#terrible people aren't terrible for logical reasons

[chaos0pikachu]

folks on this website always be like "omg why didn't they just TALK to each other why aren't they COMMUNICATING just tell them how you FEEL"

like any of y'all are confessing to your crushes instead of being on tumblr dot crying in memes lets all be so real here

[medicinemane]

The problem with people who are "right" because they insist they're right, and the only way to be right is to simply perfectly follow their every dictation on the subject unquestioningly is this...

Ok, let's just take it as a given that you're right... the problem here is that if that's what's right I'm afraid I have to dig my heels into being wrong. If you are as righteous and just as you insist you are then I've got no choice but to be the villain because I can't stand what you're saying I'd have to do to be good

Shockingly I even think it's wrong, which is odd because we've already defined it that you're inherently and unassailably right... yet here we are

Worst part is there's a lot of these things where I'm not even full stop against it, I actually might be on their side if they could stop and address a couple of issues I consider kind of important... but they won't, because they're morally right and don't have time for addressing nonexistent issues I'm clearly just dreaming up

Undoubtedly right they are, the defect must surely be my own... and yet here we are. Vile and wicked as it might make me, I still can't just go along with you

[sp-ud]

Every time I see a "Hazel doesn't really need fairy godparents, she has good parents and friends, so what if she's sad they moved and her brother is off at college? Thats nothing compared to what Timmy or Dev have going on." I want to cry.

Have you considered that maybe that's the point? I know here on tumblr it's mostly people who were fans of the original show and are now in their early adult lives and teens who probably heard of the original but haven't watched it but checked out ANW for one reason or another. But don't forget, this is still a show for younger kids.

Hazel reflects a lot of the realistic internal struggles younger kids deal with, especially when suddenly thrown into a completely new phase of their lives like moving to a new city, going to a new school, or an older sibling going to college.

And that's a good thing, it's good to show kids that even if their lives aren't Horrid they still can have issues. They're still allowed to struggle 'even though' they have good parents, 'even though' they aren't bullied, 'even though' most of their issues are internal.

And that is why it's good Hazel is the protagonist and not Dev. While yes from a fandom perspective I get why people are drawn to the character with the most blatant angst potential, that like. Would be a terrible show. Even if it was meant for a YA audience and not kids.

But back to Hazel, she's so brilliantly written with her struggles because it's like yeah. I can see any 10 year old being in her situation. Minus the whole fairy godparents. Lots of kids struggle with making new friends, or knowing how to deal with being somewhere completely new, and so many other things. Its nice to see, and once again I think this choice by the writers was very intentional.

Also maybe some of yall need to think about possible unconscious biases you have that could be causing you to focus on the sad white boy and not the black girl who has plenty of her own complexities and issues. And why when you do focus on Hazel why you only focus on how she can support Dev.

Hazel is an interesting and well written character and I'm sick of there being like no talk or anything in the fandom about her without it being attached to Dev. It's her show goddamn it. The writers made her the protagonist for a reason and wrote her the way they did for a reason so please don't just ignore her. Go rewatch the show and actually pay attention to her.

And a final semi-related note, some of yall need to stop forgetting Hazel's 10. The amount of criticism towards her that can instantly be countered with "She's 10" is insane. I know for some of us it's been a while since we were 10, but I think we can all agree we were all far from being perfectly logical and emotionally intelligent at age 10.

[bonefall]

the worst parent poll made me realize just how many ppl in the fandom are willing to jump straight into abuse apologia. bc on one hand you have ppl dumbing down crow's abuse to "him just being mean" and on the other end you have ppl saying that curlfeather didnt abuse frostpaw because she sacrificed herself and frost + her siblings love her so she couldnt possibly be an abuser. truly mindboggling stuff take these serious topics away from the fandom asap.

Part of me feels like it's because many in this fandom have a feeling that if a character's actions are abusive, it means you're "not allowed" to like them. Like there's an impulse where if you liked a character, it MUST mean they weren't THAT bad, because you'd personally never like "an abuser."

As if it reflects poorly on your own morality, as a person, that you connected with An Abuser. Understood them, even. Even if it was just a character.

If it's immoral to Like Abusive Characters, of course your reaction is going to end up being abuse apologia. To enjoy something isn't logical, it's emotional, so you will get defensive about it when questioned. When you do, it's not going to be based on logic because you didn't reason yourself into that position in the first place. It's an attack on you as a person.

I feel like that's often the root of abuse apologia in this fandom, and sometimes the world at large; "If I admit that this character/person IS abusive, it means I was doing something bad by liking them, so I have to prove to everyone else that they weren't or it means I'm bad too."

And to that I say... That's a BAD impulse! Grow up and admit you resonated with a character that did a bad thing! If that's an uncomfortable thought, sit with it!

Sometimes abusers are likeable! They usually DO think they're justified in their actions, or doing it for "a good reason," or were just too preoccupied to care. MOST of the time, people who commit abusive actions are also hurt or traumatized in some way. You might even empathize with them. None of this means their actions have to be excused or downplayed.

"Abusers" aren't a type of goddamn yokai, they're people just like you and me. You don't help victims of abuse by putting the people who hurt us in an "untouchable" category.

In fact, all it does is make you less likely to recognize your own controlling behavior. You're capable of abuse. People you love are capable of it, too. People who love YOU can still hurt you.

In spite of how often people regurgitate "It's Ok To Like A Character As Long As You're Critical Of Their Actions," every day it is proven to me further and further that no one who says it actually understands what that means.

All that said; I think it's no contest which one's a worse parent, imo.

They both mistreated their children, but Curlfeather did it through manipulation without verbal or physical abuse. She politically groomed her into a position of power so that she could use her as a pawn. It can be argued if this counts as child abuse-- but it's firmly still under the broad category childhood maltreatment, which is damaging.

(though anon I'm with you 100% at seeing RED when "but she sacrificed herself" is used as an excuse. Curlfeather's death does NOT CHANGE what she did to Frostpaw in life. I think it's a valid point to bring up when comparing her to another terrible parent for judgement purposes, such as in the context of this poll, but I really hate the implication that redemption deaths "make up" for maltreatment.)

Crowfeather, meanwhile, is textually responsible for putting Breezepaw through verbal AND physical abuse, as well as child neglect. His motivations include embarrassment from a hurt ego, revenge on his ex, and being sad because of a dead girlfriend. This abuse drives Breezepelt towards radicalization in the Dark Forest.

You could argue Curlfeather is a worse person for Reedwhisker's murder, but as a parent? It's not even a question to me. Crowfeather's one of the worst dads in WC.

[sophieinwonderland]

Debunking Anti(-endo's)Misinfo. AKA: How are anti-endos so bad at sources????

(The original)

Oh, well good on you for trying to cover everything! Nice of anti-endos to finally start trying to use science to prove their arguments. I'm sure these sources will totally be reliable and will prove your points beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that you won't just be falling flat on your face with every single attempt at basic reading comprehension, and end up repeatedly make a complete fool of yourself.

