Waiting until the very last minute to update my artist profile for the new teams. oopsie.
Art fite time
noise dept.
wallacepolsom
Mike Driver
Game of Thrones Daily

ellievsbear
d e v o n
$LAYYYTER
we're not kids anymore.
Jules of Nature
tumblr dot com
Sweet Seals For You, Always
No title available

bliss lane

PR's Tumblrdome
No title available
official daine visual archive
Stranger Things
h
Xuebing Du
🪼
seen from Malaysia

seen from Türkiye

seen from Colombia

seen from United States
seen from South Korea

seen from United States

seen from Colombia

seen from Colombia

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Vietnam
seen from Brazil
@rigaudon
Waiting until the very last minute to update my artist profile for the new teams. oopsie.
Art fite time
Get to Know Me!
This is just a fun little thing I’ve been wanting to do since the dawn of time but could never find a post to reblog that satisfied what I wanted. So I made this, feel free to reblog and use it yourself!
❤️ how tall are you?
🧡 what is your sexuality?
💛 what is your favorite feature on yourself?
💚 where are you from?
🩵 do you have any pets?
💙 do you have any siblings?
💜 describe yourself in five words or less!
🩷 dream job?
🖤 favorite hobbies outside of your blog
🎂 when is your birthday?
🌙 your zodiac (Sun, Moon, Rising)
💉do you have tattoos and/or piercings
🚗 can you drive?
✈️ favorite place you’ve traveled
🎤 have you been to a concert
🎵 favorite artists
🎧 last song you listened too
📺 last show you watched
📝 last thing you wrote
🔐 something no one would guess about you
🧟♀️ scariest thing that’s happened to you
🔥 craziest thing that’s ever happened to you
🍓 favorite food
🍅 least favorite food
🍊 favorite season?
🍋 favorite genre to read / watch / write
🍐 if you could make one character real, who would it be
🫐 some place you’d love to visit
🍇 a word your friends would use to describe you
🍒 what is your earliest memory
🍌 what is one talent you wish you had
💌 why did you start this blog?
✏️ when did you start writing fanfic
🖇️ what are your favorite asks to answer
📚 how do you come up with the fics you write
📌 what is the fic you’re know for
🔍 what character do you enjoy writing for the most
🖊️ what character do you not enjoy writing for
💔 is there a fic you wish you didn’t write
❤️🔥 what character do you simp for most often
🧚♀️ favorite characters of all time
🪐 favorite shows / series of all time
🌝 a show you would recommend to anyone
🌚 a show you’d tell people to stay away from
🌹 favorite kinks to write for
🥀 kinks you would never write for
🌊 a kink you would like to write but you think you’d be judged
❄️ full fics, imagines or head canons
☂️ your favorite fanfic from another writer
A couple of in depth questions!
🍄 what is something that’s happened in your life that you wish you could go back and change?
⭐️ what is one of your biggest accomplishments? Why is it so important to you?
🪻what is the toughest thing you had to go through, but can say you’ve successfully overcome?
🌺 what is the best gift someone has ever given you and why is it so important
🍀 what is your comfort show/series and why is it your comfort show? How has it helped you?
Giant Otter
Refraction Collection - Melodic Hues No.154 // Seamus Dao, 2024 Mixed media (Acrylic paint and Airbrush) on canvas (70x100cm)
ok so this would be my vision for the cigarette cake x
I made this, and it's cooling right now. Just realized I accidentally ONLY did oreo bits instead of "cut with caramel".
(I'm super proud that I made this, please reblog <3)
I made another; Dad wanted it for his birthday.
Sure, here's my disorganized recipe from hell, cobbled together from various websites and experiments. I just realized that I pasted the caramel and pastry cream in the wrong order... It's easier if you make the pastry cream first and clean that pot for the caramel. I'm on mobile. Will fix.
---
1 box white cake mix, using egg whites. Bake. Flip onto a wire rack.
2/3 box spice cake mix (save the rest to turn into batter later, or portion the batter and bake it on the side.) I add extra allspice. Bake in previous pan.
----
Caramel Ganache (kinda):
1 cup granulated sugar
⅓ cup butter, salted or unsalted
White chocolate and hot milk ganache (pre-prepare or don't; pour hot milk over the chocolate and stir until thick but fluid consistency. Use the same method over dark chocolate to make a separate, thicker ganache for later).
Heat until fully melted and amber, without burning. People say don't stir the sugar; I don't think it matters much for a cake like this and I stir it to help it melt faster after it has started.
Add the butter pieces and stir until smooth. It's gonna look scary. Just keep going.
Add the white chocolate ganache until reaching desired consistency. This is done now. Transfer to a holding container and immediately wash your pot. Filling the pot with water and letting the leftover scuz simmer on low helps.
---
Pastry Cream (it's just custard with butter, apparently) (ALSO NOTE: I never have a ton unless I make a thin tall cake, but this amount offers an appropriate texture. Maybe double this exclusively if you can make it look pretty. IMO, I'd turn this into a mousse to stabilize it, but I haven't. Spicetrekkers Walnut Espresso Blondie has a good custard->mousse setup.)
