The Lunacorva's Random Notes

Okay, this is where I'll either A) reply to other blogs or B) make the occasional post of my own.

[antifainternational]

Kinda weird how you say you’re against fascism yet you shut down anyone just because they share a different opinion than you. You guys are exactly what you say you hate... FASCIST! How come I have never seen any member of antifa actually sit down with someone and have a civil debate? I’ve only ever seen them yell and throw tantrums. Doesn’t look good for you guys, yikes.

[pleasedotheneedful]

fascism in italy was not defeated by discourse.

[rosslynpaladin]

Something I heard recently: if you insist on sheltering both lambs and wolves, you will get in the end only wolves. If you insist your safe space is safe for bigots as well as minorities you will have a space full of bigots- minorities will be driven out.

[lunacorva]

This actually comes from a false understanding and even a misrepresentation of what is meant by “debate”. To debate, does not mean to try and say “I agree” to every asinine statement. It also presumes that a fascist will openly come out and say “I want to kill everyone”, even though concepts like Dogwhistles are meant to point out that they try to disguise their madness as sensible ideaology. Or failing that, use appeals to emotion and especially fear. Convincing people that violence is the only way to make others understand. That the other MUST be met with violence. The reason throwing the first punch at fascists is reckless is two-fold: 1) It lets them play the victim. Lets them paint YOU as unstable and dangerous and spread their message of fear to the people they are trying to indoctrinate and brainwash. The famous “Punch a Nazi” clip everyone talks about, was a guy who was randomly punched, while simply talking. For those who didn’t understand the full problems and context of what he was saying (Because cults like that often target those who are ignorant by circumstance, and then work to cut off and control their information), this made him look SYMPATHETIC. But by asking a fascist: “Okay. Explain to me, logically and reasonably, why your ideals work.” You draw them OUT of their comfort-zone and into one where their ideals CANNOT hold up, because there really is nothing logical or reasonable about them. You expose the monstrosity behind the lies. You show THEM out to be the unstable ones. I’ve seen this on a personal level where someone I knew was being told how bad Critical Race Theory supposedly was, and I was able to convince her it wasn’t a bad thing at all.. simply by explaining what it was. Something the newsletters she got had completely failed to do. I then went on to point out the other biases, misinformation, selective narratives and other bullshit, and she no longer subscribes to said newsletters, because she can now see where the bullshit is. Had I attacked her, she would have merely been scared FURTHER into the echo chamber. 2) Fascism has a history of appropriating otherwise reasonable points, and hiding within and corrupting them to suit their own narratives. For example:  “Islam, has some VERY uncomfortable practices or messages in it’s faith.” Is not a radical message by itself, as nearly EVERY religion has some... unfortunate tenants if you look for it, as well as people who abuse the religion. But a fascist will twist that statement into the FAR more insane:  “And therefore any person with middle-eastern ancestry should be killed.” The problem with the “Punch first, talk later” mentality, is that you don’t know whether you are encountering a moderate, or someone who is appopriating the first’s beleifs into something far more twisted. IE: Antifa’s inability to tell the difference between a conservative, and an actual nazi. When most conservatives fall closer to the libertarian side of the scale rather than the authoritarian. Now, as a final point, I do want to say that there are ABSOLUTELY times that call for the use of violence and force. But I find it ironic that during such times, like the capital riots early this year when “Punch a Nazi” was 100% called for... No-one was punching the Nazi’s. If Antifa had rode in on a herd of majestic stallions, dual-wielding springloaded boxing gloves to punch every Nazi in sight, I would have CHEERED. ...But for all their bluster, when their ideal of violence was actually needed, it was nowhere to be seen.

[explanetry-deactivated20260318]

Everyone should read this reblog, @lunacorva explains it very well

[lunacorva]

Thank you. To add onto this, in America's current year of fighting against a blatantly mask off wannabe fascist government, the non-violent protests HAVE been effective. Heroes like frog man and others in portland have used mockery to directly dispute the narrative of "Crazy violent terrorists" that MAGA tried to use to justify sending the military in. Movements like the No Kings protests gets more people against the Trump party by being non-violent. I can't remember who it was, but a VERY smart man said: "If you want us to all have that Avengers Assemble moment where we all stand back to back against ICE, then there needs to be camraderies first. There needs to be trust first. How can we fight together if we've never danced together?" The Anti-Trump movement goes stronger every day. Meanwhile, the idiot has been in a Goddamn TAILSPIN since day one. Every victory he gets makes things worse for him and he hasn't even been in office for a YEAR. The moron got cocky. What Trump has been doing is inexcusable. He needs to be removed and jailed. I don't want anyone to ignore this. But I also don't want any of you to forget that you are WINNING this war.

[beardedmrbean]

They'll just scream pinkwashing and something about how you're a bigot for not accepting their way of life.

[lunacorva]

There's a lot of important context missing in this thread. First, it's not being made clear what is being argued here. Is this thread simply saying that homophobia is a bad thing and these views ABSOLUTELY should be opposed? Well, then I think there's no issue here. Countries and people are not a monolith afterall and we can agree on the idea that the mass slaughter of Palestinians and continuous invasion of their territory is wrong whilst simultaneously opposing highly homophobic attitudes from Palestine. As a believer in giving benefit of the doubt, I find this first interpretation quite likely HOWEVER, it's possible some might take this as a means to justify the continued violence against Palestinians and occupation of their lands. The argument goes "Israel HAS to wipe out Palestine because if they don't this is what they will do the LGBT people" Such an argument, of course, could easily apply to almost any nation on earth at some point or another. For example, in the United States, homosexual relations were criminilised in several states up to as recently as 2003. Would this institutional homophobia mean the mass slaughter of thousands of US citizens (civilians included) or the forced occupation of their homes would be a good thing? I'm sure everyone here would agree. No. It is not. But of course, then saying it justifies mass slaughter and occupation in Palestine would then create a doublestandard. (Incidently, it is this Double-standard that is referred to when people talk of "Pink-Washing". It is, essentially, the idea that "Slaughtering civilians in Palestine is okay, because we're protecting the LGBTQIA+ from them) The next bit of important context missing is WHO said that. Imagine this. Someone in Amercia says that Australia should be bombarded with nukes. Well, it's a VERY different story depending on whether that was said by the PotUS in a military meeting, or your drunk uncle Bobby Joe during Thanksgiving. In this case, that clip is apparently from a preacher in Israel. Which means judging Palestinians right to live based on that sermon would be like (to continue my analogy from above), judging American's rights to live based on, well, insert a Westburo Baptist speech here.