Let's go!

Off to a pretty strong start, acknowledging that many endogenic systems don't have DID or OSDD. Sadly, that basic fact is something that seems to escape most anti-endos. So with this in mind, I think it's safe to say the goal of this post is going to be to prove...

You can't possibly have DID without trauma.

You can't possibly have OSDD without trauma.

You can't be a system without DID/OSDD.

Let's read through and see how they'll do at proving their points by the end. I promise you, the results... won't surprise you. 😉

Well, there goes that strong start.

The source here is a Carrd and so-called "common sense."

Meanwhile, in the World Health Organization's ICD-11, alters or dissociative identities are described as "distinct personality states." In the same page, it's stated that you can have multiple "distinct personality states" without a disorder.

This is information from the World Health Organization affirming that you can be plural without a disorder. And I think that prevails over your so-called "common sense."

See also these screenshots from the plurality chapter of Transgender Mental Health, a book published by the American Psychiatric Association:

Finally, I really want to put a focus on this line of logic: "you cannot have alters without having a disorder, this is common sense as it's not normal to have alters."

Normal has multiple meanings in different contexts. The ICD-11's boundary with normality uses normal to mean "non-pathological." But this post seems to be using "normal" in the lay way to mean "common."

And that makes this particular rhetoric extremely dangerous and harmful to many communities. "If it's not common, it's a mental illness," was the basis for homosexuality and being transgender being listed as mental illnesses. "Most people don't think this way, so there's something wrong with them."

This could also easily be used to pathologize Otherkin and other alterhumans as mentally ill because it's not "normal" to identify as an animal.

The modern World Health Organization and American Psychiatric Association recognize the fact that simply thinking unusually or differently isn't an illness or disorder.

Statements like yours do not exist within a vacuum, but harken back to decades past when any non-typical thinking would have you labeled as having a disorder that needed treated.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Let's be thankful to live in a world today where our differences aren't considered disorders. And let's not resort to ideologies that threaten to return us to those days past.

Wait... who suggests this? Who are they? I think I need more info...

So... "some researchers."

Also, can we talk about how this starts off with "sometimes called multiple personality disorder." I checked to see if this was before the name changed in the ICD (which I believe was 2015) and it doesn't seem to be! Oldest archive I can find is 2020!

Rethink.org is a charity.

These are not peer-reviewed papers.

The page references "some researchers" without names or sources.

I have no idea who authored this or if they're qualified at all in this field.

This is a terrible source. A web page by an anonymous author citing other unnamed authors with no reason to think anyone who wrote this had any idea what they were talking about!

This says DID is caused by many things, and lists trauma as only one that's included. This doesn't back up the idea DID/OSDD can only be caused by trauma, and suggests the opposite.

Oh, and "it's also known as split personality disorder." 😔

Go home WebMD.

Usually associated with doesn't mean it's a requirement, and in fact implies that it isn't always.

"Is associated with." "Can be a response to trauma."

Reiterating that the first two goals here were to prove you can't have DID or OSDD without trauma. And these aren't doing that.

An association doesn't mean there's a causation, and it doesn't mean that association is there in 100% of cases.

"often develop."

Like with "usually", you wouldn't use the word often if if something always happened. The choice of wording implies you can have dissociative disorders without trauma.

Are... they messing with us right now???

I swear, you can't have a post that sets out with the goal of disproving the existence of endogenic plurality, and then use quotes that seem to consistently imply there can be other causes for DID and not pick up on that theme!

Oh, yay! We finally got a quote that's actually trying to argue the point we started with.

But, again, this runs into a similar issue to the ReThink.org one. This is a random independent organization. There is no author for this article. It hasn't undergone peer review like an academic paper would.

There is no evidence the person who wrote this article is actually educated in dissociative disorders.

And finally back to "usually."

You must be so proud...

Source Round-Up

There was a lot here, so let's just recap.

6 out of 8 of these sources only say that DID is "usually" or "often" or "can be" caused by or associated with trauma. These actually imply there are cases where it's NOT caused by trauma, going against the original goals of this post.

Finally, there were two sources, Rethink and Mind.org, which did suggest DID is just caused by trauma, full stop. But both of these are extremely questionable as sources.

Neither named their authors. There's no indication what the review process is for their websites. And "Rethink" merely said this is what "some researchers" believe.

So let's double back to those goals set at the beginning.

You can't possibly have DID without trauma: One source says this, but the reliability of that source is questionable. Another source says some researchers are saying this but doesn't name any researchers or cite those sources. Meanwhile, the other six sources imply that it IS possible for DID to exist without trauma.

You can't possibly have OSDD without trauma: Neither of the two sources that suggest DID can only be caused by trauma mention OSDD at all.

You can't be a system without DID/OSDD: None of the sources suggest you need DID/OSDD to be a system or to be plural.

So far, you've failed to prove you can't be a system without DID or OSDD. You've failed to show you can't have OSDD without trauma. And the case for DID being exclusive to trauma frankly looks weaker than before you started talking.

Incredible work so far!!!

And I mean that in the way that nothing about this is remotely credible!

Ugh. There is SO much wrong here. First, no sources for their claims about tulpamancy.

Now, tulpamancy draws its name from a Tibetan Buddhist practice called sprul pa.

This is not the same practice though. And the Tibetan Buddhist practice is NOT CALLED TULPAMANCY.

Something which should be obvious to anyone who knows even the most basic facts about language, with the -mancy suffix being derived from Latin. And tulpamancy as a practice generally isn't religious.

From Dr. Samuel Veissiere of McGill University:

The community is primarily divided between so-called psychological and metaphysical explanatory principles. In the psychological community, neuroscience (or folk neuroscience) is the explanation of choice. Tulpas are understood as mental constructs that have achieved sentience. The metaphysical explanation holds that Tulpas are agents of supernatural origins that exist outside the hosts’ minds, and who come to communicate with them. Of 118 respondents queried on the question, 76.5% identified with the psychological explanation, 8.5% with the metaphysical, and 14% with a variety of “other” explanations, such as a mixture of psychological and metaphysical.

When discussing the research into tulpamancy, we're not discussing a religious or spiritual practice that's been validated by psychologists.

We're talking about a primarily psychological practice that's been validated by psychologists.

And as for the DSM quote, it confirms that religious practices aren't a disorder. Cool. But it also implies that religious practices can result in multiple distinct personality states. Hence why they needed that criterion. It's not stated as explicitly in the DSM as in the ICD, but the implication is there, especially when taken together.

Whether you call these "alters" or not is up to you. Most endogenic systems aren't using the word "alter" to describe their headmates.

But regardless of the word, what the research is showing is that there are multiple phenomena which can result in people having multiple self-conscious agents sharing the same body.

