#sideseal

[slyandthefamilybook]

bad post, worse notes

[ourfag]

aw hell

so the model ship scene. where ed’s getting excited about all the trinkets stede’s got while izzy crowds around him trying to corral his behavior. and then ed snaps at him and complains that he’s sick of the life he’s living and urgently needs something new.

my focus has always been on the element of passive suicidal ideation that the scene introduces in ed and i just kind of assumed that the purpose of that rant was to communicate to the audience what ed was communicating to izzy.

but now im actually parsing that that’s what the scene is showing us. ed communicating his discomfort to izzy, in fully explicit terms, with no obfuscations. he’s genuinely trying to share that he’s struggling. and izzy’s response amounts to “not the time, suck it up”

and then a handful of scenes later we see him communicating this exact same discomfort to stede, who responds with sympathy and a suggestion. no wonder ed fell so fucking fast, that probably felt like night and day

[albertserra]

“Does anyone know if the cast of my favorite show is pro Palestine” I’m going to throw a brick through your window grow the fuck up

[ansburg]

DRAGON AGE ORIGINS REPLAY: 8/?

Grey Warden, please don't hurt my son. He is not responsible for what he does.

[v-arbellanaris]

i dont think im done talking abt this, actually. i'm going to try and explain how stupid this whole thing is because there's always SOMEONE going on about how if it wasn't for the circles, and the parallels of the circles to real-life atrocities, "the mage-templar debate" would be a two-sided issue.

actually, it's not.

the "mage-templar debate" is not an issue of ethics even before addressing the conditions of the circle, because you have other options.

the basic premise of the argument is "mages are inherently a danger to themselves and everyone around them. is locking them up to reduce the harm they pose to the general population the correct ethical decision?" but the entire concept is already bullshit even before you address the conditions of the circle, which is where most people claim the civil rights movement comparisons come from.

because. CANONICALLY. you have other options. you have options within the context of the games to reduce the "threat" or "danger" of magic. there's no cases of mass abominations in rivain. there's no cases of mass abominations (as we know understand & abominations anyway) amongst the avvar. there's no cases of mass abominations in tevinter. from the get-go the idea that "mages have to be locked up for their and everyone's safety" is already bullshit, before you even touch the issue of the circles. even before you get to the conditions of the circle, the very existence of mages in rivain and nevarra and the avvar and tevinter already renders the argument null and void.

from it's very inception, the entire premise -- mages are inherently a danger to themselves and everyone around them -- is proven to be a belief, not a fact.

[izzyspussy]

my sister is telling my dad the story of last night and they are hard core both sidesing it. "well, you know, she doesn't take apologies well..." 1. that's her fucking problem not mine. 2. that doesn't have any fucking bearing on the two and a half hours straight of transphobic talk. 3. not taking an apology well is one thing, telling someone they're "lucky" you're not assaulting them when they say they're sorry for being a bit rude is actually a totally different thing LOL!

[rhaenin-time]

Sometimes, I'm haunted by the fact that Condal literally said that for him, Alicent represents "Women for Trump," and then proceeded to gut her characterization and agency (inconsistent with her actions) to make her appear as sympathetic as possible while also trying to make the case that she's not responsible for her own actions.

I have to say... yikes

[witchqueenvisenya]

"Torturing them before the reveal, removing the obstacle, then almost immediately denying them happiness all over again seems sadistic even for someone like George R. R. Martin."

listen this was written by a jonsa shipper about concerns that grrm might turn jonsa into some dark nightmare but i really do wonder where the schism in these people's understanding comes from because this is exactly how they wish and speculate dany's arc will go, and if that doesn't tell you everything you needed to know about that fandom idk what will

[phoebe-ofthe-cosmos]

i hate a "uwu am i as bad as my oppressor if i harm them in a similar way that they've harmed me" ass story. if your cause is just and theirs is not then no you are not the same!

