#i don't like to go into politics and religious matters too much on here but yeah. needed to let it out. might delete later.

[pcrtgasdace]

..

the line between being islamophobic and trying to support women in iran is very thin. hear me out. i am wholeheartedly supporting every woman's and muslim woman's decision to freely choose how to express herself and how to practice her belief. in my book, it's everyone's individual decision and many muslims would agree. i am a muslim woman too. however, the problem lies in western media. i read articles, i see the news about the issues in iran and it's 90% of the time borderline islamophobic.

a german article just yesterday talked about the abolishment of the morality police. we know that it's just a symbolic thing of the iranian government to do to keep people quiet and think they won with their protests. it's no reason to stop raising attention to the issue. but the issue doesn't lie in islam.

the german article immediately talked about islam in a bad light, making islam the problem instead of talking about the real problem. not drawing a clear line and that's sadly intentionally done by western media. because the article emphasized how oppressive and backwards islam is. not really drawing a line between islam in itself and an oppressive system telling women what to do. it's a double edged sword these days, people using this news to further spread their islamophobia in the world.

still. it is not religion but a political, conservatist power in every society that uses religion as its legitimising device.

in every religion there are these two trends which express socio-political forces: one defending stability, which is the state, and the other defending social change, which is the political opposition.

and sometimes i am not too sure people who read these articles actually care to differentiate. or actually care about muslim women. each time a white person tries to talk to me or talks in general about this issue they seem to think the problem is islam itself.

of course, muslims like me support the women and that they can freely choose to wear hijab or not. i am muslim too and i don't wear a hijab, it's not a measurement of who's being more muslim or not.

law involving matters of faith should not be subject to the state’s intervention. This is a matter between allah and each believer. No human being should intervene between allah and a believer or pretend to judge in allah's place whether the believer is sincere or not. the qur’an specifically says that there should be no compulsion in matters of religion.

my main point is: media is still so islamophobic that they don't even try to make a distinction between those women's rights and fueling their hatred for islam. it's just so sickening to see that each time a white person talks to me about this issue i have to make sure they are actually not islamophobic bc they got fed these islamophobic news and western propaganda regularly and usually don't bother to inform themselves more than reading two or three lines in an article. it's incredibly frustrating to watch.

we can find better words than secularism and liberalism within islam itself. such as the priority of reality on the text, the priority of public welfare and that islamic law is based essentially to defend life, reason, honour, dignity, and public wealth. then secularism is already built in islam without any need to inject it from the outside, from the west or the east. those are major intentions of islam which are secular, without using the word secularism.

external intervention is an unlikely means for advancing democracy. we saw how american and european "efforts" to this resulted in afghanistan. while there is every reason to hope for movement toward democracy, you should also be wary of those who tell you, with excessive optimism and no small dose of hubris, that democracy will readily be brought to the region by tanks and weapons.

we can stand with muslim women while also recognizing that we don’t stand against a specific religion from which a billion people derive their personal identity.

[duchess-of-mandalore]

Star Wars, friends. I know this is not why you follow me, but please make this my most shared post.

You are here.

We're living the lead-up to Revenge of the Sith, and it scares me so much a) it feels like there is so little we can do, and b) young people are acting as if there is nothing we can do.

If you don't know what's going on, I need you to wake up and get engaged.

I have two history degrees. My whole life I've always been the person saying, "When people say, 'This is the most important election ever," it just shows how little they know about history.'"

So please believe me when I tell you that THIS is the most important election (cycle, not just presidential race) that you will likely ever be a part of.

Trump is not Hitler. He's too stupid to be Hitler.

But our democracy only held together in 2020 because of a few people like Mike Pence who were willing to stand up against Trump when it was truly the last line of defense. I know that's hard for some of you to hear, but whatever you think of his beliefs, Pence showed he has integrity and stands by the Constitution.

There will be no Mike Pences this time around. Trump will not make the mistake of surrounding himself with those who are not fully committed to him.

Trump is a convicted felon. He is running to avoid his convictions and likely jail time more than anything else. If he wins, he will be able to pardon himself of his federal crimes, but he's going to keep acting like Donald Trump. If he's still alive in 2028, do you think he will leave the White House peacefully and just submit to further cases against him?

Please watch John Oliver's recent expose on Project 2025 and Trump's Second Term. It is linked in a comment below.

Trump and his administration are already putting in place plans for sweeping reforms that truly will make America look like The Handmaid's Tale. Presidents usually will push for more when they're in their second term because they don't have to worry about another election campaign, but this is different. This is about dismantling the democratic system so that it only benefits the most radical conservatives and Christians.

Christians, I am one of you. I was raised Evangelical (capital E meaning politically motivated culture warrior), and I am still evangelical (lower-case e, referring to theological beliefs). This is not the posture of Christ-followers. There is no good that comes from state-mandated religion, which both coerces people to claim that they are believers for social and cultural clout AND waters down the true religious fervor of the church because most people are only nominal believers.

There is NOTHING about Christian Nationalism that is in the best interest of Christians or in the best interest of the neighbors Christians are called to sacrificially love. If you need a reminder of who your neighbor is, read Luke 10:25-37.

Please start talking with your friends. Young people, please register to vote and bring your friends to do the same.

I know so many of you are disillusioned. I am too. Things that are going on in Palestine and Ukraine and so many other places make it very hard to vote for people with "D"s behind their names (especially after the recent presidential debate).

But punishing Joe Biden is not the revenge you want to pursue here. Are you unhappy with him giving Israel $12.5 billion? I am too, but do you think that number won't be repeated multiple times under Trump? Again, I was raised Evangelical. A staple of (politically-focused) Evangelicalism is that Christians (and thus America) must support (the modern state of) Israel no matter what because they have a hyper-literal understanding of the verse where God tells Abraham that he will bless those who bless him (including his descendants who became Israel).

Do not underestimate the importance of that view in their ideology. Nearly every member of my biological family has shunned me for suggesting that this is not a blanket endorsement of every action the modern state of Israel takes.

Trump is a criminal running for president to save his skin. He supports Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel who is now himself wanted for war crimes. Trump has aligned himself with the authoritarian leaders/dictators of Hungary, China, North Korea, and Russia. He is open about his love for Russian president Vladimir Putin's authoritarian regime and stands against Ukraine's democracy and national sovereignty.

This is what happened before World War I and World War II.

I know this isn't what you follow me for.

But George Lucas was showing the dangers of authoritarianism. He shows that democracy is hard. It's frustrating trying to negotiate with people you disagree with vehemently. It may seem like nothing gets done.

Go and watch the Naboo picnic scene. Go and do it. And after chuckling at all the funny memes it's given us, let me tell you why it scares me so much.

Because Padme laughs.

Anakin tells her who he is, and she laughs.

She passes it off as a joke, or as flirting, or maybe even as just the ignorant views of a boy who views life as far more black and white than she knows it to be.

But the alternative to all of that frustrating democracy, all that gridlock in the Senate, all those choices and compromises you have to make in order to benefit the people at all ... the alternative is a dictator who says, "I will make all the decisions for us."

That's why there are people who applaud Palpatine. That's why we as viewers see Bail and Padme as the reasonable ones and think it's crazy that anyone would applaud, but they do.

The applaud because Palpatine says, "You don't have to be frustrated anymore. You don't have to be worried about those who disagree with you anymore." Safety and security and ease are powerful temptations when you live in a polarized society, and Palpatine offers them all of those things.

That's why many people applaud Trump, too.

There were also people who applauded Palpatine who did see the danger of what he was doing. But they applauded because it was easier to do so. He had already amassed power because they didn't stand up to him before. They applaud him now because standing against him now would have dire consequences they wouldn't have faced if they had stood against him before.

So vote. And get your friends to vote.

If there is any part of you that believes Star Wars has important things to tell us about real life, then I need you to fan that flame into a fire.

Otherwise, you won't be living in the prequels anymore. You will be living in the time of the Empire.

Vote.

[littlelillycatsworld]

weight loss breakdown (for once not a mental one impressive ik)

as promised heres my weight loss breakdown. I have awful brain fog words aren't working properly (using any and all brain power on English rn) and it's a bit all over the place please be patient with me I have most definitely forgotten some stuff I'll update when I remember

this is not healthy this is what works for me I know the limits of my body you are your own person please look after yourself and don't compare yourself to me. I'm a professional ballerina and ex-taekwondow artist

please be polite don't leave unsolicited advice if I need or want it I'll ask and right now I DONT.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should attempt to fallow this since this is actually insane

DRINKS

I drink lemon honey water or tea for breakfast most days depending on how much calorie dread I have (does that make sense?)

I will only allow myself to drink water, tea or diet coke/zero or ultra monster throughout the day

MEALS

OMAD when possible budget is 900 I rarely ever make it close to my budget

I'll only intentionally eat dinner unless forced otherwise. I must burn off whatever I can from dinner since I don't have classes that late

some days it's completely unavoidable and I have to eat snacks due to outside pressure like friends and family or my manager (he's apparently hell bent on keeping my ass alive)

binges happen we (I) acknowledge them we (me) move

if I feel faint when In class nothing matters I WILL eat I cannot run the risk of hurting myself or my dance partner when it's him who will be the one who makes sure i dont hit the ground

META DAYS

meta days are important please take them!