I mean, you've still done a really bad job at showing DID and OSDD form purely from trauma, with many of your sources straight up saying the opposite.

And remember, a lot of mixed origin systems will say that their other headmates aren't caused by or related to their disorder. And there are documented cases of people with DID both having alters associated with DID, and having non-aversive entities they commune with outside of that, as Kluft references in this paper:

The woman he describes here, who experienced ceding control to another entity who talked through her, would qualify as a mixed origin system in the modern plural community.

SIX OF YOUR EIGHT SOURCES LEFT THE DOOR OPEN FOR DID TO FORM WITHOUT TRAUMA!

NONE CLAIMED OSDD COULD ONLY COME FROM TRAUMA!

NONE CLAIMED YOU NEEDED DID OR OSDD TO BE PLURAL!

Your sources are NOT claiming what you think they're claiming!!!!!!!

If this is "all the proof you need," to say endogenic systems aren't valid, it's clear you were only ever interested in confirming your worldview.

But surely you can't seriously think this will convince anyone who isn't already indoctrinated!

Not even addressing this in full. It's such a blatant strawman that it's not worth my time.

There are similarities between plurality and being LGBTQ. Especially to the many trans systems out there who are seeing anti-endos use the same rhetoric that transmeds have. Or like you did earlier, are endorsing the same types of views that led to homosexuality being pathologized until the 70s. But nobody is saying it's the exactly the same!

I'm not sure what this is specifically referring to. But it might be about the line in the differential diagnosis for DID in the PTSD section where it's stated DID may not be preceded by trauma or have co-occurring PTSD symptoms.

It does also say in another section that DID is associated with trauma, but it never actually says that's the only way to get DID.

This is a straight-up lie. Most sources used by endogenic systems are less than a decade old, with some being as recent as 2023.

Here's the breakdown of some of the dates in @guardianssystem's doc, for reference:

I mean, I feel like part of the reason nobody has been able to disprove it is because a lot of its more specific claims have been really hard to test.

But that's neither here nor there.

The bigger issue you'll run into is that the creators of the theory you're citing have stated that there may be other ways for people to be plural. Or as they phrased it, having "conscious and self-conscious dissociated parts."

The above quote is from two of the three authors of The Haunted Self, the creators of the theory of the structural dissociation.

The TOSD is made to propose a way trauma can cause dissociative disorders to develop. But it does NOT suggest you need to have dissociative disorders to be plural, and I doubt the authors appreciated their work being twisted like that

Final Grade:

F-

This started with three goals.

Let's look back at them one last time.

You can't possibly have DID without trauma.

You can't possibly have OSDD without trauma.

You can't be a system without DID/OSDD.

By the end of this, have any of these claims successfully been proven?

I don't feel they have.

The first claim is what all the sources tried to focus on. But most of the sources didn't say that and didn't support it. All but two implied that DID could possibly form other ways.

And for the others? Nothing suggests OSDD can only be caused by trauma.

And you failed to provide any sources that suggested you couldn't be plural without DID and OSDD.

You completely and utterly failed to find decent sources to back up your claims, and to make a compelling case for them, at every conceivable juncture.

If I were you, I would be embarrassed to have put out something of such poor quality.

What have we learned:

Non-disordered and endogenic plurality has been supported and validated across the psychological field, including the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and Trasngender Mental Health which has been reviewed and published by the American Psychiatric Association.

The creators of the theory of structural dissociation believe it might be possible that "self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality" might form without trauma and that this needs to be further researched.

Tulpamancy is a mostly psychological practice that has been studied and validated by psychologists.

Anti-endos are really bad at sources.

Conversely, the majority of endogenic sources are actual peer reviewed academic papers. And contrary to false claims here, many of the papers are actually very recent.

(Tagging some tags from the original post)

[axiian19-art]

SCREAMING CRYING THROWING UP WTF

everyone was expecting her fight to be her testing / training the Traveler BUT THIS!?!?!

(spoilers for Lyney / Lynette / Freminet lore, it's found in their character bios / voicelines but doesn't spoil anything in the archon quests)

The siblings standing up to her and her fighting them???!??! This is so insane I—

It definitely looks serious considering that she's gone into her crazy balemoon form, and the fact that Freminet is blocking her very deadly looking strike and also going straight for her head

I know Lyney has a voiceline about having to become the next head of the House of the Hearth, and not wanting us to tell his siblings because they'll worry

Perhaps they find out here and all 3 decide to convince Arle to let Lyney make his own decision about that matter

It also seems that they got assigned a mission they don't want to complete, perhaps involving someone they know or don't want to kill (Freminet saying Lyney is hiding the person Father is looking for, Lynette asking why Arle's backed them into a corner, etc)

Judging by the opening lines of the trailer (some familiar faces not being present, etc) and details in the siblings' voicelines it's clear they're sent on dangerous missions and are always avoiding death by the skin of their teeth, and definitely aren't living normal lives

Also Freminet says that crying is looked down on / considered weak by Arle, so he always bottles up his emotions and lets them out at the literal bottom of the ocean; their childhood was definitely not great, even if Arle saved them from even worse fates

Like they never really experienced a normal childhood so I doubt they realize that the stuff going on in the House of the Hearth isn't anywhere near ideal

The special program also implies that Arle is very strict and the siblings have been affected negatively by this (stuff Daman / Lyney's VA says, etc)

I really hope that Arle sees their logic and backs down so I don't feel entirely terrible about pulling for her / liking her character because if she's willing to kill any of the siblings I'm going to be absolutely furious at her—

We do know she cares about them and gets very angry when they're mistreated or when they want to risk their lives when their are other options (her anger at people in Freminet / Lynette's past and when Lyney wants to risk his life and get a delusion to be able to perform on the same level as Lynette, before he got his vision)

ALSO I'm not going to ramble abt this as much but CYNO'S STORY QUEST!??!?!? From what I gather it seems Sethos was another candidate to receive the god's power (that Cyno has) and feels that he should have gotten it rather than Cyno for some reason?? Can't wait to see what's up with that as well

(also not Cyno and Yoimiya getting second story quests before Venti help—)

trailer link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYZW7wH3pVM&t=58s

[professor-doc-emeritus]

I love the dichotomy we get between jinshi and the emperor that shows off how the traits that make jinshi a great prince, boss, friend (husband 👀👀👀👀) are the very same traits that will make him a terrible emperor.

His hard working streak that lets him handle his weird assignments with grace and manage the clashing egos of the inner palace is what will get him killed by overwork as emperor since he has no real head for delegation. It took 11 volumes and the intervention of most of his immediate family just to get jinshi to hire a secretary. The emperor always being free to host parties, sleep with the consorts, and bust jinshis balls in-between it all is, much like lakan always being free to annoy maomao, actually a sign of him being god-like at delegation and organizational management.