[switch-up-snowfox]

the post is a response to people going "queers for palestine" and its basically pointing out its LGBT people advocating for a government and group that is openly stating it will kill them for being who they are, which is considered a point of them being at best horrifically misinformed and at worst suicidally stupid, which is paired along with other points that they believe the openly genocidal terrorist group when they claim that the people they are attempting to genocide are, in fact, the ones doing the senseless genocide.

[lunacorva]

Well, two things on that. First, as said, that quote was from a preacher in Palestine, not a member of the Palestinian government. Does that NEGATE the idea of the government holding those views? No, but using it as a representation is misleading. Second, as I said above, "we can agree on the idea that the mass slaughter of Palestinians and continuous invasion of their territory is wrong whilst simultaneously opposing highly homophobic attitudes from Palestine." For the third point regarding Genocide, an important perspective is that support for the people of Palestine and the opposition to the mass deaths of civilians does NOT equate to support for Hamas. Similar to above, one can hold the Israeli government AND Hamas accountable for their crimes. So, the idea that the Israeli goverment is commiting a genocide. Where is this coming from? Is it solely propaganda used by Hamas to justify their own actions? Well, lets look at what independent sources unaffiliated with either nation say on the matter. First, we have a rather extensive article from Amnesty International detailing the actions commited by Israel and Hamas. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/8668/2024/en/ We also have another post from them stating that Israel's actions are genocidal https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/ We also have this report from Doctors without Borders, detailing the extensive destruction commited by Israel https://www.msf.org/msf-report-exposes-israel%E2%80%99s-campaign-total-destruction As well as others. https://www.msf.org/gaza-israel-war Neither organisation is Jewish, Israeli, Arabic, nor Palestinian. They are not affiliated with any government, nor have they had any history of antisemitism or islamaphobia. So any argument one could make of "They're lying to support their side!" would seem rather dubious. This is about as neutral a source as you can get. Here is also a UN report. https://press.un.org/en/2024/gapal1473.doc.htm And an article from WorldWithoutGenocide https://worldwithoutgenocide.org/genocides-and-conflicts/israel-palestine-conflict-history-causes-and-international-law I aimed to find sources that were not sites like "HamasAreHeroes.com" or "IsraelDidNothingWrong.org" These are multiple sources of human rights organisations (And a UN report) reporting multiple direct, concrete examples of, at BEST, repeated mass murder of civilians and deprivation of basic human rights. Something a lot more damning than simply "Hamas say they're the good guys and people online believe them."

[switch-up-snowfox]

And several of these organizations have been slammed for relying on the numbers and word of organizations with either direct ties to hamas, which have been proven to be lying about a lot of their numbers and have been busted quietly editing the casualty rate down, or in some cases other groups who've openly shared hamas' goal of israel's destruction and genocide, IE Al Jazeera.

The UN's word in particular is dirt considering their security forces sex trafficking scandel, and their inability to keep serial human rights abuser nations off their human rights board.

"its the opinion of one preacher" Luna, friend. Gaza's penal code 1936, article 152, criminalizes homosexuality. There's evidence and cases of people being murdered specifically because they're homosexual. And homophobia is a known issue amongst many muslim communities and societies.

Finally, Israel doing fucked up shit doesn't erase the culpability of hamas or other terrorist groups for their fuckery.

your engaging in a lot of midwittery right now my guy.

[lunacorva]

"And several of these organizations have been slammed for relying on the numbers and word of organizations with either direct ties to hamas, which have been proven to be lying about a lot of their numbers and have been busted quietly editing the casualty rate down, or in some cases other groups who've openly shared hamas' goal of israel's destruction and genocide, IE Al Jazeera." I assume you're referring to articles like the report from the Henry Jackson Society noting that there were numbers missing from the death toll and calling into question the reports from the Hamas controlled Gaza Health Ministry (https://henryjacksonsociety.org/publications/questionable-counting/) Reasonable (Though it would have helped your case to provide a source.) However, we have a report from peer reviewed medical journal The Lancet finding that, if anything, the death toll is UNDERREPORTED by the MOH (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)02640-5/fulltext) And later estimating no evidence of an inflated mortality. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)02713-7/fulltext Second, this extensive report that found the MoH reports to be about 70% accurate. https://gaza-civilians.airwars.org/ (Keep in mind, for the death toll for Palestinians to be even CLOSE to the death toll for Israelis, it would have to be inflated by over 2000%. Not even CLOSE to the 30% discrepency reported)

We also have a research university in Sweden that reported over 20'000 deaths. https://www.uu.se/en/news/2024/2024-06-05-mapping-the-death-toll-in-gaza ------- Moving on from that however ""its the opinion of one preacher" Luna, friend. Gaza's penal code 1936, article 152, criminalizes homosexuality. There's evidence and cases of people being murdered specifically because they're homosexual. And homophobia is a known issue amongst many muslim communities and societies." This statement. While true (https://www.equaldex.com/region/palestine) Continues to ignore the very first thing I said. "homophobia is a bad thing and these views ABSOLUTELY should be opposed? Well, then I think there's no issue here. Countries and people are not a monolith afterall and we can agree on the idea that the mass slaughter of Palestinians and continuous invasion of their territory is wrong whilst simultaneously opposing highly homophobic attitudes from Palestine." To ignore that very clear part of my post is the first sign that you are engaging in this in bad faith. (For context, for those still reading in good faith, the point of highlighting the preacher was to illustrate that this was a poor example to use, rather than a claim that homophobia in Palestine did not exist) Furthermore, it ignores the larger point made that, while absolutely bad, the countries blatant homophobia does not and CANNOT excuse the mass murder of its civilians. This is something that was a core point iterated multiple times across my post to the point that it very much WAS my post. The fact that such a critical part of my statement was outright ignored (Not merely countered, criticised or disagreed with, but treated as if it did not exist and had not been said) is such a blatantly inaccurate reading of my post that I am left with only two options. Either Switch completely failed to understand what I was saying. Or deliberately chose, in bad faith, to ignore the vast majority of what had been said in order to misrepresent my side of the conversation. I KNOW Switch is an intelligent individual, so I unfortunately cannot give him the benefit of the doubt that this was innocently ignorant. Leaving me to conclude that this was done deliberately in bad faith. A fact compounded by Switch then resorting to Ad Hominems at the end "

midwit (plural midwits)

(neologism, chiefly Internet slang, mildly derogatory) A person of middling intellect; someone who is neither particularly dumb nor notably intelligent, especially if they act as if they are smarter than they are.  Essentially, trying to remove key pieces from an opposing view to make it seem weaker than it actually is, then calling the now artificially weakened view inferior. A perfect example of a strawman argument. For those still following, I hope the linked articles are helpful.