▢ 2 cups whole milk
▢ ¼ cup granulated sugar
▢ 1 large egg
▢ 2 large egg yolks
▢ ¼ cup cornstarch
▢ ⅓ cup granulated sugar
▢ 2 tablespoons unsalted butter
▢ 1 teaspoon vanilla extract (or vanilla bean, split open, to add to the milk during heating)
In a medium saucepan, combine milk and granulated sugar. Gentle simmer/steam. Do not boil.
Whisk together 1 large egg, 2 large egg yolks, ¼ cup cornstarch, and ⅓ cup granulated sugar in a mixing bowl until smooth and pale.
Slowly pour about half of the hot milk into the egg mixture in a steady stream, whisking constantly to temper the eggs and prevent curdling.
Immediately pour the tempered egg mixture back into the saucepan. Return to medium heat and whisk constantly until the mixture thickens and begins to bubble, about 2 to 3 minutes.
Remove from heat. Stir in 2 tablespoons unsalted butter and 1 teaspoon vanilla extract until fully melted and incorporated.
Transfer the pastry cream to a clean bowl. Press plastic wrap directly onto the surface to prevent a skin from forming. Refrigerate until completely chilled (can use freezer initially, if you want).
----
Layer as per image. Layer as follows:
Spice cake → Caramel ganache → White cake → Plain pastry cream → Pastry cream with add-ins → Dark chocolate ganache with oreos if you want it that way → Crushed biscoff cookies
---
It is very reminiscent of a typical Southern dump-cake, but if you organized it. It's fun. With work, it could be kind of classy?
If I had enough free-time, I'd change a lot about the layering. The caramel and spicecake is fantastic, but the pastry cream doesn't layer perfectly with the white cake. If it was up to future-me, I'd make round cakes, and stack the white in 2-3 layers with the caramelly cookie cream, and coat the entire thing in chocolate ganache (with a little espresso powder). This would do great with coconut and/or almond in a form of preference, too.
"🥪" is shorthand for "🍞🧀🍅🥬🍞"
can you people stop reblogging this my notes look like lunchtime
You know the FBI and CIA get thousands of tips a day and they look into all of them but like 99% of them turn out to be nothing.
Anyways the government choosing to release literally all files related to anything are gonna fuel conspiracy theories because the conspiracy theorists are gonna assume that those bullshit tips must mean something
So basically President 47 choosing to release files related to the 2020 election is almost certainly sending the conspiracy theorists into a spiral right now combing over all of those nothing burgers and was obviously extremely irresponsible of him but what else is new
You know this guy is also whining about how China had access to voter rolls
In a lot of states, literally everyone has access to voter roles? You’ve just gotta request it or pay for it? Like that’s not some kind of conspiracy. That’s just how the system works.
Ja. Dictators like when wannabe dictators win elections. Fancy that.
idk man not to sound like a cartoon hippie but if your entirrrrre blog and dash is about how the world sucks and everyones bigoted i think you are going to give yorself brain worms
"ah but all of this is important and true and if i dont reblog all of this important stuff waga baga THE WORMS! THATS WORMS! THE BRAIN WORMS!
i do not think you are doing activism chief i think what you are doing is sitting in your room flagellating yourself expecting something to happen
Never forget when I was at a party and I told a newly out trans man that he could tell the gross cis Grindr men to fuck themselves if they were harrassing him and a trans woman stepped in to tell me off because "They might actually be closeted trans women"
Literally wanting trans men & mascs to accept transphobia, harrassment, fetishisation and bullying from cis men online on the OFF CHANCE that they could potentially be trans women.
The entitlement trans women and femmes have to center themselves in every aspect of community and constantly treat trans men and mascs like shit is actually fucking insane and I'm fucking sick of it.
If you come to whinge about "generalising trans women and femmes" your comments getting deleted, I frankly don't give a fuck, if folks aren't happy with trans mascs and men generalising about the absolute bullshit we have to put up with in community from transandrophobic trans femmes and women and feel the need to come and derail that conversation to once again, center trans women and femmes, then you can fuck right off. My experience both online and offline has been the vast majority of trans femmes and women having issues with transandrophobia, if you don't want trans mascs and men to talk about this pattern then go out into community and fucking fix it instead of once again making the discussion about how trans women are innocent angels above any criticism or wrongdoing. It's boring and I do not care to hear about it, keep the fuck out of my space.
