#which is then followed by extrajudicial killings | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lucem-stellarum · 6 months

Text

Spoilers for the Summit pt 3, and under the cut for length

Damn, and I was so convinced it was actually Alexis too.

William, this was not the time or method to let Vincent learn about the murkier parts of your morality. You could have explained it when you told him he had to run the Summit alone. You were just worried that Vincent wouldn't play along if he knew, and you know what? You'd have been right. Everyone makes mistakes when parenting, but I love-hate to see it here. I love the repeated emphasis that William does love Vincent, because that makes it hurt even worse. There's a specific kind of pain with the growth and realization that your parents are people, with real flaws and that make real mistakes.

I'm not saying that Vincent is perfect, either. Porter was right that he was sheltered about it, but Vincent let himself be sheltered as well. Sam, Fred, and Bright Eyes (yes their storyline was scrubbed from the official canon, but then why does Sam get to make it personal about Quinn's actions on Halloween in their little extrajudicial confrontation? I'm getting off topic. Anyway) all had terrible experiences with other vamps, Adam was in the same clan and we all know how messed up he was. Vincent himself experienced how easy it is to push humans to a sort of second class citizen where it didn't matter if he hurt them or overrode their boundaries since he could just wipe memories and it was for his own survival. Why wouldn't other vamps develop that same sort of moral numbness to other people's pain and suffering? It only takes one remorseless vampire monarch for every single one of them to have to resort to those tactics to protect their own regardless of their own personal feelings about violence. Sort of the "carry a bigger stick" mentality that's ridiculously difficult to deescalate (and that's with the benefit of having human generational divides. with immortal vampires everything is personal).

I do wish that Lovely got to interject a little bit more about all of this. The Bennetts were mainly killed for their part in the Inversion. The Inversion which, just so it's stated for the official record, had a pretty big impact on our vampire listener character. Porter says to ask the Shaw pack if the Bennetts deserved to die, but Lovely was right there. I'm hoping there's a follow up with them and Vincent afterwards where they get to say their piece to him, and maybe it will help Vincent understand why William decided that they had to die. They might have better luck once the shock has worn off a bit, had time to settle in. In universe it's only been, what, 2-3 hours since the start of the Summit? I'm giving Vincent a lot of grief, but as a character he's a lot closer to the stress of it all both physically and temporally. The Summit is his duty, therefore (if William has taught him anything about taking responsibility) the Bennett's deaths are also his fault because it happened under his supervision when (in his mind) he was supposed to make everyone "play nicely together" for the evening. He didn't stop it, therefore it's his fault, and he's made it very clear how he feels about causing violence/death.

Speaking of Lovely being oddly quiet, there wasn't a whole lot about Sam being mentioned either. Alexis got brought up, because obviously she would when talking about the amoral and bloodthirsty side of the clan. I think Sam's going to be more pragmatic than Vincent is with all of this, but I can't decide how far he's willing to go about it. Thoughts?

Was anyone else inspired or intrigued by Porter saying that "William always does the right thing"? I was listening (with headphones) out in public before driving home, so the exact wording might be different, but that sounds like there's an interesting story there.

I don't want to have the reputation of someone who just hates on Porter, because damn it I ought to like him more. His character hits so many notes that I like to see. Vincent calling him William's weapon and attack dog? I love watching that kind of relationship and devotion. I've shipped it before, and I will again (though I have to say, that would make Porter's relationship with Vincent so much worse. I kinda want to see the trainwreck of the evil step father). His gray morality, his intelligence, his quick wit, his deft manipulation of people? I can enjoy and envy all of it. But damn his hypocrisy, inconsistency, and that fight is just infuriating. "I can't hold it against you that you act sheltered because you've been sheltered your whole afterlife". Bullshit, Porter, you absolutely did blame Vincent for being sheltered and that's one of the reasons you got in that fight with Vincent in the first place. Porter might not be actively lying to us here, but he's certainly not being truthful. I've already gone through and found quotes to prove it before here. Adding on to the linked post, the way Vincent and Porter are talking to discuss Porter's joining of the clan and how William treated him sounds a whole heck of a lot like Porter joined the Solaires before Vincent did, which only further supports my points there. Ughhh I was in the middle of researching for a different analysis post for other characters; I don't want to be distracted by writing up what I think their fight should have been about. It's almost worse that I don't like him because I keep thinking about how much I should like him and what it would take for me to support him wholeheartedly, flaws and all.

To cap it all off, this subplot has been wonderful so far. I'm happy that someone spelled out all the dirty little secrets for Vincent/Lovely/Us, because my head was starting to spin keeping everything straight and digging up the tiniest insinuations and turning into the Pepe Silvia meme. I know it's not over yet, but I think the evening is starting to wind down for the characters and I'm so glad that it is because the stress and intensity of it all is killing me. I know that this is probably the starting point for more developments later (what is Sweetheart gonna do after all of this in their official department capacity? is any of this going to put David in a rough spot politically? though Sam and Darlin ran into Alexis they didn't really get the chance to weigh in on the whole, y'know, state-sanctioned double murder? where are we going with that little teaser about Quinn having friends in high places? where's Treasure in all of this? Porter's ominous words about Close Knit planning another Inversion-level event??) I'm hoping there's gonna be a bit of a breather. Kudos Mr. Redacted, and thank you.

#redacted asmr #redacted monarchal summit #redacted vincent #redacted william #redacted porter #redacted lovely #redacted sam #redacted solaire clan #redacted spoilers #i was thinking my thoughts and came up with this #yeah I am a wordy bitch #I have a lot of things to say and so many opinions to share #ngl I was planning on writing that Porter 'what if it went different' anyways #but I need time to make sure it's compliant with enough of canon to be as plausible as possible #except for where I'm specifically ignoring what I don't like about the reasons for the fight

21 notes · View notes

ewingstan · 1 year

Text

So all the wildbow protags seem to have some frog-being-boiled trick about them where you are nodding your head along with all their choices and then look up from where you started and start noticing how bonkers things have gotten. But how exactly that manifests differs between books in pretty interesting ways.

Taylor makes a bunch of choices that read as understandable for an awkward teenager trying to make the best out of a bad situation, but it doesn’t take long before those choices become pretty clearly (although crucially often not to the extent that they would stick out while reading through the first time) indicative of a much higher willingness to use people as tools than the norm, not be motivationally hindered by empathy, etc. And of course in hindsight a lot of her choices are less careful utility calculus and more an expression of her desire for friendship and control as well as her need to be invaluable in whatever circumstance she finds herself in.

