#Neutrality

[myfandomrealitea]

I feel like the part about 'neutral spaces' that trips people up so much is the assumption that it also means 'neutral to bigotry.'

Which it does not.

I'm going to be using myself and past servers that I have run as an example, but I have run several servers which I considered and ultimately deemed as 'neutral spaces.' This meant that the primary focus was the actual subject and purpose of the server in a positive outlook, and that they were considered spaces of respite where people could safely engage with their interests without also being forced to partake in or be exposed to things like politics, activism, moral crusading and other things.

Of course if you're talking about games or media with political undercurrents or plots it can get a little dicey on what is and is not acceptable, but generally, that is up to the discretion of the moderator(s) and server owner(s) as to what is acceptable or not in those terms.

However.

In my spaces and my servers, those rules went hand in hand with strict rules which were anti-bigotry and anti-harassment. It was absolutely not a space where I, as the ultimate controller of what was permitted within it, simply allowed a cesspit of rampant bigoted free speech in the name of neutrality.

Disallowing discussion of charged topics did not inherently mean allowing bigotry and offensive or inhumane topics and behavior.

You were not allowed to discuss women's rights, ICE human right's violations or transphobia in my servers, but likewise, you were not allowed to be sexist, racist or transphobic.

You would get a warning if you tried to bring up Trump's latest ridiculous policy, and you would also get a warning and more than likely straight up removed from the server if you tried to be racist.

It may seem hypocritical, and complex, and potentially rife with abuse, but that was how I run my servers, and if people were unhappy with those rules they were always welcome to leave. Spaces created with the intention of cultivating positivity do not have to allow bigotry.

Ultimately, yes, it is up to my discretion as the server owner on what is permitted or not, but simultaneously, you are not owed anything in someone else's space. If you want a server where you can discuss politics, find one which permits it, or make your own.

[mikupresentationsystem]

dune miku / sand planet miku - any mikuine gendered person who presents masculine & casually. (whether it be through casualwear, or otherwise.)

common world miku - any mikuine gendered person who presents neutral & casually. (whether it be through casualwear, or otherwise.)

taito casual miku - any mikuine gendered person who presents feminine & casually. (whether it be through casualwear, or otherwise.)

mikuine (link)

taglist:

@horrgores, @radiomogai, @presentationflag-archive, @buntress

[speedyphilosopherpanda]

It is an odd thing to suffer by unsuffering. There is nothing to smile, or weep, or be angry about. There is only a constant state of indifference, but neutrality is a double-edged sword. A self-inflicted wound.

— a brief introduction from my book, “Apathy turned Stoicism: A Young Journey”

Check out my substack account:

[civanticism]

CIVANTICISM Wisdom ֎ Truth ֎ Balance ֍ Virtue ֎ Empathy https://www.civanticism.com/

[eretzyisrael]

by Adam Kredo

When Hamas gunmen paraded emaciated Israeli hostages across a stage in Gaza earlier this month, they were flanked by two representatives from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), an aid group that boasts of its neutrality. The agency’s participation in the choreographed propaganda display—as well as its failure to visit the hostages as they struggled in captivity—is now drawing scrutiny on Capitol Hill, with GOP lawmakers questioning the Red Cross’s objectivity and care for those still held in captivity.

The most shocking scene to date unfolded two weekends ago, when Hamas militants forced three severely malnourished Israeli captives—Ohad Ben Ami, 56; Eli Sharabi, 52; and Or Levy, 34—to make a speech to a crowd of Gazans before their release. Standing beside the masked gunmen were two Red Cross officials identified by the Washington Free Beacon as Nour Khadam and Stephanie Eller, both of whom have been featured in the ICRC's online materials.

Footage from the hostage release shows Khadam shaking hands with a Hamas militant as Eller stands behind him, and a masked Hamas soldier snaps photographs. Like other Red Cross officials present at these stage-managed events—reportedly produced by an Al Jazeera journalist—Eller and Khadam signed documents and stood on hand while the terror group forced the hostages to thank their captors. Photos taken on the day show the Israelis holding certificates provided by Hamas as they are interviewed next to gun-touting militants.

The Red Cross's involvement in the Hamas propaganda ritual came more than a year after the terror group kidnapped 251 people, including Americans, in its Oct. 7 attack. During the hostages' time in captivity, the Red Cross did not fulfill its mandate to visit them and assess their health, as the group routinely does in traditional conflicts.

