Tumgik
#rape mention
Text
ascended astarion in canon:
- experieng a rush of emotions, greatly heightened after centuries of vampirism and truama dulling his senses
- fearful of losing power, his consort, and anything that would threaten their connection
- emotionally reactive due to points one and two, causing him to lash out due to percieved threats
- deeply concerned with matters of consent, expressing pain should his consort take the contract with haarlep,
- has a similar disasociative reaction to sleeping w the drow as he does UA.
- expresses irritation you did not involve him in the decision to sleep w mizora (though i hear the UA version of his reaction is bugged)
- only exception to this is halsin, bc he doesnt see him as a threat and everyone involved is well informed of whats happening.
- expresses desire to engage in philanthropic persuits, ie helping w the rebuild process in baldur's gate. good is good, even if it just so happens to bolster his reputation
ascended astarion in fanon:
- wife-beating rapist that kicks puppies and blows up hospitals
70 notes · View notes
Text
idk how many times it has to be said but instead of waving around the new NYTs article like "Here is your first hand testimony of rape" like get it through your thick skulls that most palestinians were not denying rape was impossible, that we were just saying it was being used as a tool to further justify the genocide in gaza and dehumanize palestinians, and the "weapon of war" rhetoric is still literally unbacked. it actually feels insulting that you guys want us to say "rape is wrong against everybody" of course it is!? who in their right mind is questioning that, we were questioning atrocity propaganda and the way "October 7th" stories were pedaled the last few months were obviously not in good faith reporting and exactly the type of news stories that justified the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Libya. let's not forget that the NYT had a untrained reporter who had experience in food journalism write that horrid piece that was rightfully picked apart. and..i am rightfully not giving any more attention to this article thats medium is the NYT basically a propaganda arm for the state at this point, and we know regardless if true or not the story is useful for people who want to continue this genocide. if you guys were thinking our dismissals were too harsh and callous the reason why is giving credence to any of it literally does not help us, it only strengthens the propaganda machine. I'm still thinking of that quote from that article i read in the aftermath of October 7th by Gabriel Winant:
The Israeli government doesn’t care if you, a principled person, perform your equal grief for all victims: it will gobble up your grief for Jews and use it to make more victims of Palestinians, while your balancing grief for Palestinians will be washed away in the resulting din of violence and repression. The impulse, repeatedly called “humane” over the past week, to find peace by acknowledging equally the losses on all sides rests on a fantasy that mourning can be depoliticized. If only it were so—but this would be the end of Zionism, after all. More tragically, the sentiment of those who want peace and justice for all and express this by chastising those in the West whom they see to be reacting with insufficient grief and excessive politics have only given amplification to the propaganda machine that is now openly calling for the blood of the innocent and the silence of doubters.
32 notes · View notes
jewish-vents · 1 day
Note
So one of my former favorite fanfic writers is doing "Fanworks4Gaza" and this new fic is #MeToo inspired. Doesn't realize her own hypocrisy. It's Hamas that are the rapists and Jewish women that are being raped. #MeToo unless you're a Jew!
These people are so stupid and hypocritical. I wish I had the guts to call her out in the comments.
.
20 notes · View notes
vague-humanoid · 2 days
Text
Tumblr media
21 notes · View notes
fierceawakening · 3 days
Text
You know, I said it already earlier, but I’m still really wondering how prison abolition IS supposed to work for rapists, anyway.
Like it seems like we’re agreeing that putting someone away in a box is an unjust punishment for not asking for consent. And that logic seems sound.
But when you actually study people who commit crime, whether it’s rape or abuse or whatever, you run into the problem of recidivism: someone did a bad thing, got caught, got imprisoned. How likely are they to do it again later?
Some people aren’t at all. If someone takes responsibility, or made a disastrous mistake, they’re highly likely not to repeat it.
But some people do bad things in part because they hold beliefs that allow for them.
Those of you who’ve followed me for a while likely know I’ve been closely following the Ruby Franke/Jodi Hildebrandt child abuse case. These were a wealthy Mormon momfluencer and a licensed therapist, both affluent and white. So not the sort of people who we usually think we’re saving with prison abolition really.
Anyway, they pleaded guilty to horrific child abuse. They basically got it into their heads that because the children acted defiant and wet the bed into adolescence (both likely responses to being abused imo), they needed to be abused severely and frequently until they stopped.
Anyone else see a flaw in that logic?
Anyway. The current buzz on this is about how long they should be in prison, and determining that will be based on whether the parole board thinks they’re likely to reoffend.
