Title is from Tolkien's "On Fairy Stories". Handle means "storyteller" in Nahuatl. This'll mostly be about pop culture, linguistics, philosophy, history, and other things that interest me, but also about writing.
“You don’t have to know everything about your magic system, no one in the real world knows everything about physics!”
Just because a vegan soprano doesn’t know exactly what will happen when she uses a borrowed shotgun on the zombies overrunning Broadway doesn’t mean you, the writer, can get away with not knowing. There are probably entire websites, there are definitely entire subreddits and forum threads, just for making fun of writers who get guns wrong.
If you make up a magic system and don’t know beforehand what is possible (you can revise it as you go but it has to stay consistent: from the reader’s perspective that has to be how things always were), it is indistinguishable from cheating. And we do in fact make fun of writers for that, too.
Henry Nowak's alleged killer has claimed during his trial that he was acting in self-defence.
Here's the context missing;
>Vickrum Digwa, 23, claims he acted in self-defence after [Nowak] used a racist insult, punched him and knocked his turban off, Southampton Crown Court heard.
And;
>Police initially handcuffed the victim before discovering his fatal injury a short time later.
So, officially, the cops didn't even notice he was stabbed when they cuffed him.
Even being very charitable, that sounds a lot like incompetence. Were they in a very dark alley or something?
Still, the trial of his killer has been covered multiple times by the Beeb and other outlets.
A Sikh man, Vickrum Digwa, is standing trial for the murder of a Polish student, Henry Nowak, in Southampton, Hampshire
>It is admitted that Nowak, already weak from knife wounds, was trying to reach help when the police arrived. The evidence is that, having arrived, the police interviewed both parties; told that Nowak had started a drunken fight and racially abused Digwa, they immediately handcuffed him. Afterwards, they realised his condition. When he collapsed, they removed the cuffs and administered first aid. But it was too late. He died in their hands.
The popular narrative is that the police automatically arrested the white guy who allegedly made a slur. I think the punching complicated things, but I still wanna know why they didn't notice the stabbing.
this is missing some of the big sticking points of this story. like that digwa's family was extremely complicit. his parents and his brother helped him lie to police on the spot. iirc, his mother even held henry down as he was bleeding out in the street.
none of his family members were charged for any of this, last i heard.
but that's just a family of criminals. what's maybe more egregious is that henry told police multiple times that he'd been stabbed and one of the officers turned around and told him, word for word, "i don't think you have, mate".
they didn't just arrest him because they were told he attacked someone. they arrived at the scene and immediately started treating him with open contempt.
The racial motive of the cops is attributed largely to
1, the family and suspect claimed racism in the first place to justify claiming victim status.
2, the murder weapon was a religious dagger that they were allowed to carry around as an exception to britains stringent knife laws.
3, someone's apparently put out the handbooks and such that the police are trained by and IIRC, it basically codifies "don't arrest the non-whites, arresting non-whites means contributing to racism" behavior, which people are also claiming is part of why they didn't bother checking Nowak for injuries at all until he collapsed and stopped responding.
also, as far as i know the only info we have of concretely what happened before the cops showed up with bodycams is the fact that nowak was stabbed and Digwa had the murder weapon. Dunno if there's medical reports on Digwa having any injury.
What are the rules and policies for this sort of situation if they were not acting on racial motives, and were they following those rules?
This BBC article says Digwa's brother called 999 and claimed Nowak was the attacker. Even if he was stabbed, it could've been in self-defense if they thought the call was true.
The operator also said they sent an ambulance.
And the cops called a bus and started CPR one minute after they arrested him. Which was one minute after they arrived.
So, two minutes total. That doesn't sound like they could've done a lot to help him even if they hadn't cuffed him.
The judge said Nowak's injuries were so severe he would not have survived, however quickly he received first aid, CPR or expert medical treatment.
Also, Digwa was convicted three days after OP's post. 21 year minimum sentence.
Considering that there is conflicting evidence related to that *AND* the case was about the stabber and not the negligence or lack thereof by the police officers I do in fact doubt that there was much relevant testimony to that.
Genuine madness how people keep hyping up the taste of alcohol and it's absolutely repulsive and violently terrible. This tastes like lead and would be used for some sort of strange torture method as opposed to a recreational drink
How Wikipedia defines Zionism has significantly changed over the years. This has contributed to the misunderstanding of what Zionism actually is.
Just look at how it's described in 2026 (now), in 2016, in 2006 and in 2004 (below the cut).