I must allow myself 2 grace days a week and I try to be gentle with myself. (essentially I'm gentle parenting myself on these days)

I try not to fall into my normal over the top exercise routine since I still haven't figured out how to make these days my bitch

my cal budget is normally around 1400 for these days

EXERCISE

I must do 10k steps at least (normally much closer to 25k)

I start every day off with a mile run sometimes 2 (depending on how much I want to not exist and weather conditions)

i go to the gym at my dorm when weather conditions are bad or it's to cold for me I run on the treadmill it's not as mentally stimulating as outside but I don't like the rain ice or wind too much

i can be expected to be dancing for 8-9hrs on my longest day so for the most part I don't need to worry too much about forcing myself to burn calories but it gives me peace of mind I burn an estimated 4500cal these days (impossible to know for sure since 2 teachers don't allow activity trackers)

around 3000 on my normal days but again 2 teachers are a pain In my ass

I play just dance religiously at this point it takes me 2hrs to burn 500 I do this after dinner or twice a day on the weekends where possible.

I still practice taekwondo and go to a studio to do classes once a week but it's not as extreme as it used to be (no longer training 6 days a week and doing competitions)

WEIGHING

I weigh myself most days

I don't weigh myself during my meta days I don't need the added mental stress

I get weighed by my school once a week but only update my profile if there is a big difference either up or down (accountability and all that)

FASTS

I normally do 24hr since omad

I don't count my medication, gum, diet coke/zero tea or lemon honey water as breaking my fast. if this keeps me mentally stable then idk it doesn't count (politely eat a brick if you try to tell me otherwise)

I always try to get at least one longer fast a week normally after dinner on wednesday to Friday dinner sometimes I can make it to Saturday dinner it just depends on who's around to make me eat

if your wondering how I've survived this far all I can say is I'm a spiteful little bitch who's going to prove a whole list of people wrong

[old-school-butch]

What do they think Hamas wants? What do they think Israel is supposed to do? Do they seriously think Israel is supposed to be like sure here you go we are all going to leave Israel and you can have everything? Do they think that would bring about peace? I’m serious. Like really do they think there is anything Israel could do that would stop any of this? Do they think Israel should’ve done nothing and this situation would’ve just disappeared? Americans are the dumbest fucking people on the planet. Hamas wants compliance or death, that’s how terrorism works, that’s war.

Whoever is running the information warfare at Hamas is truly brilliant. The ideology of Islamists has been run through some kind of autotuner so it sounds like it came from a chapter in Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Western liberals are eating it up. While liberals are still catching up on which river and which sea the chant refers to, they still don't grasp that the end goal here is the elimination of the state of Israel entirely. And while 20% of Israelis are Arab Muslims, there are zero Jews in Gaza. The PR people are saying Zionist these days instead of Jews, so maybe it doesn't sound too bad when they say Kill All Zionists but that's just the English translation. Zionism is the creation of a Jewish state. Hamas will call it the 'Zionist entity' because they don't recognize it as a state. They don't recognize it because all states should be Muslim. Israel is occupying territory that should be Muslim. When they say 'end the occupation' it sounds like a call for liberation of an oppressed people, instead of the desire to destroy Israel, kill or expel the Jews and create a Muslim state in its place.

Yemen's Houthi rebels (who are currently attacking Israel) have a slogan "God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam" and I think it says a lot that they take the time to double down on how much they hate Jews/Israel instead of a single 'Houthis are great!' thrown into their own slogan.

The Islamists have noted the 'anti-colonial' rhetoric in Western universities and capitalized on it by positioning Israel as a proxy for the West and thus a scapegoat for the West's sins of imperialism. It does rely on some very old anti-Semitic tricks - because Jews assimilate fairly well (because they don't have an evangelical aspect to the faith) they are both within a culture and othered from the culture - the perfect scapegoat. Many liberals shrugged when the Nazis marching in Charlottesville chanted "Jews will not replace us" but the suspicion that Jews control the media, capitalism, also socialism, Hollywood (and any other center of power you can imagine) runs very deep in Western cultural anxiety. Imagining Israel as a prowerful villian is all too easy when you're primed to believe that.

A wild example of this is how Westerners view Israel as a colonialist power rather than a gathering point for religious refugees. The reality that Jews originated from the land of JUDEA should not be hard to grasp, but is conveniently ignored. The fact that they've negotiated with colonial powers like Britain and the UN is viewed as a sign of political power, even though the main goal of those colonial powers was to prevent Jewish refugees from flooding their own countries. And the memory that the post WW2 boost in political heft came at the price of the Holocaust in Europe, seems to have been lost. The reality that most Israelis are Jewish refugees expelled from Muslim countries, is conveniently ignored. There are enough white faces and dual citizens in Israel for guilty Westerners to find a convenient scapegoat to do all that decolonizing and let themselves be destroyed for our sins. Not that anyone is thinking that hard about it, it just feels right, because it's safe and convenient to accept blame and then shift it to someone else - no matter how many land acknowledgements they crank out.

I guess Westerners think colonizing is something only white people do, and they are blissfully unaware of the size and scope of the Arab Islamic Empires of the past. And also apparently unaware that Islamists explicitly say they want to recreate that empire. Zionists want a single state - and I have a lot of issues with the idea of a religious state at all, but no one can accuse Jews of ever having or wanting to create an Empire. Israel might be criticized for not having a more liberal democractic state, but Hamas isn't even trying to create one. It wants a single Muslim state occupying their entire region, where Jews are killed or expelled and Islamists can consolidate regional power - that's their goal. But the slogan is 'end the occupation' which sounds way nicer than 'end the occupation of land of Israel by Jews so we can make an Islamic state in its place and kill all the Jews who don't run away fast enough.'

Maybe it's that most Westerners don't live in a theocracy, and have no sense of just how controlling and energetic theocratic societies can be, that they can't grasp the idea of global jihad and what that really means. "The Caliphate is the answer" is written in Arabic on protest signs, flying under the radar of English-speakers and certainly not seen as hate speech, but when people tell you they want to establish a global world order under Islamic rule, and are actively coordinating their efforts between states and regions - you should believe them. Moderation is apostasy, punishable by death. Anyone negotiating with Israel faces opposition from more radical Islamists ready to take their place. This is why Islamists spend most of their time attacking more moderate Islamic states and leaders. And by 'moderate' I mean the Taliban, which can barely set up a state in Afghanistan - because it means diverting resources from expanding and conquering other areas. A group called ISIS-K is trying to overturn the Taliban to bring back the glory days of the Khorason, an entity so sprawling it would involve invading China, Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, which would undoubtedly spark a global conflict. That doesn't phase them. Hamas can barely control the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which rejects any peace accords with Israel including the Oslo accord. Dying as a martyr is the highest achivement - eternal war is not a problem. The Islamic world is failing to contain radical movements it created and supported for its own interests.

The Palestinians are a good microcosm of this. When Israel declared independence in 1948, the region was invaded by its neighbors. The war ended with Jordan occupying the West Bank and Egypt occupying Gaza and normally the people living there would have been absorbed into these countries, or created a self-governed state. Instead Palestinians, as a group, were created as a stateless people. They didn't want to form a state within the boundaries determined by the war, but instead remain as refugees from a war and promised the 'right of return' i.e. that Israel would be returned to them. Importantly, the war didn't have a declared end. It's still happening, which is how they are still refugees 75 years later. And they live in 'refugee camps', otherwise known as buildings and towns, but it's all temporary in this narrative. Does no one wonder why the pro-Palestinian rallies call for a ceasefire and not for peace? Peace is not desired, just a pause in fighting until they can regroup and try again.

A separate reality was created where the 1948 war is still happening, Israel is not real, it's a 'Zionist entity' occupying the land and that refugees includes everyone displaced by the 'ongoing' war, and all their descendants are refugees too because they have nowhere to live - because where they are living is just temporary. And ‘all they want is to go home’ (but not their current home for 3 generations, the home back in Israel ofc). In this world, they all have to right to live in the region that the zionist entity is occupying, where their duty is to establish a Muslim state. The purpose of this fiction is to create a perpetual problem for Israel, a stateless population whose entire existence is focused on them eventually overthrowing Israel. But it's had unexpected effects.

