#i/p discourse

[mspec-defender]

If you consider yourself “pro-Palestinian” and then engage in the following behaviors

- Deny or downplay the holocaust or engage in the “Jewish Question” (Frankly any Nazi adjacent rhetoric)

- Deny crimes committed by Assad against his own people in Syria. Or using Syrian war crimes and reframing them as Israeli war crimes against Palestine.

- Engage in Russia apologia or believing that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is justified in any way.

I do not want to be associated with you in any way and to be honest I don’t think you genuinely care about the Palestinian people at all. I believe that you view Palestinians as nothing more than political pawns that you will use in order to further your own ideological goals rather than viewing them as people that need attention and our care and support. You are against genocide when it’s one group but when it’s other groups you will deny that any genocide is taking place at all. Your standards aren’t consistent. I’m not tolerating you in this space. Tankies and antisemites aren’t welcome.

[velvetvexations]

I also think banning TikTok is silly, counterproductive, and a bit fashy, but the dickriding for China in response has me more convinced than ever that the fad of screaming 'Zionist' at anyone with a Star of David in their bio is not a genuine moral impulse springing from sympathy for victims of genocide.

[dchan87]

You do not, under any circumstance, gotta hand it to hamas.

[bixels]

For a moment I forgot Tumblr’s still radfem headquarters.

[ultimateloserboy]

hey chat im an og deltaruner but ive been scared of the fandom for years. are yall normal abt kralsei now PLEASE be normal abt kralsei now please please please please

[etz-ashashiyot]

I did a poll the other day about this from the [Jewish] Zionist perspective; I'm now curious about the Jewish anti-Zionist perspective.

To answer this poll, you MUST identify as BOTH Jewish and anti-Zionist. Jewish non-Zionists, post-Zionists, refusetoidentifyniks, other assorted folks, and goyim of any political persuasion, please just choose the see results button. Thanks!!

Also: This poll is meant for genuine listening, learning, and seeing the true thoughts of other Jews. I stg if I see anyone attacking any people nice enough to respond to this poll and give serious explanations for their answers, like folks did on the original poll?

I will find you.

If you don't like it, keep scrolling. Thank you!!

Edit: Please do reblog for reach regardless of your background or views; I'd appreciate it!

[thetiniesthorse]

I know you all will already agree with me but I need to rant.

I hate so much when people use Dan and Phil as an example of why shipping/rpf is bad. Not just because if you actually engage in Dan and Phil's content at all it is very obvious shipping did not ruin their relationship and they definitely don't hate it . Not even just because I believe that shipping and rpf are good, I don't think its inherently bad but I acknowledge there can definitely be issues with it.

I hate it so much because it is so dismissive and erasing of the real complex queer experiences Dan and Phil, as well as many other people, went through. To say that teenagers thinking two men would be a cute couple is what scared and traumatised them ignoring umm yknow homophobia, horrific bullying, and the feelings of deep loneliness and never being understood and accepted for who you are? I would also even argue alot of the young fans in the early 2010s that did harass them about being gay or together did so because they also didn't understand these complex and difficult queer experience. Dan and Phil were not scared and closeted because of shipping they were scared and closeted because of HOMOPHOBIA you idiot.

Did Dan and Phil's fans also traumatise them? Yes, but idk man I think it was more to do with them harassing, stalking, and trying to out them, and not because they wrote stories about them fucking or zoomed in on their shoulders brushing. It was also because the way they became famous was very weird and new and unexpected, which led to them not having boundaries. There was also maybe not so much concept of a digital footprint, so suddenly they are famous and not ready to be out but oopsie they used to flirt on twitter because they were young and the internet was not mainstream.

Dan and Phil's story does have so many interesting things to discuss about celebrity, shipping, internet culture, parasocialism, and queer experiences. But if you actually cared about Dan and Phil at all your conclusion is not going to be just "shipping is bad and evil :(".

[velvetvexations]

Something something i feel like the "transandrophobia truther zionist" is the new tirf version of terfisms "trans rights activist nazi"

Yeah yeah there's shitty bigoted trans men. But considering how often the trans men i follow get called a zionist when they A) Don't fit the actual definition B) Even by the internets definition, they're literally freely criticizing israel on the daily, it's like.

Idk maybe it's less about their stance on the conflict and more about them being jewish and/or trans men who are open about their oppression, and we need a word we can call them that's synonymous with "Bad person you shouldn't listen to".