2026/Now: "Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in late 19th-century Europe to establish and support a Jewish homeland through colonization in the region of Palestine, which roughly corresponds to the Land of Israel in Judaism—itself central to Jewish history. Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible."
2016: "Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, IPA: [t͡sijo̞ˈnut], translit. Tziyonut, after Zion) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land). Zionism emerged in the late 19th century in central and eastern Europe as a national revival movement, called Hovevei Tziyon. Soon after this most leaders of the movement associated the main goal with creating the desired state in Palestine, then an area controlled by the Ottoman Empire."
2006: "Zionism is a political movement and an ideology that supports a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed at various times in history. While Zionism is based heavily upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the modern movement was originally secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism in late 19th century Europe."
2004: "Zionism is a political movement among Jews holding that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland. Formally founded in 1897, Zionism embraced a variety of opinions in its early years on where that homeland might be established. From 1917 it focussed on the establishment of a Jewish homeland or state in Palestine, the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Since 1948, Zionism has been a movement to support the development and defence of the State of Israel, and to encourage Jews to settle there."
the “sources” for some of the most extreme & totalizing claims on the page are literally just a small handful of people claiming this or that is what Zionists wanted, repeating a buzzphrase with almost the exact same wording, and not citing evidence from the mouths of Zionists themselves that they wanted that.
one of said sources, Rashid Khalidi, is a former PLO spokesperson. like, actively produced propaganda in an official capacity for the PLO.
another of the sources claims that “as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible” was a position that “enjoyed the unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations” (emphasis my own), which is just… an utterly batshit and easily-disproven statement for anyone who has ever met a Zionist (or for that matter, a Jew) or read the writings of the early Zionists.
at best the most extreme claims get a [ disputed - discuss ] slapped on as a band-aid, but I have seen much better-sourced edits to significantly less impactful pages removed far faster for far less. there is no reason claims that easily debunked or from a PLO propagandist should even be considered.
"Not citing evidence from the mouths of zionists themselves" alright I got you from several Zionist voices on the concept that Zionism/a Jewish state cannot be achieved without the "transfer" of the local population.
Nahman Syrkin, socialist zionist, said that Palestine was “thinly populated, in which the Jews constitute today 10 percent of the population, must be evacuated for the Jews." B. Katznelson and Y. Kaufman, eds., Ketvei Nahman Syrkin [Writings of Nahman
Syrkin].
Israel Zangwill, British zionist author and confidante of Herzl, in 1905 stated "[We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." Speech delivered in April 1905, in Israel Zangwill, Speeches, Articles and Letters
(London: The Soncino Press, 1937), p. 210
Zangwill wrote in the League of Nations Journal in 1919 that Palestinians “should be gradually transplanted” in Arab
countries. In his book, The Voice of Jerusalem, in 1920. There, he advocated an “Arab exodus” that would be based on “race
redistribution” or a “trek like that of the Boers from Cape Colony,” which he advocated as “literally the only ‘way out’ of the difficulty of creating a Jewish State in Palestine.” Masalha, Nur. 1992. Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, 1882–1948
He also stated quite racistly, that "many [Palestinians] are semi-nomad, they have given nothing to Palestine and are not entitled to the rules of democracy."
Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote in 1925: “If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find a benefactor who will maintain the garrison on your behalf . . . Zionism is a colonizing adventure and, therefore, it stands or falls on the question of armed forces." Jabotinsky constantly disparaged anyone seeking a "peaceful" route to a jewish state by calling them "peace mongers."
Ben Gurion, first PM of Israel, in a meeting with the Jewish Agency Executive in 1936 said "If it was permissible to move an Arab from the Galilee to Judea, why it is impossible to move an Arab from Hebron to Transjordan, which is much closer? There are vast expanses of land there and we are over crowded….Even the High Commission agrees to a transfer to Transjordan if we equip the peasants with land and money. If the Peel Commission and the London Government accept, we’ll remove the land problem from the agenda. Flapan, Zionism and the Palestinians , p. 260, citing Protocols of the Executive meeting.
Also in 1936, Schmuel Shmuel Zuchovitzky (later Zakif), a leading figure in the agricultural sector and a member of the
General Zionist Party Executive stated in a committee "I am convinced that it would be impossible to carry out transfer without compulsion. I do not see in this any immoral measure. I want to help the Jews to come to the Jewish state and to help the Arabs to cross to the Arab state. I know that these things are not so easy and involve a lot of difficulties …. And also [land] expropriation must be carried out." Compulsory transfer meant through the use of force. Protocol of the Jewish Agency Executive meeting of 12 June 1938.
