cw: genocide mention

anonymous asked:

On anon because I've gotten hate mail over this. It really frustrates me that people forget that Israel is one of the only (if not the only) places on earth that wants Jews. And I realize that the situation is much more complicated than that and that Israel has done some terrible things, but knowing that there's a place on earth that prioritizes Jews is so important to me.

Considering the long history of Jews being expelled, murdered en masse and denied immigration rights, this is an important point. This is a point that is often glossed over in this debate and needs to be repeatedly pointed out. As I’ve stated before, most Israeli Jews are refugees and their descendants. This is a side of the story that is all too frequently ignored because too many people don’t want to deal with cognitive dissonance and resort to a Machiavellian, “no points that can possibly be read to be in favor of Israel can be allowed to stand under any circumstances even if we have to deny history to do it” argument.

ander-smith asked:

Which is worse in your opinion? Mass genocide or psychological hell? AKA Who's the bigger asshole, The Director or the Chairman?

the Director was an abusive, psychologically compromised jackass who (at worst) knowingly fired on civilians and destroyed his subordinates in the name of his own personal Frankenstein monster project or (more likely) he genuinely thought the end justified the means to win the war and (somewhere in there) he lost that and focused on just Tex. He’s a monster, but his radius of effect was actually relatively restricted in the grand scheme of the war.

The Chairman is a genocidal war profiteer who decimated the population of an entire planet for money. I’m gonna go with the Chairman being the worse of the two. He’s 100% in control as far as we’ve been shown. There is no room to say he’s lost his mind or is doing things in the name of The War or survival or whatever. He’s literally just destroying men women and children. So… the Chairman is the worse of two evils. 

anonymous asked:

I've heard you like linguistics, so here's this mostly philosophical question. My country's (Russia) officials lately try to manipulate the way people use their language by creating new laws. First they put fines on public swearing. And now they try to do the same for using words borrowed from English but have local analogues. Of course those laws aren't effective, but some people are indeed worried and hesitating. Question: do you believe it's possible to artificially change languages this way?

Possible? Sure. This is just one more example of language planning. But I don’t think it’s likely to succeed.

People are very good at changing their linguistic register, meaning that they switch between different forms of a language depending on the situation. At most, people might change the way they talk when giving public speeches or writing formal documents, but it won’t change the way they talk in private.

The “heart” of a language is how it’s used privately, between family members and close friends. And the most important part is what form of language the children learn. As long as they learn swear words and English loanwords, then those words will keep being part of the language. The government and school system have far less influence than the children’s friends and family members.

It’s possible for dialects and entire languages to get wiped out, which usually happens as part of colonialism, genocide, or intense economic and social pressure to assimilate to the “dominant” language. But that’s a very different scenario from what you’re asking about. It’s natural for some vocabulary to be lost and replaced over time, but it’s very difficult to control. (You can’t eliminate swear words entirely, for instance. If the old swears are lost new ones will take their place.)

freftd asked:

Good answer, im also of the opinion race is a pretty dumb concept, however from what i understand from reading deuteronomy etc it seems like god definitely did have an ethnic idea about racial origin as in e pentateuch it talks about genocide slavery etc against the hittites and other tribes in the area at the time, but i dont speak hebrew or arameic or greek or latin and the bible is pretty heavily edited so i dont know, all i kno is the god of the bible who seems like a racist psychopath

Look. The Bible has been translated, retranslated, re-interpreted and altered by various people with various agendas for thousands of years.  There are a few points that are worth mentioning. 


1. The Torah and even the Tanakh are not the entirety of Jewish belief. To focus solely on Pentateuch is to ignore thousands of years of evolution of Jewish philosophy, experience and practice.

2. There is plenty of debate within Judaism about the literal truth of Bible and how certain passages and stories are to be interpreted. Israel literally means to wrestle with G-d.

3. Tribe != Race, although I can understand how easy it is to blur the distinction in the modern day. Not that this is excusing tribal violence, but it’s a distinction with a difference. Tribal violence can certainly turn genocidal (Rwanda being a prime example), but tribes are generally a case of voluntary self-identification rather than external categorization like the modern notions of “race.” 