His lack of ego and willingness to look the fool if it gets the job done is great for avoiding political snafus and getting to the truth of things. It's genuinely the thing that makes all his expeditions to the western capital so wildly successful: he really doesn't gaf about how he's seen by the public, so long as the job gets done and his friends aren't in immediate danger. It's also the exact opposite of what you need from a head of state who's legitimacy is not-insignificantly based on the public perceiving you as an instrument of the will of heaven. The emperor being willing to kill people and their families over slights jinshi (and most sane human beings) would be willing to let slide is cruel and inhuman, but it's also what keeps the populace at large from being able to organize against him and challenge the imperial power.

Jinshis compassionate streak, his urge to save as many people he can and find the best solution for everyone possible, makes him great to work for. He'll give you assignments that match your hyper fixation, work around your crippling social anxiety, give you a post that just-so-happens to involve you staying with the love of your life for a few months. More over, he isn't gonna risk his life and your position over petty ego or greed when he can find a peaceful solution instead. But the hesitation he feels at using people like tools, and his unwillingness to act if it means throwing people under the bus, is what will lead to death and destruction if he's the emperor. Especially in a time of war. The current emperor is willing to ruin lives and crush nations if it reaches a goal, advances an agenda.

Finally, jinshis loyalty, I'd say even more than his looks, is what draws people to him. He loves his toys, can't stand to give them up. It makes him a great romantic figure. But when you're the emperor, and you need to be willing and able to marry someone for political ends, produce as many heirs as possible regardless of who with, and set aside the feelings of those women for your own sake, that loyalty is poison.

Idk, so often in stories with these systems they sorta follow the logic of "if he's a good person he'll be a good leader." I think it's cool to have a series talk about how being a leader involves being EXTREMELY comfortable with being an asshole, for a myriad of reasons, and how someone being pleasant to work for wouldn't make them an effect monarch.

[velvetvexations]

People so often are like "we need tme/tma for reasons" and then use them as direct substitutes for transfem vs non-transfem like why are you creating words that define identity by oppression (they'll say they don't do that but like, how often do they actually acknowledge other populations affected by transmisogyny (black women and many other people of colour, many nonbinary people, many intersex people, trans people of other genders/allignments who are routinely interpreted as trans women by outsiders, etc) the answer is almost never) when you can just say people who aren't transfem? It also makes it easier to see what's just an attack on other trans people vs what is a genuine grievance against intracommunity transmisogyny

Like, "tmes shouldn't be the main voice talking about transfeminine experience" vs "People who aren't transfem shouldn't be the main voice talking about transfeminine issues"

Arguably a similar meaning, doesn't define random people's relationship to systemic oppression, instead focuses on the reality of the situation. Way better than shit like "cis women and tmes use their afab privilage to speak over trans women" bullshit. If people want to talk about transfemme issues and lateral aggression it's actually very easy to do so without defining other people's lived experiences out of existence. Like there's the term nonblack to talk about people who aren't black; it's very possible to create terminology that helps to analyse group experiences without invoking a strict binary where people are told what they experience rather than acknowledging individual nuance

Signed: someone id say falls best into the category of "transmisogyny complicated" (genderfluid and can and does pass as a woman or a man in different situations, often assumed trans either way)

(putting this in the tag because I put in effort and hope it helps)

Theoretically one could say that transfems need a word that specifically refers to the impression they face in the way that we say 'cis" rather than "people who aren't trans" - if for brevity alone. "It "Transmisogyny" was originally coined to refer, I believe, less specific scenarios and more just a byword for when transfems face transphobia, which isn't terrible.

The issues as I see it, though, is that:

Transmascs are not allowed the word for what THEY go through, even when those issues are hyper-specific to them. Recently responded to me bringing up difficulties getting getting OB-GYNs with "transfems have a hard time getting prostate exams", and it's like, cool, that's possibly equivalent (I do not know enough to compare them at all) but that's not getting a fucking OB-GYN, is it? That, specifically, is still a transmasc issue that they have to just call generic transphobia. Yet, despite acknowledging healthcare is systemic oppression for transmascs as well, I'm 100% certain that these people would still call the transfem version transmisogyny despite the fact that, by that very logic logic, it should also be generic transphobia - or if it IS transmisogyny, either a sterling example of AFAB trans people also being systemically affected by it.

"Splash damage" is a horrifically dismissive and cruel way to refer to what, for instance, imane Khelif1has* been going through, not to mention all the people have been hurt even worse ways. Like, do you remember the trans man who was beat up because he was told to use the female bathroom? Do you remember the passing high school wrestler who got giant headlines with blown-up images of him a pinning a distressed girl because he he was forced to compete in the female division and people thought he was a trans woman? How the fuck evil can you possibly get. Tell them to their faces what they experienced was "splash damage". Seriously, LOOK THEM IN THE FUCKING EYE AND TELL THEM THAT.

If transmascs WERE allowed a word, it would go both ways! I keep saying that even though I don't personally associate my struggles with transandrophobia, a lot of transmisogyny is tied up in animus towards men, perceived or otherwise. Trans rad fems deny this obvious reality because God made their souls female and that's just an objective hard reality coded into the very fabric of reality like thermodynamics and relativity. It's this bizarrely masochistic thing where self-ID'd TMA/Es want to emulate every last hyper specific detail of the previously understood definition of wo/manhood, including an exact carbon copy of how they are or are not oppressed, rather than recognizing that it's not diminishing for it to just be different.

They're completely and utterly obsessed with being the biggest victim in the room 24/7. It's so obviously the exact same brain poison TERFs have, but if you try telling them that they go "how dare you compare us to our oppressors". And it's like, either (a) stop fucking acting exactly like them then, or (b) stop equating trans men with cis men.

It leads to so much fucking pedestalling that makes me sick. The way some self-ID'd TMEs act is massively cringe at best and at worst signs they desperately need therapy to work out the self-esteem issues they've been indoctrinated into.

I've never seen a single explanation of what "TMA" or "TME" is supposed to accomplish beyond labeling people's oppression as inherently lesser. Not one single time have I seen anyone articulate why it's such a vital component of "talking about our issues" beyond elevating it above the issues of others. Sure, it can serve as a shorter substitute for "trans women/non-trans women", but why are people putting that shit in their bios? And once again, it comes down to like, hey, why are trans women why do you not constantly declare yourself free of exorsexism or intersexism? It's so resounding clear it has no other point.

Finally, a lot of them are just...genuinely atrocious people with atrocious beliefs that fall far outside just the limited scope of intercommunity trans discourse. Many might believe it in good faith, but the biggest ringleaders of the cult are malicious people who actively want the world to be a worse place through things like refusing to vote and cheering on genocide of Ukranians and Uyghurs. It's no surprise they're lapping up rhetoric that gives them both authority and feeds a victim complex.

What I'm trying to say is, I guess, I don't like TMA/TME either.