This goes for all my posts and my entire page I don't want to fucking hear it and you are not derailing these important conversations to centre trans women, yet again
Trans women and femmes, if you want trans men and mascs to not be out here saying that your community treats us like shit then go and do some fucking work on it, we're allowed to have a logical and protective reaction to transphobic abuse from our own community, I am not going to be DARVO'd and gaslit and y'all can fuck off
I would also like to point out the pure levels of pushback I get for saying "trans women and femmes feel entitled to center themselves in every aspect of community" while trans women and femmes are out here:
- Telling us we deserve to get raped or engaging in other disgusting rape culture rhetoric like telling us we're too ugly to get raped
- Misgendering us
- Fantasising about all the ways of killing us/talking about how much they want to kill us and want us dead
- Using slurs against us which inherently misgender us
- Using slurs against us which infantilise us and infantilising us generally
- Telling us to kill ourselves
These are just some of the main horrible things trans femmes and women have been saying about us and I'm not even getting into the amount of abuse trans women and femmes like this are getting away with in community offline or the amount of general insults, microaggressions and erasure being thrown at our community
In contrast and as a proud transandrobro I would know, I have never seen trans mascs or men talking about killing trans women, telling trans women they deserve to be raped or killed, fantasising about killing trans women, telling trans women to kill themselves or misgendering trans women and we certainly haven't made up a bunch of misgendering slurs for them
I personally have never done any of these things and on the off chance there are trans mascs and men saying and doing this shit it is nowhere NEAR the numbers of trans women and femmes doing it and yet I say that trans women and femmes are entitled to center themselves in community and I'm the one who needs to be called in and tone policed for generalising? Do you people seriously think this is a fucking chill or normal way to react to people airing grievances about being transphobically abused en masse by other trans people??
The gaslights not working anymore assholes, if you don't want us talking about genuine patterns of transphobic and other abuse and BS we've been copping in community then STOP FUCKING SHITTING ON US
the thing about "no one is talking about this!" posts is that at best they are weird guilt trips trying to make you feel personally responsible for the fact that you haven't heard about one specific thing happening that no one has mentioned to you. at worst they are just wrong because the op turns out to have no idea what people are talking about because they've never listened to another person in their life. either way I am not reblogging that
so many unread books on my shelf. unsure which to start first so ill just read nothing
I've seen so many posts lately like "trans men have got to get more feminine" and it's lowkey pissing me off because we haven't even normalized trans men being masculine yet. Have you not been paying attention to trans men when they talk about being kicked out of LGBT spaces for "appearing too cishet" like can we lock in and understand that sexuality and oftentimes gender aren't something you can visually tell before we start trying to normalize something that's already normalized
i truly think that this recent trend of “if you relate to a post about a different identity than your own you are ~derailing~ and taking over the conversation” is incredibly harmful.
i recently experienced some pretty severe transphobic abuse in my workplace (children’s home) that included having food thrown at me, being called slurs, being told i was a pervert because i am trans. one of the managers talked with me afterwards and shared that he had had a similar experience as an Asian man. this wasn’t him derailing my experience, or talking over me, or making things about himself. he was communicating “hey, i know how it feels and how much it sucks. you’re not alone.”
THAT is what solidarity IS. i don’t know what it’s like to be Asian, he doesnt know what it’s like to be trans, but we both had a similar experience and we were able to turn a horrible experience into an opportunity for bonding and comfort.
stop looking at people’s attempts as solidarity as an attack. and hey, you never know - you could find an opportunity to grow closer to other people.
jsyk the op of the post about jewish music you reblogged is a zionist
Okay, sure, let's have it out. I imagine I'll pretty much piss off everyone with this.
First: the only confidence I have in my understanding of the political situation of the Middle East is that I have no fucking understanding whatsoever of the political situation in the Middle East. Sure, I've read plenty. I have friends of many many stripes. But I'm not a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect here, folks: I know enough to know how much I don't know, and how much I know is tons.
Second, you say that person is a "zionist." There are three things I find pretty annoying about this as a defense attorney. One is that the term is not defined, and the other is that there is a complete lack of evidence. The third is the implicit assumption that being a "zionist" is enough to wholeheartedly condemn anyone.
Let's tackle these one by one. And, once again, I am neither a scholar of Jewish history nor Middle Eastern history nor anything except American criminal law.
First: definition. There are many possible meanings of zionist that I see people use. One potential meaning of "zionist" seems to be "is Jewish, but fails to disavow Israel as fast and loud as I personally want them to." Sometimes the meaning of "zionist" is just "is Jewish." Sometimes it's "a Jewish person who wishes for a return to a very distant ancestral homeland." Sometimes it's "wholehearted supporter of Israel's war crimes." A lot of pointless arguing, it seems to me, is centered around someone saying they are zionist, i.e., they would like Jewish people to someday have a nice homeland where they don't feel like a strange political chunk in another country, and another person hears that they are zionist, i.e. they enjoy wholesale slaughter of civilians.
Second: No evidence. Self-explanatory. You are an anon. I don't know why I'm supposed to trust your word. I read police reports for a living and I am supposed to be able to trust them, and let me tell you how many lies they contain.
Third: the assumption of condemnation. I literally defend the human rights of sex criminals in court. I defend murderers. What we are talking about, right now, at best, is a human person expressing an opinion, however potentially damaging and offensive (depending on definition of zionism and truth of accusation). Do you think I'm gonna say that Jewish people who express an opinion are inhuman and deserve segregation from the rest of us?
Do you think I'm ever going to stop reaching out my hand to people who use violence? Do you think I'm ever going to lose the hope that someday they will lose the fear that makes them resort to violence?
Finally, now that I've spent some time listing my problems with your case, so what.
Let's use an example closer to home. I'm an American, and I do in fact believe that America is a nation and will continue to be so, and that tearing down all government to give it back to indigenous people (something that is, to be clear, to my understanding, not comparable with any kind of political situation in Israel) is not possible as things stand. And yet nobody's here interrogating me about Donald Trump and his bombing of Iran or whether I support ICE's jackbooted thuggery.