Yosef Weitz, former director of the Jewish National Fund's Land Department, wrote in 1941 seeing “large [Arab] villages crowded in population and surrounded by cultivated land growing olives, grapes, figs, sesame, and maize fields . . . and once again I hear that voice inside me called: Evacuate this country” Another diary entry that same year: “They [the Arabs] are too many and too much rooted [in the country]… the only way is to cut and eradicate them from the roots.”
Weitz also wrote, "Amongst ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country. No 'development' will bring us closer to our aim to be an independent people in this small country. After the Arabs are transferred, the country will be wide open for us; with the Arabs staying the country will remain narrow and restricted . . . The only way is to transfer the Arabs from here to neighbouring countries, all of them, except perhaps Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Old Jerusalem. Not a single village or a single tribe must be left. And the transfer must be done through their absorption in Iraq and Syria and even in Transjordan. For that goal, money will be found—even a lot of money. And only then will the country be able to absorb millions of Jews and a solution will be found to the Jewish question. There is no other solution."
Memorandum from the 1948 "transfer committee": The exodus of the Arabs beyond the boundaries of the state of Israel was not from the start an impossible occurrence and its occurence is not among the surprises that have never been predicted….On the contrary, much had been said about such a possibility, which has come out of planned considerations, in recent years, as a solution to the problem of the whole Land of Israel
Even if you trusted & took the translation, sourcing, & framing of all the above quotes at face value (which you should not), they still don’t refute or even address anything that anyone here was talking about at all.
You could’ve saved yourself a lot of effort assembling that whole gishgallop if you had actually addressed the specific claim (that “‘as many Jews as possible, with as few Arab Palestinians as possible’ was a position that ‘enjoyed unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations’”) instead of falling back on the entirely-irrelevant-but-much-easier-to-defend position that “there existed any Zionists who either saw the conflict as zero sum and/or advocated for evacuation at some point.”
Because no duh. There were people like that on both sides of the conflict. That was never a question.
But even just the Ze’ev Jabotinsky one alone makes it so clear how deceptive these quotes are being presented, because he literally said, consistently and on multiple occasions, that the removal of Arabs would not only be impossible but immoral and that he rejected the idea. He went as far as to draft a proposed constitution that would ensure equal rights & participation in the Israeli government for Arabs. These are not the words or actions of a person who was trying to ethnically-cleanse Arabs.
Lie better next time. Or at the very least actually address the argument.
"Even if you trusted" these quotes at face value? I gave you citations to look from. The ones I didnt you can google and find them in jewish based websites
These voices are not just from the extreme like jabotinsky but members from the "socialist" perspective? Again I highlighted their roles before quoting them. The JNF was a major organization in the development of zionism and israel and its members believed in the transfer of palestinians
These were all major leaders in the establishment of israel.
And yes all these quotes go to show that this position from left to right on early zionist committees faced unanimous support. The constant debate from the 1890s to the 1940s was how to transfer palestinians not if they should..
Just because you dont believe that these people had a bearing on the development of zionism does not mean none of these quotes mattered.
I could bring on more figures but truly you dont seem to want to even read a pov that refutes your pov
#and the material reality is that it is a settler colonial ideology
So the Israelis born in Israel who simply want their country to keep existing within its internationally-recognized borders and not expand beyond them are "settler colonialists"? Do we need to throw them out of their country because of what their great-grandparents maybe did?
Ironically, Zionism is essentially a blood and soil nationalism. Which mostly just proves those aren’t intrinsically bad, because Israel is the best the Jewish people have behaved since their first war with Rome.
The worst that can really be said about Zionists is they often, probably even usually, have a double standard toward other people’s nationalism. But being hypocritical jackasses is hardly grounds to support genocidal terrorists.
this shit from the comments is unironically so fucking sad to me. this is where we’re at now? “aren’t books supposed to have morals?” genuinely let’s all just pack it in and go home, we tried the whole “experiencing life and art at a greater complexity level than an eight year old can handle” thing and it didn’t work out, somebody break the news to oscar wilde, we’re done here. “books are meant to teach you something.” christ.
Except they don't want it to be explicit written standards, they want it to be vibes from angry mobs that often haven't even seen what they're mad about.
