I say this without any moral judgement, I wouldn't be pirating if amazon/B&N would just let me export my fucking books.
Like.
I'd MUCH rather just go through the process of hitting "select all/x amount to download onto PC" then having to re-search EVERY SINGLE BOOK /I'VE ALREADY PAID FOR/!
And you might be thinking "well then kodie, why don't you just pirate from now on?"
And my response to that is: I like giving artists (i.e writers) my money.
Like. Like I will literally make myself broke giving artists my money for the sake of art. I don't even care if it's bad art. When I want something for free, I will go to the library, so long as the ebook isn't one of those "everyones waiting for this book so you only have 7 days to read it" situations because lord howdy Idc how much I like a book, unless it's a VERY short book, I'm not getting through it in a week.
It's just so frustrating. Because the reason I want to back up my books is because, at least amazon has done this, I don't want to wake up one day and find out the app holders no longer have the license to carry my books, and then that book isn't available for me to read anymore! If I own the fucking book, then I should OWN the book! I should be able to make a copy on to my computer, to whatever I want with. I should be able to share it with my friends as I please, without having to log them into my kindle/nook accounts. I should be able to make harddrives full of books and be able to create my own digital library! /Because I paid to own these books/! And if that's not the fucking case, which it doesn't feel like because I CAN'T DO WHAT I WANT WITH /MY FUCKING BOOKS/, then you should be charging me less.
I will keep buying copies of books, but I will absolutely be pirating what I can and saving them for my digital library.
Fuck you Amazon and Barnes and Noble.
Edit: and before anyone says anything, I buy an ebook version for myself and a physical version to donate to local psych wards for the patients to be able to read. I think that's more than fair compensation for having a free digital copy.
0 notes
"Bo-Katan isn't mean"
Okay because I'm so tired of hearing this:
[/mēn/] adjective: unkind, spiteful, or unfair. vicious or aggressive in behaviour.
Not mean?
Okay definitely not vicious or aggressive in behavior
Like her first appearance where she's part of Death Watch, a terrorist group and slaps Ahsoka's ass without consent to demean her?
Or when she shoves Ahsoka to the ground and *laughs* in a tent where Death Watch (including Bo-Katan) has stolen women from the local village on Carlac and put them into forced servitude?
OR when she helps slaughter the village and burn down said village for asking Death Watch to leave them alone? (that's her on top of the roof)?
Or after when she tried to kill Ahsoka and Lux for trying to help the villagers and leave?
Or when she aided in a plot to cause intentional destruction and fear to manipulate the people of Mandalore into deposing her own sister and overturn Satine's very successful government that ended the clan wars (the Traditionalists then were given the lush moon of Concordia and their own political agency and government in which Pre Vizsla was the governor)? Then forcefully deposed Satine at gunpoint after she had abdicated because of the will of the people who no longer accepted her rule due to the manipulation of public perception by Death Watch.
While Bo-Katan was likely traumatized by the Mandalorian Civil War/Clan Wars at a young age and there's no solid canon evidence but It's widely believed by fans that Bo-Katan was groomed and/or radicalized by Pre into DW from a young age--even if you believe this, IT DOES NOT EXCUSE HER HORRIFIC ACTIONS. None of it justifies her wrongdoing. She still had agency.
Okay so what about unkind or unfair?
Surely that can't apply to her sarcastic comment to Ahsoka when approaching her after she had watched her struggle on Kessel and made no move to assister her, only watching her to use her to fight back against Maul and reclaim Mandalore. While she does respect and befriend Ahsoka by the end of the Siege, she still initially saw her as someone to be used for her agenda.
Or when she uses Obi-Wan's guilt over his relationship with Satine to convince him to aid her forces in retaking Mandalore, which Republic intervention would disintegrate treaties over a hundred years old and start another war on top of the ongoing Clone Wars. Which to her was a legitimate, even desperate method to reclaim her planet from Maul who was only serving his own agenda, but it wasn't a very nice way to do it. In some ways Bo-Katan is justified in how she is mean, but it doesn't make her not mean.
Then there's her anger towards Sabine after she discovering what the Duchess does and that Sabine created it (after hearing how guilt ridden she is and how she already destroyed it.) Was her anger valid, oh yeah. Was it kind and and fair? No.
What about in The Mandalorian you ask? She's not a literal terrorist anymore in the Mandalorian.
She's surely not still spiteful or unkind.
Definitely not when she insulted Din's religious beliefs and way of life and called the COTW a cult.
Or when she took credit for killing that one guy's brother without any remorse.
Or when she changed the terms of her agreement with Din and forced him into helping her by withholding the agreed upon information after Din upheld his side of the deal. Which was her plan all along. And then on top of that, mocks him by using his own mantra.
And then there's the disdainful opinion she has of Din and her own superiority.
Only agreeing to help Din save his kid when he has something to offer her to serve her own agenda. Which again, valid but not something she does out of the kindness of her heart.
Oh and then she's so direct and straightforward to Boba, not mean at all.
Then in season 3 when Din shows up to help her reclaim Mandalore the first thing she does is take out her anger on him and once again insult his religion/COTW and invalidate his belief that the Mines will restore his place in his religion. All unnecessary.
TO BE EXTREMELY CLEAR: I'm not discrediting Bo-Katan's personal progress into a better person or when she does do good--a hero even by the end of Mando season 3--that's the whole point of a redemption arc, you have to be redeemed from something. And at her core is a commitment to Mandalore, but you can't ignore the cruelty and ego and dare I say it meanness that has gone with it, that's the beauty of her complexity is that she can be a character that grows and evolves and becomes honorable and also still be bitchy. Bo-Katan doesn't have to be morally squeaky clean or a victim to enjoy her character and her sometimes ruthless determination for Mandalore or appreciate her compassionate aspects and letting go of her ego. She's not an easily consumable or morally black and white character. This is in fact, what I love about her.
Thank you @armoralor for assistance with the screenshots from The Mandalorian!
394 notes
·
View notes
by Rachel O'Donoghue
he coverage from several leading news organizations of Sunday’s escalation exemplified how omitting a single crucial detail can distort the entire narrative.
The New York Times ran an early headline stating: “Israel strikes Hezbollah in Lebanon, which fires rockets at Israel.” The missing word? Preemptively. Israel preemptively struck launching sites being prepared for an imminent attack just hours later.
The headline’s implication was undoubtedly deliberate—NYT presented a skewed image of an aggressive Israel, seemingly provoking a broader regional conflict by needlessly attacking Hezbollah.
This narrative was echoed by the Los Angeles Times and CBS News, with the former downplaying Hezbollah’s drone and rocket strikes, while the latter went as far as to suggest Israel might have both ignited a wider conflict and hindered ceasefire negotiations.
In one of the more hyperbolic and misleading headlines, the Daily Mail claimed the Middle East conflict had “explod[ed]” as Israel bombed Lebanon and Hezbollah fired “150 rockets towards the Iron Dome.”
One doesn’t need to be a munitions expert to know that Hezbollah doesn’t aim at the very missile interceptors designed to neutralize its rockets.
72 notes
·
View notes