4. Race is a contemporary reality however much we may dislike it. It plays too large of a role in sculpting how people exist and relate to each other. We can certainly fight the injustices of how it is used against people, but we can’t make it disappear at this point. 

anonymous asked:

Hey, I haven't figured out where I lie on the political spectrum. My most recent quiz put me at 46% communist, 6% capitalist and 84% fascist. Let's roll with that for a moment and say I'm a fascist...I don't go on marches, I only hate people if they've done some serious wrong, and the only petitions I sign online are to prevent animal cruelty. Your wishing death (on people who haven't found their place but are shown to be somewhere on the right) is not cool. It's invalid and wrong.

So…these quizzes are generally terrible.  And being a fascist…you know, that’s a BAD thing, right? Even the US government figured that one out, with some help, admittedly.  I mean, if you identify with fascism, you’re saying that in Captain America, you’d rather be the Red Skull.

And there’s no such thing as any kind of passive fascism.  All fascism is a threat to minorities the world over, and to the freedoms that the majority may enjoy.  Every fascist on this planet, by their very existence, is a threat to my life, and the lives of people I care about the world over.

So, yeah, it’s totally valid and right to hate fascists.  And as for wishing them dead, I do give them an easy out! Just stop being fascists! Stop advocating in any way or believing in an ideology that includes mass murder, genocide, warmongering, and the destruction of freedom.  Like, there’s NOTHING good about fascism.  If you’re an adult and a fascist, then please die.

If you’re a teenager and a fascist? You’re still a kid.  Grow the fuck up and find a real political movement that isn’t genocidal.  Have you considered communism? It’s fun for the whole family!

planetofthekillers-deactivated2 asked:

I was asking about how Jewish history is used for diaspora stories for fictional characters (I know Tolkien is an example, but I was curious about other examples).

Hmm.

Another case that comes to mind in that regard is the Kushiel’s Legacy series by Jacqueline Carey. They’re extremely sexually explicit, but not so in a way that I would describe as pornographic, but they carry that necessary qualifier. They’re also deeply political in a manner similar to George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire, though not quite as brutal about killing off every character in sight. 

My wife recommended the series to me, which she started reading before she converted and learned a bit about Jewish history. I’d imagine she’d have a different reaction had she read the books after she converted, but I digress. She really loved those books a lot and I listened to her positive reviews. 

Now the Kushiel’s Legacy series is rather interesting in that it takes place in a kind of alternative history Europe where people practice a religion that spawned off of Christianity in a manner similar to how Christianity spawned off of Judaism. Which left Christianity in the position of Judaism. That meant that the Jews in Europe were replaced by YESHUITES.

I’m going to give that a few minutes to sink in. They looked like Charedi Jews, they were persecuted like Jews were in Rennaissance Europe, and they were so obviously Jew-coded that there was no escaping it.

Effectively, the only kind of Jew in the first two books are Messianic Jews. Suffice it to say, when I got to that part of the second book where the second most important character in the series started studying with the Yeshuites, I threw the book at the wall and never picked it up again. The thought of reading a book where we were replaced by those abominations was just too much. I was sick to my stomach.

I acknowledge that those books were very well-written, but I could never pick them up again. I felt like I had been ritually erased. 

Another book to which I had an unexpected reaction due to its historical Jewish content was Claudius the God by Robert Graves. Now, I do strongly recommend this book to other Jews. It is the sequel to I, Claudius and It portrays the Imperial reign of Emperor Claudius, as you might expect. What I didn’t expect was how much attention would be paid to the fall of ancient Israel. Herod Agrippa, the king of Israel at the time (not a well-loved figure in Christianity, but I’m going to ignore that for the time being), gave the idea of Claudius becoming the emperor to the Praetorian Guard so that the emperor who followed Caligula wouldn’t be a monster. He was literally described by Claudius as a Rogue with a Heart of Gold. Well, Aggrippa ended up trying to throw off the yoke of Roman rule and give the Jews freedom… except he failed. He died suddenly before any of his plans could come to fruition and 25 years after his death Jerusalem would be sacked and Jewish self-determination in Israel would be effectively over.

My reaction to the book? I was wrecked. I knew what was going to happen, but I was so desperate for the Jews to avoid diaspora that I let myself get sucked into the narrative anyway (even though he had a bit of a massive ego trip and declared himself the Messiah) and I was utterly emotionally destroyed for about two hours after Agrippa died because of what it meant. No expulsions, no Ghettos, no forced conversions, no second-class status, no scapegoating, no genocide. Except it all happened. 