[beardedmrbean]

They'll just scream pinkwashing and something about how you're a bigot for not accepting their way of life.

[lunacorva]

There's a lot of important context missing in this thread. First, it's not being made clear what is being argued here. Is this thread simply saying that homophobia is a bad thing and these views ABSOLUTELY should be opposed? Well, then I think there's no issue here. Countries and people are not a monolith afterall and we can agree on the idea that the mass slaughter of Palestinians and continuous invasion of their territory is wrong whilst simultaneously opposing highly homophobic attitudes from Palestine. As a believer in giving benefit of the doubt, I find this first interpretation quite likely HOWEVER, it's possible some might take this as a means to justify the continued violence against Palestinians and occupation of their lands. The argument goes "Israel HAS to wipe out Palestine because if they don't this is what they will do the LGBT people" Such an argument, of course, could easily apply to almost any nation on earth at some point or another. For example, in the United States, homosexual relations were criminilised in several states up to as recently as 2003. Would this institutional homophobia mean the mass slaughter of thousands of US citizens (civilians included) or the forced occupation of their homes would be a good thing? I'm sure everyone here would agree. No. It is not. But of course, then saying it justifies mass slaughter and occupation in Palestine would then create a doublestandard. (Incidently, it is this Double-standard that is referred to when people talk of "Pink-Washing". It is, essentially, the idea that "Slaughtering civilians in Palestine is okay, because we're protecting the LGBTQIA+ from them) The next bit of important context missing is WHO said that. Imagine this. Someone in Amercia says that Australia should be bombarded with nukes. Well, it's a VERY different story depending on whether that was said by the PotUS in a military meeting, or your drunk uncle Bobby Joe during Thanksgiving. In this case, that clip is apparently from a preacher in Israel. Which means judging Palestinians right to live based on that sermon would be like (to continue my analogy from above), judging American's rights to live based on, well, insert a Westburo Baptist speech here.

[switch-up-snowfox]

the post is a response to people going "queers for palestine" and its basically pointing out its LGBT people advocating for a government and group that is openly stating it will kill them for being who they are, which is considered a point of them being at best horrifically misinformed and at worst suicidally stupid, which is paired along with other points that they believe the openly genocidal terrorist group when they claim that the people they are attempting to genocide are, in fact, the ones doing the senseless genocide.

[lunacorva]

Well, two things on that. First, as said, that quote was from a preacher in Palestine, not a member of the Palestinian government. Does that NEGATE the idea of the government holding those views? No, but using it as a representation is misleading. Second, as I said above, "we can agree on the idea that the mass slaughter of Palestinians and continuous invasion of their territory is wrong whilst simultaneously opposing highly homophobic attitudes from Palestine." For the third point regarding Genocide, an important perspective is that support for the people of Palestine and the opposition to the mass deaths of civilians does NOT equate to support for Hamas. Similar to above, one can hold the Israeli government AND Hamas accountable for their crimes. So, the idea that the Israeli goverment is commiting a genocide. Where is this coming from? Is it solely propaganda used by Hamas to justify their own actions? Well, lets look at what independent sources unaffiliated with either nation say on the matter. First, we have a rather extensive article from Amnesty International detailing the actions commited by Israel and Hamas. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/8668/2024/en/ We also have another post from them stating that Israel's actions are genocidal https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/ We also have this report from Doctors without Borders, detailing the extensive destruction commited by Israel https://www.msf.org/msf-report-exposes-israel%E2%80%99s-campaign-total-destruction As well as others. https://www.msf.org/gaza-israel-war Neither organisation is Jewish, Israeli, Arabic, nor Palestinian. They are not affiliated with any government, nor have they had any history of antisemitism or islamaphobia. So any argument one could make of "They're lying to support their side!" would seem rather dubious. This is about as neutral a source as you can get. Here is also a UN report. https://press.un.org/en/2024/gapal1473.doc.htm And an article from WorldWithoutGenocide https://worldwithoutgenocide.org/genocides-and-conflicts/israel-palestine-conflict-history-causes-and-international-law I aimed to find sources that were not sites like "HamasAreHeroes.com" or "IsraelDidNothingWrong.org" These are multiple sources of human rights organisations (And a UN report) reporting multiple direct, concrete examples of, at BEST, repeated mass murder of civilians and deprivation of basic human rights. Something a lot more damning than simply "Hamas say they're the good guys and people online believe them."

[beardedmrbean]

They'll just scream pinkwashing and something about how you're a bigot for not accepting their way of life.

[lunacorva]

There's a lot of important context missing in this thread. First, it's not being made clear what is being argued here. Is this thread simply saying that homophobia is a bad thing and these views ABSOLUTELY should be opposed? Well, then I think there's no issue here. Countries and people are not a monolith afterall and we can agree on the idea that the mass slaughter of Palestinians and continuous invasion of their territory is wrong whilst simultaneously opposing highly homophobic attitudes from Palestine. As a believer in giving benefit of the doubt, I find this first interpretation quite likely HOWEVER, it's possible some might take this as a means to justify the continued violence against Palestinians and occupation of their lands. The argument goes "Israel HAS to wipe out Palestine because if they don't this is what they will do the LGBT people" Such an argument, of course, could easily apply to almost any nation on earth at some point or another. For example, in the United States, homosexual relations were criminilised in several states up to as recently as 2003. Would this institutional homophobia mean the mass slaughter of thousands of US citizens (civilians included) or the forced occupation of their homes would be a good thing? I'm sure everyone here would agree. No. It is not. But of course, then saying it justifies mass slaughter and occupation in Palestine would then create a doublestandard. (Incidently, it is this Double-standard that is referred to when people talk of "Pink-Washing". It is, essentially, the idea that "Slaughtering civilians in Palestine is okay, because we're protecting the LGBTQIA+ from them) The next bit of important context missing is WHO said that. Imagine this. Someone in Amercia says that Australia should be bombarded with nukes. Well, it's a VERY different story depending on whether that was said by the PotUS in a military meeting, or your drunk uncle Bobby Joe during Thanksgiving. In this case, that clip is apparently from a preacher in Israel. Which means judging Palestinians right to live based on that sermon would be like (to continue my analogy from above), judging American's rights to live based on, well, insert a Westburo Baptist speech here.