Blake has a much more prototypical set of ethics and motivations, and these largely don’t change throughout the text. He starts and ends as your stock angry but fundamentally “good” YA protagonist. He’s just put into situations where the morals of that type of character means he acts like a horror movie monster. Which is a pretty neat thing for a text to do, to take your typical Percy Jackson-esque character and show that “hey if you put him in enough situations then he could end up asking a facebook group of teenage girls if they want him to kill any of their husbands.”

Sylvester is an interesting case because he starts performing actions the audience would consider objectionable well before they’d get acclimated to it as they could in the case of Taylor or Blake. He performs extrajudicial killings of rouge academics for the government using manipulation and underhanded tactics while peeking up people’s shirts. It’d be tempting to say that his gradual transformation is into an okay person, and that might be true to an extent—the seeds to him eventually rebelling from the academy get planted early and slow shifts in his perspective before that point could be detected going a while back. I don’t think that would be the whole story though. It would probably be more accurate to say that you don’t notice how much Sy’s matured until he’s at the point of rewriting his personality to an adult’s persona.

Its much too early in my reading of Ward to be able to say if the pattern is going to hold. But I found it interesting to see one of the big morally questionable decisions be made early, and in a pretty noticeable way. I’m talking about Victoria secretly tailing Rain home after the capture-the-flag game, after he specifically denied her offer to follow him for protection. It doesn’t read as totally unjustified or anything, she is doing it to protect someone’s life when she has good reason to think its threatened. But she’s also doing it because she’s suspicious Rain’s been lying. And she flies in uncomfortable conditions for hours to find out what he’s up to. Its a huge breach of privacy, and while well-intentioned, it does read strongly as Cop Shit™. And while I only have my own response to the text to go off of, it kind of feels like it was meant to be framed as a pretty ethically questionable act on Vicky’s part. So if I was reading this with no knowledge of the story, I might think “Oh, wildbow’s done the here’s-how-being-in-the-social-position-of-the-criminal-puts-certain-behavioral-pressures-on-you story, now he’s doing the here’s-how-being-in-the-social-position-of-the-protector/peacekeeper-puts-certain-behavioral-pressures-on-you story. We’re gonna see how the moral beliefs that make someone strongly want to be a superhero, and the system of designated “heroes” they get slotted into, cause a lot of shitty behaviors.” But from everything I’ve heard, that is very much not the type of story I’ll be getting! This isn’t the “ACAB doesn’t exclude the well-intentioned cops” story, this is the “we do need a carceral justice system because people need to face punishment for past crimes and also some people are just inherently evil” story. And right now I’m not seeing how we get there?

#taylor hebert #victoria dallon #blake thorburn #sylvester lambsbridge #ward #parahumans #worm #wildbow #pact #twig #otherverse #leo reads ward #leo says

100 notes · View notes

news4dzhozhar · 4 months

Text

Leahy Law Fact Sheet - United States Department of State

1. What is the Leahy law?

The term “Leahy law” refers to two statutory provisions prohibiting the U.S. Government from using funds for assistance to units of foreign security forces where there is credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights (GVHR). One statutory provision applies to the State Department and the other applies to the Department of Defense. The State Department Leahy law was made permanent under section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 22 U.S.C. 2378d. The U.S. government considers torture, extrajudicial killing, enforced disappearance, and rape under color of law as GVHRs when implementing the Leahy law. Incidents are examined on a fact-specific basis. The State Department Leahy law includes an exception permitting resumption of assistance to a unit if the Secretary of State determines and reports to Congress that the government of the country is taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice.

The DoD Leahy law is similar to the State Leahy law. Since 1999, Congress included the DoD Leahy law in its annual appropriations act. The DoD Leahy law is now permanent in Section 362 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. It requires that DoD-appropriated funds may not be used for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a foreign security force unit if the Secretary of Defense has credible information that such unit has committed a GVHR. The law allows for two exceptions to this restriction. The first in cases where the Secretary of Defense (after consultation with the Secretary of State) determines that the government of that country has taken all necessary corrective steps. This first exception is also known as “remediation.” A second exception exists if U.S. equipment or other assistance is necessary to assist in disaster relief operations or other humanitarian or national security emergencies.

2. How is the law implemented?

In cases where an entire unit is designated to receive assistance, the Department of State vets the unit and the unit’s commander. When an individual security force member is nominated for U.S. assistance, the Department vets that individual as well as his or her unit. Vetting begins in the unit’s home country, where the U.S. embassy conducts consular, political, and other security and human rights checks. Most often, an additional review is conducted by analysts at the Department of State in Washington, D.C. The State Department evaluates and assesses available information about the human rights records of the unit and the individual, reviewing a full spectrum of open source and classified records.

When assessing whether information is credible, the following factors should be considered weighing both the credibility of a source and the veracity of an allegation:

Past accuracy and reliability of the reporting source as well as original source, if known;

How the source obtained the information (e.g., personal knowledge obtained by a witness, witness interviews collected by a non-governmental organization (NGO), descriptions collected from government records, etc.);

Known political agenda of a source (both reporting source and/or original source, if known) which might lead to bias in reporting;

Corroborative information to confirm part or all of the allegation;

Information that contradicts part or all of the allegation;

History of unit and known patterns of abuse/professional behavior;

Level of detail of the GVHR allegation, including detail in identification of the GVHR, perpetrator (or link to an operational unit), and victim.

3. Can assistance be reinstated to units previously found ineligible for assistance?

Yes. Consistent with the exception under both Leahy laws, the Departments of State and Defense have adopted a joint policy on remediation that outlines a process for resuming DoD- and State-funded assistance to foreign security force units that are ineligible for assistance under the Leahy laws. This can occur when the Secretaries of Defense and State determine that the government of that country has taken, or is taking, effective measures to bring those responsible to justice. Such measures may include impartial and thorough investigations; credible judicial or administrative adjudications; and appropriate and proportional sentencing.