Palestinian refugees have been more than willing to bring violence to any country that has taken them in as immigrants. Their nationalists have a long list of assassinations of anyone who supports a peace treaty with Israel, including the King of Jordan, the former prime minister of Lebanon, Robert F Kennedy and more. They've also started a civil war in Jordan until they were expelled to Lebanon, where they hijacked a series of international flights and started a civil war there that lasted for 15 years. Palestinians living as refugees in Kuwait aided Saddam Hussein's invading army until they were expelled when his regime fell. These are the reasons none of Israel's neighbor's will accept any more Palestinian refugees, but the Islamist problem remains for any country in its path. What I have found most disturbing among feminists on Tumblr, however, is the complete wilful ignorance about Islamist ideology and its relationship to women. You think you’re ok with the Quran? Read it. There aren't many religions founded by a conqueror who wanted to rule the world. Read what it says about conquest, murder, torture, raping and enslaving non-Muslim women. Arab slave traders castrated men and bred female slaves who were kept as captive wives. Using sexual violence as a tool of war and as a reward for Islamic fighters is long documented and continues today. The birth rate in Gaza is about 5 children per woman and frequently exhorted to be higher. Why? Arafat said it most clearly ‘the womb of the Palestinian woman is the weapon that will defeat Israel.' Population and fertility are part of the political landscape and Islamist strategy. It's how Lebanon went from being a Christian majority country to a Muslim majority country today. There is no reason whatsoever that feminists - who have not shied away from criticizing the sexism of Christianity or Judaism - should mince words when it comes to criticizing Islam in the strongest possible terms. Islamists - who combine Islam with a goal for global dominance - should ring every alarm bell we have.

[natequarter]

you wonder why the scots were so unstable, then you look at their monarchy and realise they had seven child monarchs in a row. oh your king's a twelve-year-old? that sucks. what, he's been assassinated? huh! good thing his heir-- HE'S SIX? good thing he isn't going to die a ridiculous death like getting blown up by a cannon any time soon! BUT NOT FOR LONG! what, he was actually blown up by a cannon? wow. anyway, we're leaving the throne in the capable hands of a nine-year-old. that won't go wrong! OR SO WE THOUGHT! well, at least it wasn't a cannon that took him out this time, just a little bit of rebellion and war. and we're leaving the throne in the capable hands of a competent and popular ruler.

BUT NOT FOR LONG! this idiot gets absolutely wrecked at the hands of the english. and by wrecked, i mean killed. great news for henry viii, terrible news for little one-year-old jamie (his nephew, i should point out), a.k.a. your highness, and fifth in a long line of idiots called james. (you'd think they'd learn to pick another name.) things work out eventually, right up until henry viii's lot come back onto the scene and get into a bunch of fights with the scots. unbelievably, things are about to get so much worse. in a real smart move, james dies at the grand old age of thirty. (i feel the need to point out that none of these jameses lived past the age of forty-two. and that's being generous.)

enter mary. she's catholic! she's not called james! she's the queen of scotland! and guess how old she is? six days! yes, you heard that right - six days. (and you thought six years was bad.) she's eventually whisked away to live in france and later marry the dauphin, handily solving the problem of the english trying to kidnap her and marry her off to edward vi. (she's five at this point. edward is ten. françois, the dauphin, is three. don't think too hard about any of that.)

they grow up. edward dies at fifteen. mary i, best known for her fondness for barbecues, dies five years later. françois, sensing a trend, dies two years after that at sixteen. mary returns to scotland, and all is well.

OR SO WE THOUGHT! whilst england was busy being torn apart by religious matters, scotland was busy being torn apart by religious matters. (you'll never guess what's happening in france.) mary, of course, is a devout catholic. some of the scots, who have spent twelve years without a monarch, let alone a catholic girl raised in france, are... not. rebellions! political instability! back to the status quo, basically. john knox is not happy, but when is he ever? elizabeth i kindly tries to help things by sending her bestie robert dudley (yes, that robert) to marry mary. this, unsurprisingly, does not go down well. fortunately, mary solves all these problems by creating a new one: she marries her half-cousin, henry lord darnley! yuck! i mean, yay! more rebellion (led by mary's half-brother)! henry turns on mary because he wants more power! he allies with the protestant lords, and they stab mary's private secretary to death in front of her whilst she's pregnant! the usual.

BUT NOT FOR LONG! mary and henry escape, they have a lovely little son called james (they still hadn't learn their lesson about scottish jameses), and they all live happily ever after until henry's house is blown up and he's found smothered outside in broad daylight. suspects include: everyone in scotland. but mostly lord bothwell, who proceeds to kidnap mary and marry her. now, you may struggle to believe this, but things go downhill from here. mary is eventually forced to abdicate, and flees to england. bothwell is imprisoned in denmark, and later goes insane. as for james, now the one-year-old james vi (anyone sensing a pattern here?), well, he's probably too busy learning to speak to care. because, you know, he's one. some people never learn.

from this point onwards, mary's kept under house arrest by elizabeth i. in a display of gratitude towards elizabeth, mary promptly spends the rest of her life plotting against her. or being involved in plots. in the meantime, james's regent, also called james stewart (mary's aforementioned half-brother; the name is cursed), earns the dubious honour of being the first head of government to be assassinated with a firearm. eventually, after mary, that virtuous angel, actively tries to kill elizabeth, elizabeth gets fed up and drops a sword on mary's neck. james, who last saw his mother at the age of zero years old, must have been devastated.

you all know what happened next: elizabeth died at the grand old age of sixty-nine, and james inherited the throne. thus followed decades of religious instability, parliamentary infighting, and stubborn monarchs who refused to listen to reason, which were surely new to the elizabethans. james, who was what is commonly known these days as a "hot mess" or "bisexual disaster" - don't quote me on that - was nearly blown up in a plot masterminded by a guy called tosser. sorry, i mean a tosser called guy. he also pissed everyone off by being a bit too buddy-buddy with several men, possibly lovers. (probably lovers.) that was not the end of the curse of james stewart (see: james ii of england), but it did at least put an end to mary queen of scots. oh, and england and scotland were united. that too. cue much chaos with a man you've probably heard of, named oliver cromwell... the rest is history. i mean, all of this is history, but you know what i mean.

and that's the story of why having seven child monarchs in a row is a really fucking bad idea!

[highfantasy-soul]

So I need to get something off my chest about 'writing' and what a show is trying to do vs if the writing is the best to show that.

I haven't seen this complaint so much on Tumblr, but it has been brought up several times in a Discord server I'm in and I don't think there is the best place to address it (it might be taken as too political or an attack against specific people) but I really really needed to write out how I'm feeling about it.

So a massive complaint in this Discord is that the writing of the Acolyte is bad. The ones making this criticism claim that they like the ideas behind the show, but the execution with the writing is terrible and they need to get a whole new writing team for season 2.

So. Hmm. How to not get too in my feelings about that.

Let's take a look at who the writers are. We have:

3 men - 2 of which are men of color, the last I don't know enough about to say if he's part of a specific marginalized identity or not

and we have 7 women - Leslye who is openly queer, 3 black women, an asian woman, a trans woman and activist, and another who I again, don't know enough about to say if she's a part of a specific marginalized identity (other than her femininity) or not.

I didn't do deep dives on them, they're writers, so it's kind of hard to specifically find out 'hey, do you personally have a lot of experience with colonialism/religious trauma?' BUT I think that just baseline seeing how many women, people of color, and queer people there are on the writing staff and the way I could see so many extremely nuanced and real things on screen that I personally know about gives me a good idea about their own experiences/knowledge about such subjects.

Despite the claim that 'they like what the story is going for', the understanding of how the writers are telling that story isn't translating to everyone. I have a little suspicion as to what unites the people who 'don't get' the writing despite claiming to like what the show was going for. Kind of like how people 'liked what the civil rights movement was about, but those leaders and their methods? Get those out of here and accomplish the goals in a different way'. Or reading a classic and having no context for who wrote it or when the story was written and trying to judge it based on your own very limited understanding and claiming it's "bad" because you, personally, are just not aware of anything outside of your own world view.

It's important to be able to identify where your own understanding might be lacking - and acknowledging that just because YOU don't 'get it' doesn't mean that the writing is BAD. It just means... you don't get it. Personally, I don't get every single show made for a very specific audience - especially racialized comedies specifically for the race the writer/performer is. As an example, Dave Chapelle (horrendous transphobia aside) wrote a great deal of his material for his very specific audience of Black Americans. I personally, as a not-Black person, wasn't sure how to feel about some of his jokes - but what I DIDN'T do was say that he was bad and 'I get that he's making fun of his own community, but he should do it in a different way, maybe get a different writer'. Because I'm not the one equipped to judge that. I acknowledge that his comedy is outside my wheelhouse and honestly, for Chapelle's case when it comes to his racial jokes, I simply remove myself from the equation and just look to other Black people and how they react to his comedy to see if he's stepped over a line. (Also, when it comes to comedy, as he himself pointed out, some white people were laughing a little TOO hard at his jokes - I think that's mainly an issue with comedy and poking fun at yourself only to have someone not in your 'group' not take it as friendly ribbing but rather more malicious - and so he dialed it back).

Comedy is a bit different than any other media - I do think that comedy requires a lot more knowledge of the subject matter to know when the person is exaggerating, critiquing, or affectionately ribbing that is pretty important to know before internalizing what's said in the show. If you're not aware of that stuff, you might hear a stand-up routine and internalize a lot of really harmful stereotypes so I think it's ok to step away from comedy that isn't "for you" in a way that I don't think is particularly great for ALL types of media that isn't "for you".