A little further from home? If I met a Russian person, my first ask would not be "Tell me in detail your thoughts on Ukraine and Putin."
And in those two examples, I myself and this hypothetical Russian person are actually members of the country in question that is doing the thing. A Jewish person who is not Israeli isn't even that.
Listen. I think there's a lot to be unpacked about how the insularity of Jewish culture and the separateness of it from the countries where it lives is both in the interest of continuing the Jewish ethnicity and in the interest of the people who want Jewish people exterminated, and how the double-pull of those two interests maintain a tension that otherwise might dissipate. I think there's something real to be analyzed about how modern anti-semitism isn't a recurrence of medieval anti-semitism but a different thing, a sign of fascist thinking.
I think there is a horrific tragedy for everyone involved that the group who was decimated beyond belief in the blackest events in human history now has a very loud and visible nation channeling their survival into rage and violence.
I think that there are lots of Arab nations around Israel that would gladly see every person in it subject to that same rage and violence, and I'm not down with that shit either.
I think the history of who colonized who and when and what pogroms did what and how violence and why are all too fucking complicated to untangle.
I think the only way truly forward for Israel and Palestine is some kind of truth and reconciliation type thing and that Israel as it stands is too scared to see all their atrocities come to light.
I was raised atheist with college professor parents, so you can bet Jewish people in academia were part of my life from an early age. I don't understand antisemitism literally at all. It's completely incomprehensible to me. I also think Arab culture is gorgeous and studied Arabic in college. I don't discount the idea that I have subconscious biases; I've done my best to unpick them, but it's lifelong work.
The whole goddamn clusterfuck is a great example of why violence begets violence begets violence. I reject the idea that One Final Ass-Kicking on anyone's part will solve any one of these problems. The only thing that ends violence is not choosing violence. And that can't happen until enough people in and out of power want the violence to stop. There. Not here. There. It can't be imposed from outside. It has to come from within.
And that's a decision -- I must add -- that I seriously could not have less to do with. White Americans should not be making any of the related decisions.
Here endeth the essay, with one final note.
My Jewish friends are safe on this blog. My Arab friends are safe on this blog. That's all.
Okay, I want provide a bit of polite push back. I went through the replies and reblogs on this post last night and I did not see anyone provide what I thought was a satisfactory dissent to your statement here, and I feel like this is a subject that I, personally, do not feel like I can stand aside and say nothing about. I am not Jewish or Palestinian, but yet I think the only one who benefits from anyone staying silent on this issue is Israel.
I want to start by saying that I agree with your point that some random anon pointing a finger at someone and saying "zionist" is not, in of itself, a strong enough reason to condemn the person being pointed at. It is always good to do your own research as it were and make your own educated decisions on what behavior/actions/beliefs you are comfortable supporting or amplifying.
However, I want to push back on the idea that you have to be a Middle East scholar in order to fully understand what is going on right now between Israel and its neighbors. You do not. You simply have to open your eyes and see what is being done in Gaza. You don't have to crack a single history book to understand that the killing and injuring of more than 50,000 children in the Gaza Strip is wrong (x). You don't have to take a class to understand that genocide, which is what even the UN has said that Israel is doing in Gaza (x), is wrong. There is no amount of "well they started it" that will ever make me believe that what is happening in Gaza is morally correct. Now, they (the Palestinians) didn't start it, but I don't feel that I have to prove that to still be in the right here. Genocide is wrong. It doesn't matter who is committing it or why. It just is.
There is no way to make the Gaza Strip and the West Bank Israeli territory without state violence, just as Israel's current territory was only obtained through state violence. That is why I find your framing of these two definitions of Zionism as mutually exclusive as fundamentally incorrect. "They would like Jewish people to someday have a nice homeland where they don't feel like a strange political chunk in another country" versus "they enjoy wholesale slaughter of civilians", when they are in fact, the same idea. What you seem to be missing is that in order to have a Jewish state of Israel, the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people is a requirement. And let me tell you, if you have missed this fact, the Israeli government and early Zionists did not.
Last year, Israel's finance minister declared that "Gaza will be entirely destroyed" by Israel, and that its Palestinian inhabitants will "leave in great numbers to third countries" as a result of this destruction (x). Ethnic cleansing is "the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups" (x). That is what Israel is doing in Gaza to the Palestinians.
Ze'ev Jabotinsky, an early Zionist thinker and leader, said himself in his essay 'The Iron Wall' (x),
"There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority. My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent. The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage."
This is the problem with saying that Zionism is "they would like Jewish people to someday have a nice homeland where they don't feel like a strange political chunk in another country". This cannot be achieved without violence against the Palestinian people. Early Zionists were very aware of this. It is only now, that colonialism is viewed in a negative light, that Zionists are trying to pretend that their vision of a Jewish homeland can be achieved without violence against the Palestinian people.