The scenes have drawn outrage in both Israel and the United States, with President Donald Trump likening the hostages to "Holocaust survivors" and casting doubt on the ceasefire’s durability. On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, lawmakers have taken note of the Red Cross’s participation in these ceremonies and said the aid agency is jeopardizing its image as an unbiased actor. While the United States has long been the committee's top funder, senior Senate sources say there is talk of reassessing American funding to the ICRC while GOP officials examine its ties to Hamas.

"Where was the Red Cross’s increasing concern for the safety and well-being of the hostages these last 493 days?" Sen. Ted Budd (R., N.C.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told the Free Beacon. "Participating in Hamas’s propaganda ceremonies definitely calls into question their supposed neutrality. Seems like the ICRC is more concerned about their public image than actually fulfilling their mission to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict."

The pictures of starving hostages that have emerged over the past month, a senior Senate adviser said, raise serious questions about whether the Red Cross is living up to its lofty mandate. In its mission statement, the ICRC calls itself "neutral, impartial, and independent," a description that seemingly runs counter to images of Red Cross officials standing alongside Hamas militants.

[dandonedidit]

Why the fuck do we need anti armor launchers and missiles on peace keeping missions.

[benitsu69official]

opinion

if you ask me on my take about proshippers and antis I’d say I’m Switzerland

because i don’t care. If you do you’re chronically online you need to touch grass.(which i didnt do this year so that’s just hypocrisy)

like if you respect me and my boundaries that’s none of my concern, however if you don’t, I might diss your entire bloodline and spam you with likes until your account lags like my ex’s account did when I spam liked her.

good night benitsu69 out

[alelathedragon]

Original Character posting

Creature made of space matter and will show you the heat depth of the universe on his forehead bc he can

[dragon-dress-128]

Y’all ever wanted some kind of moon spirit(s) that was a conjoined twin? Well you just got one

[fieriframes]

[Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.]

[pratchettquotes]

Not for the first time, Moist deplored his own tendency to see the angles in whatever happened, good or bad.

Terry Pratchett, Raising Steam

[unwelcome-ozian]

[diaryofaphilosopher]

Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

— Paulo Freire

Follow Diary of A Philosopher for more quotes!

[gigifluidcat]

"Nothing Ever Happens" but not in the literal sense, but more in the "No matter WHAT actually happens throughout human history the status quo will remain the exact same as in the beginning, because despite all of our attempts to make sure History won't repeat itself the most powerful will fall into the exact temptations of sin every single time." sense.

[eretzyisrael]

by Gerald M. Steinberg

On 19 January 2025, following the conclusion of Israel’s ceasefire agreement with Hamas, three Israeli women were released after 471 days of captivity in Gaza. The hostages were transferred to Red Cross vehicles, where they were harassed and taunted by armed “militants” and a menacing crowd that pressed itself against the windows and chanted “Allahu Akbar!” Officials of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) did nothing to interfere with this intimidating display of indignity and public humiliation. Instead, uniformed ICRC officials complied when Hamas fighters handed them “certificates of completion to sign.” The three young women were then forced to hold these documents while their pictures were taken, as if they had come to Gaza for university courses.

This grotesque spectacle highlighted the degree to which the ICRC has been willing to serve as a prop for Hamas, before and after the Palestinian jihadists perpetrated the atrocities of 7 October 2023. More than 250 captives were seized from Israel on that terrible day. Most of them were alive, some were already dead, and a still-unknown number have since died in captivity or been murdered by their abductors. Not one of the Israeli abductees received a visit from the organisation ostensibly responsible for implementing the requirements of the Geneva Convention. The Red Cross did not provide a shred of information to the tormented families regarding the condition of the captives because, as its own official statements blandly insist, without the agreement of the Hamas, “the ICRC cannot act.”

Justifications like these are technically correct, but they sidestep the main issues raised by the ICRC’s critics. The anger expressed by Israelis and others is not caused by the ICRC’s failure to somehow force Hamas to allow visits and provide medications. The problem is that the organisation was largely passive and failed to use its vast prestige to demand access to the hostages or campaign for their release. The Red Cross officials who travelled throughout the region, including Qatar, did not hold press conferences where this message would have been amplified. Nor did they publish public letters addressed to, say, the heads of the Qatari government demanding assistance in pressing Hamas to follow basic humanitarian and legal principles on the treatment of its “prisoners.”

