No title available
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
official daine visual archive
cherry valley forever
No title available
blake kathryn
h
Interview Vampire Daily
sheepfilms
Origami Around
Phantogram Three
ojovivo
almost home
Keni
shark vs the universe
occasionally subtle
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Product Placement
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
No title available
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Switzerland
seen from Netherlands
seen from Venezuela
seen from Norway
seen from Chile
seen from Germany
seen from Ukraine
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Türkiye
seen from Suriname
seen from Chile
seen from Belarus
seen from United States
seen from Hong Kong SAR China
@stupidjewishwhiteboy
My instant block policy has officially evolved to include making arguments we’ve all heard a billion times that have counter arguments we’ve all heard a billion times. If you’re boring, you are not worth my time, and you’re getting blocked
Not reblogging the full version of this mind numbingly stupid post but here’s the sparknotes lmao
“I’m an anarcho-communist and I have some fairly recent Jewish ancestry, although I am an atheist/satanist myself.”
Quote of the year
Antisemites who use their “recent Jewish ancestry” as a crutch to be a fucking antisemite are one of the worst types
The painter Marc Chagall teaches children in the colony for Jewish Homeless Children in Malakhovka, Russia, in 1921.
'being secular does not automatically make you progressive and being religious does not automatically make you conservative', i say. everyone boos, but i know I'm right
mamdani is an antisemite but please, by all means, make him your blorbo. whatever i dont even care anymore
too many people are under the impression that the holocaust is well known because they think it was white on white violence and not because the nazis fucking invented murder factories
for clarity's sake i feel the need to point out op doesn't mean "murder factories" metaphorically, the holocaust is notable for the industrialised methods of killing people. like, the nazis strategised about how to kill as cheaply and quickly as possible at scale
dude they fucking mastered the art of mass murder to the point that a whole new term needed to be coined for it.
"(((They))) Won't Let Us Talk About Palestine." Literally what alternate universe are you guys living in and how can I move there.
Murano glass Judaica. Italy, XIX-XX century.
The uniqueness of this collection, which has been formed for a long time, lies in the fact that all items intended for synagogue events and domestic rituals are made of glass - a material that has not been used in Judaica, unlike metal, in wide demand. Due to the fragility of the material and the destruction of Jewish ritual objects during the WWII, such things are few and far between and are extremely rare in collections.
Sadly, there are almost certainly a currently unknown number of IDF soldiers who committed war crimes in Gaza/Lebanon/etc. on the other hand, *every single Hamas/PIJ/Hezbollah fighter* was a war criminal.
Fighting out of uniform? War crime (especially if they were simultaneously representing themselves as a journalist/medical worker/UN worker while fighting, as quite a lot of Hamas/PIJ members appear to have done)
Using protected spaces as military bases? War crimes (also makes targeting those spaces potentially militarily justifiable)
Taking hostages? War crimes
“But some of the ‘hostages’ were IDF solders or potential reservists, making them prisoners of war!”
First of all, someone *potentially being called up to serve* is not justification for capturing them as POWs, making them hostages, making that a war crime
Secondly, POWs have rights. None of which were respected, which is, guess what, a war crime
* I feel I should clarify that this is just what I’m gathering from what other people are saying that seem to know what they’re talking about, and I’m not an actual expert on this. If I cocked up, tell me
I think you got it pretty much correct. Note that I am also very definitely NOT AN EXPERT in this either, but this is my understanding of what I've read in various places and my own reasoning on things.
What is one of the most instantly recognizable symbols of a soldier or sailor "at work" anywhere on the planet, fighting in any era one can name? The Uniform! It's in the very definition of the name for the outfit. It functions as a means of instant identification for all military members in or out of a conflict. Roll back hundreds or even thousands of years and people knew they had to have a way to distinguish one side's fighters from the other's, whether it was a unique type of clothing or armor embellishment or color of arm-band or face-paint,... and civilians generally avoided wearing those things UNLESS they intended to fight or materially support their side in the war as well.
Even if engaged in a sneaky operation, you're supposed to drop the disguise before opening fire. I think not doing so is called "Perfidy" in the Geneva Conventions and is classified as a war-crime.