And I was watching a YT on this case by a forensic psychologist, just giving his take as an interested guy with relevant training. And he said that based on how long they’d abused the kids, what they’d said in the immediate aftermath of their arrests, and the whole elaborateness of the religious beliefs that justified it (essentially, a kid doesn’t pee and poop himself after a certain age unless a demon is making him do it), that he considered it very likely Ruby is CLAIMING remorse because she knows it’ll lighten her sentence, but very unlikely her beliefs have changed.
He didn’t say it was impossible they COULD change. He said he’d worked with offenders of various sorts and some do! But that it takes a lot of time, because the person has to be willing to look at, question, and rethink things that to them are fundamental, and that’s never easy and rarely fun.
(It took me YEARS to stop thinking all the things I’d been told by a high control group for example. It took time even once the group rejected me. That’s how invested I was.)
So back to prison abolition. You’ve got a rapist. He’s served his time. Or maybe he hasn’t. Maybe we’re just throwing the doors open because it’s about time.
How are you making sure he’s invested in a process that leads him to rethink how he understands sexuality and intimacy?
How do you keep people safe while he goes through that process?
If we really do recognize, as we very much should, that rapists are people, how do we give them space to change like people while keeping others safe?
25 notes · View notes
fairuzfan · 3 months
Text
Here's a summary of what's been happening in Sudan the past couple of days. It's gotten to the point where women are asking for contraceptives for fear of getting raped by RSF forces.
2K notes · View notes
headspace-hotel · 2 years
Text
okay but like this is what deeply bothers me about the whole "tiktok is making people think every negative experience is a trauma!" thing
Trauma is common. Like really common. How do we accept statistics like "1 in 4 women has been sexually assaulted" or "1 in 3 people grew up in a home with domestic violence" or whatever number of people will fight cancer or be in a car crash or an abusive relationship, and at the same time doubt any suggestion that a lot of people may actually be traumatized?
It's in our cultural definition of trauma—that trauma is some extreme event outside "normal" life, and that the people that experience it are a sequestered group that is well outside the "average" person.
but like, even strictly Criterion A PTSD type "traumatic" events are...not rare. at all. You can be a hardass about it and say that you have to be raped or threatened with death or violence to have trauma, and that's still a lot of people that have experienced that. People around you. People that pass by you every day. People that appear and seem "normal" to you.
if you accept the idea that belonging to certain marginalized groups can have some traumatizing elements to it, "most people are traumatized in some way" is just the most blandly obvious statement ever.
but even if you're for some reason squicky about "watering down" the definition of trauma (lol), we can at least agree that most people are hurt, right? Deeply hurt. Most people have been mangled by their experiences in one way or another. People's behavior is guided by the fact that they are hurt.
One of my dad's sayings, which is earnest and not at all shameful or demeaning, is that People Are Broken. And in church settings (because he was a pastor and is still very devout) his measure of the quality of that church setting was always their ability to come to terms with the fact that People Are Broken, not just people Out There or hypothetical people but us, the people around us, the people we live alongside and befriend and love. And if a church thought of Broken People as an external category of people to be "reached," instead of a near-universal experience of being human in a cruel society, well that church was likely to be, ultimately, toxic. And hardly any church passes that test, because our brokenness is hard to talk about.
We can't admit that most people are traumatized because it means that the call is coming from inside the house, that the menace is contained within our society instead of being a freak accident/act of god/attack by a lone wolf outside of the normal confines of our world.
But this is the truth. That our world, the nice, "normal" world, the everyday world, hurts people. We are not gentle enough for other humans, our society is not kind enough for humans to thrive.
We have to try to be less cruel. We have to understand that almost everyone has endured something unspeakable and has not fully healed. This is why I don't care about watering down the definition of trauma. We have not even begun to fully define the wound. There is no virtue in conserving recognition for the most obvious and extreme human pain. Why would we need less compassion?
15K notes · View notes
priestin · 1 month
Text
Palestinian women and girls have reportedly been arbitrarily executed in Gaza, often together with family members, including their children, according to information received.
“We are shocked by reports of the deliberate targeting and extrajudicial killing of Palestinian women and children in places where they sought refuge, or while fleeing. Some of them were reportedly holding white pieces of cloth when they were killed by the Israeli army or affiliated forces,” the experts said. The experts expressed serious concern about the arbitrary detention of hundreds of Palestinian women and girls, including human rights defenders, journalists and humanitarian workers, in Gaza and the West Bank since 7 October. Many have reportedly been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, denied menstruation pads, food and medicine, and severely beaten. On at least one occasion, Palestinian women detained in Gaza were allegedly kept in a cage in the rain and cold, without food. “We are particularly distressed by reports that Palestinian women and girls in detention have also been subjected to multiple forms of sexual assault, such as being stripped naked and searched by male Israeli army officers. At least two female Palestinian detainees were reportedly raped while others were reportedly threatened with rape and sexual violence,” the experts said. They also noted that photos of female detainees in degrading circumstances were also reportedly taken by the Israeli army and uploaded online.