[argumate]

urpriest said: Bret Deveraux’s argument was that things literally would be better if the IDF took higher casualties, or at least was willing to take them. The IDF would take higher casualties if it more often sent soldiers room by room into buildings in Gaza rather than shelling them, and if they did that they’d be much better at distinguishing belligerents from innocents. It’s for the most part what the US did in urban fighting in Iraq, and while it still pissed people off it did save lives compared to the alternative of just bombing the place.

I think I would rephrase that as "it would be better if the IDF only killed Hamas militants and not civilians, even though this would require them to take more casualties themselves, as this would reduce the deaths on net", and while I can't disagree with that -- fewer people dying is good! -- I can't help thinking that it doesn't serve long term Israeli strategic aims, that realistically are not limited to "eliminating Hamas", but rather "depopulating Palestine for new Israeli settlements".

at least in Iraq the US could just leave: there was no intention of claiming the banks of the Tigris for resettling families from Wisconsin or whatever.

[no-sharks-on-the-sun]

yeah, i think there are more or less two ways of reading the Israeli strategy.

the more generous one is to say that they've concluded that they *cannot* defeat Hamas through conventional means and need to fully depopulate Gaza to achieve a lasting victory, which for the record is probably true (even if i am not particularly sympathetic to it)

but you can also look at historical Israeli attempts to funnel support to Hamas (over their more moderate rivals) as a long game designed to create a pretext for the current ethnic cleansing of Gaza, and now that Hamas provided it, that check is being cashed

[argumate]

it does feel like there have been decades of opportunities to integrate Palestine into the Israeli economy instead of slowly strangling it with walls and borders, if integration was ever desired.

[prismatic-bell]

This ignores a very basic thing:

Israel has offered, multiple times, as far back as 1946 when the first partition plans were being made.

Palestine has not only rejected the offers, they've done so with violence--so much so that when the Jews (not yet Israelis, just Jews) suggested having an area for themselves even smaller than Gaza, they were met with pogroms.

So what would you have Israel do? Take them by force? Because you seem to be very against that.

[argumate]

I think the only possible outcome besides genocide is one state.

[prismatic-bell]

Okay, but that's not an answer to the question.

The Palestinians have refused integration multiple times. All attempts at peacemaking have been met with violence. Both Hamas and the PA have made it clear that if they retake all of the land it will be a new caliphate, where Judaism will be illegal as it is through the rest of the Middle East. Seven million people will be either slaughtered or forced out of the land to which we are indigenous, where we have had a presence for 4000 years.

So what would you have Israel do?

So what would

[argumate]

all attempts at peacemaking have been met with violence, look at what happened to Yitzhak Rabin, but that cannot be justification to mete out yet more violence in response: there is no long term peace without integration, and Israel -- or a significantly powerful faction within Israel -- do not see or want a future as a truly democratic and open nation that does not privilege one particular ethnicity over another, and I don't think there can be an end to violence as long as that belief is held.

[cantotallyeven]

Err Israel is a truly democratic and open nation that does not privilege one particular ethnicity over another. The Arabs who live in Israel are full citizens with the same rights as Jewish (and others) who live there. Israel just doesn't have open borders, much like basically every other nation on Earth. Incidentally, it's illegal to be Jewish in Gaza and illegal to sell property to Jews in the PLO controlled parts of the West Bank. The last time some Jews took a wrong turn and accidentally ended up in Gaza they got immediately arrested and then lynched. So like, why is it only on Israel to repeatedly offer peace? Why doesn't Gaza lift the ban on being Jewish? Or stop chanting "from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab?" Also like, doesn't "one state" = "Israel absorbs Gaza and the West Bank"? Somehow I don't think that would go over well with the citizens of either of those. Or is the solution "Israel has to let in anyone who wants to come in while Gaza and the West Bank and every other MENA country gets to keep Jews out"?

[argumate]

I think Israel already has defacto control over Gaza and the West Bank, and failing to acknowledge that just leaves the Palestinian people essentially stateless, with no democratic rights in the state that actually rules them.

[cantotallyeven]

Does it though? I'll admit to not being fully informed on the situation of the various zones in the West Bank, but Gaza? Israel fully pulled out of Gaza in 2005 and had 0 control there until Oct 7th. The reason they have no democratic rights is because Hamas refuses to hold elections (something the citizens are now protesting). So it seems you are advocating for Israel to take control of Gaza and/or make them all citizens of Israel whether they want it or not? Make them all subject to Israeli law, which includes freedom of religion, which may in Gaza do not want?

Like they absolutely should have a state and should have democratic rights, but Hamas is the main barrier to both, and they make a one state solution impossible. Like, look at what we've had here in the past 2000 years. And yes, I say 2000 because this didn't start wen Israel was established. Currently we have Gaza launching countless rockets at Israel (and yes this is still going on) and the West Bank has their program where they pay families of people who die or get captured killing Israelis. How does that make for a peaceful state? Right now, Israel has borders and people are already pissed about it. If it was one state? And Israel restricted movement within it? Well then claims of apartheid might actually be true. Prior to Israel being established we had Jews living there as second class citizens and experiencing frequent pogroms. That was in fact the impetus for declaring independence. Like, this was areas that were already majority Jewish who just got tired of being slaughtered every few years, so they setup borders to defend themselves.

But a show of peace has to come from both sides. Israel's population is 20% Arab Muslims ethnically identical to those living in Gaza and the West Bank. The only Jews in Gaza are the hostages and the IDF soldiers trying to free them. For a single state solution to work, Gaza would need to show that Jews have nothing to fear from them by letting Jews live there in peace. Israel allows Muslim immigrants, even many from Gaza. Why doesn't Gaza allow Jews?

[argumate]

yes, a workable state would require freedom of movement for everyone, without internal borders, walls, segregated towns or ethnic curfews.

[prismatic-bell]

Okay. But once again, you're failing to answer the question:

How?

There are two answers if you want a one-state solution:

1) Israel absorbs Gaza and the West Bank and there is no more Palestine.

2) the Palestinians destroy Israel, rename it Palestine, and slaughter seven million Jews (and possibly two million people of other religions, including minorities like Druze and Bedouins, who live and worship freely in Israel)

So which of these are you advocating for?

[argumate]

the first, obviously, although I would rather it be done peacefully and not by the current process that seems to involve slaughtering a portion of the Palestinians and confining the rest in refugee camps.

[prismatic-bell]

Okay. But the Palestinians have refused that, because they believe the land should be ruled by Arabs and the Jews should be removed.

So what do we do? Like I'm not being sarcastic here. At this point we need workable ideas to advocate for because the last major one died on 10/7 when Hamas deliberately targeted and slaughtered most of Israel's peace workers. If you've got something that's even remotely plausible I am sincerely asking you to throw it out there.