8 notes · View notes

codenamesazanka · 1 year

Text

As far as Spinner knows, Heroes:

have beaten Shigaraki into a comatose ashen pulp at Jaku

tried to strangle Spinner and the League (Best Jeanist)

supports a fellow League member's abusive asshole of a father

extrajudicially killed Twice

caused Toga to come back to the League in tears and disillusioned

As far as Spinner is concerned, Heroes are still his and the League's extremely dangerous enemies, who are aiming to at best capture Spinner and his friends and throw them into lifelong indefinite detention, and at worst straight up kill them. Spinner's just not gonna side with anyone who's gonna kill Shigaraki, his friend that he loves.

Meanwhile, to Spinner's knowledge, AFO is a evil creep who:

has taken over Shigaraki's body, but at least says that Shigaraki is still Shigaraki (and Spinner has no choice but to believe in that, because he loves Shigaraki)

Left Machia and Compress behind at Jaku

...but that's mostly it. That's as much harm as AFO has done to the League. It's bad, but unlike the Heroes, AFO isn't actively trying to beat up and/or kill the League at the moment.

It's a rock and a hard place. Both options are bad for Shigaraki - one side wants to kill Shigaraki, the other uses him like a puppet. But forced to choose, Spinner has picked AFO, because at least he knows AFO wants to keep Shigaraki alive.

Because Heroes have done nothing to show that they want to save Shigaraki. Nothing at all. Deku might have internally decided he wants to try to save the 'crying little boy', but I don't think he has told a single person on the Heroes' side his decision, much less announce it to Shigaraki or Spinner or the League.

We readers know Deku wants to save Shigaraki, but none of the Villains know this. All they continue to see is Deku beating the crap out of Shigaraki, enough to kill him.

The tragedy of the Villains is that they're always faced with very limited choices, because that's what society has given them. Heroes have never given them any alternatives or solutions. There's no incentive for the Villains to join the Heroes' side.

Twice was given the choice of betraying his friends (and doom them to Tartarus or death) or get killed himself - just those two options. Had Twice been told that there's more ways to happiness than destruction, had Twice been given a deal where he does betray his friends but Heroes would promise to try to rehabilitate them as well, and maybe Twice can see them again when they're all a lot healthier and happier, then I think Twice might have agreed. Twice's deepest desire was caring for his friends and seeing them happy - had Heroes appealed to that, given him more than the two choices he had, Jaku probably could've ended a lot more differently, with a lot less death.

Heroes punch first and never ask any question. Heroes have simply never tried to do anything but fight fire with fire. Heroes gotta give the Villains something. AFO is evil and we know that following him will lead to doom, but he is often the only other option for people who have been rejected by Hero Society to survive. Ironically, to the Villains, he is the lesser of two evils.

Wouldn't it be cool if Spinner sides with the Heroes because of his love for Shigaraki? Betrays AFO to save his friend? I know a lot of people are hoping to see that. Well, that can only happen if Heroes gives Spinner any proof at all that they won't kill Shigaraki, that they will try to get rid of the AFO vestige parasite, that they're willing to offer a better (non-indefinite-Tartarus, non-killing) way than what AFO offers.

tl;dr - As far as Spinner knows, Heroes want to kill Shigaraki and has said nothing about helping/saving Shigaraki. AFO is using Shigaraki as a puppet, but at least Shigaraki is alive and still there. Both choices are terrible for Spinner who only wants Shigaraki to be okay, but he's gonna pick the option in which Shigaraki lives. If Spinner is going to betray AFO because he cares for Shigaraki, Heroes are gonna have to offer an alternative.

#Spinner #Shigaraki Tomura #nalslastworkingbraincell

102 notes · View notes

curioussubjects · 2 days

Text

in which i revisit black market and it's worse somehow

for reasons even i find elusive, i read the transcript for rdm's podcast episode on "black market" (i know i know), but i really do appreciate the spirit behind this particular pod episode. i just. it's just. y'all....you cannot make this stuff up:

"there is no socioeconomic structure beyond the Rag Tag Fleet. There's no government. There's no social system. There's no nothing. Other than these particular ships. Isn't everything black market? Isn't everything to be bartered?" there's so much going on here. like. what do you mean there's no government or social system. the fleet literally has an executive and legislative branch. the executive literally has an enforcement arm through the military. ron please. 😭😭 the idea there's no social system is also bizarre when there's no indication the colonial social system wasn't reproduced down to caprican hegemony. also love the implication that the presence of a barter system nearly if not completely equates to the existence of a black market. that's. that-. hm. what i do think is interesting here though is that a black market existing isn't actually, imo, a foregone conclusion. that it exists at all suggests: 1. there seems to be no enforcement of the rule of law, 2. no regulation of trade, and 3. the government isn't adequately meeting the needs of the fleet with supply distribution.

sometimes i remember rdm has a polisci degree and i want to jump into a river.

but anyway, some of this stuff is discussed in the writer's room and all i can think about is how in the world did anybody think a topic this huge could fit into one standard episode of television. a lot of the bulk could be done in one episode, but you'd be returning to this as subplots and background commentary in future episodes.

"I was really disappointed in the show and myself and what we had done and didn't feel like the episode really had anything going for it." yeah man no fucking shit. you can't build a story out of vibes alone 😭

"You never quite get at the satisfaction of truly having gone through a plot that you had no idea where it was gonna go and you're shocked where it ended up. And you're not really sitting back and going, "My God. Lee Adama is nothing like I thought he was." It just doesn't- it falls in between. It's classically standing on the two chairs and falling in between both of them." the problem you're having is that you never connect what's going on with the black market plot with what's going on with lee. there's no line there beyond right place right time. clearly there's an ethical issue here in that lee is complicit with the black market. THAT'S what's interesting. our ethical center character, who values justice and the law is complicit in something that is happening outside of legal purview and also harms and exploits people. and then culminates with lee doing some light extrajudicial killing. but we never sit with any of it. much less see it play out in future episodes.

which is why this following bit kills me : "Tigh and Ellen and Ellen's involvement in the black market and she's getting things for Tigh, who is a senior officer in Galactica. There's a whiff of corruption here and what does it mean? We're not gonna- we don't take the easy way out. Tigh isn't shocked at what his wife is doing and promises never to do it again. He understands what she's doing. There is an implication that, "Who knows what else Ellen Tigh is doing with Commander Fisk?" I'm not sure that's a picture I want in my mind, but, ok. And Lee is also a bit dirty in this scene. Lee is also engaged in things that are probably not that above-board. There's an implication that Lee helped get the medicine for the little girl and probably went outside official channels. And it's a personal, emotional, confrontation with people with conflicted and conflicting motivations." THAT'S THE EPISODE! RIGHT THERE! YOU HAD IT!