With romance stories - I just don't get why a character would make all their decisions focused around getting a romantic partner, maybe I actively dislike watching/reading about that, but what I'm NOT going to do is say Jane Austen is a bad writer. I can point out things I disliked aside from the romance aspect or even larger writing critiques, but I'm not going to say that 'I see what she was going for, but get a different writer because I didn't get it'. Those stories were intensely personal to her and many people see themselves in the characters she wrote. Just because *I* don't get their motivations doesn't mean others don't.

So, examples aside, I think it's incredibly important that before we say 'the writing was bad', think about if maybe it's just that you don't have the meta understanding of the groups being highlighted in the story. It does give me the ick when people say to 'replace the writing table' on The Acolyte when the story trying to be told is of marginalized groups interacting with massive colonial institutions and the generational trauma that causes - and when you look at the writers....they are part of the groups affected by those issues, and the ones who are saying 'replace them'....aren't (largely).

When you 'don't get' something in media, especially if that media is telling the stories of groups you don't belong to, go to see what those groups are saying. There have been articles written about The Acolyte from the points of view of marginalized groups and meta posted around about how these irl subjects are being handled. In my opinion, as someone a part of such effected groups, I think the writers have done an incredible job with the show.

The main issue I think (good faith) people have is that DISNEY didn't give the show more time to tell its story, but then they lay the issues at the feet of the writers for 'not explaining enough' - but the things they want explained, largely I find are things that...were explained enough if you know the basics of colonization, missionaries, and generational trauma.

Other complaints I've seen boil down to "the show should have told me everything in order, clearly, and told me what to think about it and each of the characters - because I was left guessing, instead of using my own brain to think about it, I have decided it's bad writing because everything wasn't fed to me in a straightforward way" which again, isn't a fault of the writing, it's a flaw in the way you THINK all shows need to hand-hold you. Just because a show doesn't spoon-feed you the story and character motivations, doesn't mean the writing is bad.

Finally, I've seen critiques of the writing (and story) to the effect of 'it's a Star Wars story - it NEEDS to fit into the Star Wars box/expectations and if it doesn't, that means it's bad writing' - which again, kills diversity. You want surface-level inclusion where "yay! It's a woman doing bombings now! Cheer for her!" rather than "Look, it's a woman doing war-crimes and we're pointing out that war crimes are STILL wrong and here's other marginalized people fighting against that!"

So before claiming 'the writers need to be replaced', take a step back and look at why you feel that way, take a look at who the writers are and what story they were trying to tell, and first consider: maybe you just aren't knowledgeable enough about the subject matter. And just because it's not 'baby's first colonizer story', doesn't mean the writing is bad. Maybe you aren't the center of the universe for once and maybe its OK for you to feel a little behind in understanding - it just means there's new stuff for you to learn! Which is a good thing!

Obligatory explanation that all this doesn't mean that you can't critique the writing or that if you critique the writing that means you 100% are who I'm talking to in this post. All I'm saying is that maybe before having the knee-jerk reaction 'get rid of the writers', take a look at it from this perspective to see if you 'not understanding' isn't on the writers, it's on you and your life experiences not preparing you for such a story told in this way.

[jadedresearcher]

It will be okay.

I get that the US election feels like it's so huge the fate of everything is at play. And its important. Don't get me wrong. I very much have opinions (that are likely quite obvious given my reblogs) on how I want things to shake out. But it will be okay.

Even if the worst possible outcome happens. (which please, don't lose sight of the fact that its not guaranteed. The future can still be changed, please vote if you have an opinion on what future you want to reach for). I am not saying this because I want to cover my ears and believe in hope and dreams or whatever. I'm saying this because if the worst possible outcome happens there will still be tasks we can do to make things better for everyone. You will still have power. And the people who care about you will too, if you are too tired to use it. You've see a lot of reblogs going around about how it will be more important than ever to be active in local politics if the scary result happens in the election, right? That isn't blind optimism or busy tasks to work out anxiety. It works. It genuinely, truly does. And we know this because its worked before: The "gilded age" was a Period of US politics with rampant corruption.

"Presidential elections between the two major parties were so closely contested that a slight nudge could tip the election in the advantage of either party, and Congress was marked by political stalemate."

Does that sound familiar? Hardly sounds like something from 150 years ago, does it?

"Many cultural issues, [...], became hard-fought political issues because of the deep religious divisions in the electorate."

It's like looking into a mirror.

And do you know what happened? Do you think it was forever and everyone just died from despair? No. (i mean obviously, we're here now aren't we?) It was fought against, little by little, building momentum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

"Progressive reformers were alarmed by the spread of slums, poverty, and the exploitation of labor. Multiple overlapping progressive movements fought perceived social, political, and economic ills by advancing democracy, scientific methods, and professionalism; regulating business; protecting the natural environment; and improving working and living conditions of the urban poor."

No trend is forever. Nothing is set in stone. Any amount of corruption can be undone. The past proves it's possible.

"Initially, the movement operated chiefly at the local level, but later it expanded to the state and national levels."

And it is undone by exactly the means people have been saying all along. Being active locally. By caring. By not giving up.

Sure, the past is not today. There are plenty of differences and there are no guarantees in this world except one: there will be change. And each and every one of us can do things that matter to make the change happen in the direction and speed we want it to, little by little.

[hyperpotamianarch]

All right. So, I have decided to make my next post more purely about Judaism - no fantasy this time, sadly. Maybe a sprinkle of history.

The topic I'm about to talk about touches politics. While it is likely that my personal views will affect what I'm writing, this isn't supposed to be about the political side. I want to discuss the what the Halacha - Jewish religious law - has to say about Jews climbing the Temple Mount. Is it forbidden? What laws are relevant here? Etc. This post is supposed to be informational first and foremost. There is the issue that, in ignoring how current affairs might influence the Halachic ruling, I'm not really covering every direction. A Halachic ruling is somewhat versatile and depends on the specific situation. Thus, what I'm saying here doesn't amount to the final word on the topic, especially considering the fact I'm not a rabbi.

With that preface, we can get to the glossary. I'm going to use some Hebrew words in this post, and for the benefit of those who don't know Hebrew (as well as those still struggling with it) - I'm going to explain them here:

Tum'ah - noun. Impurity or ritual uncleanliness. Taharah - noun. Purity or ritual cleanliness. Tamé - adj. Something that is impure or ritually unclean. Plural: Təme'im. (Can be used as a noun for someone who is impure or ritually unclean) Tahor - adj. Something that is pure or ritually clean. Plural: Tehorim. Tzara'at - noun. A skin ailment of supposed supernatural origin that is treated by a Cohen, a priest. A person who has it is Tamé. Təmé Met - noun. one who is Tamé due to touching, carrying, or being in the same house/tent as, a human courpse. Torah - noun. The Pentateuch, the Five Books of Moses. Sometimes used in referring to the entirety of the Hebrew Bible or to all Jewish religious writings collectively. Mikveh - noun. Ritual bath filled with water not collected with human tools, that is used for getting Tahor after being Tamé. Zav, Zavah - noun. Someone who is Tamé due to irregular discharge from the genitals as a result of illness.

Note that these translations aren't completely accurate. I've seen many people say that there is no moral judgement in being Tamé or Tahor, and I agree with that. Tum'ah is pretty much unavoidable in one's life, and there is pretty much no way for someone to not be Tamé at some point in life. On another note, please don't confuse Tamé with tame. The words aren't pronounced the same and have very different meanings. Hopefully the italicization and the acute accent will help you tell the difference.

Anyway, to get into the topic: the Temple Mount. The Temple Mount is a holy place in Judaism as the mountain on which the Temple(s) stood, as its name makes pretty obvious. As such, Təme'im are forbidden from climbing it. Simle, right? Problem is, it's only some kinds of Tum'ah that make you prohibited from getting there.

You see, Tum'ah can come from various sources: human courpses, courpses of certain animals, specific illnesses such as Tzara'at or irregular discharge from the genitals (don't ask), and regular body functions such as mensturation, giving birth, and normal seminal discharge. There are many topics in the Tum'ah and Taharah branch of Halacha where the source of your Tum'ah doesn't matter as much as how distant you are from the source of the Tum'ah (meaning, did you touch the Tamé object directly or did you touch something that touched it), but in this specific case it's just the source that matters. Or, well, I guess if you're too distant from the source then it doesn't matter at all, but I'm not completely sure about that one.

Either way, the Torah instructed as to send the Təme'im away from the camp (Numbers 5, 1-4). Specifically, it talks about a person who has Tzara'at, a Zav or Zavah, or Təmé Met. The Sages teach that just as there are three categories of Tum'ah in this list, there are three levels to the Israelite camp, and each category is sent out of one. Since the levels are one inside the other, being sent out from the outside ones means not being allowed to get into the inside ones as well.