When they appeared on major media platforms, the ICRC’s officials did not bang on the tables or make any demands of Hamas at all. As Richard Goldberg, a senior advisor at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy in Washington, DC has pointed out, “Many members of the International Committee of the Red Cross—who visited Gaza, held press conferences and left without bringing holy hell down on Hamas, kicking and screaming and demanding that they see the hostages—have blood on their hands.” Instead, the ICRC officials meekly and repeatedly offered the excuse that kicking, screaming, and banging on tables was simply not possible.

Similarly, on social-media platforms, the references to the hostages were few and far between. In 2024, the ICRC in Israel & OT account on X sent only seven tweets that mentioned the Israelis out of hundreds of posts. The main @ICRC account, which has a massive following of 2.2 million, is able to point to a few more examples, but most of these repeated the organisation’s excuse that its hands were tied by the ostensible limitations of its role as “a neutral intermediary.”

This narrowly legalistic policy recalls the ICRC’s shameful inaction during the Nazi Holocaust, when its officials ignored internal and external evidence of the German death camps and the genocidal “Final Solution.” The Red Cross leaders deliberated and decided to avoid public condemnations that would create friction between the Nazi authorities and Swiss officials.

That policy was not merely passive—the ICRC was also a willing participant in Nazi propaganda exercises. Specifically, the organisation presented the Theresienstadt ghetto as a “model” for the ICRC, which led it to circulate a fake report stipulating that Jews were not being transferred to the gas chambers. It took sixty years, immense pressure, and the emergence of documents revealing the organisation’s moral duplicity before the Red Cross acknowledged that Auschwitz “represents the greatest failure in the history of the ICRC, aggravated by its lack of decisiveness in taking steps to aid the victims of Nazi persecution. This failure will remain part of the ICRC’s memory.” Their statement concluded:

For the ICRC the most appropriate way to honour the victims and survivors … is to fight for a world in which the human dignity of every man, woman and child is respected without any reservations. It may never be possible to fully achieve this aim but the memory of Auschwitz obliges us to do everything in our power to work towards it.

These noble words notwithstanding, the Red Cross response to the hostages and the Gaza war closely parallels the organisation’s inaction and excuses during the Shoah. Like the victims languishing in the Nazis’ concentration camps, the Israeli hostages languishing in Gaza became non-persons—neither seen nor heard in the ICRC’s actions and public campaigns.Bias and BetrayalThe extensive rot at the heart of Human Rights Watch.QuilletteGerald M. Steinberg

The ICRC’s own double standards are particularly galling. Regarding Israelis, the policy of neutrality is a one-way street. The ICRC has repeatedly and vocally joined the intense political campaigns led by UN agencies and allied NGOs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW), which portray Israel’s counterterrorism in Gaza as egregious violations of international law. The organisation’s “Israel and Gaza” posts on Instagram include dozens of condemnations of “the limitless destruction of Gaza” and of the IDF’s “evacuation orders” to safe havens outside the areas of combat, which the ICRC insists “are not compatible” with international humanitarian law (IHL). But IHL, including the numerous “Geneva conventions,” is a flexible and endlessly contested concept that often reflects political and ideological preferences. In some interpretations, the Israeli policies in Gaza are entirely consistent with and perhaps above and beyond the requirements of the law of armed conflict. But these interpretations were entirely absent in the ICRC’s declarations, media interviews, and posts.

During the Gaza conflict, the ICRC repeatedly condemned Israeli military actions involving hospitals and clinics in Gaza, but said nothing about the extensive exploitation of these facilities by Hamas. For years, ICRC personnel on the ground in Gaza have included permanent staff, while top officials have made frequent visits. Like their UN and NGO counterparts and everyone else in Gaza, they were all aware of the vast tunnel network built by Hamas below schools, hospitals, clinics, mosques, residences, and parks. These tunnels were essential to Hamas’s terror strategy, including for the production and storage of thousands of rockets used to strike Israeli population centres. Each of these attacks on Israel was a war crime, but the Red Cross reported nothing, unlike the journalists and doctors who observed and documented the presence of Hamas weapons and fighters and the systematic exploitation of hospitals and other medical facilities for war and terrorism.