the episode is about ethics, a government failing its people, and complacency. you want an episode of television without having to make a mini arc out of it? those are your themes.

then there's the clusterfuck that is the gianne/shevon/dee portion of the episode, which makes no gd sense AND HERE'S WHY LMAO: "It's not really getting to a place where we're explaining, or at least hinting, or making you think about what is the nature of the relationship between Dualla and Lee. Why is Lee interested in her and vice versa? What does it mean to him as a character? We had conversations in the writers' room that dealt with things like, "Well, Lee's got the girl he left behind on Caprica, he's seeing the prostitute, and then there's Dualla." So there's the classic- there's three women in Lee's life. One dead, two not. What does Dualla represent in that? What is- what is Dualla to Lee in juxtaposition to the dead woman and to the hooker with the little girl? Is she the hope? Is she the future? Is she something more realistic? Is the hooker the hope? There's a lot of ways you can just sit and talk about it endlessly about what it all represents, and it was all fascinating conversation. Unfortunately it just doesn't quite sync-in to what we have. You don't ever- you never quite get to a place where you're rooting for Lee and Dualla. I think that's might be the central problem with it. You're never quite rooting for her."

truly mysterious why this doesn't work rdm. boggles the mind.

he offers no explanation as to why it doesn't work, btw, it's all just "???"

we're not rooting for dee because lee doesn't actually want her. just like he didn't actually want gianne.

meanwhile shevon is the epitome of lee playing it safe. he's obviously lonely and in need of talking to someone, and having emotional and physical intimacy. he wants it without the possibility of being too vulnerable or hurting someone else when he runs. through shevon we understand some of the reasons why lee left gianne. through his relationship with shevon and gianne, we can begin to see what might underlie lee's budding relationship with dee.

and then perhaps we remember lee's behavior during the miniseries. and then maybe we watch scar next and a couple more things become clear.

we're not rooting for dee because we're rooting for someone else entirely. (kara. it's kara.)

i am in the tantrum hole.

"we're playing that Zarek needs to tell Lee about Phelan and about this ship out there where you can get anything you want that's the hub or the nexus of the black market. And yet everybody else seems to know about it. It's clearly the place where all this activity is going, but somehow Lee needs to be told by Zarek that it even exists, which tends to undercut Lee's role as an investigator and the procedural aspect starts to feel a bit weak because you feel like he should've- Lee should've known all that on his own and again, it's an element that doesn't work"

OR it could be something about complacency, a failure in governance, and how out much the Galactica is actually a bubble. very interesting concept for lee who feels disconnected after RS2.

it's not that lee's obliviousness doesn't work, it's that he has the privilege of not needing to think about it. he could even already be seeing shevon and thinking it's all above board like it was back in the colonies, not realizing there's a criminal enterprise going on that is exploiting desperate people.

what happens when lee does learn about how bad it is out there in the fleet?

that's your episode set up.

"When Lee shoots him, you should feel that he shoots him because, "Oh my God! I'm realizing that he is like Bill Duke and oh! Woah! I'm like shocked. And that's- I don't know how I feel about Lee, but I'm really surprised because he's more like Bill Duke than I thought." I don't think the show really says that. I don't think we've accomplished that mission. And that should have been the mission here, is if you're going to predicate a whole show on this concept, about this central confrontation it should pay off that idea." that should not have been the mission there omfg. lee shoots this man because he's doing fucked up shit. the shocking moment isn't that lee is like the bad guy, the shocking thing is that mr. articles of colonization did an extrajudicial killing. he executed a man without due process.

the question here is: is lee more like his father and laura roslin than he'd like to admit? if so, what is he going to do about it?

and btw, is lee like his father completely ties back to a possible reason why he runs from gianne: he saw himself marrying a woman he got pregnant, thus repeating the story of his parents. and it doesn't need to be 1:1 exactly, but there are too many similarities for his comfort. so he runs.

and another theme: lee doing what he knows is the right thing to do vs. lee doing what he thinks is the Right thing to do. and to what extent does lee hide behind duty because he's scared of going after what he wants. (and oh look at that we're back to kara)

this scene is interesting because lee does something he felt in the moment to be right (and he does it on impulse, which is another bit of tension with his character in other episodes), but he also acted against his ethical code. what are the effects of that? how does lee grapple with that? WE JUST DON'T KNOW

i am still in the tantrum hole.

"I think if I had to sum up what's wrong with this episode in my opinion, it's that this time we went for a much more tv, conventional tale and execution." narrator: that's not what was wrong with the episode. "So again it's a grab bag of things we're trying to do." narrator: that's more like it.

incredible podcast though it's like 10/10 reflection 0/10 insight. showrunner of all time this guy.

#battlestar galactica #lee adama #rip me bsg blogging in 2024 #rdm fight me #bsg meta #sort of?#my writing #side note: kara's omission here is still very puzzling to me and i really dont get rdm's weird Thing with lee/kara

4 notes · View notes

arcplaysgames · 1 year

Text

I'm not gonna post the grisly screencaps but the Shujin principal got murdered via mental shutdown and hit by a massive truck. It's unfun.

you know akechi

i'm not sure i disagree with you here

The fucking predictable shit happens, which I'm glad about because the game has put so much effort into the Thieves wanting to do "big stuff" and get popular that it needed to be foreshadowing for this. The principal died after a tabloid revealed that he helped cover up Kamoshida's abuses. Despite killing not being the modus operandi of the Thieves, people start saying the Thieves are the ones who killed him for his crimes, many even justifying his death because the cover up and he "got what he deserved."

So at least we are running with that story beat, I'm honestly glad, though also interested in what Persona 5 thinks of the morality of the Thieves. Again: fictional characters, and I have the foresight of being the player of this game so I'm vaguely on the Thieves' side. But as a morality question the game is proposing, I'm not sure I am.

Though if you did it Right, if you stripped out the Phansite shit and stopped Ryuji from running his mouth about making it big and being famous, if it was genuinely about extrajudicial actions to target untouchable people, then sure. I'm with you.

But that's def not the scenario we're in, is it?

So.