Hell, I got called a murderous zionist by tirfs multiple times for

Squints

Having reblogged a post titled "How to criticize Israel without being antisemetic"

You don't get it, what's the point of criticizing the atrocities if I can't rant about blood libel and how the jews control the global media :(

Something about terfs slipping into antisemetism constantly and tirfs following suit. Idk it's late I don't have the brain juice to elaborate.

Blows u a kiss

Some people don't understand it's actually possible to do an activism without slipping up and being massively racist about it.

[runrundoyourstuff]

not posting about what’s going on in i/p, but I am a Jew from Pittsburgh, and I’m thinking about how in the aftermath of the shooting at Tree of Life—where eleven people I knew personally were murdered by a white supremicist—I saw people on this website asking if anyone knew if the murder victims were zionists because if they were, it was inappropriate to mourn them. as if their lives only mattered if they were Good Jews TM.

the fifth anniversary of the shooting is on Friday, and on top of everything else happening right now, that’s something that is really sticking around my mind.

[notaplaceofhonour]

“it’s hypocrisy for people who celebrated the idf killing sinwar & nasrallah to be appalled by people celebrating luigi mangione killing brian thompson; either you care about sanctity of life no matter what or you’re okay with celebrating killing terrible people”

as someone who isn’t really celebrating either, but is more worried about the latter than the former, I would like to present another option.

there is a fundamental difference between:

killing a member of a military structure as an act of war VS. extrajudicial vigilantism and murder against another citizen

a terrorist organization that exists to destroy a country & slaughter its civilians directly carrying out a massacre with clearcut genocidal intentions VS. a healthcare company that exists to both provide coverage for care to its customers and profit to its shareholders making decisions that indirectly lead to death through a failure to provide care when they prioritize profit over care

an agreed upon military action by official members of a structure that has (ostensibly, or at least is supposed to have) a means of oversight/accountability VS. one rogue person serving as judge, jury & executioner with no oversight or accountability

a military attack that deals a significant & strategic blow to a structure that exists to cause harm VS. a lone act of violence that leaves the injustice structure intact and at most disrupts the means to provide healthcare coverage within that system

on multiple levels, the situations are different. this isn’t saying there isn’t severe injustice in how healthcare coverage is provided, or that Brian Thompson was in no way responsible for his part in it, but there are shades of bad, and in every aspect, they’re multiple steps removed in ways that severely change the dynamics.

yeah, if you squint your eyes until all details blur away and boil everything down to “bad person gets bad thing” they start to look the same, but that is a fundamentally unhelpful & childish way to look at the world.

should powerful people who make unjust decisions & have a larger share in the diffuse responsibility for terrible injustices receive no consequences just because they’re not directly masterminding it, or it’s an indirect consequence of other goals, or “it’s not personal; it’s just good business”? no, of course not. but there is good reason that we as a society have a concept of criminal negligence, and we recognize the difference between manslaughter versus murder. they’re just fundamentally different things.

no, intention isn’t everything, but it isn’t nothing. passively allowing violence isn’t not violent, but it is still categorically different from actively engaging in violence or directly commanding it. indirect responsibility isn’t no responsibility, but it isn’t the same as direct responsibility.

it can absolutely be helpful to build a fence around certain offenses—“don’t do x because it’s adjacent/can lead to y”—to make it less likely that the worse offense will occur or to keep people from abusing gray areas and claiming plausible deniability. but there is a limit to how far you can take that before it starts to do the opposite.

when we keep expanding the criteria of guilt to include more and more steps away from direct, intentional harm as equal to the direct/intentional version of that offense, and we lower the criteria for who metes out justice to just any guy with a gun, and we put the power of judge jury & executioner all in a single person’s hands and we allow the maximum sentence (execution) for even indirect/unintentional systemic harm… we’re creating a powder keg just waiting to explode into mass, unchecked, open violence and throwing matches at it. and that’s not even getting into all the people chomping at the bit just waiting to use this permission structure to attack Jews and queer people

I don’t know when we, the three opinions people, started embracing this dualistic extreme black-and-white thinking where things had to all always be x or y way, but we need to do better. cheering on the expansion of vigilantism into extrajudicial execution for untried alleged criminal negligence & corporate manslaughter is a significantly different beast to crab raving or dancing in the streets when a guy who directly masterminded massacres, ruled a totalitarian regime, or dedicated his life to final solution 2: electric boogaloo gets hit as part of a war.