PoW's are supposed to be accorded rights and be relatively well cared for and looked after. Kept in good health for their eventual return/repatriation upon conclusion of the conflict (usually once a treaty is signed). Nobody is supposed to or allowed to take hostages. Especially civilian-hostages. Taking/keeping hostages is always a war-crime when done in times of war, or always a civil crime outside of war. A lotta people conflate these together when they are supposed to mean very different things!
There are many subtle yet vital distinctions when discerning what is an actual war-crime versus what is not. Shooting an enemy in the back, for instance. Were they "retreating?" If yes, it's allowed to shoot them in the back! Were they "surrenduring?" If yes, it's NOT allowed to shoot them in the back! Or the front, for that matter. A retreating enemy combatant is still perfectly capable of regrouping and attacking again, making them a legitimate target no matter which direction they're facing. A surrendering enemy-combatant has thrown down their weapons and signaled that they are no longer any threat, entrusting their lives to the victor's honor as PoW's (who needs to be treated humanely while in custody) rather than face certain death as an active combatant.
The moment any ordinarily-civilian-hence-protected-place (think: hospital, place of worship, children's school - the three main categories most commonly thought of, but also includes refugee and internment camps) gets used by a hostile force for militaristic purpose (a place to launch attacks from, a place to regroup, a place to funnel weapons into or through), that place is no longer covered by the Geneva Conventions and becomes a perfectly valid military target. It would be "nice" to try to reduce civilian casualties in those spaces, but when the prime consideration is to eliminate the enemy's capability to attack and the enemy forces mix into the civilian population on purpose, niceties get replaced with bullets real quick.
Sadly, there are almost certainly a currently unknown number of IDF soldiers who committed war crimes in Gaza/Lebanon/etc. on the other hand, *every single Hamas/PIJ/Hezbollah fighter* was a war criminal.
Fighting out of uniform? War crime (especially if they were simultaneously representing themselves as a journalist/medical worker/UN worker while fighting, as quite a lot of Hamas/PIJ members appear to have done)
Using protected spaces as military bases? War crimes (also makes targeting those spaces potentially militarily justifiable)
Taking hostages? War crimes
“But some of the ‘hostages’ were IDF solders or potential reservists, making them prisoners of war!”
First of all, someone *potentially being called up to serve* is not justification for capturing them as POWs, making them hostages, making that a war crime
Secondly, POWs have rights. None of which were respected, which is, guess what, a war crime
* I feel I should clarify that this is just what I’m gathering from what other people are saying that seem to know what they’re talking about, and I’m not an actual expert on this. If I cocked up, tell me
im european and trust me want AC so fucking bad. our governments are the ones who are like "but but but the environment"
Boil ur politicians alive
not but literally the parisian authorities would rather let people be cooked alive in their apartments than sully their beautiful buildings
That's why u should force them to join u in the boiling
friend of mine recommended a video essay that's like 5 hours long about why it's currently a whole Thing for fascists to claim they only eat meat and demonize vegetables etc etc, and it's genuinely quite well researched in many places and contains some fascinating history and has made me feel very weird about my status as an adult who enjoys drinking milk. but I've not finished it and I genuinely don't know if I will because at one point the ol' "you can't say you care about animals and also eat animals" chestnut got dropped by the white vegan essayist and it put such a bad taste in my mouth that I had to leave instantly
like idk man it just feels genuinely parodic to dedicate hours to analyzing how foodways have frequently been used as white supremacist propaganda and then casually toss out an argument that pretty invariably demonizes indigenous hunting practices with 0 regard for traditional knowledge and land stewardship guiding those practices
Every time I hear a white vegan say that I want to throw the rubble of the Klamath Dams at them.
The largest dam removal in U.S. history. So successful that the salmon that haven’t run freely in the river for literally over a century came back the next year. Not steady progress over a decade as expected, the very next salmon run they came home. No one alive saw salmon in that river outside the hatcheries kept by native’s tribes and the Department of Fish And Wildlife scientists desperately trying to save them. One of the activists who helped bring the suit spoke of their dying grandmother making them promise to bring the fish home, and they didn’t know how that was possible, but they spent decades doing it.