Here we go, spin me a yarn, Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 5 The Royal. I am listening.

come on Sae, you can't be this fucking mean and get this little results from it

F I N A L L Y it's hitting the more sensible members of the group that hey maybe this huge fame spike is actually a super bad idea.

Ann even suggests they lay low until it dies down a bit but Ryuji jumps down her throat, and tensions are sky high as everyone discusses Okamura. Basically, the majority of the mental shutdown cases are linked to him by proximity, though no obvious cause/correlation is known yet.

But he has a Palace, so Ryuji wants to take him out.

Aaaaand the Mona Bomb finally detonates. That fuse was bound to run out.

Ryuji and Morgana have a huge fight and Morgana fucks off to apparently take on the Palace alone.

AND BECAUSE ATLUS IS RAILROADING ME, I DON'T HAVE AN OPTION TO SAY "Morgana, I think this is reckless, but I'll be damned if I let you go alone, lemme grab my shoes."

DON'T GO WHERE I CAN'T FOLLOW

okay but for real, if Morgana dies or something, I'm uninstalling

oh okay so

let's talk about Akechi because we got a Beige Front coming in from the south

Akechi shows up to be a sassy bastard to Sae again, which I feel is justly deserved because she kinda sucks despite her awesome intro

And weirdly, Akechi was absolutely the one to tout the idea that the Thieves were the ones behind the mental shutdown cases before, but now he is upset with her for threatening Sojiro without any evidence to back up her theory.

I know Akechi is not on the Thieves' side and I know that he's fucking with Sae.

It's interesting that he's the second Detective Prince because Naoto was absolutely rigorous on the search for truth, but I don't think that's what Akechi's into here. Like, I don't know what his job is functionally for the police at all, and it seems the majority of what he does is just sow more chaos.

Which, yes, I know this is not MegaTen proper, but it is still interesting, this inversion it's presenting. MegaTen games tend to give you a choice not between good or evil but Order vs Chaos, without really advocating for either. It's more like a player personality test than a judgement call.

Akechi is on paper on the side of Order, but he is extremely good at muddying the waters and making things less clear. He's excellent as a plant or spy.

Meanwhile, the Thieves are on paper Chaotic (albeit Chaotic Good/Neutral) but they are trying to rein in people who are breaking the order of the world. They're trying to enforce justice where it has failed.

So, at least at this point, this feels like the game is flirting with Chaos vs Order, with the representatives of each inverted for funsies.

Hm.

SMASH CUT TO

I'm going to set everything you love on fire Ryuji

oh god i've been replaced. Morgana has replaced Reverie with the girl with the poofy hair and the high pitched voice.

REPLACED

MAYBE SHE WILL BE A BETTER KEEPER OF YOUR HEART, MORGANA, I'M SORRY SOBS

Anyway, the team (minus Ryuji) is actually concerned when Mona doesn't return and thus Futaba tells everyone to gear up, they are going into Okamura's palace tomorrow, no delay.

Futaba is the only person here I respect.

#p5 #persona liveblog

30 notes · View notes

good-old-gossip · 20 days

Text

Gaza: The Israeli army likely to erase Beit Lahia, killing and uprooting its citizens

Palestinian Territory - The Israeli army is likely to carry out a fresh massacre in the northern Gaza Strip town of Beit Lahia, as it has recently initiated a new round of forced evacuation orders against the town’s estimated 50,000 residents. The United Nations and other international parties must take immediate action to protect Palestinian civilians.

After declaring Beit Lahia to be a “dangerous combat zone” and threatening to “act with extreme force”, the Israeli army has started to launch heavy air and artillery attacks on the town, followed by fresh evacuation orders.

Israel’s army said it had set up shelters for Beit Lahia residents, instructing them to evacuate towards shelters in blocks 1770 and 1766. These shelters, however, are known to be areas that have already been destroyed by Israeli airstrikes and rendered unfit for any form of life, as they lack water supply as well as functioning sewage systems.

The two designated evacuation points are unsafe areas and, like all areas of Beit Lahia, in particular, and the whole northern Gaza Strip, have previously been subjected to widespread destruction. Israel has targeted areas including shelter centres and public facilities as part of its genocide against Palestinians in the Strip, ongoing since 7 October 2023.

On account of Israel’s crime of genocide and its forced displacement policy in the Gaza Strip, every area designated by the Israeli army as a military operation area since October has completely destroyed and subjected to a strict and oppressive siege, and its residents have been horrifically massacred. The surviving residents of these areas are left with nowhere safe to flee.

In the absence of strong international accountability mechanisms and any swift international action to put an end to these crimes, which Israel has been committing for six months, the military operation that the Israeli army has launched in Beit Lahia will likely result in additional serious crimes and violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

The town of Beit Lahia has seen multiple large-scale military operations by the Israeli army during the past seven months of its military assault on the Gaza Strip. One such operation occurred at the end of December 2023 and resulted in extensive damage to homes, infrastructure, and civil and service facilities, with approximately 90% of the town’s buildings and infrastructure being destroyed by Israel’s army.

The current Beit Lahia military operation began on the 200th day of the massive military assault on the Gaza Strip, which has had horrific consequences due to Israel’s direct and deliberate targeting of Palestinian civilians, amid a shameful degree of international inaction. The international community has failed to push Israel to abide by international humanitarian law and the orders of the International Court of Justice to prevent its crime of genocide.

The Israeli army has killed 42,510 Palestinians over the course of its 200-day genocide, 38,621 of whom were civilians, including 10,091 women and 15,780 children. There are still several thousand individuals who are dead under the rubble, while thousands more remain missing. Based on these data, the daily death toll for Palestinians has reached 212, including 50 women and 79 children. These are horrifying statistics in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as other current conflicts.

Euro-Med Monitor teams have documented thousands of specific crimes in which the Israeli army has targeted Palestinian civilians without necessity or proportionality. These crimes include bombing homes and shelters on the heads of their residents, extrajudicial executions, and indiscriminate bombing with the intention of intimidating.

The international community must break its silence now and take all necessary action to end the massacre in Beit Lahia and shield the Palestinian people from further harm, given the horrific crimes being committed across the Gaza Strip, which include murders, executions, arbitrary detentions, torture, forced disappearances, and forced displacement. It needs to uphold its legal obligations under international law and pressure Israel to immediately cease all acts of genocide against the people of Gaza and abide by the rulings of the International Court of Justice.