[argumate]

one possibility would be to move towards making the West Bank a viable Palestinian territory: defund the Israeli settlements, allow free movement across the area, stop demolishing buildings, move the IDF out, etc. etc.

another approach would be to assimilate the West Bank piecemeal without expelling the Palestinians, so that they gain full Israeli citizenship.

for Gaza the most important thing is an immediate ceasefire, of course.

[prismatic-bell]

On one hand I agree with this idea for the West Bank. On the other, it runs into the problem of "there will almost definitely be violence against Israelis, especially Jews." That is something that needs to be taken into account and is actually why I'm in favor of two-state, not one.

A ceasefire in Gaza is a great goal. It does require Hamas to either get gone or play ball, neither of which seems likely. But I would like to see it happen.

[argumate]

I think a ceasefire only requires a cessation of the bombing and a withdrawal of troops, it could happen immediately if there was the political will to end the bloodshed.

a useful thought experiment might be to consider what might have happened if Israel hadn't invaded Gaza and killed 50,000+ people, and whether the current situation is actually that much better.

(similarly Hamas could unilaterally disband, but I don't think that would solve the fundamental problem that any Palestinian authority has either been the enemy of Israel or the subcontractor of Israel, neither of which can rule a viable Palestinian state).

[brazenautomaton]

"stop bombing and withdraw the troops even though Hamas hasn't promised anything in exchange" is the correct answer. Hamas will not and can not honor any promise to not try and murder Jews and Israel's actions can't be based on getting Hamas to make such a promise; Israel should stop the war because the war is a very bad idea to keep prosecuting. If Israel had not bombed 50,000 people to death in Gaza and instead had done nothing, all parties involved would be better off...

...except that Hamas still has hostages and Israel actually like actually in real life in the world cannot just go "okay you got your hostages you can keep them." And Israel actually like actually in real life in the world cannot just give Hamas what it wants for the hostages because A: never ever negotiate with terrorists and B: Hamas will not and can not honor any promise they make. When they did get a partial prisoner exchange going, they shipped out random corpses and said they were hostages so they could keep more hostages. Israel says "release all the hostages and we stop bombing" and Hamas is like "no we want to drip-feed hostages and get more out of you for each release." The lack of Green Lantern "political will to end the bloodshed" is that Israel does not trust Hamas will keep its promises to slowly release hostages while getting a bunch of concessions, and since Hamas will not and can not honor promises, they are correct to do so.

Israel's behavior needs to change because what it's doing is both wrong and harmful to itself. But it's fucking asinine to act like Hamas are defenseless acted-upon victims, akin to disarmed guys tied to chairs. Hamas is still fighting as much as it possibly can. Hamas leadership does not consider any people it loses to be valuable enough to prevent as the war gives them more new recruits than they're losing. "Israel kills a bunch of Palestinian civilians in a brutal and destructive reprisal for our murderous terrorist attacks" is literally a step in Hamas's plan, and Israel needs to go "I should not do things that are a step in my enemy's plan, even if I hate my enemy very very much and want to see him punished." But Hamas is doing everything within its power to prolong fighting because that's a step of their plan, and every piece of leverage they have is being applied to prevent Israel from wanting to stop bombing them.

Any ceasefire in Gaza has to be unilateral because Hamas will not and can not honor promises to not kill Jews. Israel needs to actually man and operate its defenses instead of "not doing that." the Oct 7 attack was absolutely humiliating in terms of the IDF being caught with its pants down and unable to get its shit together to figure out what was going on and stop it, because of absolutely criminal negligence in its defenses. Don't be criminally negligent any more. Hamas's plan has always been "enrage Israel into sticking its dick into a hornet's nest" so stop sticking your dick in a hornet's nest. And also have Hamas's leadership outside of Gaza assassinated so they lose something they care about.

But the recognition that a ceasefire has to be unilateral because the other side won't keep promises to not kill Jews means a one-state solution is completely impossible and I don't get how you think one could happen. Either Israel conquers the territory, which is bad and neither of us want. Or they negotiate for the merging of territory with their government, negotiating with a partner who cannot honor promises to not murder their citizens. How do you see this going? Do you have any sort of detail or vision for what sequence of events could possibly happen to lead to a one-state solution, or are you just going "Well in a vacuum that sounds like the best thing, so obviously Israel should just do the best thing, duh!"

[lunacorva]

@argumate "all attempts at peacemaking have been met with violence, look at what happened to Yitzhak Rabin," An important bit of context that needs to be made with that example is that Rabin was assasinated by an Israeli man named Yigal Amir. That was a case of someone from Israel rejecting peace rather than Palestine rejecting peace.

[theriu]

How To Work With Fairies

Me: Sweet, the mushrooms already grew back!

Furious Fairy: You miserable human, this is a fairy ring! You’re not supposed to PICK the mushrooms!!! Go away or suffer my-

Me: Oh right, here’s your half of the money I made selling the last batch.

Fairy: ...

Fairy: I’ll have more for you by tomorrow.

(A/N: Please remember to not eat wild mushrooms unless you know 100% FOR CERTAIN that they are edible!)

[lunacorva]

Only potential problem, and I'm loving this blog btw, here, is that fae often have a mentality completely backwards to humans. Not only might they not have a concept of currency or even sales, the very idea could be seen as grossly offensive to them. "Here's your money." "Give me my mushrooms back before I take your eyes."

[lunacorva]

You've said before that you consider RWBY's interpretation of racism and bigotry as being one of the more nuanced ones you've seen in media. Do you mind going to greater detail about that?

RWBY doesn't just restrict itself to a black and white, "Captain Planet"-esque view of the world where the White Fang are just evil terrorists, or all humans are vile racists who deserve to die. But neither does it give an insincere or shallow "Both sides are equally bad." lip service. It presents the White Fang as an immediate, terrorist threat. But it also shows the sympathetic side of them. It shows characters we care about who agree with them or even worked for them. But it still shows the danger. It shows how the extremism of some members can make them a threat even to other Faunus. How this hatred can be manipulated and exploited by other parties. On the flipside, it shows human's cruelty. We hear stories of labour camps. The first time we learn of Faunus is seeing one being taunted and bullied. But again, we also see humans who have themselves suffered due to the war. Weiss's family members, possibly friends who cannot all be claimed with certainty to be power hungry abusers like Jacques had been murdered throughout her life. We again see people like Adam willing to murder innocents for his cause. Much like in real life conflicts, a noble cause is seen as an excuse for any atrocity. I think the real sign of how even the presentation of the conflict truly is, is that it becomes a Rorscharch test for bad faith reviewers. They're either 100% on the side of Faunus and claim that everything the White Fang do is morally justified because it's a glorious revolution and clearly the show hasn't done enough to condemn the evil racist humans and must therefore unfairly hate the White Fang. OR They're 100% on the humans side and say "There's no racism in Remnant! The Faunus are complaining about nothing!" They claim the show is unfairly lionising and glorifying the White Fang and not doing enough to condem obvious terrorists.