*these things would be what I want to avoid talking about but I already know about them so blows party favor dejectedly

[iamnmbr3]

Can we do multiples for this? If so, #8 and #12 for Drarry please 🥺👉🏻👈🏻

Sure!

8. Unpopular opinion about them

I am not a fan of drarry being depicted in canon universes as either 'cool masculine action hero harry'/'damsel in distress fragile draco' or 'sweet but kinda dumb and blundering harry'/'calm cool and collected ice prince draco' or 'enemies who still loathe and distrust each other postwar to very reluctant openly hostile allies to lovers.' All these dynamics are fine if you want to read/write them but the thing is...at least to me...they aren't drarry. And by reducing the characters to those dynamics you end up missing out on a lot of the nuance that makes the characters special and the ship interesting and you kinda flatten them into something pretty generic.

Contrary to popular fanon Harry is not dumb. He was supposed to be in Slytherin for a reason. He's very clever and observant and resourceful. And while he can be very kind and compassionate he also can be deadly when he needs to be and has a real temper that many people, even those close to him (though interestingly not Draco), can find intimidating at times. Draco also is a very good Occlumens and definitely matures a lot, but he's also not someone who is innately cold and dignified, much as he might wish to be. He's hot and firey and emotional too - just like Harry - but presents that in different ways. And yes in later books Draco often overcomes and masters his fears and emotions - because he has to - but it's not easy for him, and sometimes it all comes bursting out. And that makes him interesting and complex and human.

However Draco is also not a fragile damsel in distress. By the end of the series he is no longer the sheltered boy who once dramatically claimed to be "dying" because Buckbeak scratched him. He's been branded with the Dark Mark, been tortured by Voldemort himself, and used Unforgivables on others in turn - even if under duress. He's had to survive living with Voldemort and his followers in his house while he and his family were out of favor and virtually defenseless. He showed himself to be far more clever and resourceful than many would have given him credit for during book 6. In book 7 despite knowing intimately the terrible fate he was likely condemning himself and his family to if Harry & Co escaped, he didn't reveal the fact that he saw Ron & Harry had freed themselves from their bonds in the cell and didn't identify Harry and his friends, which bought them the time they needed to get away. He also held his own in a duel against Harry - who is extremely skilled - due to his quick reflexes, powerful magic, and strong ability to use nonverbal spells. Draco is tough and powerful in his own right, especially after the war and wouldn't just collapse into frightened hysterics at the slightest danger or find himself unable to fend off an angry group of younger students during 8th year.

He and Harry are equals and foils and parallels and opposites all at once. That's what makes their dynamic so interesting. They can stand up to each other and they never are afraid of each other - even when logic says they should be - and their skills and abilities and temperaments are extremely complimentary.

Also I love a good 'toxic dark bitterest of foes to lovers' fic but again, that doesn't feel like postwar drarry. They couldn't bring themselves to hate each other at the height of the war. Harry spent most of book 7 worrying about Draco. Draco risked everything for Harry at the Manor. They're not going to suddenly start a bitter feud after all the pressures pitting them against each other are gone. Postwar Draco would feel guilt and regret over his actions. And Harry, who lied for Draco after the Astronomy Tower Incident in book 6, is unlikely to suddenly decide he's angry Draco didn't end up in Azkaban. (Which is not to say he might not be suspicious of or curious about Draco's activities - but it wouldn't come from a place of hatred or openly vicious aggression.)

What's so fascinating and unique about this ship is that for all they are rivals and later enemies on the opposite sides of a war they don't hate and distrust each other the way you'd expect. Yes there's enmity and hostility. Yes they have to fight each other sometimes. But they also understand each other so deeply. And whenever one of them is actually in danger they always, always save each other.

It is this complex and contradictory relationship that makes them so interesting to me. And so unique compared to a lot of other ships and ship dynamics.

(I also wrote about an unpopular opinion for Draco here.)

12. Crack headcanon

There was a 7 year long 'will they or won't they' betting pool among an ever widening circle of students traumatized by having been subjected to their shenanigans.

Send me a character/ship from any fandom and a number.

[xclowniex]

How can you stand by Israel when they’re on the ones bombing and wiping out Palestine while most of their civilians live comfortably and are living their normal lives still?

Also how can you infantilize the Israel contestant from Eurovision when there are Palestinian children being slaughtered and abused at the hands of the IDF?

How can you suggest that Israelis are living 100% normal lives during the war?

Have they not too been affected? There are so many who want the hostages back. So many who have family and friends who died in the Oct 7th attack by Hamas which started the war.

There are so many Israelis who are affected by the war since it started after Oct 7th.

Your blind ignorance of what it is like for those living in Israel is not okay.

I have never once said I 100% agree with the IDF and Netanyahu's actions. All I have said is I want israel to exist in a two state solution. So yes, I stand by israel existing, not by every action the government and IDF has taken. I'm not sure which one you're trying to claim I am standing by so I've included my answer to both.

I have also not infantilized Eden Golan. I have posted about the unfair treatment she faced at eurovision. If you think she represents the Israeli government and their actions, yet don't treat any of the other contestants that way, that's not holding her accountable, it's antisemitism.

If you want to go down the route of her representing the Israeli government, then Bambi Thug should have faced poor treatment because the Irish government treats refugees terribly. Azerbaijani participant should have also been held accountable for the ethnic cleansing of Armenians. That's just two examples.

But the thing is, people aren't acting like that. For some reason Israel and Israelis are the only one being treated differently despite other countries having shit actions towards others. That's antisemitism. If someone did what I mentioned, and treated other participants like their government, it wouldn't be antisemitism, but people aren't.

And the thing is, antisemitism doesn't take away from the suffering of Palestinians. Talking about it doesn't change anything about what's going on in Gaza.

All you're doing is treating the current situation as an excuse to drop the mask and be openly antisemitic.

The question I pose to you, why do you feel as if it's okay to minimize antisemitism? Why do you feel like it's okay to partake in antisemitism, especially since by your logic, antisemitism distracts from Palestine so therefore partaking in it would also distract from what's going on in Palestine?

I hope this has provided you an opportunity to reflect, learn and do better in the future.

[carrymelikeimcute]

As long as people aren't tagging their bad Izzy takes, I'm going to keep ripping at them. There's 'reading the character differently' and then there's...inventing stuff that just never happened.

Prior to Ed's arrival on the Spanish ship, we only see him talking to Izzy - this obviously means that Izzy is keeping other crew members away from him so he can isolate and manipulate him, which is emotional abuse.

OR there were no plot relevant reason to have a scene featuring other members of the QAR crew (only 2 of whom are named characters) so there is no scene.

OR! Ed (the captain) is in his quarters because he chooses to be, as he has lost interest in the day-to-day of the ship (canonically stated) and Izzy is reporting to him because that's literally his job.

Izzy lies to Stede about Ed to manufacture a 'truth' that he hopes will kill off Ed's interest in meeting him - which does the OPPOSITE and makes him more interested. So if Izzy is meant to have been 'manipulating' him for years, he's fucking terrible at it the first time we actually see him try, in canon.

