Ironic that you talk about "no reading comprehension" when you think "taking a break" means "not paying attention".
As if activists don't actively advocate for making sure you have time that has nothing to do with your cause so that you don't burn out and become useless to it.
(Also I'm 99 percent sure the "white" people they're referring to here is a large jewish blogger who said that blogging isn't activism and it's okay to step away temporarily when it gets to be too much.)
Also like... before people are like "Palestinians don't get a break" yeah and I didn't get a break from suicidal depression that nearly killed me for like five years of my life but everyone that was supporting me DID need to take breaks or they would all have broken too and then where would we be? Like yeah actually people outside the situation fighting for change NEED to do so in shifts.
I know the comparison is not the same but I picked it specifically because yeah the longer this goes on the more likely more people will die. And the longer I dealt with my mental illness the more times I almost died. It's just like... come on.
"If you think it's okay to step away from social media and take a breather when you're overwhelmed and you're fighting back against the culture that says you're a morally evil person for ever putting your own mask on first rather than just helplessly doomscrolling in a way that does NOTHING for the actual victims then what you're actually saying is that it's okay not to pay attention or care."
Like bitch how little object permanence do you have that if you take a break from i/p news you have no awareness that a genocide is being committed anymore??? It's literally not even looking away it's just not uselessly steeping in guilt soup so that maybe you can use what energy you DO have to volunteer for or earn money to donate to orgs actually helping on the ground.
Like sorry we're all not performing white guilt and prostrating ourselves to your standards because we're actually bothering to do something about it and realizing social media has limited efficacy even at the one thing it CAN do which is raising awareness. We're aware. Great. Do you know there's steps that come after that?
"The one thing Palestinians are asking for" is not for people to wring their hands as they watch a genocide occur, I promise you. It's not for you to make blog posts about how sad and terrible this is and how bad you feel OR how 'it's really not about our feelings, thoughts and prayers'.
You can whine about my poor reading comprehension because 'nowhere did you say not to actually help' but you DID say the "ONE thing" palestinians actually want is for people "not to look away" and I'm pretty sure they want people to help STOP the genocide that's occurring. And also that "taking a break" is the same as "not paying attention" and like, are you guilty of "not paying attention" for at least eight hours every day or do you just not sleep? Because we all take breaks, shithead.
But you go on feeling morally superior about how you make sure to feel bad for the cause or whatever.
78 notes
·
View notes
this isn't meant to like. make you give your opinion on Discourse™️ or anything I just wanted to ask, but I keep seeing people upset about taylor dating mr. 1975 and I can't figure out if it's bc he's a terrible person or just a greasy alcoholic 😭😭😭 do you know what's up with that guy??? like on one hand I like not knowing things about celebs and I should keep it that way. but also
i, unfortunately, do know what's up with that guy and it's that he's said something problematic about every faction of society at least once. for me i have some weird, reluctant fondness for him because he is just a train wreck and he's such a twat all the time that at least it's nondiscriminating, and i also like that when he sings about mental illness it's bc he's actually BEEN THERE and been publicly a mess bc of it and been addicted to drugs and acted like a dick, and he ACKNOWLEDGES THAT, but also at no point am i gonna jump on the 'he's an amazing person' parade bc generally he is just a sleazy idiot. it is weird watching people suddenly dragging up every single thing he's ever said to be like 'look! this is why he's bad for our tay tay!' when the running joke with matty healy is that he's just a prick. like u dont need to expose his moral fibre. u can just say he's a prick. and also as funny as the jokes are she's still a grown woman who's been around the block a few times when it comes to dating. i think she will be okay maybe
21 notes
·
View notes
kinda getting fed up with how smosh is handling/has handled the noah situations. Like for a while there when they introduced Trevor and Noah was missing from videos, I thought maybe they were doing something internally that we would see the results of later - maybe not Noah’s contract being terminated or whatever but some sort of acknowledgment and accountably.
But we haven’t seen anything like that, they’ve been deleting comments asking about Palestine/Noah’s behaviour, and they also haven’t said anything about Palestine as far as I’m aware.