The legal basis for successfully suing the power company who owned the dams was Indigenous treaty rights to eat the fish. Eating the fish was the one thing in a century that succeeded in being a clear and legally binding right that superseded the desires of white capital and industry. I have been going to the public interest environmental law conference off and on for 20 years where a lot of organizing for Undam The Klamath happened. I’ve heard updates about every legal tact they tried as they happened, and they tried everything.
There are healthy, thriving salmon, trout, and lamprey in a rewilding and recovering Klamath River right now as a direct result of Indigenous people eating them. Of their legally binding right to eat them. They sure as fuck care more about those fish than any white vegan ever could. They are salmon people that the Creator sent Salmon to feed, while charging the People with protecting and stewarding them. It’s not possible to learn about salmon and trout in the Pacific Northwest without learning this, and it’s unambiguously racist to dismiss this symbiotic relationship.
The white vegans are trying to get all hunting and fishing banned in Oregon, and that’s quite possibly the single most catastrophic thing that could be done to the animals here because we killed off all the major predators of creatures like deer and without anything hunting them their numbers will explode, eat all the vegetation, destroy the ecosystem, and then die along with everything else in that failing ecosystem. Controlled hunting of deer is vitally necessary for the deer to survive. This is something Native people know, but patronizing racist savior-complex white people refuse to listen to.
I have a whole collection of Oregon’s Public Broadcasting’s documentaries about Klamath River or the larger story of fish and people in the region. If you watch nothing else, watch Klamath Dams Are Coming Out, First Salmon Ceremony, After The Dams, and First Decent (Native made). It could not be clearer that the salmon are being protected and nourished by the people who eat them, and that stewardship is a massive part of their creation myths. But it contradicts political vegan dogma so they don’t listen.
The Klamath River Runs Free
#also do you have any idea how much conservation is funded by people who want to eat those animals#at least in the us anytime someone buys ammo or hunting equipment or hunting licenses that money goes directly to state wildlife agencies
This thread is weird because like. On one hand it talks about how it's racist to ban indigenous hunting practices. And then deploys the noble savage / magical brown person trope by making it seem like only indigenous people know about how hunting practices control deer and racist white people aren't letting them hunt? When, being real, it's a lot of white hicks with guns doing the hunting of deer.
"Hunt the deer to control the deer population" isn't some Magical Indian thing, it is widely known throughout rural America. What the fuck.
Also, it wasn't indigenous people that wiped out predators, it was colonizers. So... "Hunt the deer to control the deer population" probably wasn't even a widespread, specific indigenous practice.
This thread is a mess.
There are a lot of indigenous practices that get a lot of shit.
The Makah Whale Hunt. The Grindavasan. Why? Because their targets are cetaceans. And to be fair, the rising mercury levels in sea life make the Grindavasan less healthy than it once was.
But yeah, we also get a lot of noble savage shit out there that... Isn't deserved.
However, @biglawbear, I'm not actually seeing any noble savage shit. Just a few things mentioned vaguely, in depth stuff about the Klamath dams, and talking about how Oregan White Vegans want all hunting and fishing banned. Nobody was really equating deer hunting with native tribes.
To bounce off a post I saw earlier:
If you think you aren't antisemitic, BUT you do one or both of the following:
You tend to believe non-Jews when they accuse a Jew of being a "Zionist", and you understand that when they say "Zionist", they are calling that Jew a bad person, so you now believe this Jew is a bad person...
And/or
You're hesitant to believe a Jew saying "Hey, this person was antisemitic" (especially if they were criticizing Israel or "Zionists") and you just want to pass it off as antizionism not antisemitism...
And/or
You are hesitant to listen to Jews about what Zionism means to them, or what their connection to the land of Israel is, or anything about the history of Jews in Israel, because you've been told bad things about them and about Zionism from non-Jews
...
If this is you, you are unconsciously antisemitic. I'm not saying you're a bad person. I'm saying that if you are quick to distrust Jews and hesitant to criticize non-Jews, you have a bias against Jews. You learned that from our society, because society is antisemitic as a whole.
Personally I think Israel should actively welcome pro-Israel dissidents from “enemy” countries, but what do I know?
