just to be completely clear, the amount of military power and political influence Israel has has NOTHING to do with its settlers being Jewish. Israel is a force for American & European interests in the region and they're just doing what America does and allows/encourages its close allies to do.
war crimes aren't considered war crimes when someone America finds useful is doing them. european and american pushback against anyone criticizing Israeli apartheid & genocide is 100% because these crimes are useful to American & European hegemony.
Governments that are deeply antisemitic, like France, aren't suddenly caring about Jewish people. Jewish people, persecuted the world over, don't hold some kind of hegemonic power outside of Israel.
The state of Israel and its attendant brutal treatment of the locals are both incredibly useful to the US, and American hegemony means we're expected to celebrate both.
not bc they're Jewish. this isn't a break in the pattern of western antisemitism and it's not evidence that antisemitism doesn't exist.
it's just like how you could get fired for saying shit against the US war in Afghanistan when i was growing up. it is 100% about US military and political interests (ok slightly western europe too but lbr)
13K notes
·
View notes
It’s not hard to think of human beings as overwhelmed. It’s not difficult to think of our design as compromised.
Call it what you will. Call it design. Call it optimization.
To my way of thinking, there are so, so many people experiencing events, circumstances, and plot twists they simply cannot handle successfully and sustainably. They're not optimized for life that's thrust on them and so, predictably, they fail in a multitude of ways. Their biological systems, their neurological systems, are not. Meant. For this.
Whatever "this" is.
"This", by the way, can be anything. "This" can be more than one thing. It can be more than one thing happening sequentially or simultaneously. Because there are many, many ways of overwhelming human biological and neurological systems.
When I made this video for the then newly released song "Crying for a Christmas", I wasn't thinking about PTSD, Complex PTSD, Acute Stress Disorder, Depression, Anxiety, and so on. I was thinking about disaster. I wasn't thinking about aftermath. I was thinking about traumatic events, moments of extreme pain and anguish. Not the resulting and relentless trauma.
I was thinking about a terrible moment in time. Not Time itself.
In my rush of creative inspiration, I didn't stop to consider how human pain, human trauma, radiates through time like an explosion, propagating physical and mental debris through an ever expanding field. Propagating plenty of collateral damage whilst doing so. Which is why, I suspect, several friends of mine who are therapists, are focused on pain, focused on trauma no matter how far back it goes. Because they have no interest in playing mental health Whack-A-Mole. They're after root causes. They're seeking the genesis of pain and trauma propagating through time and space and other people... because that's the only way to manifest healing.
One more time:
That's the only way.
To manifest healing.
This video, then, is not only what I intended it to be... you're also looking at the genesis of traumas to everyone who experienced these catastrophes, these evils.
And chances are... for many, for most even, these are not the only traumas in their lives. And their experiences of trauma are creating an ever widening space between what their lives are and what their biologies and neurologies require. It's a space in which consequences fill that available space. And if more space is created, those consequences expand to fill it.
And so on.
The tell-tale sign of a system that’s compromised, overwhelmed in some way, is that the system suddenly acts in random, unpredictable ways. The system loses its ability to fulfill its design intent.
Think of an operating system that’s been compromised by a virus. Or a computer overheating from a busted fan. Nothing works the way it’s supposed to.
Nothing works.
The way it’s supposed to.
And so it is with you ‘n me.
It’s an important idea to remember. It has all kinds of implications. Certainly it’s a reality that cries out for healing across a dizzying array of human beings in every avenue of life.
So.
Is Christmas really the time to be thinking about this?
Yes.
Yes because the Christmas season isn’t immune to human pain and trauma. It is not that kind of no-fly zone. And, in many ways, we are exquisitely aware of the season as it’s supposed to be... versus the reality we’re living.
And the space between those two poles?
It’s where a lot of things go wrong.
So yeah. It’s important to be paying attention even in this season of Peace, Love, and Joy. After all, Peace, Love, and Joy aren’t bestowed on us just as soon as we hit December 1st. They’re the manifestation of what’s going on inside us.
And it’s important to know with whom that Peace, Love, and Joy...
Needs to be shared.
Because open hands and open hearts.
You know?
🙂
0 notes
Rhaenyra being forced at nineteen (when most noble born women are betrothed when they’re children and married sometimes before their sixteen to men twice their age) to marry (after being allowed to tour the seven kingdoms to find a husband of her choosing) isn’t sexist. Heirs both female and male have to have a heir to continue the line. Politically marrying Laenor Velaryon is a smart move but Rhaenyra was only forced to marry Laenor because of her inability to choose one on her tour and the fact that she was seen in wh*re house allegedly having sex with not only her Uncle but with Daemon. I understand Rhaenyra’s reasons for not wanting to marry (i.e her mother) but by wanting to eventually be Queen she has to bite the bullet and do it.