[mbat]

i yet again do NOT understand why people think that what happened to steven in future came out of nowhere. the main show beats it into the ground how fucked up all this stuff has him! just cause he ends the main show in a good place doesnt mean that everything was solved! he solved the gem stuff but not himself, that was the whole point!

like. those people show that they didnt even pay attention to the show AND they dont understand trauma. like. shut the fuck up !!!!

[taradactyls]

Something I love about how Pride and Prejudice is told through an omnipresent narrator, aside from the witty remarks and insight into other characters it allows even though it's usually focused on Elizabeth, is how it plays on the audience's own prejudices and assumptions.

The narrator tells us very early on, chapter 4, that Darcy is "haughty, reserved, and fastidious, and his manners, though well-bred, were not inviting." We've already seen that when we meet him the previous chapter, and will see more of it in those following. But it's the readers, along with Elizabeth, who take that observation as not only a list of flaws (despite only the first actually being negative) but presumes even more damaging flaws must be attached to it. Darcy can be off-putting, especially so in the setting we meet him in: he dismissed Elizabeth within earshot of her, didn't engage with people attempting to converse with him, etc. It's easy to assume the worst of him in a world so driven by social niceties, and because we follow Elizabeth, who is so lively and playful amidst the rules which govern society. Elizabeth thinks he's bad tempered? It would make sense - he hasn't shown consideration for others much socially, why would he care when he's angry? He acted from resentment and jealousy and went against his father's will? That's not such a jump after the conclusion of a bad temper, his own acknowledgement of implacable resentment, and evidence of pride. The awareness of one offensive trait so naturally leads to prejudice against it, that we easily assume still worse qualities must exist. We are as mistaken as Elizabeth.

Even the idea that 'No, Darcy was never haughty or rude, he was just shy and misunderstood, the narrator is wrong' is just magnifying that prejudice. Yes, we do find out later that Darcy is not at ease among strangers, and was always intrinsically good; his morals and core values meant he was never as bad as Elizabeth believed. But that doesn't mean he was without flaws, and it's so fascinating that some analysis of his character seek to completely remove the negative traits which he eventually overcame after acknowledging them in himself. The logic seems to be that they feel if he had them in the start that he isn't actually such a good person. It's just another example of being so prejudiced against certain flaws that it's impossible for some people to reconcile that there doesn't have to be more serious failings attached, and someone can still be a good person despite being arrogant and not always nice. It's, ironically, being prejudiced in the exact same way that Elizabeth was at the start of the novel. It's amazing that Jane Austen was able to tap into that aspect of human nature so deftly, and invoke in both in her main character, and readers to this day.

Now, of course, the story is so well known it's rare for anyone to read it blind, so it's less likely anyone will be unaware of Darcy's good qualities despite first seeing his worst. Even if they do, Pride and Prejudice has become so genre defining that new readers who are the slightest bit genre savvy will be more aware than contemporary audiences were. But even if we know the story it's still so understandable why Elizabeth feels the way she does. We see what she sees and feel her conclusions make sense. Just as, even though the narrator tells us Darcy is starting to catch feelings for Elizabeth, we fully comprehend her not noticing and believing there's a mutual dislike. And though that is concrete evidence of Elizabeth not reading Darcy and his motives correctly, we are still so sympathetic of the basis of her prejudice that her continued belief in Darcy's lack of virtues makes sense from her point of view. We can see, as she later will, that she takes it too far, and should have noticed evidence to the contrary, but her prejudice against him based on his early behaviour and her pride at reading people correctly is so understandable.

Basically, in a story about the characters' pride and prejudices, I love, love, LOVE how the narrator's voice brings out those same traits in readers the exact same way we see it presenting in Elizabeth. We're all on that journey with her, and we can likewise learn the same lessons about ourselves as she does. Pride and Prejudice feels timeless, because even though society and thus the nuance changes, the book is about human nature, and that remains essentially the same.