[porterdavis]

[ashanimus]

I feel like the problem might be solved faster if we start taking store executives homes apart brick by brick

[qqueenofhades]

WH press corps complaining about not being invited to Ashley Biden’s wedding, comparing it to Trump’s lying. Like what???

I present the three below screenshots, completely unedited and completely without comment:

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Both Sides

The Faith of Our Times

TIMOTHY SNYDER

JUL 21, 2024

Why does American television and press “both-sides” our politics?  Why are such different presidential candidates presented as equally flawed?  Why do the outrages of Trump, for example at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, lead to the humiliation of Biden?

Both-Sidesism is the habit of reducing the world into two perspectives, treating the two as fundamentally alike, and then ignoring or adjusting the data.  One cause of this odd behavior is the ownership of media companies.  Another is fear.   

But Both-Sidesism is not just a practice.  It passes in the United States for a principle of journalism.  Indeed, the dualism is almost unquestionable. Americans tends to take it for granted.

But it makes no sense.  No data from the world around us indicates that two is the correct number of perspectives, nor that any two perspectives, once chosen, would be equal. 

These are, rather, articles of faith.  Once accepted, they enable the public performance we wrongly call “media.”  Both-Sideism does not mediate but mystify.  Its practitioners, called “anchors” or “publishers,” are shamans or priests. Mystifiers.

To be sure, “media” people do not think that they are mystifying.  Nor are we in the habit of seeing them as practicing a religion. 

But let us step back.  Let us consider, for the sake of argument, that Both-Sidesism might be a dualist cult.  Let us place its beliefs and practices in the context of the history of religion, and see what happens.

The number two has helped humans make sense of the world, from distant times to the present.  It has had a powerful sway over human minds. 

The number two can address the mystery of creation.  In Indo-European societies, the universe sometimes began as a coupling of two entities, for example the Earth and the Sky.  Or the first Being could be of two sexes, or twinned.  In several myths, twin gods ride to the rescue of early humans in peril.

Duality can also help humans to frame the problem of evil, as in Manicheanism.  Its founder Mani (enlightened by a spiritual twin) claimed that the universe was divided into darkness and light.  Human action is then understood as struggle between these two forces.

The number two can also help us handle time. The Romans had a two-faced god, Janus, who was in charge of doors, passages, and thus transitions in general, beginnings and endings. He is very much present with us at the beginning of each year; January is named for him.

In Daoism we find something of all of the above in the notion of yin-yang: dark and light, chthonic and lively, female and male, wet and dry, which constantly join and give way to one another.  Their interaction brings the world into being, and also enables natural and guides human action.

Both-Sidesism is another dualism.  When confronting a phenomenon, for example an election or a party convention, the acolytes of Both Sides perform two steps.  They reduce events to two personalities, then treat them as equal aspects of the two-headed divinity known as Both Sides. 

Again: that there only two sides, and that the two aspects are the same, are unspoken articles of faith.

Once this initial ritual has been performed, the task of the priesthood is to sense disturbances that disrupt the apparent equality of the two aspects of Both Sides. The mythic utterances of the priests of Both Sides – bad journalism -- resolve the cultic tension that appears when a difference between the two aspects emerges. 

Equality is restored in a peculiar way, one that emphasizes the sacred character of the dual god, at the expense of understanding reality.  The priests cannot undo the deeds of one aspect of Both Sides – for example a coup attempt or a call to deport millions.  And if they described it accurately, they would only be deepening the mystical inequality between Both Sides’ two aspects.  They must normalize.

Our Both-Sides priests correct the mystical imbalance with two mantric maneuvers.  The first is to proclaim, groundlessly, that the perpetrator of the crime has learned his lesson, executed a pivot, turned a corner.  The second is to humiliate the other side, the one that did nothing.  And thus the mystical equilibrium between the two aspects of Both Sides is restored. 

This normalization has consequences.  If one of the two aspects of Both Sides seems to have done a great evil, the priests of Both Sides always ritually vituperate the other side.  The price of the restoration of mystical equality is the rehabilitation of the criminal and the degradation of the blameless.   Subscribe

Our media people do not see it this way, of course.  The restoration of the mystical equilibrium of Both Sides brings our priests a pious satisfaction, visible on the red faces of correspondents in Milwaukee this last week.

