#you insult my intelligence

[stil-lindigo]

Hello, very confused and overwhelmed outsider here. Looking at posts here and on news sites I see such pradoxical views, one saying to not support Palestine is to support genocide and the other saying to not support Israel is to be antisemitic. I wonder, and I am going around asking people on different sides of the war, do you believe it is possible to support both the lives of Palestinian people and the lives of Jewish people?

Feel free to ignore this ask or to point out any ignorance on my part. I hope you have some peace in your day/night, I can only imagine how stressful it is to have so many people asking so many serious questions.

hi anon. I’m gonna try to make this is as concise as possible, since I’m technically writing this on my lunch break. Yes, it is possible and in fact very easy to support the lives of Palestinian and Jewish people because - and this is the important part - Israel and Zionism is not Judaism. Depending on who you may ask, Zionism began as a pure-hearted desire for Jewish people post-WW2 to create a place that would always unequivocally be safe for Jews, but as I am not Jewish myself I feel like any description I might give comes off as insincere and not fully grasping the scope of that mission. But no matter what Zionism once was, it is now the belief that Jewish people have the right to commit genocide against indigenous population so that they can establish their ethno-state. And you can split hairs all you like, but after the past four months, my belief in that has only solidified.

Perhaps the strongest opposition to Israel comes from Jewish people themselves, who’ve popularized “not in my name” as a protest chant. Holocaust survivors have come out in droves to protest the actions of Israel, and they’re often the strongest front of any protest action since - yes, you’re right - mainstream news is very committed to selling the idea that this “war” is Jews vs Muslims which is just inflammatory racist garbage. There’s more to it than I can easily get into right now, but just for a start, it completely erases the existence of Palestinian Jews or Palestinian Christians, and also ignores Israel’s historically abusive and degrading treatment of their own Holocaust survivors in their population.

This “war” is not a war. It’s a genocide, where the total amount of bombs dropped on Gaza is officially over twice the impact of a nuclear bomb. One side is asking for a stop the fighting, for aid to be allowed through, they are asking for clean water and food as their women have been forced to rip off scraps off tents to use as menstrual products. One side has had all 35 their hospitals bombed (a war-crime the first time, and it continues to be a war crime every time it still happens), over 100 of their journalists have been targeted and murdered (more journalists than were killed in all of WW2, and btw this is also a war crime). And the other side films TikTok’s levelling apartment buildings, looting houses, kicking Palestinian hostages, stripping them naked and urinating on them. Israel has rained white phosphorus down on Palestine, they have bombed Palestine indiscriminately, they have destroyed archives, historical locations, they have done their best to rob Palestinians of their dignity and empathy and still, they’re not done.

Oh and the excuse that they’re just doing all of this to save the hostages? Hamas offered them all back in exchange for a ceasefire. And the Israeli prime minister, Netanyahu, said no.

In the future, try to get your news from trusted news sources like Al Jazeera, and following journalists on the ground like Bisan and Motaz.

[mrsgojosatoru]

I am once again so humbly asking people to stop telling Palestinians and Palestinians in diaspora that "Trump will be worse." We're under no illusion that Trump wouldn't enact the same policies as Biden. We know of Trump's ties to Bibi. We know he would prefer Trump in office.

But there is no worse than genocide, so if you could stop telling people Trump would be worse than what is already happening -- an unimpeded flow of weapons and money to exterminate as many Palestinians as Israel would like.

I cannot take it seriously.

I get it. You're scared of a second Trump presidency. But Palestinians are already being subject to genocide, so there is no worse for them.

You're better off arguing for whatever slightly centrist policies you think Biden will uphold, which I can't possibly imagine what you think it is. He booted a ton of people off of medicaid, he's approved a ton of off-shore drilling, under his leadership the CDC whittled covid isolation to nothing, and he has revoked asylum for immigrants. But you know I'm sure you can come up with something. Supreme court maybe. Encourage people to be single issue voters.

But you shouldn't tell people Palestine will be worse off under Trump. Because I do wonder what that would look like for you. At best it says you worry about West Bank annexation (though the West Bank has also been under increased attack recently), and at worst it means you haven't been paying attention to what's happening to Palestine.

Anyways Israel fired 355 bullets into the car of Hind Rajab, that little girl who begged rescue services to come get her out of the car of her murdered family members before dark because she was frightened of the dark.

And Biden not only doesn't give a single solitary shit about that little girl dying frightened, or that Israel bombed the rescue medics (after giving the permission to come get her), he paid for the bullets that did it.

So again, I ask you, what pray tell, is worse?

[knightofleo]

Angela Orosco Silent Hill 2

[cosmic-light-fics]

The Girlfriend Montage

I can't shake this moment from my mind and some interpretations of moments like this in this season have gotten me mad, so here's what I've got to say about the girlfriend montage. Carmy telling Richie he's gotta call his girlfriend, then we get splices of scenes containing Carmy making food for Claire, Claire working in the hospital, and for reasons that are highly debated by some but seem completely obvious to others including myself there are scenes of Sydney interjected into the couple's montage.

