cw: violence

anonymous asked:

About Renly's death, do you think Stannis got an unfair bad rap for something that's actually Melisandre's fault? Will this dynamic be repeated for Shireen's death?

Given that I don’t think Stannis planned to assassinate Renly, I think it’s unfair to blame Stannis for assassinating Renly. Frankly, I’m astounded that Stannis can stomach to work with Melisandre after that, but that’s probably another place where his wilful blindness serves him well. Hell, given that Stannis woke up from a detailed and realistic nightmare of killing his own brother to discover that yes, he’d killed his own brother, he might well need that wilful blindness. That’s some never-sleep-again horror story material right there. (And indeed, we’re told that Stannis is barely sleeping after that, and that when he does he has nightmares. No wonder.)

With Shireen, I think it will be very different. That is a death that I think Stannis must choose for there to be maximum dramatic impact - the deliberate sacrifice of one innocent child, his innocent child, to save all the children of Westeros.

Bet On Me

Reggie x Reader

A/N: This is my first ever fic and I hope you all like it!! Requests for all other Riverdale characters are open!! (This is my first fic because Reggie is bae)

Word Count: 3369

Warnings: Swearing, slight angst, violence, heavy make-out session (is that even a warning?)

Summary: Reggie is dared to date Y/N, the sweet and popular untouched cheerleader. He does so, although not expecting to fall for her in the process.

Keep reading

People say all the time, ‘Well, I don’t understand how people could have tolerated slavery?’ 'How could they have made peace with that?’ 'How could people have gone to a lynching and participated in that?’ 'That’s so crazy, if I was living in that time I would never have tolerated anything like that.’ And the truth is we are living in this time, and we are tolerating it.
—  Bryan Stevenson, 13th on Netflix

Compromise where you can. But where you can’t, don’t. Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right. Even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye and say “no… you move”.

Oh related to the discussion yesterday my absolutely least favorite leftist meme is ‘communists stopped fascists last time’. I’ve written about this before, but my middle school math teacher was a survivor of the Soviet regime who escaped with her family when she was nine or so, and she talked a lot about how painful it was that Stalin and the USSR - their symbols and colors and flag, their actions, their version of history - were so enthusiastically embraced by Americans as cool and radical. 

Stalin committed genocide. By ‘communists stopped fascists last time’ what you mean is ‘two genocidal regimes went to war, and one of them was on the winning side of the war’. Stalin was a monster temporarily instrumental (among many others) in the downfall of another monster; the USSR was a genocidal totalitarian state that certainly rivaled fascists for its body count. The lesson of that is not that anything at all about Stalin or his regime should be emulated.

Communists should be deeply horrified that the USSR’s atrocities were committed in the service of their cause, and at a bare minimum they can avoid insulting the survivors with facile glorification of the regime that slaughtered their families. 

me to baby, after twenty minutes of trying to get him to chill: …and if that purple yacht gets sunk, Mama’s gonna buy you a pickup truck. And if there’s a pickup truck recall, Mama’s gonna buy you a wrecking ball. And if that gets CPS involved, Mama’s gonna buy you an age-appropriate doll -

me to baby, after forty minutes: …and if Olympus Mons gets razed, Mama’s gonna buy you some flying sleighs. And if the flying sleighs get banned, Mama’s gonna buy you a Congressman. And if he still won’t pass your bill, Mama’s gonna buy you a Silmaril. And if that starts an awful war, Mama’s gonna buy you a dinosaur. And if your dino won’t ride to battle, Mama’s gonna buy you a magic saddle -

I didn’t think the violent riots again Milo were defensible or acceptable, but I find the violence against Charles Murray really scary. Charles Murray seems like pretty much the classic example of someone who has very objectionable views which he arrived at through research, published carefully and in good faith so that people could point out flaws in his approach or method, and does not use as an excuse to bully or harass people. People like that should absolutely be speaking at colleges and universities. 

While I think the Berkeley College Republicans were being disrespectful of the mission of their educational institution by giving a troll a microphone to bully their classmates with, I think Middlebury was absolutely acting within its educational mission to host a talk by Murray. And it’s terrifying that this, too, gets a violent response. 

A college or university that cannot hold a peaceful talk with Charles Murray is not a free environment, it is not a safe environment, and it is not an environment capable of promoting the exchange of ideas. And I’m scared that many schools in the present environment could not have done any better than Middlebury.

Gwen would also plot coordinates for airstrikes overseas, which meant she had to go through a collateral damage estimate course. “It’s basically a class that teaches you how many innocent people you can bomb to death in order to kill the person you’re after.”

The exact contents of the course are classified, but given recent data analyses, it seems that the U.S. military is OK with killing up to 28 civilians to take out one terror suspect.

“It was rough for me because I had to make the decision on what we were going to bomb and green light a sortie [deployment of one military unit], then I’d go home watch the news and see innocent people being pulled from wreckage from bomb drops [and] wonder, ‘Did I play a part in that? Am I why that specific thing happened to that specific person?’ … You don’t know if you accidentally killed a little kid’s mom – or worse, the little kid.”

“I have crazy bad depression and anxiety thanks to all this,” Gwen says. “I hate using the phrase PTSD, because I refuse to believe I compare to people who have actually been in hell fighting for their lives, but a lot of intel people who have done real life collection do suffer from PTSD.”