The levels of the Israelite camp in the desert were the Israelite Camp - where the twelve regular tribes stayed, organized under four banners for each of the cardinal directions. They were organized in a large rectangle, inside of which there was the second camp - the Levite Camp. This is where the Levites and Cohanim (Priests) lived, along with Moses and his family. Who were Levites, so maybe it didn't really deserve a mention. This camp, in turn, was arranged around the holiest camp - the Camp of the Divine Presence, otherwise known as the courtyard of the Tabernacle - the portable Temple used in the desert. The law of sending the Təme'im, according to the Sages, said that a person with Tzara'at was sent out of all three camps; a Zav or Zavah was sent outside the Levite Camp but was allowed in the Israelite one; and Təmé Met was only sent outside of the Camp of the Divine Presence and wasn't allowed to enter it.

So, how does this apply today? Since, you know, we're no longer wondering the desert for about 3297 years, give or take. The answer is, the Sages also explained how the city of Jerusalem is divide to those three camps! The city itself, inside the walls (during the time the Sages said that, in the Roman era, nothing outside the walls was considered part of the city), is the Israelite Camp - thus, those who have Tzara'at are sent out. This illness isn't known nowadays, though - and no, it's not exactly leprosy - so it's not a problem. The Temple Mount is the Levite Camp, so if someone is a Zav or Zavah - they're not allowed in there according to the Halacha. And the Temple itself, along with its courtyard, is the Camp of the Divine Presence and Təmé Met is forbidden from getting there.

You'd think that would make things straight forward, right? Well, it doesn't. It's still complicated, mostly because the Temple hasn't been there for 1956 years, give or take. one who is Təmé Met is still not allowed to the grounds where it stood, though, and it not existing make it hard to judge where that is. The simple solution would be to get rid of the Tum'ah, right? But sadly, the ritual to get Tahor from human courpses isn't available to us right now. Unlike the one for Zav or Zavah, which is dipping in a Mikveh, then waiting till sunset (more or less, it's a little more complex). Thus, if we knew what area of the Temple Mount wasn't a part of the Temple complex - we could be allowed to get there, at least after making sure we're Tehorim. Before you ask what about someone who isn't Təmé Met - nowadays we assume everyone is, due to not having the way out of it, everyone being born in a hospital (where people sometimes die), and the fact most any Jew is required to become Təmé Met at some point in life. It's not for the purpose of being Tamé, it has to do with mourning.

So, if you are a random Jew nowadays and the political issues are magically avoided (which is not a possibility, but I already said I'm ignoring this angle for now), there are two major things you need to worry about: get yourself Tahor from being a Zav or Zavah, and not entering the area where the Temple complex was. The latter is the hardest of the two, really. I mean, theoretically one could hope to find the remains of the Jewish Second Temple, but besides being burned to the ground the area was plowed, had a Roman Temple built on top, then it fell into decay, and at somepoint the Muslim conquerors decided to build the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque. It's not very easy to find the remains of the Temple there.

Here's the thing, though: the Temple Mount as it stands right now? It's bigger than how it was in the early days of the 2nd Temple. That is due to Herod deciding one day to renovate the Temple. Say what you will of this guy, and there's a lot to say, but he was an expert when it came to architecture at the time. And he thought, 'hey, this mountain is kind of small. I want the Temple to be really big!' So he expanded the mountain, supporting his expansion with four walls. (That might be a good time to point out that the Temple Mount isn't that much of a mountain. It's kind of small.) One of those walls is the Western Wall or the Wailing Wall - a site that sometimes is called the holliest site to Judaism. That is an innacurate moniker - it's simply one of the closest places to the original Temple site. Either way, there is a general agreement that the areas Herod added to the Temple Mount aren't really considered a part of it and the original Temple definitely never stood on those. Thus, a Təmé Met is definitely allowed there. In addition, while there are many disagreements over the exact placement of the Temple, there are areas on the Temple Mount that definitely weren't inside the Temple complex. Nowadays, there are maps indicating where it is allowed to pass according to all of the different opinions.

So, with all that, why do people still say it's not allowed to climb to the Temple Mount? Well, obviously, it cold be due to the reasons I outright said in the begining I'm not discussing. Those are very relevant reasons and they have Halachic merit. I'm not touching them, though. So, are there any other reasons?

Well, it turns out there are. Firstly, not everyone trusts the mapping of the Temple Mount. Some people fear that these maps might be wrong, and accidentally lead someone to the worng places. In addition, some people think that if such pilgrimage will be allowed to occur en masse, many people will not care about the prohibitions and will come without dipping in a Mikveh first or will enter forbidden areas. People who use this latter reasoning may allow some specific knowledgeable people to climb, but will prefer keeping it quiet. Then there are people who use historical accounts of rabbis scolding people for climbing the Temple Mount, assuming that they had their reasoning outside of what I've laid before you.

So, to summarize: enterance to the Temple Mount is prohibited and only allowed under certain conditions. Those conditions could be met nowadays, probably, but many rabbis are unsure about how possible or desirable it is. In addition to that, the political climate of the Middle East and the Levant makes making such pilgrimage a politically charged action and can cause damage, which might also be problematic.

I'm not going to sum it up as "it's forbidden on Jews to climb the Temple Mount" because that's not an accurate statement. It's easy to make such blanket statements, sure, but I think accuracy is important - which is also why I don't say "it's allowed and desirable for Jews to climb the Temple Mount", because this statement isn't accurate either. As a matter of fact, there are occasions where it's directly undesirable according to the Halacha.

Thank you for reading this! Have a good day!

[is-the-fire-real]

'Reminder that "punch a nazi uwu" leftists utilize Nazi rhetoric to justify punching Jews.

It was never about punching Nazis; it was about getting social permission to punch.'

It was this very mentality that drove me away from considering myself a liberal anymore (I AM VERY MUCH LEFT LEANING, I DIDN'T DECIDE TO BECOME CONSERVATIVE JUST TO BE CLEAR. I just don't feel like those spaces have any intrinsic safety any longer). It feels like so much of western leftism has become about "punching up". I don't think it's about compassion or concern anymore, it's about finding the "right" targets. And so often that was just used as a way to excuse bigotry. I'm a goy but I noticed this on a personal level plenty with people identifying as feminists, they'd be perfectly okay saying something unquestionably sexist, as long as "white women" was attached onto the front. It's very much the same with shaming people over physical features that others may have, as long as the individual person is "bad enough" it doesn't matter if wide foreheads or big noses or acne are features many people have and would feel hurt by seeing them used as an insult, because they're only "really" directing it at "one of the bad ones"

So, I'm going to link to this piece again because it's been embarrassingly useful, and explains why I say things like "pretending to believe" despite their clunkiness. For new material, I hope you don't mind that you have accidentally triggered a massive unskippable cutscene, but you tapped into a few things I have been pondering and I'd like to take advantage of your observances to add my own.

Part of what you're discussing here, which I agree with, is that toxic slacktivists pretend to believe that they are Good People Doing Good Work. They are Bad People and their work is Bad Work, but if they all get in a group and pretend together that it's Good, then that's almost the same as being Good, right?

Another worthwhile aspect of what you're discussing is something I became aware of in the aftermath of the collapse of Occupy Wall Street. One commenter on a liberal blog I still follow lamented that mass protest never seems to accomplish anything, and how the millions of people who turned out for OWS protests should have affected more political change. Considering most of them could also vote, write to representatives, etc., something other than littering and arrests could've been done.

Another commenter pointed out that he had personally been at most of the anti-Iraq War protests, including the largest worldwide protest on 15 February 2003 (6-10 million estimated participants). But most of those protesters did not agree with each other. There were at least four major coalitions of antiwar protesters showing up then and thereafter. The ones he listed were:

"Just war" advocates who believed the Iraq War was unjust.

Total pacifists who believed all armed conflicts are unjust, and therefore the Iraq War is as well.

Right-wing bigots who believed a war might potentially benefit those they thought of as religiously or ethnically inferior and subhuman.

Xenophobes, both left- and right-wing, who believed "the US can't be the police of the world" and that any action taken outside USian borders was immoral.

Imagine four people with these beliefs in a room talking about the Iraq War... then bring up the war in Ukraine to them and see how fast the coalition falls apart.

"Well, the war for Ukrainian liberation is a just war," says the just-war advocate. The pacifist starts to scream "HOW COULD YOU DEFEND ANY ACTION THAT MIGHT LEAD TO CHILDREN DYING, YOU MONSTER!". The right-wing bigot says they support the war, too--on the side of the ethnically and religiously superior Russians. And then a left-wing xenophobe says we're wasting money that should be supporting American workers and uplifting Americans out of poverty instead of buying new bombs for Ukraine.

And your "antiwar" coalition collapses, with the pacifist wandering off to agree with the xenophobe while the just-war liberal and the right-wing bigot scream at each other pointlessly and without resolution.

This is one of the wisest breakdowns of human behavior I have ever discovered:

Any coalition of people is made up of many sub-coalitions who only temporarily agree on a single aspect of a single issue. Making sure the group does not collapse prematurely is the true, unsung labor of movement maintenance.