In S1e10 Izzy is keeping the crew from seeing Ed - isolating him again so he can control him - until Ed makes him bring Lucius to him.

I might be bad at this but, surely the first step of isolating someone is, when they want to see someone, you say 'no'? But just to be clear, the first time we know of, that Ed asked to see someone, Izzy brought that person to him, and left Lucius alone with Ed, so he wasn't even watching or listening to their conversation?

Very controlling of him, all of that...following order and not being in the room that he did.

Like...

Izzy already did enough bad shit, making stuff up is just...why? To try and make him suck less than Ed 'off with your toes' Teach, because that's the only way you can feel good about still loving him? You can love characters who did bad things guys. You don't have to tear apart the fabric of time and logic to make them the good guy in every scenario.

[a-libra-writes]

Hi!!! Omg I just wanted to say I’m so happy you’re back because I love your writing so so much, your characterizations are the absolute best.

Do you think you could write some long-ish headcanons about ASOIAF characters and how they would react if they had a nightmare about the reader dying or leaving them, but woke up to you cuddling them?

Thank you!!

Heyo! Thank you for the kind words , im glad youre enjoying your stay at my silly blog lol. I did ur boys Ramsay and Theon, plus a few extras that popped into my head!

Theon - He awakes with a start, and an immediate feeling of discomfort settles upon his chest. Theon can feel you right next to him, but you seem far away. He can't get back to sleep. Dreams (nightmares, really) of you dying affects him strongly, but somehow you just ... leaving, not disappearing, but walking away from him hurts more.

In the morning, he's rather quiet and distant. Of course, he's shit at talking about his feelings. You'd have to ask direct or roundabout questions to figure it out, and even then, Theon feels foolish for being so disturbed by something as silly as a dream. It wouldn't matter if this was reoccurring, it'd still be like pulling teeth to get him to talk about it and explain why it's so unsettling.

Ramsay - Dreaming of your death isn't actually anything new for him. He wouldn't even consider them nightmares, and it's not like you're the only one who dies. Sometimes it's by his own hand, sometimes it's not. Ramsay doesn't dwell on them after he wakes, and rarely remembers after an hour or so. The dying dreams don't bother him because they seem so far-fetched - yes, he really thinks that.

Dreams of you running off, however? That's a different matter. Sometimes they're simple - he can't find you, no matter how much he looks. Sometimes it's more complex, you run away and he has to spend a long, fruitless effort trying to find you. These are the dreams that agitate him when he awakens, and he'll actually wake you up to make sure you're there - obviously you are - and if for some reason you aren't, well ... he's always had a habit of being mad at you for slights he's conjured up in his head.

Tywin - He has never been a man who tried to glean any meaning from dreams; it's nonsense he doesn't subscribe to. That doesn't mean he's immune to nightmares, though most people wouldn't think such a grand man would be affected by them. He is, but no one would see that. It's the dreams where you're dying - often in childbirth, sometimes by sickness - that startle him awake.

It's troublesome if you actually are with child; then Tywin might take some time to get back to sleep. If you aren't, he knows logically that he shouldn't be bothered. There's no danger here. It puts him in something of a mood for the rest of the day. He doesn't so much as fret over you as just ... watch you very closely, which might pique your curiosity.

Jon - These nightmares don't come often to him, but when they do, he wakes in a sweat. You always seem to die right as he wakes up, or he's on his way to help you and something stops him. Something always stops him, and he wakes feeling anxious and oddly powerless. It feels like an ill omen. He turns over to you and pulls you in closer, mulling it over instead of trying to get back to bed.

It takes a while for him to fall asleep. Jon might talk to you about it, but he also feels a little silly for being so affected. Maybe if you bring up the topic first, because he clearly looks tired.

Tyrion - He hates these kinds of dreams, both the ones where some harm has fallen you, or where you've suddenly disappeared and left him. They're both terrible for different reasons, and he wakes with a start, cursing and looking for something to drink. It'll wake you up, and he immediately switches to comforting, as if you're the one whose upset.

He really appreciates if you stop and ask him what he dreamt. In the daytime it feels childish to talk about, but in the dark with your hand holding his, he feels comfortable to express the worry and anxieties that may have led to the nightmare in the first place.

Victarion - The nightmare is one he's had before, only it's taken new forms since he's been with you. Rather than his wife dying at his own hands, it's you. A simple change, and one that hurts him even more, because it feels even more real. He wakes up with his whole body tense and his fists balled. It's entirely possible you wake up too, as Victarion wants to get out of bed and pace around.

If you want to talk to him about it, good luck. Talking about emotions, especially this, is not in the slightest realm of easy for him. He probably hasn't even told you what happened to his previous wife; Asha would have been the one who did. Sometimes he can be coaxed back into bed, sometimes he wants to stalk off and walk around the keep for a while.

Stannis - It always comes back to that day. In the nightmare, he can still smell the seasalt, and feel the wind on his face, and hear the wood breaking against rocks. In the dreams, he always knows whose on the ship. He may not see the bodies sinking in the water, but he knows. And if it's you, then he's alone on top of Storm's End. No Robert or Renly, just himself, trying to shout against the wind and rain.

It's worse than the nightmares about the Siege, which feel listless and endless. Stannis usually awakes an hour or two before he normally gets up, and that's fine. He gets out of bed right away and goes about his usual routine, wanting to shake the negative feelings right away. If he ever talks about it with you, it's only after you point out he seems tired. He wants to tell you it's pointless to dwell on it, but talking does help a little ...

Arianne - She wakes up with a curse, which might make you stir. She doesn't put a lot of stock in dreams and nightmares, but she doesn't completely discount them, either. And that one was ... very vivid. Just thinking about it your life slipping away makes her shiver, no matter if it was poison or a sword.

She'll slowly wake you up, bringing you close to her and resting her face against your neck. She only half-apologizes for it. After telling you about the dream, she promises it won't happen. She'll keep you safe - though maybe she's reassuring herself more than you.

[the---hermit]

I have not kept it a secret that this semester commuting has been really rough on me. By the time I get home in the middle of the afternoon even if I only had to sit in a hour and a half lecture I feel like an overcooked noodle. And the mornings aren't any easier, my anxiety has been spiking a lot lately, and that messes me up completly, and it's particularly hard on my stomach. Let's just say it's a very demanding period of my life both physically and emotionally and I have been doing my best to get through it with ups and downs, but most importantly by trying to properly take care of myself. I decided to compile a list of small things that have been helping me, both for future reference as well as for people who might be dealing with similar issues.

Prep everything I can the night before. I don't leave the house until more or less mid morning since my class is on lunch time more or less (and this will come up again), so I do have time to do stuff in the morning, but if I have already put everything I need in my backpack, picked an outfit for the day and checked that I have my bus ticket the night before I can have a much calmer morning. Having a calm morning is fundamental for me on any day, so especially when I have a stressful and energy demanding day ahead I want to make sure I don't have to rush, and here is my second point.