A quick note here: Gwen almost certainly already knows this, but maybe you’re struggling with something similar. If so, you should know that that’s not how PTSD works. Nobody “earns” it, and strangely, every single person with PTSD that we’ve spoken to, from active-duty soldiers to survivors of horrific attacks, feels the same way – as if they don’t “deserve” to have this disorder. And they’re right. They don’t deserve it. Neither do you.

Besides, Gwen knows she wasn’t alone: “My psych once said 'I treat almost every [intelligence specialist] on this base, but none will ever admit it.’ I’m admitting it for them. It will seriously fuck with you.”

The Terrifying Things You Learn In Military Intelligence

anonymous asked:

I'm boggling trying and failing to understand how it is that so many people (in this case, the advocates of violent anti-fascism sending you asks) don't have the idea that _political actions should have the consequence you want, not just be on the right side_. It feels like... not getting that trying to affect reality except in the simplest most local one-dimensional way is even a thing. Do you feel like you understand the mindset better?

One of my favorite articles by Bryan Caplan describes the concept of missing moods. 

Modern warfare almost always leads to killing lots of innocents; if governments were held to the same standards as individuals, these killings would be manslaughter, if not murder.  This doesn’t mean that war is never justified.  But the reasonable hawkish mood is sorrow - and constant yearning for a peaceful path.  The kind of emotions that flow out of, “We are in a tragic situation.  After painstaking research on all the available options, we regretfully conclude that we have to kill many thousands of innocent civilians in order to avoid even greater evils.  This is true even after adjusting for the inaccuracy of our past predictions about foreign policy.”  

I have never personally known a hawk who expresses such moods, and know of none in the public eye.  Instead, the standard hawk moods are anger and machismo.  Ted Cruz’s recent quip, “I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out” is typical.  Indeed, the hawks I personally know don’t just ignore civilian deaths.  When I raise the issue, they cavalierly appeal to the collective guilt of their enemies.  Sometimes they laugh.  As a result, I put little weight on what hawks say.  This doesn’t mean their view is false, but it is a strong reason to think it’s false.

2. The immigration restrictionist.  Immigration from the Third World to the First World is almost a fool-proof way to work your way out of poverty.  The mechanism: Labor is more productive in the First World than the Third, so migrants generally create the extra riches they consume.  This doesn’t mean that immigration restrictions are never justified.  But the reasonable restrictionist mood is anguish that a tremendous opportunity to enrich mankind and end poverty must go to waste - and pity for the billions punished for the “crime” of choosing the wrong parents.  The kind of emotions that flow out of, “The economic and humanitarian case for immigration is awesome.  Unfortunately, there are even larger offsetting costs.  These costs are hard to spot with the naked eye, but careful study confirms they are tragically real.  Trapping innocents in poverty because of the long-run costs of immigration seems unfair, but after exhaustive study we’ve found no other remedy.  Once you see this big picture, restriction is the lesser evil.  This is true even after adjusting for the inaccuracy of our past predictions about the long-run dangers of immigration.”

I have met a couple of restrictionists who privately express this mood, and read a few who hold it publicly.  But in percentage terms, they’re almost invisible.  Instead, the standard restrictionist moods are anger and xenophobia.  Mainstream restrictionists hunt for horrific immigrant outliers, then use these outliers to justify harsh treatment of immigrants in general.  

The idea is that, if you’re pushing for some policy that involves doing or ignoring great wrongs in the service of necessity, it should hurt. You should be agonizing over it. You should be desperate for alternatives, and you should be grieved you can’t find any. The point is not ‘your opinion is not valid if your feelings are not valid’, but when that feeling is absent, it’s incredibly hard to trust the opinion.

I think that to antifas and the people who gravitate towards them, the entirety of liberalism has a colossal missing mood. There are Nazis and white supremacists holding rallies and chanting in favor of unthinkable, colossal atrocities. Lots of people sympathize with them. Shouldn’t we be terrified? Shouldn’t we be angry? Shouldn’t we be desperate? Whatever you think of the merits of smashing unarmed Trump supporters in the head with metal bike locks and then running away, the proponents of doing so are vocally and demonstrably angry and terrified and desperate, and if the thing you’re looking for is people who are angry and terrified and desperate then you find them. And if all of the people who seem to grasp the magnitude of the threat are saying sickening street violence is the way to fix it -

- and all of the people observing that that doesn’t fix it, that it makes it worse, that our institutions suffice and have sufficed and that there are better avenues of resistance should they fail, seem to be insufficiently desperate and angry and frightened -

- then people believe the antifas, even though antifas constantly give incoherent or conflicting accounts of how their methods are supposed to help and threaten and alienate their allies and spend a lot of their time threatening to kill gay Jews on the internet because we disagree with them about how to fight fascists.

And to people who are not sympathetic to antifa, it seems obvious that they have a gaping missing mood: compassion, or concern, or awareness of collateral damage. And if you know anything about violent resistance, indifference to or denial about collateral damage is the most chilling blind spot imaginable. 

So both sides perceive missing moods, and it damages trust, and even though we both want to prevent the rise of fascism there’s basically no confidence that the other side actually wants to prevent the rise of fascism, and most efforts I’ve had to bridge that divide have sort of run aground on ‘I don’t think your evidence is very good and you don’t think my evidence is very good’, and so it’s really hard to fix.

This is a roundabout answer to your question: the straightforward answer is that I think they understand actions can have downstream effects and counterproductive effects, but don’t trust us about it and don’t trust anyone proposing alternative courses of action and were also drawn to antifa specifically by the desperate, angry dominant mood and it’s not a dominant mood conducive to realizing that doing nothing at all would be better than what you’re currently doing.