And as for her leaving Kings Landing I’m pretty 50/50. I understand why she left but leaving and not returning for six years was a big no no. This is more of a side note but her and Daemon ragging on the fact that Alicent changed the design of the Red Keep makes me angry. It’s been six years and Alicent is Queen Consort to a sick and dying King (a King who treats both herself and their children horribly) let her decorate how she wants to. And with all the sick sh*t the Targaryens do they need Jesus lol (another thing the way they made it seem as if Alicent is the only person wanting Aegon and Helaena to marry makes me mad. Book!wise Viserys and Viserys alone does that. By having Alicent arrange that the two be married makes her a very main cause of her children’s suffering).
As for Daemon himself he’s a sh*t father and a sh*t husband. He “tries” but he should try 100x harder. So why he thinks he should have an opinion on what goes on in a home he hasn’t laid his head down in for sixteen years is beyond my understanding lol.
Nothing to add. These are all the facts💅🏽
138 notes
·
View notes
i’ve been thinking a lot about what is so unique and appealing about 80s robin jay’s moral standing that got completely lost in plot later on. and i think a huge part of it is that in a genre so focused on crime-fighting, his motivations and approach don’t focus on the category of crime at all. in fact, he doesn’t seem to believe in any moral dogma; and it’s not motivated by nihilism, but rather his open-heartedness and relational ethical outlook.
we first meet (post-crisis) jay when he is stealing. when confronted about his actions by bruce he’s confident that he didn’t do anything wrong – he’s not apologetic, he doesn’t seem to think that he has morally failed on any account. later on, when confronted by batman again, jay says that he’s no “crook.” at this point, the reader might assume that jay has no concept of wrong-doing, or that stealing is just not one of the deeds that he considers wrong-doing. yet, later on we see jay so intent on stopping ma gunn and her students, refusing to be implicit in their actions. there are, of course, lots of reasons for which we can assume he was against stealing in this specific instance (an authority figure being involved, the target, the motivations, the school itself being an abusive environment etc.), but what we gather is that jay has an extremely strong sense of justice and is committed to moral duty. that's all typical for characters in superhero comics, isn't it? however, what remains distinctive is that this moral duty is not dictated by any dogma – he trusts his moral instincts. this attitude – his distrust toward power structures, confidence in his moral compass, and situational approach, is something that is maintained throughout his robin run. it is also evident in how he evaluates other people – we never see him condemning his parents, for example, and that includes willis, who was a petty criminal. i think from there arises the potential for a rift between bruce and jay that could be, have jay lived, far more utilised in batman comics than it was within his short robin run.
after all, while bruce’s approach is often called a ‘philosophy of love and care,’ he doesn’t ascribe to the ethics of care [eoc] (as defined in modern scholarship btw) in the same way that jay does. ethics of care ‘deny that morality consists in obedience to a universal law’ and focus on the ideals of caring for other people and non-institutionalized justice. bruce, while obviously caring, is still bound by his belief in the legal system and deontological norms. he is benevolent, but he is also ultimately morally committed to the idea of a legal system and thus frames criminals as failing to meet these moral (legal-adjacent) standards (even when he recognizes it is a result of their circumstances). in other words, he might think that a criminal is a good person despite leading a life of crime. meanwhile, for jay there is no despite; jay doesn't think that engaging in crime says anything about a person's moral personality at all. morality, for him, is more of an emotional practice, grounded in empathy and the question of what he can do for people ‘here and now.’ he doesn’t ascribe to maxims nor utilitarian calculations. for jay, in morality, there’s no place for impartiality that bruce believes in; moral decisions are embedded within a net of interpersonal relationships and social structures that cannot be generalised like the law or even a “moral code” does it. it’s all about responsiveness.
to sum up, jay's moral compass is relative and passionate in a way that doesn't fit batman's philosophy. this is mostly because bruce wants to avoid the sort of arbitrariness that seems to guide eoc. also, both for vigilantism, and jay, eoc poses a challenge in the sense that it doesn't create a certain 'intellectualised' distance from both the victims and the perpetrators; there's no proximity in the judgment; it's emotional.
all of this is of course hardly relevant post-2004. there might be minimal space for accommodating some of it within the canon progression (for example, the fact that eoc typically emphasises the responsibility that comes with pre-existing familial relationships and allows for prioritizing them, as well as the flexibility regarding moral deliberations), but the utilitarian framework and the question of stopping the crime vs controlling the underworld is not something that can be easily reconciled with jay’s previous lack of interest in labeling crime.
231 notes
·
View notes