To be real, it's much easier to let one's coalition collapse and scream about how The Menz, or The CIA, or Greedy Capitalists, or The Jews artificially forced your group's collapse than it is to admit that one might just suck a big one at coalition building. This is especially true among leftists, who are sometimes anti-hierarchy and frequently fall for populist, anti-expert nonsense. Having a leader means you're suggesting someone should have authority, and a lot of leftists are allergic to that suggestion.

Moreover, though, a lot of "leftists" are "leftists" but only agree with one or two aspects of leftism.

To use your feminism example: I have absolutely seen feminists who think they can be misogynists so long as they say "white" before they say "woman". I mean, who can even argue? I have also seen feminists who think they can be gender bioessentialists so long as they're doing it towards "men" (a category which includes a lot of people who neither look like men, nor live as men, nor benefit from male privilege). I have seen feminists who think they can call themselves "trans allies" while consistently ignoring, degrading, and dismissing the concerns of anyone who isn't a binary trans woman. Etc.

The thing is, they are all feminists. What makes someone a feminist, at bottom, is the acceptance of and opposition to patriarchy. That's it. It's similar to how what makes a person a Protestant Christian is the acceptance of Jesus as their Lord and Savior--you might need to do one or two things to be considered a part of a specific branch of Christianity, but all you need is that one specific belief about that one specific idea. There's a lot of bunk about how "you can't be a REAL Christian unless you do X" just like there's bunk about how "you can't be a REAL feminist unless you do Y", and it's all bunk.

There are people who might be really bad feminists or Christians, but that's not the same as not being feminists or Christians.

So, the coalition of leftism has several sub-coalitions who actually despise each other. Here is my proposal for the sub-coalitions. (Please keep in mind that I am not defining groups by how they define themselves, but by the far more useful metric of their actions.)

Liberals who agree with leftist economic thought, but strongly disagree with leftist conclusions regarding violent revolution. Liberals do not have time for online arguments and superficial action. They are generally participating in protests, running for office, writing postcards to advocate for candidates, informing voters, and working within the system for positive change that alleviates suffering. They are pro-expert but opposed to a vanguard party due to its inherent authoritarianism.

Tankies, whose primary interest in leftism is authoritarian. They oppose capitalism and support violent revolution because they imagine themselves as the vanguard party who gets to control everything when the revolution comes.

Anarchists, whose primary interest is opposing hierarchy. They want to burn down the system because it is a system, and frequently become angry and defensive if you try to ask them any questions about what would be built out of the ashes.

Progressives, whose primary interest is opposing liberals. They also oppose capitalism; they are, like tankies, positioning themselves as the vanguard party because they are already in political power. What makes them Not Tankies is that they care more about sticking it to "the Dems" than they do about actually being the vanguard, opposing capitalism, or achieving anything of worth or meaning politically.

"Red fash", who used to be called "beefsteak Nazis". They say all the right things regarding violent revolution and economics/capitalism, but they only believe what they believe for the sake of their specific ethnic group and nation (frequently, white and USian, but this is extremely popular in Europe too). IOW a red fash wants the vanguard party to only have whites of a specific ethnicity in control of the revolution; they only want universal health care for "their" people, that sort of thing. Some red fash are actual Nazis cosplaying as leftists, but some are just really, really, REALLY bigoted leftists.

Whether we like it or note, the acceptance of armed, violent revolution as a Good Thing means that leftism has always regarded punching up and violence as a necessary component of leftist thought. This is not a perversion of Real Leftism. This is leftism. If you think revolution is good and necessary instead of a terrifying possibility, then you also think punching up is okay; it's just a matter of who is Up and who gets to punch.

Of the five sub-coalitions I described, only one has rejected violent revolution--and it's the one all the other leftists accuse of being right-wing. And interestingly enough, only liberals are habitually accused of secretly colluding with the right... when red fash are natural allies to the right, and when all other forms of leftists openly ally with right-wingers so long as they say the right things about economics. (See under: "After Hitler, us" leftists, left-wing Trumpistas who think they'll rule the ashes after Trump burns down the current system.)

And if you believe in violent revolution, then (let me be facetious for a second) what's the problem with making fun of your political enemies for being ugly? If we believe Steve Bannon is a Nazi, aren't we obligated to stop him by any means necessary, and doesn't that include mocking him for his alcoholism? Isn't mocking someone for their appearance and intrinsic characteristics mild compared to, say, threatening them with exploding cars covered with hammers? Or retweeting pictures of pitchforks and guillotines?

If we believe Ben Shapiro is an opponent to the revolution we accept is necessary and vital to the movement, then what's a little antisemitism in the name of the people? Don't we have to be bigots to oppose bigots? And--

--oh. There's that horseshoe bending round to the right again.

[dayvan]

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a bug fan of Isreal and the Jewish people, (Their hypocrisy is revolting) but when I research and find the Hamas statement so intent on killing jews, not just retaking their land but focusing on killing jews specifically.

"Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." (Article 7)

(Taken directly from the Hamas covenant https://embassies.gov.il/holysee/AboutIsrael/the-middle-east/Pages/The%20Hamas-Covenant.aspx)

I dont care too much, so support who you want to support, I still like your content regardless of political opinions. They only show you the best of themselves and the worst of their enemies doesn't matter what side you are on. Stay safe and keep love in your heart.

nobody is "showing me the best of themselves", do you think hamas wants to convince me in particular that they're the good guys? they don't give a fuck what we think all the way over here. they don't even have internet access to check my blog.

when you see my unwavering support for palestinians and think i endorse hamas, you're making assumptions about me based on a very black-and-white perception of this conflict. yes hamas is bad. but people online shouldn't have to preface every single word of support for palestinian resistance with "hamas bad", especially when hamas is only the biggest political party in Palestine because Israel thwarted any secular opposition in order to fuel the fire for a religious war to use as an excuse for territory annexation.

thank you for not coming out of the gate with insults like the last anon and i hope i've shown you my perspective well. basically: hamas is an extreme islamist group, and i'm not going to fuck with any extreme religious group.

but the palestinian people should not have to answer in blood for the lashing out of a cornered extremist group, and realistically they were never given the option to pick any other party to give them hope of revolution [even setting undeniable israeli interference aside, the majority of palestinians today weren't of voting age when Hamas came into power. reminder that the median age of Palestinians is 19.6 years as of 2023.]

unlike israelis, palestinians do not have the choice to just leave and decide to not support thteir government. this is all they have. i can't stress enough how desperate these people are for a semblance of stability, and stability has eluded them for decades because of Israeli occupation. unless the international community is pressured into intervening, hamas is ALL they are going to have.

[writteninlunarlight-years]

Hello! If you're still doing them, could I please get a Baldur's Gate 3 matchup? I'm bedridden right now from joint pain and need a pick-me-up, but if they're closed feel free to ignore this.

Gender: Genderfluid, but leans towards feminine

Pronouns: Any, but I tend to use she/her because it's honestly just more convenient

Sexuality: Any gender is fine. I might slightly prefer a man but if you think a girl would fit better don't let that stop you ☺️

Appearance: I am a 4’ 10” (147 cm) tall fem-aligned person with long wavy auburn hair, glasses and a fashion sense that varies widely from masc to fem. I'm almost never seen without my compression braces on because I have pretty terrible joint pain, so I've got compression socks, knee braces, shorts for hip pain, gloves for finger joint pain and am generally carrying quite a lot of medical equipment on me at all times lol. That being said, I try to work out when I can so I am getting pretty muscular and enjoy impressing people with my muscles because nobody really expects it.

MBTI: INFJ-T

Personality: I'm a very kind, friendly person but I still have a bit of fiery energy. I'm very passionate and will stand up and verbally smackdown anyone if I feel it's deserved, though generally I'm quite polite. I know tons of random trivia because I research and take notes obsessively. I have autism so the main way I communicate is by infodumping, and I can get easily thrown off in conversation when someone says something I don't expect. I love debating people respectfully, but I really do try to be very nice and as helpful as I possibly can be. I also kind of struggle to ask for help when I need it because I get embarrassed. Plus I am a very stubborn person in general. But most of all I'm very dedicated to self improvement and always strive to be a better version of myself.

Likes: Books and researching, Plants, Witchcraft and occultism, Mythology and religious studies, Linguistics, Exercising and working out and especially Science in general

Dislikes: My chronic illnesses, Heights, Being teased or made fun of (I make a point of not doing this to others either and even when debating I never go for personal jabs), People who are obviously misinformed but refuse to change, Rude and toxic people (If you're going to waste my time being a jerk you're not worth my time at all)

Extra Fun Fact: I currently work at a library and am hoping to become both a researcher and spirit medium

Race: Given my height, probably a halfling or dwarf of some kind

Class: Probably a Paladin or Cleric, maybe with a Wizard multiclass because I'm such a nerd lol

D&D Alignment: Neutral Good. I'm committed to doing good but not too strictly. Basically the “Yeah, but it would be funny” type of morality

Thanks so so much, I hope you have a fantastic day! Take care of yourself!