In order to avoid being complicit in the crimes committed in the Gaza Strip, including the crime of genocide, all nations should accept their international obligations and cease providing Israel with any kind of political, financial, or military support. In particular, arms transfers to Israel, including export permits and military aid, should be immediately stopped.

2 notes · View notes

iteratedextras · 2 years

Text

[ @captain-acab ]

So, hear me out. What do we think about radicalizing (or, I guess, de-radicalizing?) police-state-loving right-wing youtubers by swatting them?

Worst case scenario, they get murdered by a pig, which is the pig's fault. Best case scenario, they become vocally anti-pig.

How many times do you think this could be done before all those white conservative men whine and cry enough about it that something is actually done to reduce swatting at a policy level? In other words:

1 - Reduce the number of vocally pro-cop right-wingers (and possibly make some of them start leaning left) 2 - Decrease popular support of police in the general public 3 - Possibly produce some actual police reform (at least by reducing drop-of-a-hat SWAT calls, which would make everyone safer)

Love to hear everyone's thoughts about this completely-hypothetical proposal!

Well it depends a lot on what you're trying to accomplish.

If your goal is to convince Republican voters that they can't rely on the police to lower the rise in crime that followed the 2020 riots and they should switch to lynch mobs of angry Hispanics, saving huge amounts of money on procedural costs like "state-appointed defense attorneys" or "keeping people alive in prisons instead of just extrajudicially executing them on the spot" or "maintaining a chain of evidence instead of just going by what some asshole said on Twitter,"

Then this is a great plan. It will be absolutely awful for race relations and hate crime statistics, but if you think literally nothing has changed in the country since 1850 and that isn't just cynical bullshit rhetoric to convince low-information voters to support the latest plan to nationalize the health insurance system, then you think the situation couldn't possibly get any worse.

If your goal is to convince right-wing streamers that Communists want to kill them all and that they need to support whoever will kill the Communists first... well they already believe that in a sort of distant, general, abstract sense due to all those times Communists killed large numbers of people in the past. But you could convince them that Communists want to kill them immediately, right now, instead of some abstract distant hypothetical. A broad campaign to do this to lots of streamers would be effective here.

If your goal is convincing the government to finally cryptographically secure the phone system so that all callers can be reliably identified and sued, this might also have some effect on that. Republicans might even pass a law that sends SWATters to federal prison for 10 years.

As a positive side effect, the phone network would become usable again due to the reduction in spam calls.

If your goal is to convince right-wingers that it's a good idea, and that they are morally required to, permit crazy people with a dozen prior convictions whose lack of impulse control causes them to push women in front of subway trains, to roam freely among the rest of society out of some dipshit view that all human beings are perfectly identical and that such a guy is, like, a victim of Society, maaan...

It won't work for that.

"You morally have to accept getting a brain concussion from some lunatic because we've deemed him more marginalized than you" just leads to "fuck your morality," which is usually written "Based."

93 notes · View notes

humanrightsupdates · 2 months

Text

(Beirut) – Jordan should ensure accountability for airstrikes in southeast Syria that killed 10 people on January 18 and compensate the victims and their families, Human Rights Watch said today. The strikes, which killed women and children, appear to amount to extrajudicial executions.

The airstrikes were part of an intensified campaign by the Jordanian Armed Forces against drug and weapons traffickers following recent clashes on its border with armed groups reportedly carrying narcotics, arms, and explosives that it suspects are tied to pro-Iranian militias. On January 23, the Syrian government responded, saying there was no justification for Jordan’s attacks. The Jordanian Foreign Ministry retorted, neither denying nor confirming the attacks, but emphasizing the threat posed by drug and weapons smuggling, its impact on Jordan’s national security, and the lack of effective action by the Syrian government to combat such operations in its territory. Human Rights Watch wrote to Jordan's Foreign Minister on January 31 detailing its findings, but received no response as of the time of publication.

“Cross-border airstrikes that kill civilians demand scrutiny regardless of the threat posed by drug smuggling from southern Syria,” said Adam Coogle, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Jordan should halt military strikes against non-military targets and compensate victims of previous attacks and their families.” (Human Rights Watch)

#human rights watch #jordan #syria

2 notes · View notes

milkboydotnet · 1 year

Text

Ahead of Philippine President Marcos Jr.’s visit with President Biden on Monday, May 1st, over one hundred faith organizations and institutions–including Ecumenical Advocacy Network on the Philippines, Pax Christi USA, Presbyterian Church – USA Office of Public Witness and the United Methodist Church Board of Church & Society – initiated an ecumenical letter with the International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines to call on President Biden to abstain from any new military agreements with President Marcos that will further contribute to human rights violations. The cosigning faith groups additionally urged President Biden to support the Philippine Human Rights Act, which would suspend US security assistance to the Philippines until the Government of the Philippines has investigated and prosecuted human rights abuses in the military and police force.

Noting the lack of change since Marcos assumed office 10 months ago, faith communities state: “President Marcos and his administration have shown ongoing impunity for human rights abuses similar to those seen under the preceding Duterte presidency. Human Rights Watch reports there has been “no let up” in the war on drugs under Marcos Jr., which took as many as 30,000 lives under Duterte. Karapatan Human Rights Alliance reports that from July to December 2022, there were 17 extrajudicial killings, 165 illegal arrests, and a total of 825 political prisoners, 73 of whom are elderly. Karapatan additionally recorded 200 cases of red-tagging and notes that the Marcos Administration continues to use the Anti-Terrorism Act and the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) “to create an unsafe environment for activists, rendering them more vulnerable to attacks against their persons.”

The ecumenical letter, which follows an interfaith delegation hosted by ICHRP that traveled to the Philippines in February, notes the delegation “met with dozens of community members and organizers who confirmed that the Armed Forces of the Philippines and Philippine National Police are guilty of widespread violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. We are aghast,” it states, “that despite the human rights situation, our government continues to channel various forms of resources to the Philippines (i.e. military training, weapons). In addition, the most recent military deal to build four more US military bases in the country is an affront to the peace of the region. As people of faith, we strongly oppose and condemn the use of a large portion of our country’s budget to support regimes that oppress their populations.”

The release of the letter comes alongside mass protests of Filipino-Americans and allies from labor and human rights organizations, who are holding an all-day vigil in front of the White House on Monday.