To make myself clear, if you were to ask me if I think Israel 'has the right to exist', I would say that a) it doesn't matter. As it has been pointed out by people smarter than me, it does exist. There is no use arguing over a country's 'right to exist'. I would also say, b) no country has the right to exist as an unequal theocracy. If Israel tomorrow said "Alright, Palestinians (including those in Gaza and the West Bank) can be equal citizens. They can vote, run for office, own property, and receive governmental protections and benefits in the same way a Jewish citizen of Israel does, and we will not police the number of Palestinians in Israel nor those in political office in Israel, and formerly displaced Palestinians can return to their homes" then I would say great! But that is not the situation we are in right now. And I cannot and will not support an apartheid state currently committing a genocide.
I want to state that I agree that conflating Judaism with Zionism is both wrong and dangerous. Not only are not all Jewish people Zionists, not all Zionists are Jewish! Christian Zionism is a large movement among American Christian Protestants who believe we are living in the end times and as a part of that, the Jewish people will reclaim Jerusalem (x). I think anyone who uses the term "Zionist" to condemn all Jewish people is wrong and antisemitic. But I think ignoring what it really means to support a Jewish state of Israel is equally wrong and harmful.
I also want to look at out your last statement, that both Jewish people and Arab people are safe on your blog. Going through the replies and reblogs last night, I saw a lot of Jewish people and pro-Zionist people agreeing with you and thanking you. I did not see any Arab people doing the same. I wonder if your post really made them feel safe, when your statements were trying to disguise the fact (on purpose or on accident) that Israel is currently trying to ethnically cleanse the region to make a "Greater Israel" (x). I find that when you are tolerant of both the oppressed and the oppressor, you will find yourself only in the company of the latter.
Finally, if you want a longer, and more comprehensive look at this subject, I highly recommend YouTuber Shaun's video essay "Palestine".
Gonna give this a rebagel for a few reasons, foremost among them: very good well thought out response and gave me stuff to chew on.
I will admit: I expected Jewish folks to be a little more mad at me because I perceived what I was saying as being quite critical of Israel. I basically called it cowardly, called its actions war crimes, and said it was choosing violence and horror, and I have absolutely no disagreement with any of what you've summarized above. I didn't see that as silence at all, nor as statements trying to disguise the ethnic cleansing taking place. I also did not call Hamas a terrorist organization or do any nod to the anti-Jewish violence that's been taking place here in America, because I didn't want to get into cross-accusations or make any Arabic people feel I blamed them, because I don't. So I'm very surprised that you saw the post that way, and I'm surprised that they did.
And honestly, I'm surprised that I posted probably one of the most "cancel me, mommy" posts I've ever posted and I've gained followers. WTF?
Anyway, what I focused on was the fact that Jewish people here in America near me are not responsible for Israel any more than I'm responsible for Trump or a Russian person is responsible for Putin. That is a different thing than "remaining silent."
In retrospect, I think probably there are a lot of American Jewish people on this post because they've been interrogated about zionism nonstop for months and they've been made afraid through acts of terror on American soil. I don't think Arabic people are necessarily attracted to this when they can enjoy much less nuanced support in other spaces. But I'm probably gonna ask my best friend (Egyptian) about it and get her take. It's also a mistake, I think, to regard Arab people as anything like a monolith on this or any other issue.
I don't think this matches other colonialist movements. Those were all, at heart, one state forcibly extracting the resources and wealth of another geographic area for their own enrichment, and that's not what's happening here. But that's a legalistic quibble about labeling, not a quibble about what is happening.
But this is all just words. It's a whole bunch of arguing over words and events that we're not influencing and that aren't happening here. As someone who's used to actually doing real things to help oppressed people, arguing so much about the words we use to describe people we're not helping just seems pointless. I don't have the power to fix anything in Israel and Palestine, but by god I can fight to get my guy out of jail before ICE comes to pick him up. I know where my energy is going.
Thank you for your very civil response. I too was and am worried about responding to your post because of course this is such a divisive issue.
I think your post was so well received, at least in part, because you separated Zionism from the violence being perpetrated by the state of Israel. In your post, you repeatedly define Zionism in a way that allows it it to not be defined as an ideology of colonialism and ethnic cleansing, which I hope I demonstrated in my original response is impossible to do. You hand wave away the necessity of loudly and vocally rejecting this inherently violent ideology by saying this condemnation of it is saying that the person holding this ideology is "inhuman and deserve segregation from the rest of us".
I can't speak for the original anon who messaged you, but I am not saying that. I am saying that what Israel is doing should be called what it is: an ethnic cleansing and a genocide. How any person reacts to that statement says a lot more about them than it does about me. Again, I don't think it is right to go around just calling people Zionists willy nilly because of what it really means. But equally, I don't think it is okay to be accepting of those who are accepting of Israel's actions towards Palestine and its other neighbors without strongly pushing back on those beliefs.
I also think that your post was well received because you do a lot of "both sides"ing the problem. I read your post, and it seems like maybe these people agreeing with your post did the same, as equating the violence done by the Palestinian people to defend themselves against a colonialist, ethno-nationalist regime to the violence done against them for the purpose of ethnic cleansing. Do I condemn the attack by Hamas on Oct. 7th. Of course. Am I surprised that Israel's actions have only created a stronger opposing force against them? No, of course not. Do I think Palestine has the right to defend itself against Israel? Again, like I said in my original response, what any state has a 'right' to do is basically meaningless. If some foreign state came into the US, bombed our cities, drove us from our homes, moved us into designated areas with limited resources, would we fight back? Yes, obviously. Anyone would fight back in those conditions. As Jabotinsky said in his essay that I quoted, no native peoples have ever peacefully relinquished their lands to an occupying colonialist force.