[lunacorva]

RWBY is just honestly one of the most misunderstood series that I've ever seen be misunderstood online. Like, I know bad takes exist, but it seems like RWBY gets an exceptionally large amount of it for things that are fairly obvious if you're even marginally attentive.

Yup

[autumnhobbit]

finally decided to sit down and watch the incredibles again. there will be no commentary because i’m gonna be too busy watching it

[autumnhobbit]

okay i just gotta say

having been married for 3 years now (almost), i really love how bob & helen argue. when i was a kid it just came off to me that everyone in this movie was being super mean for no reason but when you watch it as an adult it’s different. i really appreciate that even when bob is frustrated/angry he basically never lashes out at helen or the kids, his problem is he’s withdrawn and existantialling. i also really appreciate that when they do fight they’re actually more expressing their frustration than attacking each other. it’s only later when things get real that helen (understandably) gets really angry.

[autumnhobbit]

also edna’s advice is actually really good, helen’s just melting down over the idea of losing her husband (which is sweet and helps us understand her character) but edna tells her to confront it immediately, hold bob to account by leaning into his concern (all his heroics being forgotten) and reminding him that she’s a super, too. direct action is a blessing in communication.

[autumnhobbit]

i love how the movie communicates bob’s competency, like he’s actually handling all the twists and turns of the situation rapidly deteriorating very well, the only thing that throws him off is when his family gets involved. we also see helen’s competency in the plane scene and how she immediately knows something’s up when no one responds on the radio

[autumnhobbit]

syndrome is such a fucking good villain, saying ‘i seem to recall you prefer to work alone’ and laughing at him when he believes he’s murdered the guy’s wife and kids???? holy fuck

as previously mentioned bob breaking down and sobbing alone in the containment room shaped my personality

[autumnhobbit]

ah the good old days of 2004 when having a voluptuous mom ass was a bad thing. good riddance, we don’t miss you.

also the it’s a neat little parallel to bob’s body image struggles, they really went to great lengths to showcase that these people are equals & soulmates

[autumnhobbit]

the kids are really well-written too, they feel very authentically their age and they both have motivations, the writing does a great job of showing how the gravity of the situation sinks in for them and forces them to rise to meet it. dash especially fascinates me in this movie because he’s just the right balance between immature and starting, just starting to get that life is a big deal and stakes are real and you’ve got to care about what you’re doing and try to do the right thing in every situation. the way the kids instinctively protect each other even though all we’ve seen of them so far in the movie is antagonism is just *clenches fist* so good

[that-catholic-shinobi]

The Incredibles is incredible on every level

[ave-aria]

I appreciate the "there will be no commentary because i’m gonna be too busy watching it" followed by 8 of the truest takes on the movie, respect.

[crusherthedoctor]

Everyone says Mephile's plan is stupid, but why?

Mephiles’ evil plan to rejoin with Iblis is as sturdy as a Jenga tower because:

His manipulations are only successful because the characters have been turned into idiots, regardless of their previously established intelligence. Meaning that the plot had to rely on everyone acting completely stupid in order for the villain’s plot to go anywhere other than nowhere.

Mephiles has the ability to warp all of the Chaos Emeralds to where he is as indicated by the Last Story. You would think someone who had such a ridiculously convenient ability would make immediate use of it.

There is nothing within the game itself that suggests that Mephiles couldn’t rejoin with Iblis whenever he wanted.

Mephiles had no reason whatsoever to waste time convincing Silver to go and kill Sonic when he could - and later on, did - do the deed himself. This is doubly annoying because up until the Last Story, there does seem to be an established concept of Mephiles being physically weak despite his powers (which would make sense since he’s the consciousness of Solaris, whereas Iblis is the raw power)… but then the Last Story comes along and ruins that idea entirely by having him whip out a giant laser that he never used at any point beforehand.

His side hobby of goading Shadow to his side is equally pointless and results in nothing other than reinforcing Shadow’s own beliefs (and also becoming a victim of slapstick comedy courtesy of Omega). And given his nonchalant attitude about the whole thing, indicating he wasn’t too bothered about his failure to sway Shadow, why did he bother spending so much time with Shadow in the first place then? Because… evil? Even Black Doom had more of a legitimate reason to focus hard on Shadow.

Mephiles’ grand, widely praised action of killing Sonic only succeeded because Sonic was randomly distracted by a light that Mephiles… just summoned I guess. It’s an insulting death for Sonic, and it’s an unimpressive way to kill a hero for Mephiles. If you had to kill Sonic, surely you would have him:1. Know anything about his murderer other than “I noticed he looked like Shadow. Except I didn’t, because that was Knuckles who noticed that.”2. Do the classic heroic routine of Mephiles aiming at Elise, only for Sonic to take the hit, as that would highlight not only Sonic’s noble side, but also Mephiles’ penchant for cunning.

Mephiles didn’t even need to get Sonic out of the way in the first place because if the reports of Elise’s death in Crisis City are anything to go by, her OWN death is enough to make Iblis get out of bed. So Mephiles could have went straight for her, and he would have gotten what he wanted a lot sooner.

When he finally does rejoin with Iblis and becomes Solaris, he makes the sound decision to toss the Chaos Emeralds over the time-space abyss like javelins when he could have kept them in his possession. This is one of the exact reasons for why Sonic’s friends were eventually able to revive Sonic and turn him super, which directly contributed to them rendering Mr. Hylian Shield a dead man.

His ultimate objective is to cause the end of all existence. Typical objective for mindless monsters, but why is Mephiles hoping for this? What is he expecting? Does he want to float on his own in nothingness for all eternity? Or would he also cease to exist? Either way, it’s a pretty stupid end goal for someone who is set up to be a master schemer.

Not only are his planning skills akin to a frat boy jumping into a pool of piranhas with a cheeky thumbs up, but he didn’t even need to utilise a large amount of planning to begin with, due to the aforementioned, various ways he could have rejoined with Iblis immediately. Remember: Your villain’s evil plan is not automatically more intelligent and impressive by how complex it is. That’s something a lot of people forget, including many of Mephiles’ own fans.