10 notes · View notes

danzafila · 10 months

Note

I admittedly have only played ME1 but yeah. I was hyped for Garrus because I knew he was really popular and he was ultimately a dull and crappy person :\ Maybe he gets better later I dunno.

Like if you were looking for a Murder Lizard as a favourite Wrex is RIGHT THERE. Better personality, better motivations, better design. (Maybe it’s silly to compare them but STILL)

So many people say 'oh that's just ME1!' and that he gets so much better and deeper and more complex and etc. in 2/3 once Bioware saw his popularity and decided to play into it by giving him more attention (like the whole making him a romance option due to fan demand).

But I just... don't buy it?

(Hope you don't mind character spoilers since I'm gonna get into the rest of his arc here. Skip the following paragraph if you do?)

So like, I played a pretty much full blown Paragon in my first playthrough, which meant my Shepard spent pretty much the entirety of her interactions with Garrus in ME1 trying to rein him in and slowly but surely teach him the simplest of moral lessons like 'shoot first, ask questions later bad;' 'taking law into own hands bad;' 'disdain for due process bad;' and 'extrajudicial executions REAL BAD BUDDY.' ....Aaand then ME2 started and he'd taken what he learned from Shepard and gone off and become a fucking vigilante in the interim. Admittedly, there's some understandable circumstances that explain why Shepard's lessons didn't stick, it makes perfect sense why he regressed, was actually good writing, yadda yadda. But dammit dude! Did you learn nothing?? And it REALLY doesn't help that the fanbase saw that and was like 'WOW Garrus is so BADASS now!' and Bioware just played right into that perception. Like, it really hurts the narrative of a character who thinks he's above the law and wants to met out vigilante justice learning restraint and that killing isn't a solution to all life's problems if you're constantly playing up how COOL being a 'plays by his own rules' vigilante he is, Bioware! By ME3, he gets straight up rewarded for all of this by attaining a position of respect/authority within the Turian Hierarchy (you know, that notoriously by the book militaristic society). And it kinda... reframed his whole struggle into not being able to follow bad orders (like a good little turian should) and not being comfortable with the "ruthless calculus" of leadership/war? The dude who when you first met him didn't care about innocents getting caught in the crossfire of his actions? Apparently that was his issue with following rules all along?? 🙄

And then there's the whole Bioware pandering to his fan favorite status by basically forcing him onto the player as Shepard's best friend/100% trusted and valued second in command by the end. Personally, my Shepard was too preoccupied with concerns he was a hairsbreadth away from mowing down innocents (or supposed criminals who really should get a fair trial before we decide if they're guilty or not, Garrus!) to ever bond that deeply with him. But sure Bioware, "there's no Shepard without Vakarian."

(and lol hard agree on Wrex being way cooler. he had a better voice/design from the get go and had a MUCH more satisfying arc by the end imo.)

#domande #youngerfrankenstein #sto parlando #tbc i don't actually dislike garrus or anything. his rapport with the rest of the crew is very fun and he;s got some good one liners and al #but goddamn was the standom surrounding him annoying

6 notes · View notes

pyramidscience · 6 months

Text

The Pharisees, ever vigilant, observed Jesus and His disciples closely, seeking opportunities to accuse them of transgressing Roman and Judaic laws, in order to have Jesus, under the law, detained and killed. The irony of their scrutiny becomes apparent against the backdrop of Jesus's identity and claims about Himself. Remarkably, when the matter of Roman tax arose—a tax Jesus initially neglected—He miraculously produced a coin to settle the debt, much to the chagrin of the Pharisees. This group, who had exploited the tax as a means to subordinate the Jewish populace under Roman authority, found themselves outmaneuvered by an act that both fulfilled the obligation and subtly subverted their authority.

Moreover, Jesus and His followers faced accusations of overindulgence in wine and performing acts of kindness on the Sabbath, Jesus walking with criminals and sex workers, which the Pharisees deemed unlawful. Despite these charges, Jesus's followers upheld His sinless nature. This historical tension casts a peculiar light on the posture of some modern Christians who endorse legal frameworks reminiscent of those contributing to Jesus's crucifixion. This suggests a disconnection from the essence of Jesus's teachings and the conduct of His early disciples.

Many contemporary believers, particularly in America, seem to hold the notion that human-made laws carry divine endorsement. Yet, scriptural narratives forewarn that all earthly nations will be subject to complete destruction. God, as the scriptures reveal, will judge humanity not by a standard of grace and mercy—which was often rejected—but by the very laws humans stringently applied to others. The divine judgment, it is implied, will mirror the severity with which individuals—particularly those in power—judged the less fortunate, even desiring extrajudicial execution for minor infractions. Thus, the narrative calls into a sharp focus the need for a reevaluation of the legalistic rigor in favor of the grace and mercy.

#free palestine #the truth #order of humans #jesus christ

2 notes · View notes

the-joju-experience · 9 months

Text

I just watched Star Trek Enterprise, season 2 episode 7. It's called "The Seventh." It's got the weirdest politics I've seen in Trek in a while.

It's actual copaganda.

Spoilers below

The A-plot of the episode is that T'Pol gets orders to tie up a loose end on a black ops mission for the Vulcan government. 17 years before the episode, she was sent to hunt down a bunch of intelligence operatives and bring them back to Vulcan for "rehabilitation." One of the agents ran, and she lost his trail. Apparently he's turned up smuggling toxic material.

When she goes to find him again, he reveals that he has a family and insists that the only crime he committed was defecting, and that he only hauls scrap material. He triggers a repressed memory of her killing another of her targets, but she can't remember whether or not he was about to pull a weapon on her. Captain Archer convinces her to go through with the mission and capture him, and keeps insisting that her job is to follow orders and not judge him. She eventually goes along with it, but at the very end they realize that the guy was actually smuggling toxins.

This episode feels so much like copaganda because it's centered on T'Pol's trauma over what she did, and then supports her following through. She executed a target, and the Vulcan government's response was to help her suppress the memory. She says she underwent a procedure on a previously-established planet that the Vulcans used for extrajudicial operations to make her suppress the memory, so the government was definitively trying to cover it up. However, that same government sent her back to relive the trauma. We're made to spend the bulk of the episode questioning if T'Pol's target is actually guilty. We see his family, we see his ship (which appears harmless), and we get T'Pol seriously questioning the purpose of her mission. And then with all that buildup, the conclusion reached is Archer telling her to shoot the man unconscious and haul him back to Vulcan for trial. And then they reveal that this guy was definitely evil the whole time.