Saying that what is happening between Israel and Palestine doesn't match previous colonialist movements is, in my opinion, extremely incorrect. I think you are right in saying that it is just a legalistic quibble. I think the most obvious comparison to draw to what is happening between Israel and Palestine is the US. Many of the early colonists came to the American colonies to establish communities based around their religion, where they could practice their religion without persecution from other governments. To that end, they lied, killed, and exploited the indigenous peoples at every turn, and drove them from their lands in order to claim them for their own. They believed, especially during the western expansion, that they had a religious mandate to do so, and used their religion to justify their treatment of the Native Americans. The difference is that when the US was formed, the founders did not make the US a Christian theocracy (despite current conservatives trying to turn us into one).
You also say that as Americans we can have and are having no effect on the conflict in the Middle East. This could not be further from the truth. The United States has given more aid to Israel than it has given any other foreign nation (x). It has given Israel over $300 billion dollars in aid, both economic and military. This includes over $500 million dollars a year for missile defense. Israel also buys much of its weapons from the US (x).
This is aid we could end. If our Congresspeople wanted, they could vote to end this aid and the selling of weapons to Israel. But they are not, currently, because a large part of the population is, if not in support of this aid, then not being vocally against it. I live in Michigan, where Haley Stevens is currently running a campaign backed by AIPAC. If elected, she would vote to continue to support and fund Israel's military actions against Palestine and its other neighbors. She is running against Abdul El-Sayed, who supports ending financial aid and the selling of weapons to Israel (x). There are races like this all across the country. You can support these candidates by donating your money, your time, or your voice. We as Americans must be as vocally anti- the support of financial and military aide to Israel as possible, as this is the only thing that will ever change Congressional voting patterns. Vote out Congresspeople who refuse to stand against this support of Israel. This is something we can all do. Maybe it doesn't seem as active or real as other kinds of political action, but it is a real effect that we can have on the Israel- Palestine conflict. Just in the last few years, the opinion of the American people towards Israel and Palestine has shifted significantly (x), and we have seen this result in more and more candidates making this issue a cornerstone of their campaigns.
As I said in my original response, Israel benefits from any sort of silence or obfuscation on our parts. Any attempt to make what they are doing as less than what it is is a barrier to ending the support to their genocidal regime.
And lastly, to your point about Jewish Americans being tired of having to answer for Israel's crimes: this is what Netanyahu wants. He wants there to be antisemitic hate crimes, he wants Hamas to continue fighting, because it gives him an excuse to continue carrying out his war crimes. That is why it is so important that everyone, especially non-Jewish people, stand against Israeli propaganda.
Well the thing here is that @jadejedi is (1) misstating facts (e.g., the UN as a body has not officially declared what is going on in Gaza as a genocide; statements by individual members or committees of the UN do not represent the official opinion of the UN and never have on any issue anywhere ever) and (2) making polemical statements and insisting that other people accept them as fact (e.g., throwing out the actual definition of Zionism, a word created by Jews for Jews to mean a specific thing, and saying it means something else; statements about who started the conflict); whereas @thelawfulchaotic is making a genuine effort to stick to facts.
So it's really unclear to me what's going on here. Does @jadejedi actually believe that they themselves are engaging in a good faith debate? Or are they pretending to believe such in order to see how far they can push @thelawfulchaotic to a less nuanced, less informed, more emotionally based position?
I can't say. I can say there are times in my life when I have swallowed anti-Israel propaganda hook, line, and sinker and then propagated it. I can only hope that's what's going on here, and that @jadejedi makes the effort to remove their blinders, do research into the historical and political background of the conflict instead of dismissing its importance, and gain the kind of critical thinking and nuance that @thelawfulchaotic demonstrates.
(I do not presume that such critical thinking and nuance would result in the the two individuals arriving at the same conclusions, only that critical thinking and nuance helps individuals arrive at more informed opinions and cause less harm through their actions.)
Hi, thank you for your response! Apologies for misstating the UN's official position on whether or not what Israel is doing to Palestine is a genocide. Frankly, the reason I did not go more in depth on the issue is because I don't think something needs to be officially labeled a genocide for me to see with my own eyes that it is bad. I do not feel the need to litigate whether or not what Israel is doing is legally, officially a genocide, because I can see with my own two eyes that it is morally wrong. Again, I don't think this issue is that complicated. Killing innocent civilians for the purpose of propping up an ethno-state is bad. I will not apologize nor back down from saying so.