[funeral]

Sometimes the world is unreal (I utter it differently), sometimes it is disreal (I utter it with only the greatest difficulty if at all). This is not (it is said) the same withdrawal from reality. In the first case, my rejection of reality is pronounced through a fantasy: everything around me changes value in relation to a function, which is the Image-repertoire; the lover then cuts himself off from the world, he unrealizes it because he hallucinates from another aspect the peripeteias or the utopias of his love; he surrenders himself to the Image, in relation to which all “reality" disturbs him. In the second case, I also lose reality, but no imaginary substitution will compensate me for this loss . . . I am not “dreaming” (even of the other); I am not even in the Image-repertoire any longer. Everything is frozen, petrified, immutable, i.e., unsubstitutable: the Image repertoire is (temporarily) foreclosed. In the first moment I am neurotic, I unrealize; in the second, I am psychotic, crazy, I disrealize.

Roland Barthes, A Lover's Discourse

[bisexualseraphim]

For the love of Goddd it is not 🤙🏻owning the libs😎 to be all ✨both sides✨ about the Democratic and Republican parties, it’s uhhh denying reality lmao.

If you’ve paid the most minute amount of attention to the US election outside of viral soundbytes you categorically cannot claim that both sides are even remotely the same: completely different views on the working person. Completely different views on reproductive rights. Very different views on gun control. I could go on and on and on.

And yes, they do in fact have different views on Israel. One side is eye-rollingly centrist about the issue but acknowledges the suffering of both Palestinians and Israelis alike and is open to providing aid to Gaza and possibly a ceasefire. The other side openly wants Palestine bombed off the map. If you can’t see that those are verrry different views and that one, although not ideal, is significantly preferable to the other, then sorry but you’re living in a fantasy world of pure naïveté where, in the US and the entire world in their current states, you think you’re going to find a frontrunning politician who isn’t some level of apathetic or straight up hungry towards war. And if you can somehow find one, you’re gonna have to show massive support for them for many years OUTSIDE of election season, not just kick your feet up and only remind people of their existence when two candidates you don’t like are frontrunning against each other. That’s just not how third party support works.

It’s fine to criticise the Democratic party. It’s GOOD to criticise them. They could always be doing more for the most vulnerable and that deserves criticism. Kamala Harris proudly stating she is going to ensure the US has the most lethal military in the world is nothing short of horrifying and not something that should be endorsed by literally anyone; her centrist-level takes on Israel are also very much worthy of criticism.

But this singular issue voting, “both sides are just as bad” mindset a lot of (usually around my age) voters seem to have is seriously concerning to me because you CANNOT base your voting and/or political activism around idealism. Real change just simply does not happen that quickly. You have to work for it and sometimes that means holding your nose and voting for someone whom you’d absolutely end up in a heated argument with over a holiday dinner — because they are a baby step towards someone you’d instead happily shake hands with.

Plus the whole, you know, Donald Trump wants the rich to stay rich, anyone whom he doesn’t perceive to be a white American to never remain in “his” country and for LGBTQ people to be erased in both the historical and literal sense, plus many, many more. A vote that isn’t for Harris/Walz is a vote for Trump/Vance. Remember that.

Vote Blue — and then, HOLD THEM TO ACCOUNT.

[clfixationstation]

explaining to annoying ass Floch stans that genocide is not self-defense, fascism is not logical, and that nothing can ever justify genocide in the year of twenty twenty-five is taking years off my life. engaging with people who have no developed moral framework, negligible historical knowledge, and poor reading/watching comprehension is a nightmare. they don't know shit about the ideologies they support.

they keep trying to paint me as someone who opposes violent resistance to oppression, when I am very much not. they believe committing genocide was the only option to respond to Marley's planned genocide of Paradis, and therefore the "logical choice", when multiple other options were provided. namely, using a partial Rumbling to destroy military centers worldwide, as Armin suggested. still extremely brutal, but understandable when facing worldwide annihilation. they refuse to see how Floch's entire ideology is fear-based. they understand nothing, yet are so vehement in their stance. I have no idea how these people were propagandized in support of a fictional empire that the text blatantly condemns. it's astounding. it's almost impressive.

(comments are in reverse: bottom is oldest, top is newest)

[a-good-blog-name-but-its-taken]

Here are the results of this poll. 51 people voted.

0% of voters(0) voted for a one-state solution where Israel got all the land.

33.3% of voters(17) voted for a one-state solution where Palestine got all the land.

25.5% of voters(13) voted for one state without borders between Israelis and Palestinians.

23.5% of voters(12) voted for a two state solution. Nobody proposed how the land should be divided.

3.9% of voters(2) voted for "other". Nobody specified what that solution was.

13.7% of voters(7) just wanted to see the results.