Geneva, 19 February 2024
960 notes · View notes
aropride · 3 months
Text
exclusionists saying they dont want ace discourse to come back bc it's "annoying" and "childish" or whatever is so... like, okay man. personally i don't want it to come back bc the amount of death and rape threats i've gotten for being aspec has significantly decreased since it stopped being trendy to openly mock us. and i'd like being aspec online to be a little bit safer for as long as possible. but sorry aspecs rightfully existing in queer spaces and asking not to be harassed is annoying to you, i guess. that sounds really hard to deal with.
804 notes · View notes
blackpearlblast · 1 month
Text
"i hope you get into a clown car accident involving hammers" <- worse than death and rapes threats according to staff.
because it's directed at them and not marginalized people on their website :)
409 notes · View notes
principaliteas · 3 months
Text
yes, yes, i know someone will tell me to kill myself over this post but i don't give a shit. the fact that half of this website think i'm a zionist & the other half think i'm antizionist just demonstrates how unproductive it is to view zionism through this narrow lens & force every jew you come across into these boxes (btw, this is a form of pressure you've reserved for us - you don't demand nearly as much from other goyim. i wonder why!)
like... i am neither, actually! i'm not a zionist or an antizionist, bc i'm capable of recognising how nuanced both of those ideologies are.
& guess what? that isn't a "neutral" stance. nuance ≠ neutral. i wholeheartedly support the palestinian right to autonomy. i believe israelis & palestinians can coexist in the same land. i don't believe collective punishment is the correct answer. i don't want israeli or palestinian civilians to suffer. i want equality for all. i want people to live in a land without oppressive leaders, without systemic abuse, without so much death, without fear. i want children to wake up to the sound of birds instead of sirens & bombs. i want everyone to sit together, to break bread, to share their stories. i want peace.
& this is considered controversial? this is the stance i'm repeatedly sent rape & death threats over? fucking baffling. sorry i'm not ~radical~ enough for you, lol.
464 notes · View notes
neechees · 1 year
Note
How is the cult from Midsommer white supremacist? Because they are swedish and borrow from paganism? The nazis appropriated Norse culture, they even misused different runes and symbols, and Scandinavia is one of the most tolerant regions in Europe.
There's Nazi imagery throughout the film, & the fact that all the poc die first is no mistake. Ari Aster himself has said that the Harga are White Supremacists:
Defying an outdated horror trope, Aster does not kill off Josh (William Jackson Harper) — the only black character for miles — first. As Aster points out, though, the Hårga are racist, a callback to “a part of Swedish history and European history,” and all of the “outsiders” or “new blood” recruited for mating are purposely white.
“He’s thrown away in a way that the other members of the main cast are not," Aster notes. “And that is because these people have no further use for him.”
The Harga, when not inbreeding with each other, go out and groom new members to either 1. Be sacrified or 2. Introduce new genes by manipulating people into the cult or drugging & raping them (what they did to Dani & Christian), & they ONLY pick white people for this. There are no nonwhite Harga & that's not an accident.
The script also makes it crystal clear that the nonwhite couple were specifically chosen (bc they are not white) & brought there to be sacrificed & were never going to live. The member that brought the nonwhite couple displays hatred & malice towards them when they're not looking, but doesn't do this with the other white outsiders
Tumblr media
(Ingemar is the Harga that brought Connie & Simon, the nonwhite couple). Connie & Simon didn't do anything wrong, they didn't do anything outright to insult the Harga. The only thing they did was be shocked about seeing the ritual suicide & express desire to leave (and they weren't the only ones who did this, Dani also did). And yet they were some of the first to die.
Even the visuals-- the Harga wear all White, it's always in blinding daylight. Whiteness is a GLARING theme. There's also foreshadowing early on in the film, where a book titled "The secret Nazi language of the Uthark" featured in Christian's room just before they go to Sweden.
There's also other Nazi ideology present within the Harga, such as the strict gender roles (the women all wear dresses & cook & clean & care for the children together but the men butcher the bear together), eugenics & ableism (the elderly are killed off at a certain age because they see disability & needing to be cared for as an elder "shameful", which is what one Harga states at the ritual suicide scene, & of course killing off the nonwhite characters), the "return to tradition" ideology (there are NO modern technology in the community, & it's in the countryside).