What definition of Zionism should I be using? Here are some of the definitions I am currently working off of:
From Wikipedia: "Zionism[a] is an ethnocultural nationalist[1] movement that emerged in late 19th-century Europe to establish and support a Jewish homeland through colonization in the region of Palestine"
From the Jewish Center for Justice: "Zionism is the belief in the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in our ancestral homeland of Israel. It affirms that Jews, like all peoples, have the right to live in safety, dignity, and sovereignty in a nation of their own"
From the University of Michigan: "Zionism, or Jewish nationalism, is a modern political movement. Its core beliefs are that all Jews constitute one nation (not simply a religious or ethnic community) and that the only solution to anti-Semitism is the concentration of as many Jews as possible in Palestine/Israel and the establishment of a Jewish state there"
From the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Jewish nationalist movement with the goal of the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews"
From the American Jewish Committee: "Zionism is a movement and ideology to reestablish and support the existence of a Jewish state in the Biblical Land of Israel"
Soooooo. What am I missing? Every single definition I have listed here, and every definition of Zionism that I have ever heard, includes the desire for a Jewish state, which is what I have an objection to. I do not believe in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. I do not believe that America should exist as a Christian state, as so many conservatives in my country want it to be. I do not believe Iran has the right to exist as a Muslim state. I do not believe theocracies have the right to exist because that definitionally places the rights of some citizens over others, in this case on the basis of religion/ethnicity. I do not believe it is morally right in this or any case.
In order for any state to exist as a theocratic state, or as an ethno-state, violence is inherently necessary to purge the state of all those who are not a part of the state religion or ethnicity, whichever the case may be. Again, as Jabotinsky himself said, no colonialist project was ever done peaceably and with the cooperation of the native peoples. Therefore, violence is necessary. To support Israel as a Jewish state, you must, therefore, accept that violence that is necessary.
As he said in that quote I used in my original response: "Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority." If you are going to advocate for a Jewish state of Israel, you must be okay with advocating for the violence necessary to keep it as such. Any other stance is willfully ignorant. I am not okay with that kind of violence.
You also mention my point about who started the conflict. Again, I didn't want to go there because I don't think it's necessary. Past crimes do not justify current ones. But just in case you want to do a little more reading, here you go (x). Also, I have not gotten to it yet, but I've heard 'The Hundred Years' War on Palestine' by Rashid Khalidi is a very informative read.
What does it mean in this context, to engage in a good faith debate? Does it mean to close my eyes and pretend I haven't seen the things I've seen? To pretend I haven't heard the things I've heard? Because I can't and won't do that. I am not engaging in a good faith debate because I am not coming to this discussion willing to assume the positive intent of the state of Israel, when I have seen what they have done.
I want to step back for a minute. Instead of going through this point by point, I want to give you my big picture.
I've been studying this conflict on and off for 35 years, and I used to do human rights work in the West Bank with Palestinians. A lot of this revolved around working with Palestinians whose homes and/or farmland were at risk of being demolished by the Israeli Defense Force. So, I very much believe in human rights for Palestinians and Arabs as well as Israelis and Jews.
My experience has taught me that misusing language like "genocide" and accusing either side of doing things they haven't actually done does not help. And these things really do matter. It's not a case of "oh poor baby did I hurt your feelings." It's a matter of feeding into a conflict that is really entrenched. I'll focus here on Palestinians for a moment because this seems to be the part of your more concerned about. An entrenched conflict, minimizing real problems, ignoring history, and spreading falsehoods are not good for Palestinians. They're terrible for Palestinians. They get Palestinians killed. I have seen this over and over and over across the decades.
It also hurts Jews within Israel and in the diaspora. For example, accusing Israelis and Jews of genocide when what is happening is not genocide (but rather, a mix of other types of war crime and just plain war) feeds into centuries of antisemitic tropes about Jews being out for non-Jewish blood, as well as the widespread antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jews must be kept as a political minority wherever they live or otherwise they will take over and destroy everybody else (which is not actually what's happening in Israel or the Palestinian Territories; Israel has done some bad shit, but more than 20% of its population is non-Jewish and the populations of the Palestinian Territories remain robust, so clearly Israel's Jewish population has not destroyed 'everyone else').
Whether or not you personally mean such things when you misuse language, whether or not you are even aware that these tropes exist, using such language signals to people who truly hate Jews and want them dead or at least 'put in their place' that they are welcome to interact with you and form coalitions with you.
I learned this through the personal experience of using inaccurate language to describe the conflict and suddenly finding myself surrounded by proud and loud antisemites. I was like, "Hey, why all the sudden are people comfortable saying the grossest antisemitic and Nazi shit to my face AND EXPECTING ME TO AGREE WITH THEM? Wait! They think I hate Jews! Why do they think I hate Jews? (Did a little looking into my own language and the history of antisemitism.) Oh! Yikes! What I just said is built on and feeds into antisemitic tropes!"
As such a situation should, it led me to greater self-reflection, more careful use of language, educating myself about antisemitism, and listening to people I didn't think I agreed with.
I believe in human rights first and foremost. I did not get into this to diminish the rights or dignity of anyone. Defending the rights of Palestinians should never involve dehumanizing Israelis or Jews. Defending the rights of Israelis or Jews should never involve dehumanizing Palestinians.
Throwing around incendiary language about groups of people in an international conflict is dehumanizing. Being careless with facts that put one party or the other in an unfairly bad light is dehumanizing.