I have my thoughts as to why Sydney is in the montage but that's not the point I want to linger on, not now at least.

I am going to focus on this part in particular: the one where Sydney is undressing and we see the Three of Swords tattoo.

To me, nothing is unintentional in this show. Nothing is inconsequential. And this small, two second shot of Sydney proves that in more ways than I can think of.

What I can't shake is how freaking similar it is to a scene we will later see in ep. 9. The sex scene with Carmy and Claire. It's an intimate moment. The room is cast in blue hues. It's all close up shots, quick cuts, and we can barely make out who is who and what is where. The moment is completely intimate and sensual in all the ways a romantic sex scene typically is conveyed.

And it matches the picture above nearly identically.

The choice to show the audience Sydney's tattoo bathed in this blue light that they will later use for Carmy and Claire's sex scene, the choice to capture this extreme close up, the choice to include the strap of her bra and a tattoo with an image that symbolizes heartbreak and betrayal, the choice to put one of the most intimate and vulnerable shots of Sydney in this montage meant for a couple is.... pretty indicative of the romantic undertones hidden in Carmy and Sydney's connection. The first time I saw it, I was blown away by how intimate of a shot that was of Sydney. We've never seen her like that - undressing, her skin that is always covered exposed, seeing for the first time that she has a tattoo. Just like we never saw Carmy like that in his sex scene with Claire, him being so intimately exposed.

I don't know how else to interpret it. Because all of what's stated above is not coincidence. The creators of this show didn't coincidentally put scenes of Sydney into the couple's montage and they definitely didn't mirror the imagery from the picture above to the sex scene in ep. 9 on accident. Just like how they didn't coincidentally have Carmy think of Sydney to calm him down during his panic attack.

[nemo-me-impune]

Jeeves and Wooster fic where Bertie's friend gets hold of cocaine for them to try and Bertie suddenly manages to calm down and focus for more than five seconds for the first time in his life, and Jeeves has to prevent Bertie from developing an addiction

[side-b-bumblebi]

Men who view women as their intellectual equals 😍

[constantvariations]

The most annoying problem of rwby is how it will say something like "the White Fang assassinates board members of the SDC" while never actually following up on it. We spend several seasons in Atlas and not once does this come up

Despite Weiss literally being the one projected to take over the company, she never interacts with the business and the danger attached to it. No board members popping in to talk to her or Jacques, no guards talking of upping security as a result of another attempted attack, no personal escorts for any of the Schnees whenever they go to the recital

The show says that Schnees and associates are under constant threat by the White Fang, a threat that should have escalated after the fall of Beacon, but nothing in the show's actions even suggest this. Jacques only complaint is about the embargo costing him money, Winter has washed her hands of the SDC entirely, Whitley's focus is being Weiss's annoying (affectionate) little brother, and Willow barely exists

Yet rabids will call you stupid and illiterate for asking the show to... show these things. Just because things are said or things like guards and spies are logical for situations like this doesn't mean that the story gets to slack off in implementing these elements

Shows are akin to a court case. You can't just point at someone and cry, "They're a murderer!" You have to establish a timeline, motive, and method, and provide physical evidence like the weapon used or footage of the person at the scene of the crime. No jury worth its salt would condemn a person on he-said, she-said

You want me to care that board members are being assassinated? Introduce me to them so I can either want them protected or pray for their death. You want me to believe that the Schnees are under constant threat? Have Willow be paranoid to the point of never going outside and never letting Weiss and Whitley go anywhere without a ton of security. You want me to worry about spies? Ilia would've been perfect here! Have her play the demure servant while we see her sneaking into Jacques's office to steal SDC documents

Not only is relying on distant dialogue and exposition a lazy way of establishing elements of the world, not only is it a surefire way for folks w bad memory/auditory processing issues (me) to miss out on important information, it's fucking BORING

[iirulancorrino]