You see a cult full of ONLY White people, using Norse paganism (something VERY popular with Nazis) in an isolated area, who routinely murder poc, don't intermix with poc, kill off their elderly, Dani (the blonde, light eyed white girl) is praised for her beauty & made their May queen by the Harga, with strict gender roles, & this film was made by a JEWISH MAN to show the Harga as the bad guys, & you don't have a hunch that the Harga are maybe supposed to be white supremacists/nazis? That doesn't raise any red flags for you?
& let's not forget how Scandanavia committed genocide against the Saami, the Indigenous population who were there for hundreds of years before anyone else. That's a little off topic, but as a First Nations Canadian I aint gunna let that just go unacknowledged. Scandanavia has a white supremacy problem too, & Ari Aster is right for pointing it out
2K notes · View notes
nothorses · 5 months
Text
if you call people "baeddels" who do not call themselves baeddels (or openly agree with/defend them by name, at absolute minimum), I am taking you by the shoulders and turning you firmly towards "TIRF".
baeddelism is a very specific movement and group. the ideology is based on radical feminism, and falls under that umbrella, but it doesn't encompass all of trans-inclusive radical feminism by default.
if you encounter someone espousing baeddel-like ideas, who doesn't appear to know what a baeddel actually is (or who openly denies ascribing to or agreeing with their ideas), you can just call them what they are: a radical feminist. specifically, a trans-inclusive radical feminists.
we have a word for it. we don't need to invoke a rape cult to talk about it. please.
421 notes · View notes
bogleech · 1 month
Text
Have to be honest though, if you argue that some people might just have to die if terrorists are "using them as shields," well I do in fact hope you drop dead and I fucking hate you, I wish I could guillotine you myself actually, yet if you were the victim in that "human shield" situation I'd actually still fucking demand your safe return because that shouldn't FUCKING be the reason anybody ever dies anywhere on Earth.
I don't care if Adolf himself crawls back out of hell and tries to hide from gunfire behind some random passing civilian. I don't care if that civilian turns out to be a murderous rapist we have to put on trial and execute anyway; if they can in any way be considered a bystander dragged into the line of fire against their will then I do not forgive the military pig who had no idea who they were shooting through to get to the "bad guy." And we aren't even talking about literal human shields. That's a deliberately misleading buzzword. That's propaganda. "Human shield" is being used in the current genocide to mean people anywhere within even miles of where they say a tErRoRiSt might be hiding. Fuck you if you've repeated that scum sucking bullshit. If a serial killer hides "somewhere" in your neighborhood you did not just become their "human shield" you maniac. I genuinely hope you fry in hell if you're making those arguments and yet I would still put my own life on the line to save you from another government's bombs if it came down to it. My opinion is that you would not deserve it but your life is automatically more precious than my opinion. That's how society is supposed to work you stupid piece of shit.
297 notes · View notes
carbonemissionshater · 7 months
Text
I think porn is driving rapes and assault. I read a stat about sexual assault prevelance amount different generations of women, and older women had a lower instance of sexual violence. And maybe they’re less likely to report it, but I think it’s accurate. Every woman I know my age has dealt with sexual violence to some extent but I remember my boomer mother thinking it was rare and that she never experienced it. And as time went on and I experienced more male violence, I became more confused how she was able to dodge violence for years. But now, I think the proportion of sexual violence has simply risen. I think men/boys having porn in their pockets 24/7 has made their aggression and violence worse. The boys I knew in school would share such graphic images with each other in class that would’ve been unattainable before. But now with just a working cell phone, they can access a library of gore and violence in an instant.
502 notes · View notes
headspace-hotel · 10 months
Text
Radfems commonly ask "What did J.K. Rowling do wrong besides say that 'woman' is a real biological category?" as a 'gotcha' and, well...
Tumblr media
(referencing Matt Walsh's documentary, 'What is a Woman')
this is matt walsh (skip to 1:30)
If you don't want to click the link, this is where he says that girls are "most fertile" at 17 and that getting pregnant at 16 was the norm throughout history and that "teen pregnancy" isn't a real problem, only unwed pregnancy.
This is Matt Walsh's blog post explaining exactly what he thinks of feminism.
Tumblr media
This is another post explaining what Matt Walsh thinks of feminism.
This is what Matt Walsh's twitter says
Tumblr media
(Yes, he self-identified as a fascist on Twitter back when the interaction with JKR took place.)
Tumblr media Tumblr media
If J.K. Rowling agrees with Matt Walsh on 'what a woman is,' she is anti-feminist, misogynistic scum.
2K notes · View notes