I’m rapidly approaching a free speech absolutist but the moral context of the things that happen in a story is a fundamental part of the story.
“Light was right (except he didn’t kill billionaires)” okay you didn’t understand Death Note. “The Jedi were actually the bad guys and the Empire is good” that’s cool maybe you should rewatch Star Wars, a bit more carefully. “The UNSC aren’t authoritarian like 343 retconned them to be” Susan the list of things “the UNSC considers contraband” that Jun and the militia on Reach discuss includes rations. As in food.
Lots of my favorite characters are villains. I don’t pretend otherwise. One of them is literally the Antichrist and acts like it!
UCLA allowed Jewish students to be beaten until they were unconscious and attacked with pepper spray, according to a lawsuit against the Uni
A group of antisemitic UCLA students beat their Jewish classmates unconscious, attacked them with sticks and pepper spray and created Jewish exclusion zones — all while the school did nothing to stop it — according to a new lawsuit against the University of California.
The school allowed for vile antisemitic attacks on Jewish students on the campus following the Hamas attacks on October 7, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division said in the suit, obtained by The California Post.
“Antisemitic hatred against UCLA’s Jewish and Israeli students reached a point where students were physically assaulted, injured, excluded from campus, and deprived of educational opportunities because of their perceived Jewish or Israeli heritage,” the lawsuit said.
The explosive Department of Justice complaint alleges anti-Israel protesters seized control of UCLA’s main quad in April 2024, setting up barricades and physically blocking Jewish and Israeli students from entering classrooms, libraries and walkways.
One Jewish student was knocked unconscious with an open head wound, while others were kicked, beaten with sticks and blasted with pepper spray. Another victim was assaulted and told “Hitler missed one.”
One Native Jewish woman-who counter protested by holding a sign reading “Hamas supporters are not welcome on native land”-was “violently assaulted,” per the complaint. UCLA police were “directly behind [her] and [did] absolutely nothing,” it added.
Protestors established militia-style checkpoints on UCLA’s campus and refused to allow Jews to traverse public property unless those Jews denounced a core tenet of their religion, per the complaint.
The encampment took over Royce Quad — the heart of campus — with barricades, checkpoints and graffiti including “F*** ALL Jews” and ‘F*** Israel’ scrawled on buildings.
The vile students also allegedly set up “human phalanxes” to stop access for Jewish students for some areas — demanding students renounce Zionism to pass through checkpoints.
By the time police finally moved in, the situation had spiraled into what officials later described as a “war zone,” with fireworks, strobe lights and violent clashes between rival groups.
The DOJ says UCLA violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by showing “deliberate indifference” to widespread harassment and discrimination.
More than 100 complaints were filed by Jewish and Israeli students — many allegedly ignored by the school.
Internal findings cited in the lawsuit say UCLA leadership repeatedly refused to enforce its own rules, allowing the illegal encampment to persist for days.
Nearly 60% of Jewish students said they avoided campus at the time, while more than 40% considered leaving UCLA altogether, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims UCLA officials knew students were at risk of assault but “took no serious action whatsoever” for nearly a week.
Instead, administrators told students to “avoid the area if they wish” while describing the chaos as “mostly peaceful.”
Behind the scenes, the school chose a “de-escalation strategy” — even as protesters armed themselves with pepper spray, lumber and makeshift weapons
The DOJ also alleged UCLA breached its federal funding contracts and grants by claiming it complied with its Title VI obligations while allowing discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students to persist on campus.
“Earlier this year, we sued UCLA for subjecting its Jewish and Israeli employees to an antisemitic hostile work environment,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said.
“Now, the Department of Justice calls UCLA to account for its toleration of the equally appalling hostile educational environment against its Jewish and Israeli students.”
Los Angeles’ top federal prosecutor Bill Essayli, First Assistant US Attorney for the Central District of California, said that universities “have an obligation to maintain safe and inclusive campuses for all students.”
“Universities that violate our nation’s civil rights laws by repeatedly failing to shield Jewish students from antisemitism will be held accountable.”
UCLA has been under increased scrutiny following months of protests and encampments over Israel’s war in Gaza.
“The Board of Regents and administrative leadership have been unequivocal: antisemitism has no place at the University of California,” University of California President James B. Milliken said in a statement to The Post.
“We have instituted numerous systemwide reforms and programs to promote safety and combat antisemitism on our campuses. UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk, whose family was profoundly affected by Nazi antisemitism and the Holocaust, has made the protection of Jewish students, faculty, and staff on campus the highest priority since the day he took office.”