[lunacorva]

I don't know if this poster still agrees with these statements, so I'm treating this less like a "debunk" or "argument" and more like a critical thinking excercise as a fan of Mephiles myself. Looking at what points I agree with, what points I contend. 1. I don't think this is really as severe as people say. Sonic never really interacted with Mephiles, so he wasn't acting stupid around Mephiles. Shadow, I don't think we can say acted stupid in his story. There isn't really anything to object to there. The one character people think of when they say this is Silver. Why does Silver trust Mephiles? And while I understand this, consider: A) Silver does not have acess to the same information we have. He doesn't get sinister close-ups and dramatic angles and creepy music cue-ing him into Mephiles being a villain. Mephiles doesn't even acti that sinister or villainy. He's polite, helpful, calm. Swap his model with Yami Yugi's, turn off the creepy music and he'd look like the wise mentor figure. At most, Mephiles looks... a little creepy. But, you know, don't judge a book by its cover and all. B) This kid (he's, what, 15) is DESPERATE. He's been trying to find a way to save his world for who knows how long and there's been nothing. No answer, so solution, not even a sign of hope. And then someone comes along and offers him a CHANCE, a possibility. Mephiles was offering ice cold water to a child dying of thirst. Is it REALLY surprising that Silver starts drinking? 2. This is something I agree with. The main thing is I don't think it was clear, and I don't think the writers were 100% clear themselves, what Mephiles actually NEEDED the Emeralds for. Something to remember is that Sonic 06 was effectively a first draft. The studio was on a ridiculous time crunch and forced to release it when they were not yet ready. This applies to both the story, AND the game. The writers were still at that early stage where they had some ideas forming ("Okay... He needs the Chaos Emeralds") but then the execs came, said: "Release it next week." So they had to scramble their notes together. "Uh.. um... he summons the Emeralds all together." That last part REEKS of someone hastily writing in an ending because the teacher asked them to turn in their work right then. Sonic 06 has POTENTIAL, but there is a lot of messy elements to it as well.

3. Two for three, and I agree. I don't know if this was the plan the writers had, or just a fan theory. But the Iblis plothole WAS something they should have had the time to figure out and put into the games story. In defense though, This is a fairly easiliy fixed plothole. I wouldn't say it breaks Mephiles as a character. 4. Consider this: Mephiles screwed around with roundabout plans BECAUSE he could have killed Sonic whenever he wanted. He had basically already won and had nothing to fear... so why not take his time? Why not savour the moment? Sure he could just kill Sonic immediately, but... where's the fun in that? Isn't it more satisfying to turn a desperate child into a murderer, then watch despair rip his heart apart as you tell him he just caused the very disaster he wanted to stop before you rip away from him everything he ever loved? 5. Mephiles goal was not to team up with Shadow, he wanted to HURT Shadow. Something that he did suceed on. He got to Shadow by making him question not on his future and his purpose, but even his trust in his own friends (Remember, that "slapstick moment with Omega" also had Mephiles reveal that Omega and Shadow turn on each other eventually). While Shadow ultimately chose the path of a hero, Mephiles words still caused him pain. 6. This one I disagree with on a matter of principle as opposed to plot. There ARE things to like about the... straightforwardness of this scene. In many ways, it feels like Mephiles no longer playing around. There's no heroic moment, no big dramatic fight, no monologue, just a knife to the back. It's sudden, brutal, shocking and ruthless. Now, that's not to say your preferred version of Sonic's death is bad. Nor is the game's good, they're simply... different. Two different and equally valid ways of doing such a scene. The biggest mistake I think we can make when judging fiction is to assume that there is only one valid way to write something. That leads to judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree. 7. There IS an implication that the Iblis released by Elise merely dying still has the "Seal of Grief" on it and can't be merged with. But again, see point three.

8. Again, I agree. This feels like the time-crunched writers thinking "Well, we need SOME way for the heroes to win." While I can think of a Watsonian answer, that would be my own headcanon, not something that was in the game itself. 9. This doesn't actually matter all that much. I can toss out theories and ideas all I want "Maybe he enjoys the solitude of nothningness and sees our existence like a rash upon time, maybe he's suicidal and wants to take out the world with him". But in this case, WHY he wants non-existence (And I'm not 100% sure that IS what he wants) is actually not as important as the fact that he wants it. As a famous movie once said. "Some men, just want to watch the world burn."

[lunacorva]

https://www.tumblr.com/lunacorva/739678006338093056/recent-events-has-just-ripped-the-mask-off-for-so

Don't worry, I haven't given up on my ideals. I'm just very, very disappointed at how so many people's ideals have turned out to be nothing but a self-serving sham.

It's always a frustrating thing. Noble causes are a perfect disguise for bad faith actors

[lunacorva]

Have you ever played any Soulsborne games?

Nah. I appreciate them, but never really played them. Highly recommend Sethorven's "The Day The World Got Gud"

[lunacorva]

Y'know, speaking Grievous, I was actually thinking of naming a D&D build after him. To give context: A new playable race called the Thru Green are coming soon and, according to Unearthed Arcana, can use their secondary pair of arms to wield light weapons. I was thinking: Two weapon fighting style and dual wielder feat, which gives a +1 AC in each hand. Hence, the General Grievous build!

Go for Rogue to give him high stealth so he can stalk his prey and monk too for the rapid movements. You want to make him feel like a Slasher Villain on crack.

[lunacorva]

Recent events has just ripped the mask off for so many supposed "leftists". Like, just the sheer frothing malice and hatred against Jewish people AND Arabic people, the performative "care" for victims while actively encouraging and siding with horrifically evil organizations and people...

Like, this is the exact kind of thing that a number of stories warned against, of co-opting good causes for selfish reasons and turning activism into a vicarious power fantasy.

I feel like these people have done irreparable damage to left-wing causes in their self-serving bloodlust, because they've only shown just how little they actually care about those causes, only in using them as an excuse to justify treating complex political situations as their own personal ego trip against the establishment.

(That's not to say the establishment is without blame, but this behavior is NOT the answer at all.)

I understand your anger, but it is important to also remember to not give up on ideals just because dishonest people use those ideals in bad faith. If you do, you allow those people to control the narrative, to define and corrupt the ideals. Conversely, when you are part of a group and a movement, it is NECESSARY to challenge others within it who represent it badly. Do not deny their existence, but say: "We do not stand with this." I do not pretend to know enough about the recent wars to speak with any authority or wisdom, but I will ALWAYS stand against Islamophobia or Anti-Semitism whether it comes from my allies or my opponents.