I’m having a hard time thinking of anything else at the moment, but I’ll post about it if it comes to mind and tag you.


anonymous asked:

Eradicate white people? I am not white and that grosses me the fuck out. Why would you want the genocide of an entire group? That is so wrong. Yes, white people have done horrible things in the past and continue to do horrible things, but the world will never be perfect. Equal rights are attainable and will be in the future (it won't happen in the blink of an eye), but don't ever say eradicate an entire race. That is promoting genocide (i.e. the Holocaust, Pol Pot's genocide, Darfur/Sudan, etc.)

You are here because of this post:

 And not only are you deliberately misunderstanding the point of the comment “ERADICATE WHITENESS 2K50” but you’re invoking the atrocities in an offhanded casual way that makes me think you have no idea how they’re all caused by/related to white supremacy. 

First let me explain the something idea of races by skin color was invented and supported by white people to support white supremacy over the rest of the habitable places in the world. Therefore if we are to “eradicate whiteness” I understood it to mean to mean a call to dismantle white supremacy not to promote genocide of white people. 

Second, obviously I don’t have to explain that Jewish people and the Roma people weren’t considered white during the Holocaust and therefore its directly connected to white supremacy.   But what you don’t consider how both Pol Pot and the genocide in Darfur are directly aftereffects of white supremacy, commonly referred to as postcolonialism.   Pol Pot came to power right after Cambodia gained its independence from France, and the genocide in Darfur comes after a long line of civil wars the first of which was because of white imperialist powers. The problem is much bigger than just making the white people leave their colonies, they often take wealth and leave both a power vaccuum and a host of problems. 

screenshot from x

Violent resistance can mean many things of course but I need people of color to be able to express their anger with whiteness in a safe place.  If all we’re doing is celebrating the future white minority (which is what I think what the original comment is doing) and not actually promoting violence (which honestly you’re acting as if that is unreasonable and I’ve clearly proved that at least Fanon thinks its reasonable).

But ask yourself another question. Why is eradicating white supremacy so bad? Because that’s the real problem here.  The fact that white supremacy has been defended even by the white moderate

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.  

-Martin Luther King Jr. 

mod m

You know, there is no age at which I would not have been pleased to be told, “When you’re older, your 28-year-old self will live near Whyte Ave with a cat.  She will be the kind of person to go to the library and utter a small pleased sound to find the book ‘Recovering from Genocidal Trauma’ on the shelves, then go to Block 1912 to eat mousse and read it and a book on gardening.”

mount rushmore was in land promised to us but you know how good the govt is at keeping promises :/ so they decided “lets carve the faces of a bunch of ppl that had direct contribution to your genocide in a mountain that belongs to you and make it a national landmark” and that is what mount rushmore is and i feel the need to mention this every time i see anything aboht it that doesnt because the only thing its a fucking monument of is how much the united states loves to spit in the faces of indigenous people

Some OOC thoughts:

  • It’s okay to dislike a character: In a world as polarized as Azeroth, it has to be expected. And no, ‘heroes’ aren’t exempt from this. Sometimes the muse hates characters (in Garrosh’s case, Thrall and Sylvanas); sometimes the mun hates characters (in my case, Malfurion and Kalecgos). People are allowed to have opinions.
  • It’s not okay to dislike a mun just because they play a character: Muns should be judged by their own actions. If they do something shitty, that’s one thing, but judging them wholesale because they play ____ isn’t cool. Everyone has a problematic fave.
  • It’s good to acknowledge when the character you play does something problematic: You can love the shit out a character. You can defend them. You can write AUs in which they didn’t do the thing. But as a mun, pretending shitty things like murder or abuse aren’t valid reasons for other people to dislike your character is wrong. Garrosh tried to commit genocide against the trolls. It was shitty. I’m not going to pretend it wasn’t shitty or didn’t happen in canon, and if people don’t like him for it, I understand.
  • That being said, sending anon hate to a mun because you don’t like their muse is pointless: When is anon hate ever okay, though? But the bottom line is, don’t conflate a mun with their muse.
  • You can still dislike a character even if you enjoy RPing with them, like the mun personally, or respect their writing and characterization: This is no comment on the mun’s RP ability or likability. Sometimes people just don’t like a character, and that’s okay.