Try to have a morning as calm as possible before I have to leave. I am a morning person so I wake up quite early which means I have plenty of time to take it easy. And this means drink my tea as I read my book, prep the last few things I need, like my waterbottle, eat (on which I'll have a later point). Overall my morning before leaving needs to be slow and mostly made of things for myself so again my precious reading time, listening tocmusic as I get ready to get in a better mood and so on.

Taking my meds regularly. It's the logical thing to do, if I am in a period in which my anxiety is worse than usual the number one goal is to be consistent with meds, they are there to help me even if sometimes I forget that.

Finding ways to enjoy food when anxiety fucks up my stomach. What happens is that as soon as I have an anxiety spike for some reason I get very nauseous, which is terribly by itself and it gets worse when it makes me struggle to enjoy my food. But I found a couple of ways to work around that in the past few weeks. Eating when I am away from home is much worse so what I do is embrace the little hobbit in me and have more meals when I am at home, and just bring some snacks on the road if I need them. That means I have two breakfasts before I have to leave the house, the last being a bit more filling. And then when I get home no matter how tired I am or what time it is I cook something for myself, something simple, but I take the time to make something good that fills me up and makes me happy. Because having a full stomach does improve your mood belove me. When I am on the road I bring some lighter snacks that can help me if I feel like I need to have something but that will also work well if I have a spike in anxiety and correlated nausea. I usually eat some homemade bread while I walk from the bus stop to my uni, and then snack on some nuts while I wait for the lecture. And I always have an emergency sweet treat in my backpack because that is something that I actually do on a regular basis. This thing has been working very well, I have had less problems with my stomach acting up, and I am definitely getting all the nutrients I need during the day, just at times that are a bit different from my normal routine.

Bring tea with me. It's something I never did before but it's becoming the one thing I won't give up. I either make a green tea or an herbal tea that I drink before the lecture, and it's been so good for me both physically and mentally. It's been super cold so the warm treat is really needed, but most importantly it's been very comforting and calming, so shutout to my dad for suggesting that.

Having little things to look out for during the commute. This mostly consists of me listing to podcasts, and re:dracula has been of great company in my commutes last year so it's nice it's become a bit of a tradition. It's just good for me not to associate commuting with negative things, so now I just percieve it as poscast time which makes it much much better. This also includes texing friends when I feel like I can look at the screen of my phone without getting car sick (again when anxiety messes me up I can get random car sickness), that's good to keep my mind off things and make the commute feel lighter.

Total relax when I get home. Which sometimes means lying in bed with a cup of tea and nothing more. If I have enough brain power I might read a comic, or play stupid midless games on my tablet for a bit. Honestly just things that need as little energy and brainpower as possible because by that time I do not have much energy or brainpower left, and it's okay. I normally use up a lot of energy when going out and it this period of time all tasks require I use even more energy. I can't do much about it other than accept it and do my best to tke care of myself.

[creature-wizard]

I see this (alien abduction communities) having a lot in common with ROMCOA stuff. The Controversial History of Alien Abductions by Kaz Rowe on Youtube (https://youtu.be/of8igM9WFWc?si=LrE_pCrDUMbujQah) What people may get out of ROMCOA (Validation of trauma in a way that is more obviously bad and may be not be as emotionally difficult due to a less personal abuse or mistreatment having clearer motivations.) is different, but the conspiracism of it feels similar.

I say this as a system who has skirted the edge of ROMCOA stuff for reasons like those stated above, but I wondered if you'd have any thoughts on it. (If it's of any interest, I'll send a separate ask with thoughts on the why/how we've dodged the ROMCOA bullet despite being drawn to it, but that's a significant tangent. Also sorry to be anon, I'm shy.)

(To anyone reading this: If you've heard the term "RAMCOA" but haven't heard how it originated among conspiracy theorists and was always meant to push conspiracy theories within legitimate psychiatry, further information is provided at the end.)

Oh yeah, you are absolutely right. I've been comparing these two things for awhile now, and it's basically two presentations of the same exact social phenomena.

You usually have somebody with psychological or physical problems that seem to defy explanation, but are very likely related to something like anxiety, depression, chronic stress, PTSD, C-PTSD, BPD, schizophrenia, bipolar, autism, ADHD, allergies, mast cell activation syndrome, or fibromyalgia. Y'know, a lot of the kinds of things that doctors will dismiss as "all in your head," or that just aren't that well-understood by the public, or might not seem possible because they underestimate just how traumatizing their life actually was.

The way they fall into it is nearly always the same; they never really "remember" any of it until they start coming across literature and people who introduce them to the idea of RAMCOA or alien abduction. And of course by this point a lot of them are absolutely desperate for some kind of explanation or validation, so they look deeper into it. They start learning and absorbing the tropes and narratives that go along with whatever mythology, so to speak, that they've fallen into. Then when they undergo hypnosis, they start "remembering" events that just so happen to line up with whichever narrative they've been exposing themselves to.

There are other groups doing this same thing with their own narratives, of course. In New Age and neopagan contexts, people often seek explanation and validation by trying to uncover past lives. In fact, the whole entire practice of undergoing hypnosis to recover lost memories actually began with people trying to find their past lives.

A common thread is that people remember something that pretty much everybody would agree would be absolutely terrible to endure. Whether you're "remembering" being burned at the stake for witchcraft, eating the heart of a ritually murdered child, fleeing the destruction of Atlantis, or aliens performing invasive procedures on your body, there's no ambiguity or uncertainty that what supposedly happened is horrible. In a society that constantly tells people that they haven't had it bad enough to be traumatized, because real trauma can only come from something way more severe than what they're experiencing, it's just no surprise that this keeps happening. Their subconscious minds seek the images and narratives that seem to align with the distress they're feeling.

It's been observed that what people experience while under hypnosis is basically the same as what they experience while dreaming. What they experience isn't necessarily logical; in fact, it's often far from it. Weird, surreal stuff just happens out of nowhere. People just do things with no genuinely reasonable motive.

In the context of RAMCOA, this is often handwaved away with "well, they're cultists, this is obviously part of their weird cult practices." This is not only an incredibly weak explanation for most of this stuff, but when you look at other supposedly recovered memories, you just can't help but notice that this is a pattern in every belief system people try to recover memories in, so trying to do this for supposed cases of SRA and the like is just special pleading.

And yeah, if you wanna share your story, I'd love to hear it!