[recents]

idk i think what is interesting about astarion to me is the fact that you have a guy who started out an asshole (normal type) and then spent two hundred years in a very carefully and specifically crafted (by the writers of the game) Become A Terrible Person Or Die nexus. like it wasn’t just a Torment Nexus, he wasn’t just in hell, i feel like this is very important not to forget, he was in hell but it was specifically a hell designed to, over time, kill the empathy of anyone trapped in it, kill their brain’s ability to prioritize other peoples’ survival, to numb one’s conscience.

and then he gets yanked directly out of that nexus and despite that the fact that he spent, again, two hundred years in a situation that was sort of a rock tumbler for the human soul, there’s still a pebble left in there. and it’s a pebble that can be grown if placed in the right environment and provided with a support network.

so i think it becomes interesting because it really does i think force you to start thinking about the limits of free will even on as basic a level as the human personality. i think the fact that he becomes such a different character based on player choice, that his end morality is so hugely dependent on player choice, is uhhh. a big part of what the devs were going for probably.

it makes a lot of people really uncomfortable to acknowledge some bad people would be good people if literally nothing changed except they had a good support network and different circumstances. especially because it means the opposite is also true. which is even more uncomfortable.

you know that part in the beginning of fellowship of the ring where gandalf is talking about how gollum is ultimately only like that because of the ring and gandalf thinks his story is sad? astarion is kinda like if they sexualized gollum.

[nikomedes]

[mmarkle]

“netanyahu is so bad, maybe hitler was right” choke, bitch.

if this thought has ever crossed your mind or you find yourself repeating similar rhetoric (“kanye was right” comes to mind) you need to put the pipe down and you need to reconnect with your humanity. you need to acknowledge that you hold antisemitic views, (even if unconsciously, if your response to this was “i’ve never thought that” because not everyone who is anti-black thinks “i hate black people” but that doesn’t make them not racist), and you need to unlearn that shit. quickly.

bad things shouldn’t happen to anybody, regardless of whatever someone in their community did in the past or does in the future. point blank. period.

antisemites should never be able to find a home in any movement. they should not feel like they belong. it should not feel safe. they should be pointed out wherever they crop up and they should be pushed out. they should be shamed. they should be deplatformed. and that is not “centering jewish people” or “distracting from the issue at hand” because our fates are all linked, none of us are free until all of us are free, and i believe in y’all’s ability to multitask.

i don’t care who it is or how “good” of an activist you think someone is or how how much good information you think they’re spreading. there are actual palestinians and jews doing the same who aren’t fucking bigots and scammers (stop supporting shaun king).

note: another twitter figure that y’all need to BLOCK and STOP promoting is jackson hinkle. he is a far-right nationalist who has exploited the current conflict in order to expand his reach and grow his platform, which he will then use to further his literal nazi messaging. he is a nazi. stop sharing his shit.

palestinian people are literally begging non-arab/jewish/palestinian people to stop speaking over them and stop inserting and centering yourselves in the name of “advocating” for them. they see what you’re doing. you’re using this moment to make a name for yourself, and you’re using this moment to foment antisemitism (and the reverse is also happening re islamophobia and anti-arab racism in the name of “supporting” jewish people and israel) and push your vile views onto people, by claiming to care for palestinian lives. you’re making it all about you and it isn’t about you. period.

you don’t care about palestinians, you just hate jews.

fuck netanyahu, and fuck you, too.

[quasi-normalcy]

"Netanyahu was bad, therefore the Nazis were right" is literally just the same evil fascist logic as "Hamas is bad, therefore ethnically cleansing Gaza is right." In either case, the only appropriate response is a brick to the face. All genocide is evil and all fascists can rot in hell.

[lily-orchard-archives]

March 22, 2017

[britts-galaxy-brain]

For context, Firerose was Lily's ship name for Josh Scorcher and Ink Rose. Ink was 17.

[lunacorva]

Okay. Context here is important in situation like this. Yes. The age of consent in several US States (As well as Canada where Lily lives) IS 16. Not "16 but only for Romeo/Juliet laws." Straight up 16. It could easily be chalked up to a simple cultural difference for her. (I'm sure South Korea with it's age of Consent of 20 thinks people who ship 18 year olds are creepy) EXCEPT. Lily has written stories depicting graphic sex scenes featuring minors under the age of consent in her country. WELL under the age of consent. When taking THAT context into account, it puts her shipping in a new, far creepier light.

[britts-galaxy-brain]

Lily is Canadian. Most people have the understanding that the law doesn't always line up with ethical behavior. Most people have the understanding that a 21+ year old and a 16-17 year old is predatory regardless of age of consent laws.

Hell SOME Wisconsin lawmakers have tried to defend actual child marriage (we're talking 12), but that doesn't mean there's a CULTURE in Wisconsin where the average population just agrees that's an okay thing to do.

The context is Lily Orchard shipped a real 16-17 year old with a real mid-20 year old and tried to pressure them into actually dating. What the outdated laws written and defended by predators say about that means absolutely nothing.

[lunacorva]

To be fair I didn't see an issue at the time with a 25 year old dating an 18 year old so long as both were over the legal age of consent. Afterall, the mindset back then was "We don't live in the middle ages. Surely they wouldn't make this legal if it was harmful." Naive, I know.

Plus. Someone made a good point recently that treating an age gap relationship the same as pedophilia is getting dangerously close to equating adult women with children unable to think for themselves or give consent. Which has a HOST of unfortunate implications.

That isn't to say what she was doing was right. With context it goes from an honestly harmless joke to something creepily invasive into two people's personal lives and a treatment of her own ideas as more important than what they might want or what is healthy for them.

However. THAT by itself is not an example of Pedophillia. It certainly gets creepier when looked alongside the cases of her creating and consuming child pornography fiction, but it itself is not pedophillia.

I'm no fan of her. We both know this. But I believe in being direct and fair about her ACTUAL wrong doing. Not creating accusations that are easily debunked. I'll leave that kind of nonsense to Lily herself.

[britts-galaxy-brain]

Luna. What are you talking about? Because it seems like you're stretching pretty far to justify Lily encouraging a mid-20s Josh to date a young teenage girl by insinuating she just didn't know any better.

She did. You and I both know she did.

You haven't "debunked" anything, and I have been nothing but direct when discussing Lily's accusations. There are literal fucking archives of Lily doing it on her public Tumblr.

[lunacorva]

You know exactly what I am talking about. I literally just said my case. I made it pretty clear.

Which. By the way, was NOT me defending her. I would have thought calling her actions creepy, invasive and uncaring about the actual wants of the people involved would have made that VERY clear.

Me: "Her actions were NOT okay."

You: "Why are you justifying her??"