Movies that attempt something different, that recognize that less can indeed be more, are thus easily taken to task. “It’s so subjective!” and “It omits a crucial P.O.V.!” are assumed to be substantive criticisms rather than essentially value-neutral statements. We are sometimes told, in matters of art and storytelling, that depiction is not endorsement; we are not reminded nearly as often that omission is not erasure. But because viewers of course cannot be trusted to know any history or muster any empathy on their own — and if anything unites those who criticize “Oppenheimer” on representational grounds, it’s their reflexive assumption of the audience’s stupidity — anything that isn’t explicitly shown onscreen is denigrated as a dodge or an oversight, rather than a carefully considered decision. A film like “Oppenheimer” offers a welcome challenge to these assumptions. Like nearly all Nolan’s movies, from “Memento” to “Dunkirk,” it’s a crafty exercise in radical subjectivity and narrative misdirection, in which the most significant subjects — lost memories, lost time, lost loves — often are invisible and all the more powerful for it. We can certainly imagine a version of “Oppenheimer” that tossed in a few startling but desultory minutes of Japanese destruction footage. Such a version might have flirted with kitsch, but it might well have satisfied the representational completists in the audience. It also would have reduced Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a piddling afterthought; Nolan treats them instead as a profound absence, an indictment by silence. That’s true even in one of the movie’s most powerful and contested sequences. Not long after news of Hiroshima’s destruction arrives, Oppenheimer gives a would-be-triumphant speech to a euphoric Los Alamos crowd, only for his words to turn to dust in his mouth. For a moment, Nolan abandons realism altogether — but not, crucially, Oppenheimer’s perspective — to embrace a hallucinatory horror-movie expressionism. A piercing scream erupts in the crowd; a woman’s face crumples and flutters, like a paper mask about to disintegrate. The crowd is there and then suddenly, with much sonic rumbling, image blurring and an obliterating flash of white light, it is not. For “Oppenheimer’s” detractors, this sequence constitutes its most grievous act of erasure: Even in the movie’s one evocation of nuclear disaster, the true victims have been obscured and whitewashed. The absence of Japanese faces and bodies in these visions is indeed striking. It’s also consistent with Nolan’s strict representational parameters, and it produces a tension, even a contradiction, that the movie wants us to recognize and wrestle with. Is Oppenheimer trying (and failing) to imagine the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians murdered by the weapon he devised? Or is he envisioning some hypothetical doomsday scenario still to come? I think the answer is a blur of both, and also something more: In this moment, one of the movie’s most abstract, Nolan advances a longer view of his protagonist’s history and his future. Oppenheimer’s blindness to Japanese victims and survivors foreshadows his own stubborn inability to confront the consequences of his actions in years to come. He will speak out against nuclear weaponry, but he will never apologize for the atomic bombings of Japan — not even when he visits Tokyo and Osaka in 1960 and is questioned by a reporter about his perspective now. “I do not think coming to Japan changed my sense of anguish about my part in this whole piece of history,” he will respond. “Nor has it fully made me regret my responsibility for the technical success of the enterprise.” Talk about compartmentalization. That episode, by the way, doesn’t find its way into “Oppenheimer,” which knows better than to offer itself up as the last word on anything. To the end, Nolan trusts us to seek out and think about history for ourselves. If we elect not to, that’s on us.

[vamptits]

sometimes someone will make something and it's incredibly obvious that they're trying to replicate the success and coast off the trendiness of another piece of art/media. which very rarely ends up panning out because they don't actually understand why it was popular in the first place. they have all the ingredients but don't know what to do with them!!

[the-sad-emo-princess666]

Thinking you can manipulate someone is actually unattractive and preposterous.

[dragonhotcoffee]

Just saw Poor Things and just so you know, if I again see a post claiming Lisa Frankenstein is better than Poor Things because of 'x reason' I am scrolling past and am that much more determined to not watch Lisa Frankenstein because if you have to claim your movie is good by claiming it's better than a very good one and claim the very good one isn't actually good because it's "problematic", then you've already lost

[sysig]

One better (Patreon)

[rabbits-of-negative-euphoria]

you move back in with your parents and within the month you've absorbed a tome's worth of decades-old family tea

[milkweedman]

I am sorry you've been harrassed by terfs, but the way you are currently trying to weed them out seems a bit misguided. As in, the vast majority of terfs are in fact ok with big hairy CIS men. The so-called men they are actively hating are trans women/transfem people. So by acting like you proclaiming your love to big hairy dudes is the best terf-repellant you seem to be missing the point at best.

i'd love to actually respond to your concerns or whatever the hell it was that you were trying to convey with this ask, but it has almost no basis in reality so i literally cant.

thats the one statement on how effective i think the banners are that has left my queue so far. which is: i hope it works but also have literally 2 other backup plans already in case it does not. i dont know why youre calling that "acting like [me] proclaiming [my] love to big hairy dudes is the best terf-repellant", because thats wildly off target from what i have actually said at any point. everything else youve said is also pretty much either dead wrong or ignorant, so im getting the feeling that you not reading has been a problem for a while.

(ive also not mentioned terfs this entire time--ive been talking about radfems and using the word radfems. they're not the same thing although there's large overlap. so like. thats strike two for zero reading comprehension, buddy. cause you are literally not talking about the group im talking about and youre also inventing whole new sentences that i didnt say.)

[boag]

My mom and her bf got into an argument earlier bc he was being ignorant as fuck and I called him dumb and left the room but he was still pissed off about it and I heard him yell “she called me Mr Magoo!” and my mom was like “babe I was the one who called you Mr Magoo first” and he said “well didn’t she send you that meme of Patrick and say it was me?” and I fucking snorted 💀 Context:

[batunatu]

shut the fuck up. "i'm so delulu over him" you have no idea what a delusion is really like. you're a dumb kid and it shows.

omg guys, nicole found my blog!! u couldn't ruin my birthday party yesterday :33