I hope this helps you feel better! I wish you nothing but a speedy healing process. You seem like a fantastic person. Thank you for letting me write to you!

~~~~~ MATCHUPS ~~~~~

BG3

Wyll Ravengaurd

~~~~~ HEADCANONS ~~~~~

Wyll is a gentleman with you, always seeking to get to know you and respect the newfound leader.

He was a lone wolf for so long that now, having a crew of friends and someone he holds near and dear is a fresh summer's breath for him.

He is afraid of Mizora, though. Not that she would hurt him; she wouldn't get anything out of that. He fears the restrictions, rules, and stipulations she would put on him if he sought you out.

Due to this, Wyll tried so hard to keep you at arm's length, only letting you know small fragments of him.

When Mizor made her debut, he felt better about his chances with you. He knew having someone as kind, understanding, and warm as you by his side was just what he needed.

Wyll courted you properly, asking if you would like to explore romance with him, go on small dates, and even take a dance lesson here and there.

No matter how badly he wanted to kiss you, though, he kept refraining until you asked him.

Once you two were past courting and officially together, he made it a point to get explicit permission from Mizora to tell you about Avernus and the Demons who inhabited the other planes.

He may have had to do a shady thing or two to earn this privilege, but it was worth seeing your eyes light up when sharing this limited knowledge.

When freed of the illithid, he would happily give up galivanting across the sword coast to settle down with you. He would only leave because Mizora asked him for assistance.

Wyll watched you flourish as a shopkeeper for books and magical resources, things only your humble shop could attain because of Wyll's Connections and adventures.

If you ever had a tough day or became bedridden, Wyll would drop everything to assist you. He would be your personal nurse. He'd even call Halsin or Shadowheart to help if he was worried about his lack of skill.

~~~~~ BLURB ~~~~~

It was a cold day in Faerun; snow had just coated the land and would soon fall again. You were seated in the foyer of your new home, watching the outdoors grow colder. You, however, were quite warm. A hand-knitted blanket was wrapped around you, and a warm fur pelt Mizora gifted you adorned your shoulders. Wyll was by the fire, tending to it. Today was tough for your body; everything was sore and hurting. Wyll did everything he could to help, even utilizing the books and notes Shadowheart and Halsin left for him.

As soon as the warmth was at its peak in the home, Wyll kissed you atop your head and made his way to the kitchen. He would prepare a meal for you two and ensure you had some sustenance. While still staring out at the beautiful white blanket of snow, the thought occurred to you that you were the fearless leader of the band that killed the neatherbrain. The illithid gave you an extraordinary gift of no more pain for the price of being turned. To think you almost took that risk but instead knew your humanity was far more a gift. Plus, you would have lost all the amazing friends you made.

Now, by your partner's side, you were even more confident in your choices because you wouldn't have him. Wyll returned some food and assisted you when you needed it. Once satisfied, you two decide some more rest would do you both well. Wyll had just returned a day or two ago from a grueling task from Mizora. Wyll gently picked you up and walked you back to your room. He knew just as well as you that you could take care of yourself, as you have done this time and time before, but his help was always so warm and appreciated. Once in bed, Wyll curled in behind you, holding you close. With one final kiss on your head, you both fell into a simple slumber. You might feel well enough to build a snowman when you wake.

~~~~~ EXTRA ~~~~~

(Just after the freedom of the shadow fell, your group was looking over the security tower at the beginnings of Baldur's Gate. Taking camp before continuing on to your final destination.)

Y/N: Wyll, look at this someone left an enchanted Rapier!

Astarion: ooooh, and quite the liquor selection.

Shadowheart: Please share that with the rest of us.

Wyll: Why don't you all head to the fire and celebrate our accomplishments? Heard Gale cooked quite the feast.

(You walked up to Wyll and leaned your head on his shoulder)

Y/N: What do you think will come of us?

Wyll: Whatever you desire, my love, whatever you desire.

[miniar]

"No politics." and "No religion." rules are Massive Red Flags.

These rules are common in a lot of places that are intended for discussing specific things like your personal disability and relationship to it, or your personal queerness and your relationship to it, or your hobby, be it trains or cross-stitching, and more often than not, this rule creates an unsafe environment for marginalized peoples.

These rules are especially common on US based forums and chat servers, but they're found all over the world.

The problem with these rules should be obvious, but in case you've missed it; Everything is Politics.

Everything in your life is affected by how your country and the world around you are governed. From the price of your tap water to whether or not your postal service works. From whether something is purchasable locally to if it can even be imported or not. From whether you've got a safe place to live to whether or not you can legally drive your car.

Every single moment of every single day of your life is affected by the rules and regulations that exist around you. The fact that you can read this right now is because I live somewhere where my access to the internet and freedom of speech allow me to write this, and where you either have access and freedom to read, or you've found a workaround that lets you get away with accessing and reading what your government has forbidden.

EVERYTHING! Every Damned Thing is affected directly and indirectly at all times by politics.

And everything you do and say anywhere outside of your own personal bubble where not a single soul can hear you is both political and shaped by your politics.

It can be so minuscule and so mundane and normal that it's effectively irrelevant, but every last one of you has some idea, vague as it may be, of what kind of world you long to live in. And not only that, every last one of you, even if that too may seem vague and mundane, is shaped to some degree by the world you Do live in.

Religion, for better or worse (mostly the latter in most cases), is intricately interwoven into the world in much the same way. Even heathens like me are prone to exclaim "Jesus Christ!" or "God Damn It!" when the occasion calls for shouting expletives and throwing your hands up in frustration.

Much of western European and US culture is so steeped in cultural christianity that people treat the idea of going to church for a concert as an entirely secular and non-religious thing, even when that concert is a team of church choirs singing songs from Jesus Christ Superstar to mention a real life example.

So when these rules are set and implemented, they don't actually mean what they say on the packaging, and they're consistently enforced in a way that is based in conflict avoidance first and foremost.

And here's the thing that happens, and while exceptions may exist I have never seen one: - Someone makes a post or writes a comment or shares an image that contains dogwhistles or other forms of fascist propaganda, without using the words that people associate with specific political parties. - Someone else, often times the very target of the fascism in question or at the least a semi-aware ally, responds by calling out the problem with the post or comment or image, calling it out by name. - The rule of no-politics is invoked and the person responding is scolded for either making it political, or failing to keep their criticism of the politics a private matter with either the fascist or the mods.

That's the sequence of events I've watched unfold, and been a part of, too many times to count, and the results are a testing ground for dogwhistles where a fascist feels welcome and protected.

Their politics are never challenged because you're not allowed to talk politics.

They get to feed you tropes and dogwhistles all day long, as long as they don't say the quiet part out loud, and if anyone challenges them, the mods and rules are used in their favor.

Any environment that tells me "No Politics!" and/or "No Religion!" is an environment that tells me that this is a place where I'm forbidden from speaking up for myself when the fascist start implying, polite as can be, that perhaps the world would be better of if people like me were simply not allowed to exist.

Or at the absolutely very least, it tells me this is a place run by people who have forgotten that they live in a world and that pretending otherwise won't make that a political fact.

[abiiors]

what are your opinions on the article that just came out?

hi darling! thanks for asking <3

okay so i read the article twice because i actually wanted to talk about it in detail. and i still feel a bit all over the place about it (i think no matter how much i edit this, i'm never going to feel like i'm being articulate so i'm going to just let it be)

as far as answering the question goes---who is matty healy?---i do think it does a wonderful, albeit predictable job. fans who have known him and followed him for ages, and watched him go through all his phases---his "eras"---won't be much surprised by what the article reveals about his character. but i do think it does a wonderful job of portraying him as a simple, ordinary man (and i mean that in the best way possible)

his music and stage presence and political views aside, i think as a person he is very much like someone any of us would know irl. he cares too much but doesn't want to show that he does. he is vulnerable one moment and then makes a joke to clear the air. he's curious, sometimes about the wrong things ("he told me that he became a fan [of the podcast] in part because he was attracted to differences in opinion, and also to one of the hosts, whom he described as “really sexy.”"). and yes, he definitely isn't a fan of the fame; he has made that much very clear over the years. (although i do think he indulges in it sometimes as a form of self-flagellation (ha! ironic of me to use a religious term for it))

onto this bit that i literally just made fun of:

no, i think he is objectively wrong here and for that I'm going to reference the caitlin moran times interview where her daughters are quoted saying "he looked bare ill and sad" (sadly don't have access to it anymore, it's behind a paywall). point is - his fans have shown him time and time again that they care, more than just the surface level. more than just shouting "fuck me!!" in his face.

2. i'm not going to rehash the podcast and the porn stuff. i think we've had several discussions on it already but i am quite happy that the article didn't just gloss it over.

3. i really want to mention some bits i found very sweet or even at times, bittersweet -

-----

(he refers to george ^)

-------

-------

(ross has a niece 🥹💕)

-----

4. and onto a lighter note, this bit that i found genuinely fucking hilarious!