For anyone reading this who isn't aware: The term "Ritual Abuse, Mind Control & Organized Abuse", or RAMCOA, is not an innocent catch-all term for religious abuse, institutional abuse, sex trafficking, etc. It was coined by conspiracy theorists in order to repackage Satanic Ritual Abuse/Satanic Panic/Project Monarch alter programming conspiracy theories into something they could pass off as legitimate science/research. Essentially, it's a Trojan horse for far right bullshit. For more information, see Cathy O'Brien - The First Project Monarch "Survivor" and Fritz Springmeier and Cisco Wheeler: Two Of The Most Dangerous Conspiracy Theorists Most People Have Never Heard Of.

[bluejay757]

In defense of Ford

The night Stan got kicked out,

Ford had every right to be mad at Stan. Accident or not he destroyed Ford's project and cost him his dream school, that is a very logical reason to be mad at your sibling. Ford had immense pressure on him to succeed, to become a millionaire and Stan made that significantly harder. And I don't blame him for not standing up against his dad. If you look at Ford's face when Stan is looking up at him through the window, he is distraught, he is not happy that Stan is getting kicked out. If I was in his shoes I too would be afraid to stand up to my dad, because I wouldn't want to get my shit rocked. If you are mad at Ford for complying with his dad then you clearly didn't grow up in an abusive household. Because Ford likely knew that if he stood up to his dad he would get his teeth knocked in for starters, and two maybe even be kicked out with Stan. And a 17 year old boy is not evil for not wanting to be thrown out on the streets.

I fully acknowledged that Ford was is an asshole. He was absolutely horrible to Fiddleford and Stan. He shouldn't have held a grudge against his brother for 10+ years. He shouldn't have gotten mad at Stan for saving him. He did terrible things. But him not standing up for Stan is the one thing I will always defend him on. Being the golden child is fucking hard. Because everyone expects you to succeed, and if you don't live up to their expectations, then you are worthless to them. Ford's inflated sense of self worth stems, not from this naturally occurring ego, but from the pressure that was put on him since he was a child to make something out of himself. And having a father whose love had to be earned. He was constantly trying to earn validation. A lot of people in Ford's position develop an inflated sense of self worth, not because they believe they're better than everyone else, but as a defense mechanism. Because they feel that if they don't love themselves then no one else will. And after a while of telling yourself something, you start to believe it.

Anywho, hold Ford accountable for his actions as an adult, but also remember he's a human being and that he was child when him and Stan stopped talking. I love complex characters who aren't completely good or bad, because they feel so much more real. I feel like a lot of people have very black and white thinking when it comes to analyzing characters and that they're all either good guys or bad guys, when is reality real people aren't just one or the other.

[latent-thoughts]

The Jews weren't the first natives in that region. The Canaanites were there before the Jews showed up to violently erase them from existence for the terrible crime of not being of Yahweh's choosen people. All Jews know this. It is literally in the fucking book. You know this.

Don't lie in order to defend the idea that Israel is a thing that absolutely must exist. It's fine that you believe that idea, but what's getting irksome is this underlying insistence that "Israel must exist" is an obvious conclusion to the region's problems and anyone who has a modicum of moral fiber in their soul can clearly see that. Your religion isn't true to the people who aren't you. I do not recognize the Jews as a chosen, special sort of people and I shouldn't be expected to. And, yes, I can tell when it's expected because they'll get annoyed when I mention the Canaanites. Yeah, I've seen the eye-rolls, the "history's a complex mess so I'm justified in picking and choosing what events humanity should give a shit about based on how recent they are and how much the directly affect MY culture" bullshit, the accusations of antisemitism despite the fact that I would be completely fine with the existence of Israel if the people who made it didn't, well, slaughter the families of Canaanites in order to do so. Also, Israel isn't a person or a type of person, it's a state, it's completely fine to hate and isn't synonymous with hating Jews. If you think that it is, I'm going to remind you that people who aren't Jewish exist and they don't need to necessarily have the values Jews want them to in order to good people.

If the foundation of your state is built on moving into land that isn't yours and erasing the people that your god doesn't want there, it's completely reasonable to expect that other states might just return that favor in kind. After all, you set the precedent, right? And then constantly referred to it in your holy texts like it was the best, most necessary thing that ever needed to happen. That kind of zeal certainly won't spread.

Oh boy, I'm going to say it. I think that all of the states that have ever engaged in and justified (I'm going to say it) genocidal behavior aren't really... y'know worth defending? Worth giving a shit about? And yeah, saying "God needed us to do it! We are the chosen people! HOLY LAND!" is a shitty justification. Objectively shitty. Jewish people aren't the chosen people to anyone else besides other Jewish people. Nothing really wrong with that, but... nothing really that right with it either. It kinda cancels itself out.

Long ask, I know. Whatever. Stop lying. The Canaanites were there before the Jews. The Jews killed them all then called the land they stole from them "Israel". See? There are perfectly good reasons to hate Israel that have nothing to do with Palestine.

C'mon, the Americas had fucking slavery. England tried to take over the world. Hell, Germany tried to kill all of you! Israel is another shitty place. It isn't special.

I vow to ignore Israel from now on, achieving everlasting peace and making the entire Middle East envious of me.

Oh, and to be absolutely clear in the most awkward manner possible, I don't hate the Jews. I just find their bullshit to be really fucking annoying.

If the Jews killed them all, how is it that their DNA is still dominant in modern day Jews (plus Palestinians and other populations of Levant)?

The truth is that both Jews and Palestinians were part of the same people at some point in time, who also mixed with Canaanites and settled in the region that is modern day Israel+Levant. And Canaanites' ancestors had actually arrived in that region from further East.

So by your logic, then, even the Canaanites weren't the natives of that land.

(There may have been tribal wars, as was common in that era, but it's pretty clear that no one wiped out anyone.)

We can keep going back in time to disprove the indigeneity of people till we arrive in Africa. Which is kind of moronic, TBH.

Personally, I'm not denying the indigeneity of either Jews or Palestinians. Only you are trying to justify your hatred for Jews and denying that they have a right to live in their homeland. Just by saying that you don't hate Jews doesn't veil your anti-semitism.

Both Jews and Palestinians deserve to live there. A two state solution is one way for it. Terrorism by Hamas isn't.

Furthermore, if you know your history (which I'm having doubts about), you know that Jews were persecuted and driven out of almost all the countries and kingdoms they had moved to over the centuries. There were Jews in the Middle Eastern countries, African countries, Europe, etc.. Tell me what happened to them. If you can't, you don't understand why Jews wanted a country of their own, in their native homeland.

With the exception of India, they were either killed, forcefully converted, or driven out of these countries at some point in time. The Holocaust is just one such instance over the centuries, and it was a big deal. The present day rising anti-semitism only strengthens their belief that they're never fully accepted in other places. Hence their need for self determination and separate state of their own (which they already have, btw).

Also, I know you didn't bother to check before coming in my inbox to spew venom, but I'm not Jewish. I'm not even from that region. But I understand what it means to have a history that's full of massacres and genocide of my people.

Plus, I'm someone who likes to stay informed, someone who's against anti-semitism. I don't need to be a Jew to understand where they're coming from.