineage? On what multiverse are you living??

Slacktivism doesn't kill people and yet you're more mad at it than the actual bomb killing civilians... Insanity.

And protest do work ; there's been a ceasefire. (Not because of sprayed swastikas). Funny how you act like it didn't happen. I thought you wanted peace; as a "peace lover", I think you'd be more appreciative of that🙃

And TBH we in France we ain't checking for America like that. I know you guys have a weird main character syndrome but the USA definitely aren't on french people's mind like that. I know you guys aren't the brightest bulb of the building but we have our own continent (Europe) to deal with first (which is a lot).

Conclusion : the people who really want changes aren't there submitting stupid anons on a rando inbox. You want peace through war? Enroll into Tsahal or shut up forever. People like you thinking war will ultimately fix things while not be on the frontline of that ✨peacemaking war✨ disgust me.

Yall told yourselves the same lie for decades already and it didn't work. Do you know how are called people doing the same thing while thinking the result will end up different? : CRAZIES.

PS/ learn to read: me bringing up like & reblog was about the person saying nobody was reading my lengthy response posts.

#answered

[livenewsupdate]

The US’s Warning Shot: What Sanctions Against A Russian “Spy” Bank Mean for Budapest

For days, there has been huge speculation about possible American sanctions against Hungary. So far, only a Russian entity is involved – but it is more likely to be the beginning rather than the end of the story.

Since last summer, the Hungarian government has been claiming that American-Russian peace talks shall end the war in Ukraine. Around the same time, the propaganda machine launched a campaign claiming that US Democrats tried to interfere with Hungarian elections by funding the opposition. Then, Fidesz’s anti-sanctions campaign began, labelling the US and the EU as warmongers, a narrative which lives on to this day.

Last autumn, a new ambassador, David Pressman, arrived in Budapest and immediately got caught in the crossfire, with Orbán calling him the man who came to pressure us, with the pun fully intended.