That's the most important thing I have to say. And because it's the most important thing I have to say, I'm leaving it at that (except for one thing below). If you want rebuttals or additional information for learning about views that differ from the ones you stated above, I'm happy to put together a reading list. Just let me know.
I apologize if that sounds dismissive. It's more that other people have written comprehensively about these topics in a better way than I ever could.
The only other thing I want to say is about approaching topics in good faith. I actually do think it's an essential part of engaging in good faith discussion to consider both the positive and negative intents of all players in a conflict. I've never encountered a situation where an individual or group has operated with purely negative intent. They always have some sort of positive intent. Whether the positive intent is directed at the self, at other parties, or both, it's still positive intent and it's still important to try to understand it. Take, for example, Hamas. It's original charter calls for the extermination of Jews everywhere. It is also engaged in killing and torturing Palestinians who disagree with it. those would be examples of negative intent. But Hamas is also viewed positively by many Palestinians because it provides financial support to families of Hamas fighters killed in action and sometimes of other Palestinians killed in the conflict. Funding schools and supporting Arab nationalism can be viewed as positive intent. Instituting (certain interpretations of) Islamic law would also be viewed as positive intent by many Palestinian Muslims. Establishing an Arab-Muslim state from the river to the sea may be viewed as negative intent by israel, but it is viewed as positive intent by many others, including many Western activists.
As for Israel? I'm sure you could come up with a long list of examples of negative intent. As for positive intent, preventing Jews from being slaughtered en masse is an explicit positive intent of the existence of Israel. A lot of people think that concern is overblown, but given the wide scale persecution and expulsion of Jews in Europe, Russia, Arabian Peninsula, and North Africa over the past couple centuries, including up until today (look up Jews in Yemen for example), and the fact that Israel is the only country that reliably takes in Jewish refugees from anywhere in the world, I don't think it is. And it really has to be understood if a person wants to make any meaningful contribution toward a just solution to the conflict. But you don't have to go with that one if you don't want to. I'm sure if you think creatively, you can come up with positive intents of your own.
I was gonna leave this in the tags, but it started getting long so I'm adding an actual post.
OP you're seeing a lot of Jews agree with you even though you're critical of Israel and said it is committing war crimes because that's what a lot of Jews think. Like, "Israel is currently doing bad things to Palestinians and should stop, but I still want the country to exist," is a very common Jewish Zionist position. Not to be a hipster about it, but most Jews hated Netanyahu before it was cool (before most pro-Palestinian people knew who he was). So you're finding a lot of Jews agreeing with you because what you've said is non-controversial in many Jewish circles.
And I think you made a good point that jadejedi doesn’t really want to engage with when you pointed out that many Americans don't like what Trump is doing to and with our government but still think that destroying the US would be bad, and that doesn’t make them inherently evil, and the same for Russians and Putin, so why would Israelis having the same opinion about their government (or Jewish non-Israelis who very often have friends/family in Israel) be different?
I think that a lot of what jadejedi said was either flat out antisemitic or showed a lot of antisemitic biases. I don’t want to go through them all, because we’d be here all day, but I do want to call out two that I find particularly egregious.
The first is her insistence that she doesn’t need to know about the history of the conflict in order to “fully understand it.” She is right that you don’t need that to know that dead Palestinian civilians is a tragedy, but knowing that is different than fully understanding the situation. For example, if she more fully understood the situation, she might understand that Zionist thinking has changed since the days of Jabotinsky who she so eagerly cited. Or she might understand that if you must use a modern colonial lens to view the conflict (still don’t think that’s the most useful, but people tend to insist) then Arabs more closely meet the definition of colonizer in this situation than Jews do. Or she might understand that when she calls Israel an ethnostate she’s repeating neonazi talking points. But instead she insists on repeating things she doesn’t understand in order to attack Jews.
And that’s where the second really egregious thing comes in. Again and again she insists that Jews should not have a homeland, nor the protections that it offers, and does not consider (or does not care about) the consequences of that happening. She says she objects to Israel as a Jewish theocratic state, but if it ceased to exist the Palestinian state that would replace it would certainly be a Muslim theocratic state. She says that she objects to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, but if Israel were to cease to exist the 7 million Jews living there now would be ethnically cleansed – it’s explicitly called for in the Hamas charter. She seems to believe in the UN as some sort of moral authority (or at least, she tries to cite it as a source) but the UN has declared self-determination as a human right, and Jews make up too small a percentage of the population to be able to do that without their own state. I’ve seen this sort of person a lot in pro-Palestine spaces – they insist that they’re advocating against violence and for saving lives, but if you really dig in to what they say they want the end result is dead Jews.
To "yes, and" this, because trying to deal with people like jadejedi is exhausting and pointless, I've long since made bingo cards to show the degree to which the arguments are repetitive and in bad faith.
And there were others I could probably have checked off too. This is not intended as a major "cincher" of an argument or anything--just a visual representation of how often we have to deal with bad faith bigots like jadejedi, and how often they make use of the same arguments and cherrypicked examples, to the point that we have bingo cards.
When that is the existing context, do you understand why we're so abjectly grateful for your principled stance?
Being an adult will have you unironically craving a vegetable
Being an adult will have you unironically sad about a parasite outbreak in fresh vegetables.