If pressed, the shamans of Both Sides insists that their dualistic dances are nothing other than correct method to describe the universe.  The cult and its performance is protected from critique by the totemic terms “objectivity” and “balance.” 

All shamans do this: they insist that their dogma must be our reality.   But when we allow the cult of Both Sides to shape our own minds, ethical judgement and factual investigation disappear, and with them any chance for constitutional order and democracy.

Ethical judgement would involve a notion of right and wrong, which the activity of the priests erodes.  The worse the evil of one side, the more artfully it must be forgiven, and the more viciously the other side must be berated.  Believers in the cult of Both Sides experience this as moral action, whereas in fact the performative relativism erodes all morality.

Factual investigation would involve identifying other perspectives which the cult of Both Sides disregards.  It would necessitate separating the two aspects Both Sides from each other and confronting their words with the facts of the world.  To believers in the cult of Both Sides, it is a relief clothed in righteousness never to have to perform such labor.

Earlier dualistic faiths were no more outlandish than our own cult of Both Sides.  Indeed, they had something to say about foundational issues.  The Indo-European, Near Eastern and East Asian beliefs, to which I briefly referred above, generated stories about the world that inspired philosophy and science.  The cult of Both Sides is the dogmatic distraction from the bloody sacrifice of a republic.

Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Subscribe

PS  I want to be clear: this essay concerns the dominant both-sides ritual in the American “media,” and not the work of actual investigative journalists, who follow very different methods, and whose work stands at the basis of what we now about Trump’s ongoing attempt at regime change.  I dedicated Road to Unfreedom to reporters as “the heroes of our time.”  They are.

[ms-hells-bells]

you guys know that pretty much every single political group in history has had the moderate reformists and the radical revolutionaries, right? and that even though they disagree about certain methods, their goal being the same means that they cooperate in order to achieve more attainable short term progress while actions are taken at the same time for long term progress? this is what liberal feminists used to be to radical feminists, the two groups did not hate each other, they just had different outlooks, but generally respected what the other group was trying to (and had some success to) achieve. we lost this dynamic and relationship with the post modern, genderist overtake of liberal feminism, and so it is clear to me that we are in dire need of that role again, with the same repeating schisms in approach that appear under the singular label of radical feminism.

at the very least, we need to establish a differentiation in reformist (i don't mean surface level equality feminism, but looking at practicality and realistic, incremental actions, and harm reduction for women while the other group is more about instant action towards the big picture of abolishment of the system, which won't occur tomorrow or any time soon considering most of the world is NOT radical feminists) and revolutionary radfems purely for the sake of having that instant understanding of how the other faction thinks, and not having these aggressive arguments over and over again when it is clear that it's not a misunderstanding or hypocrisy or bigotry (well, sometimes it is, but i mean the core issue), but a fundamental difference in worldview that is unlikely to heavily change with defensive and highly tense online debates that keep happening over and over.

this is all i'm going to say for this round of 'oh my god everything is imploding again'. this is also not saying anything specific about certain people or making judgement upon individual incidents on either side, i'm not getting into that. just a general thought after looking at repeating patterns of conflict.

[postgameroutesix]

just blocked bc this person is 35 and i cannot be bothered + nothing productive will come of trying to respond but god. like first of all this is not a “conflict” where both sides are at fault and secondly im not “throwing around zionist as an insult” im using it as it is defined. if u read me calling ao3 racist and zionist as mere “insults” and not as referring to the bias towards israel + censorship of palestine support that is entirely on you and reveals how seriously you take such accusations

[milfbro]

also remember how BBC Merlin's entire message was 'We should all have equal rights. But like, doing genocide is not grounds for taking a guy out of power... Just wait it out. Equal rights are just around the corner. Uh. I'm sure this new guy who is doing the same thing as the last guy is gonna give us equal rights. #Stay in the closet'