The episode's structure leads the audience through the usual steps of questioning a justice system, and then eagerly dismisses them in favor of upholding the status quo. I'm fascinated by this episode because it did set up so much interesting material to work with, but it didn't commit.

Star Trek: Enterprise wants the audience to dislike the Vulcans. The Vulcans are set up as a paternalistic group forcing humans to slow down their progress, and almost every action they take hinders the protagonists. The episode I mentioned earlier where the Vulcans have a planet for extrajudicial work is a good example of them refusing to respect treaties and their neighbors. And yet, at the moment where the Vulcans are clearly demonstrating some of the worst forms of justice possible, the show suddenly pulls back. This episode was one of the first times I really agreed with what the show was saying about Vulcans, and I'm not sure it wanted me to in this context.

#star trek enterprise #cw copaganda #copaganda #cw police #the seventh #t'pol #vulcan hate

3 notes · View notes

tieflingkisser · 1 year

Text

Image description: Screenshot of tweet from @/MiddleEastEye on April 17, 2023 which reads: "At least 97 civilians are reported to have been killed and more than 900 injured as clashes intensify between Sudanese army and powerful paramilitary RSF for control of Sudan" /End image description.

Image description: Screenshot of tweet from @/MiddleEastEye on April 17, 2023 which reads: "Fears of a possible civil war in Sudan intensify as fighting continues between the army and the Rapid Support Forces paramilitary group.

But who is the RSF, and how did it become Sudan's most powerful paramilitary group?" followed by a downward arrow emoji pointing to the following linked article. /End image description.

The group developed from the Janjaweed militias during the 2000s, when former President Omar al-Bashir used them to stifle a rebellion in Darfur, the eastern region of Sudan. At the time they were accused of committing war crimes such as extrajudicial killings, torture and rape, in a conflict that saw an estimated 2.5 million people displaced and 300,000 killed. RSF’s leader Hemeti rose to prominence as a Janjaweed leader when the conflict in Darfur started.

#sudan #news

2 notes · View notes

problemswithbooks · 2 years

Text

Personal pet peeve of mine--people that call Twice’s death extrajudicial killing, aka an assassination.

It’s just not--that’s not what those words mean, and it’s in no way accurate.

First off, it can’t be an extrajudicial killing because Hawks clearly wants to capture him. He had many opportunities before and after Twice fought back to kill him and did not. Yes, you can argue that Hawks was doing a poor job of apprehending Twice or deescalating the situation, but given he gave Twice the option to surrender, and even offered help getting a better sentence, it’s clear he did mean to arrest him and have him face some form of trial. That alone means it’s not an assassination--if it was Twice would have died immediately.

Second, saying Hawks was going against his orders to preform an assassination but then lapsed back into following orders, and therefore it’s an extrajudicial killing also doesn’t hold up. There really isn’t any indication that Hawks was ordered to kill Twice. It seemed he alone focused of Twice because after Jin destroyed an entire city with his clones, he appeared to be the most dangerous individual in the LoV.

Before Lady Nagant showed up the worst the HPSC did was send Hawks in as a spy and allow him to ignore civilian lives to get on the good side of the League. We got no indication Hawks was a trained assassin for them, and even after the Nagant ‘reveal’, we got no real conformation he did the same extrajudicial killings she did.

Third, even if Hawks was trained as an assassin and was ordered to kill Twice--he didn’t follow those orders. As stated above, he actively tried to apprehend Twice alive. Even when Twice resisted, he kept on trying to incapacitate him. You can argue his effectiveness, but it is shown he tried and wanted Twice to live.

Hawks didn’t revert back to assassin mode and kill a man because of orders--he killed Twice because he was an active threat that from both past and present actions showed he was a major threat to human life. That’s not an extrajudicial killing--it’s a form of self defense, defense of another.

Because as much as some fans will say Twice was unfairly targeted and killed for actions he hadn’t yet committed, that’s just not true. Jin had already killed a lot of people and leveled a city back when he fought the MLA. He’d already shown blatant disregard for human life during the forest raid, where many children’s lives were threatened by his friends. He helped attack police, probably killing a few when they ran them off the road to torture Overhaul. Twice had a past of using violence, even murder to archive the LoV’s goals so it is by no means unfair to assume he would continue to be violent.

Not only that he replies in the affirmative when Dabi tells him to go mess things up. Twice flees, after resisting arrest, while making it clear, due to his past actions, that he will use lethal methods to help his similarly murderous friends. It’s far more likely that Twice will continue to help his friends, and further Shigaraki’s goals (which are inherently based on killing millions of people) if he gets away, then it is he’ll just chill with them and do nothing. Letting Jin go under that circumstance, with nothing but hope that he’s to injured to rampage, or gets caught by another Hero, so he can’t escape, heal and come back as a major threat would be grossly incompetent.

#bnha #bnha spoilers #mha #bnha hawks #hawks #takami keigo #I just get kind of peeved at the people using the wrong word #and pretending its correct #like if Hori wanted it to be an assassination #then he really should have had Twice get killed at the end of that one cliff hanger chapter #because Twice having a violent past isn't a reason to kill him without trying to arrest him first #like I don't agree with the US using drones even if it was a guarantee they always hit the bad guys and no civilians were ever killed #because even if those people did kill people they clearly aren't an active threat in that moment #but Twice was going to become an active threat if he got out of that room #he said as much #and then that's when his past actions come into play #because they show he really is committed and has the capability of murdering people #so yeah Hawks had every reason to kill him #it sucks and Hawks' actions should be scrutinized and possibly punished in someway due to him ending up in such a bad situation #like there was pobably more he could have done to either remove Twice from the location before hand #so reduce the possibility of him getting back up #or give Hawks more time to catch him non-lethally if he got by him #but either way I don't see him getting anything for Twice's death #since at that point it was nessesary #at best he'd get reckless endangerment #negligence maybe #if twice had any family they could probably get some compensation because Hawks messed up the arrest #like in a civil suit #but I don't see Hawks getting jail time for it #maybe he loses his Hero license for a few months

15 notes · View notes