5. and finally, regarding the taylor swift rumours. i love the final note of ambiguity. and i respect it very much.

that's that i think, if i think of more (and i most probably will), i'll make more posts <3

[mercurytrinemoon]

Ok, I logged off, switched to my old account and scrolled through the blog that blocked me to see why was I blocked. I didn't find out but I saw this:

(posting a screenshot cause obviously I can't reblog an account that blocked me. I'm about to be as nice and constructive as possible. I really like starastrologyy's points and examples and how they put it but some here are clearly too ignorant to understand eloquent takes)

The pretentious and dismissive tone while being clearly misinformed is not it for me so I'm gonna use this opportunity to remind everyone that, if you're studying astrology:

you learn to understand that astrology has its seeds in, wait for it... divination and predicting nation-wide events and politics (used mostly for royals) through literal observations of astronomical phenomena. Without that you probably wouldn't even have natal astrology

therefore you do NOT act conceited and disregard the basis and half of the astrological practice that predictive techniques are

you do NOT undermine other people's beliefs about fatedness of their lives as the topic of fate has been strongly intertwined with the practice of astrology since its beginnings

in turn you pick up a book and learn the history and tradition of astrology because some of you are clearly lacking that knowledge yet you act like a total know-it-alls and the ultimate astrology gurus

also, a general life rule, if you don't understand and/or don't have the knowledge on something, simply don't speak on it and certainly do not act arrogant about it

If you so angrily stand for free will and nothing else then that just shows your hyperfixation over some inner insecurity that you have. You're in no position to criticize that some believe in fate and predeterminism. Do you also want to question the whole philosophical movement that stoicism is? Because that was strongly linked with astrology. Maybe some do prefer to lean slightly into that? That no matter what you do, you'll still end up in the spot you're supposed to end up in? That takes away so much anxiety and pressure - to just let go and surrender to what destiny has in store for you.

If you're not interested in predictive techniques for one reason or another, that's fine but saying that it's all bs and astrology has no impact on worldly events just shows your lack of knowledge and lack of respect not only for the astrological craft itself but also the incredible work of people like Richard Tarnas or for astrologers who do have the skills to predict very specific events.

What you CAN argue about is if the stars are causes or signs of events (which, most astrologers would agree that planets act like markers, rather than a literal provokers, but there are those who go with the causal notion and that's totally fine), you CAN even debate on the spectrum of determinism - both were the topic of discussions since the ancient times. But to disregard it completely? If you so religiously believe in free will ONLY then good for you, although I don't really know what you're then doing studying astrology if you're basically calling things coincidental or doing "pick and choose". If so, maybe just call the whole astrology coincidental as well.

Just to bring in a good quote on what astrology was always about:

"Astrology became known as a system, if not the system, that could be used in order to study one's fate. The astrologers themselves were clear that this was what they were doing with astrology. For example, Manilius speaks of our ability to use astrology to 'learn the laws of fate', while Firmicus constantly uses different variations of a phrase in order to say that the role of the astrologer, or the role of astrology, is 'studying the fate of men' or 'explaining the fates of men'. Valens once refers to astrologers as 'soldiers of fate', and elsewhere says that a good astrologer is 'a guide to life, a good advisor and an unerring prophet of fate.'" - Hellenistic Astrology: the study of fate and fortune, Chris Brennan

[86stagram]

🙋‍♀️Good evening!🗾🌃Ham's servant here~ I'd be great if you'd know about Japan! I'm enjoying my Obon(or Bon)*1 holidays! However, oh I feel a bit blue because today is last day hehe...😂

Natsuyasumi marutto tanoshimu keikaku has adopted the moves of Bon-odori partly. It's a style of dancing performed during Obon(this time of year). I enjoyed to making people in Happy happi coord's OCs dance to that song back in the good old days of about 2017-2018. (*This is not my work*)

This happi definitely have the memorable charm to me but I'm unhappy because we can't use in adpara...🐹💦 and, this hair accessory they accessorize in pripara is different from real in Japan. We wrap and bind string(we call it "hachimaki") around forehead🎀

The origins of Bon-odori and Obon are unknown. But Bon-odori is secular though influenced and mixed together by Buddhism and Shintoism and has made for all to enjoyment!💃ヾ(´Y｀)ノ"🕺

Well, I don't want you to feel weird, but it's mean to be enjoyed and has very little religious mean. This dance has nothing to do with constraints. That's just feel to near to us, such as Pripara too haha. (😏???)

During Obon is the time when Japanese people believe ancestors spirits visit the living world and where we pray for the repose of the souls of ancestors. Oh, I'm here today thanks to ancestors.  I dunno but think the heaven looks like keeping cool and pleasant. So please spirits, I think it's better not to come here because summer in Japan is little too muggy well right now haha.

If you want visit to Japan in order to see Dai Pripara ten, I recommend to come on about autumn. Ah of couse, if you have a more purpose of the trip is to the new movie of KinPri, I can't stop you! haha

Believe it or not, when the humidity's really high and like cling me, it's such as in banya(the Russian steam bath - extremely humid)!! Additionally, no matter where we go during now, it's very crowded until sometime around the end of this month 25th because children have a summer holiday.

The Obon holidays are in the middle of August in Japan. It depends on the year, but in the case of this year from August 13-16 and working adult can take at about 3-7 days off straight. I can only send my thoughts for ancestors from distance my home because my rule is to only not go to trips since the Covid-19 started to spread.

I'm not sure if I can writing it clearly, but Japanese people are not scary!🤗 umm, Do you think about Japanese people don't follow a religion? haha, but that's is not accurate. I need to clear up any common misconception haha! If we pray at the shrine, then we are not atheist, aren't you? ummm... For example, a lot of Japanese will end up unintentionally working too much and some people said "We can take off from work if we only under the pretext of go to put one's hands together in front of a grave".  However, when I live in Japan, I think a bit there are many customs that are merely a formality but Japanese people can't be say as atheist because they pray to the all nature itself🌺☘🌾🥂🍊🍆🍅🍙

I'm tired from written in English, hehe... Thank you for following and goodnight!🙋‍♀️💤💤💤🐹🌟 *1 Adding "O" (or "Go")at the beginning makes sound more polite in Japan but not all words feel this way.

Placing an unrelated pic for here thumbnail, because why not? hehe

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

I really, really wish everyone on the right would stop pretending certain people are awesome and on our side and everything they've ever done has been good actually just because they do one or two things that are pretty cool now.

This is mostly about Tulsi Gabbard, who despite being pro-government healthcare, pro-DACA, pro-Green New Deal, and pro-gun control, among other positions we wouldn't accept from people who have actually run as Republicans, is being turned into some kind of populist right wing hero just because she calls out the extreme left sometimes and left the Democrat party.

But it's also about Mel Gibson, who is apparently part of a group that stops human trafficking (which is good, if true), which means some people are now trying to pretend he's been using his movies and his public statements to expose truths and fight for freedoms forever, when mostly he's just been going on drunken anti-semitic rants.

It also applies to a lesser degree to people like James Gunn, who has about 30 tweets joking about being a pedophile but because he calls out cancel culture after being fired for five minutes because of those tweets he's suddenly based. Or Chris Pratt*, who has never publicly spoken about his political beliefs on anything, but because he's publicly religious and didn't want to film a campaign ad for Biden, we assume he's a secret right wing Hollywood guy and it's "safe" to watch his movies.

I'm not saying we shouldn't admire or respect someone for doing a good deed or supporting a righteous cause. Far from it. One of my other problems with the right is, paradoxically, how they'll sometimes cast someone who is right 99% of the time away like they're stale bathwater because they did something we don't agree with once. That kind of attitude doesn't win anyone over to our side. But that's also my point. We're way more willing to put horribly imperfect leftists (or potential leftists) on a pedestal just because they're on "our side" once or twice, while we demand ideological perfection from anyone we already think is with us at all times. Keep perspective. I know Trump worked out really well for us, but populism and populist euphoria, while at least somewhat necessary to politics these days, is a dangerous thing to indulge in too much. It's how you end up with cults of personality around people who end up destroying movements.

*So Chris Pratt doesn't really fit into the theme of this post, but I wanted to put him here anyway because it startled me how quickly people went from "He's just another Marvelshit actor" to "OMG he's just like us!" It's disturbing because, A, we don't know what his beliefs are and it's weird to assign him ours just because we like one thing he was public about, and B, because it shouldn't matter what his beliefs are. We rightfully disdain Hollywood and the culture it breeds and the people who thrive in that culture, but the moment a Hollywood lifer says something that even remotely sounds like they might not be left of Stalin we freak out and start acting like twitter stans? Come on, guys. Don't worship celebrity. And don't be so quick to assign virtue to people who have never publicly shown it. Someone at Chris Pratt's level, if he is truly "on our side", should be using their money and influence to do something about it besides going to church and mentioning God every so often. If someone from Hollywood shows up publicly at the March For Life, or publicly donates to a reputable pro-2A advocacy group, or does something like pay the legal bills of the Jan 6 political prisoners, that's who I'll respect and praise. But just not publicly being a raging leftist shouldn't be enough to get us creaming in our pants.