SUMMARY: A special military unit fights a powerful, out-of-control supercomputer and hundreds of scientists who have mutated into flesh-eating creatures after a laboratory accident.
If you like this movie/series of movies, all the power to you, they were not for the mod.
45 notes
·
View notes
My family’s stories about who we are and where we came from are a mess but a vague awareness of us being Jewish(ish) has always been there. I don’t know if I count as halachically Jewish - my family history on both sides is vague and muddled and there’s Jewishness smattered throughout, but from what I can tell the matrilineal line only goes back so far. London-Irish great grandma married a Jewish man. I think. Records on people from my socioeconomic background are vague and muddled too.
But I’ve always felt a connection to Judaism, always wanted to convert (or be affirmed, if it turns out conversion isn’t necessary). I’ve never done it. Either I’ve not lived near a Jewish community or I’ve not had the right frame of mind or whatever else. I’ve enquired. I think I was 17 when I first emailed a rabbi. But I’ve never done it.
And now, well, I live pretty much as far from a Jewish community as it’s possible to be. In a hippy town in rural Iceland where… well, there’s a lot of Palestinian flags around and enough dog whistles alongside them that I think being openly Jewish or believing the provable fact of Jewish indignity to the Levant or even just being anything less than rabidly anti Israel would be a major issue. My landlord’s daughter was talking about how my supermarket shouldn’t sell Lays crisps because they’re “linked with Israel”.
Iceland has a rabbi, a Chabad guy. Nice bloke, I’ve spoken to him a few times, on my last foray into maybe converting (but obviously, Chabad rabbis are maybe not the best choice for a transgender bloke covered in tattoos). And I spent my Christmas, ironically, with an Israeli Jew and his Icelandic husband. So there are Jews here, albeit barely enough for a Minyan. But still, not a community and definitely not a community here.
But… I’ve found Darshan Yeshiva. They’re an online community, an online conversion program, working with rabbis and cantors from a variety of denominations, and specifically targeted at people who don’t have proper access to a Jewish community. And when I’m done with my AS exams and I have a bit more spare cash, I’m doing it. I know online conversion is controversial, I do. But this is the route for me. And with the services and seminars held by the Chabad rabbi in Reykjavik, I won’t be entirely cut off from an offline community.
I’ve picked the worst possible time to commit to converting, I know. But I think part of why I’ve chosen now to finally do it, is that it’s such a bad time for it.
9 notes
·
View notes
Okay so I just finished watching Outside Xtra's video on Madame Web (which I think I saw as a recommendation in tags by @a-commas-a-pause ?) and they quickly touched on the whole "is it okay to kill a child if you know that child will grow up to do horrific things?" and because I'm me, I have Thoughts™ and Opinions™ on that.
The version of this I've come across most often and I assume most other people have come across is "If you could, would you kill a baby who grows up to be Adolf Hitler?" , which
Anyway, I think this question - and other questions like it - is incredibly stupid and incredibly pointless.
Because the question either fundamentally misunderstands Nazi Germany or it's a badly worded question trying to get at the nature of punitive justice.
If it's the latter, you could just ask "is it ethical to punish someone for crimes they will commit in the future?" instead so presumably it's the former that is intended.
Which, the former is operating on the logic that removing Hitler from the equation would have just stopped Nazi Germany from happening, and the logic has no basis in reality. If it wasn't Hitler, it would have been someone else. It might have played out differently, but Hitler wasn't the sole reason that Nazis were able to take control of Germany.
This sort of question means to ask "Is it moral to kill a child to stop that child from committing atrocities in the future?"
And applying that questions to historical figures is almost entirely useless.
It is very rare that a monumental event in history occurred due to the efforts of a single individual; it's simply that the faces of these events are the ones whose names we remember.
As such, it is also very rare that you can trace a domino trail from said historical event to a singular point of origin. Hitler being rejected from art school is not the first in a domino train that ends in the Holocaust.
I think about this way more than I should realistically, but I just think the attitude we have really highlights the way we approach history, and the knock-on effects from that.
For one, it's incredibly individualistic; very Ayn Rand. It assumes that history is made not by the people, but by one singular person. It discourages working together toward a goal and encourages competition instead.
But it also betrays a level of complacency, in my opinion. As I've pointed out above, the idea of history hinging entirely on one man is a very flawed idea. In 99% of cases, it's not possible, and yet you are expected to believe otherwise. And so where do you begin an impossible task?
You don't. You think "I'm one person, I can't change the world" and so you give up, you become complacent, but you give up believing that some person can do it, just not you. And so any guilt or shame you're feeling can easily be pushed aside. It was okay that you did nothing because nothing you did would have amounted to anything because you're not The Chosen One.
It's easier to imagine history as lots of different domino trains running parallel to each other, and easier to imagine history as what Those Important People™ do while ordinary folks do nothing, because it allows you to be complacent.
And I guess that's the conclusion because all of this has just been written off the top of my head, and I actually have plans today that I need to prepare for.
4 notes
·
View notes
A Budavári Palotanegyed is csatlakozott a European Royal Residences szervezetéhez
A Budavári Palotanegyed is csatlakozott a European Royal Residences szervezetéhez
A megújuló Budavári Palotanegyed is csatlakozott a legnevesebb uralkodói központokat tömörítő European Royal Residences szervezetéhez.
A Hauszmann Alajos tervezte Budavári Királyi Palota a 19-20. század fordulójára készült el, díszes külső és belső megjelenése, valamint páratlan fekvése az európai uralkodói rezidenciák közé emelte. A második világháborúban a Királyi Palota és környezete súlyosan…
2 notes
·
View notes
🎠Prince Alfonso and his siblings enjoy a carrige ride at the palace of Magdalena. Circa 1900s🎠
The Palace of Magdalena never fails to take my breathe away. Built in 1912 and given to King Alfonso XIII and Queen Victoria Eugenia as a summer residence the monarchs and their children enjoyed summers in Santander between 1913 and 1930. It seems that it was the Queen, Ena herself who particularly enjoyed the landscape and architecture that was very similar to her English roots: writers and poets evoked her nostalgia for the Isle of Wight, in fact, associating this nostalgia to her presence in Santander and her subsequent exile. The royal family used the palace as a base for numerous recreational and sporting activities, and the king sometimes also held government meetings at the property.
5 notes
·
View notes