“This litigation — and other actions taken by the federal government targeting the University of California — does nothing to aid our ongoing efforts to address antisemitism and create safe and welcoming campus environments for all members of our community,” the statement read.
It's weird seeing people over on Twitter still trying to defend the latest cinematic rape of George Orwell's Animal Farm (changing the story to be a criticism of Capitalism instead of the Communism of the book, and adding a plucky new female heroine) with the words "George Orwell was a Socialist!"
People's ability to think has been so driven into the toilet by political tribalism and decades of woke indoctrination that any nuance of any thoughtful individual's positions is judged as either "with us" or "against us", so the concept of a self-identifying Socialist such as Orwell writing a very clear account of the failings and corruption of the Soviet Union just seems a bewildering impossibility to them.
This is a relatively recent phenomenon: when I was younger, all the Socialists I knew spent all their time arguing about all kinds of arcane internal divisions, and clearly marking out why Communism was bad but their own brand of Socialism was the way, whether that be The People's Front of Judea or The Judean People's Front. Do left-wingers simply not do that anymore?
I am not an expert on Orwell and won't pretend to be. I do, however, know that the Spanish Civil War happened about 20 years before the publication of Animal Farm and 1984. People's beliefs aren't static. Even if he still called himself a Socialist, it's very likely that Stalin had a huge impact on the way he viewed political philosophy. Just as much as Franco did.
Spain changed everything. He saw how the communist cadres, who answered directly to Moscow, would put the anarchist units in the thickest parts of the fighting every time, because Stalin wanted complete control of the Republican side and the anarchists were a potential threat. It was that kind of infighting that allowed the Nationalists to win, but even beyond that it was ridiculously, pointlessly cruel. Here were these men fighting against tyranny(the Nationalists weren't any less bastards just because the Republicans were dominated by communists), who had often come from overseas just to do what they thought was right, being sent off to their deaths in moves that actively harmed the Republican's strategic position because Stalin's communists were so totalitarian in nature that control was their priority over all else, including actually winning the war for survival they were in the middle of fighting. Power for power's sake.
The Nationalists were an army of 1e-style lawful good paladins, compared to the Republicans. Franco saved more Jews from the Nazis than any other leader except Pius XII.
Orwell was in fact a commie. He also had the views of a Klansman with a penchant for reading Andrew Tate. That actually makes Nineteen Eighty-four more impressive: even this misogynistic jingo red can tell these things are bad!
One of the host reviews on my airbnb profile is "well mannered archaeologist. Very clean" and im thinking of putting this both on my resume and on my academia.edu
Given the literal translations of jodan, chūdan, gedan, and waki no kamae, you can probably just have your swordsmen in a fantasy setting call them the high, middle, low, and side guard.
There's also the famous "well, there were a small number of Black Vikings, therefore it makes perfect sense for Vikings Valhalla turn an actual historical white male chieftan into a black woman."
The second part is implied, because not a single person in that article defending the racebending actually addressed that complaint. I had to go to Screenrant for the canon explanation of "the real guy got killed, and his wife took over".
And they immediately admitted there was no evidence of any female Viking ruler, ever, but, but, there COULD have been!
This incident was held up by some people as an example of progressives living down to memes about racebending.
Bridgerton had to invent an entire alternate history to explain black British nobility.
Of course, since musicians apparently play orchestral covers of Taylor Swift and Billy Eilish, I gotta wonder why they even bothered.
Funny thing is, when I Googled for controversy, I kept finding criticism from the left, not the right.
I also remember the times MedievalPOC said it made perfect sense to for a random African trader to head hundreds of miles out of his way, over a mountain range, to a random corner of medival Europe (that is still extremely white today) to appear in Kingdom Come:Deliverance.
Just to be clear; anti-woke people have been wrong about diversity. Both in fiction and IRL. Up to the point of riots and terrorism.
I have argued with them.
But I think it sure is curious that neither OOP nor any of the people in the reblogs had a single actual example. Heck, none of them even named a specific work.
And of course they never admitted their enemies could be right about anything, ever.
You don’t really need HEMA consultants, when Japanese arts are almost identical and never had to be reconstructed, plus they’re much more widely practiced so the consultants are cheaper and easier to find. Longsword is katana, glaive and halberd are naginata.
gummygunk
romaincrisis
pixelskylines