And I just think it weird ya know ? Cos from what I saw what happened was noah liked a bunch of zionist propaganda-y posts, and made a tweet regarding october 7th, claiming he did so because he’s pro-civilian… but like if you want me to in good faith believe you are really pro civilian, and fell for propaganda or whatever the unliking of tweets was, then why did you not at least put in some effort to show you care about ALL the effected civilians, and not just the Israeli civilians ? Like if you’re going to claim neutrality, and say you’re just pro civilian then you can’t only speak up about one side’s civilians.
And as for smosh as a company… like ok maybe they can’t fire him based solely on political stances or watever, idk how that shit works and I’m not going to claim to. But man that doesn’t stop you as a company from talking about Palestine, and not even in a ‘hey we’re acknowledging one of our staff said some stuff and we’re letting you know that’s not our company’s stand point’ way. but just in a ‘hey there’s a shitty thing happening right now and we’re gonna do a live stream or something to donate to Palestinians affected by the conflict’. Like you don’t even have to acknowledge noah - I mean it would be better you did, and maybe talk about how internally the situation was handled/accountability, but still.
Idk I’m just finding it hard to watch smosh anymore, when it would have been so easy for someone who claims to be ‘pro civilian’ to actually fucking show that they are (instead of just hiding behind that term when you hit backlash) and for a company which has addressed political issues in the past to at least fucking acknowledged that what’s happening to Palestine is deplorable. You may disagree, but to me, that’s some basic easy shit, and if you’re not doing that then it isn’t unfair for me to assume that there’s a reason behind it.
Fuck man even if smosh did want to stay totally neutral and civilian/victim centred, they could donate to the Red Cross or something. Like the Red Cross is an organisation that is dedicated to being politically, religiously etc. neutral because they have to be in order to be able to help people.
Now don’t get it twisted I’m not saying I personally agree with staying ‘neutral’ on what Isreal is doing, what I’m saying is that if you are there are better ways to do it then to ignore or actively silence people asking valid questions about your employees and company morals, particularly if part of your branding/supposed culture within the company is leftist/left leaning, anti bigotry, anti violence etc.
3 notes
·
View notes
tbh i do think changeling jack would have been a better option like. first of all i think just actually sticking to the changeling plot, rather than the antagonists being the changelings and the borg in an alliance that i guess doesn’t not make sense but ultimately brushes aside the changeling stuff at the end probably would have been better, but i also think there’s some potentially interesting stuff in there. again with the caveat that this is kind of operating off of like...not totally changing the setup but trying to do something better with the same beginning.
like ok loose concept 20 years prior to ep 1 beverly picks up this kid while she’s on a mission in the wake of the dominion war and initially doesn’t know he’s a shapeshifter or anything, just that he’s a child who needs help. he’s on her ship for a while and she gets kind of attached to him, especially when he shows an early interest in medical stuff, but at some point she gets confronted by some subset of starfleet that’s after him, and it comes out that he’s a changeling who did something bad in an attempt to escape capture by starfleet and they’re here to take him back.
and like. she’s gotten to know him, and she feels protective of this kid and she believes he was genuinely acting out of fear and possibly reacting to mistreatment, whereas their charges seem. kind of questionable? they feel like the result of paranoia in the wake of the dominion war and she doesn’t trust the people that are going to bring him in to treat him fairly, and she’s already somewhat more disillusioned with starfleet than she used to be because she’s already lost one son to starfleet ideals and is starting to regard jack as another, so that questioning really gets kicked into overdrive here on a broader scale. she makes the choice to protect this kid that she’s gotten attached to and they escape, but they have to go on the run, and that’s why she’s been off the grid for so long. she raises him, and they do their medical thing, but eventually they run into trouble and she doesn’t know where else to turn, so she reaches out to picard and tells him not to involve starfleet (both because they’re potentially compromised but also because her trust in them is still not at an all time high)
and then also since that’s dealing with the dominion war and that story belongs to ds9 i would have loved to bring back sisko (probably like. as at least a 2-3 episode arc, one of which replaces the episode w/ro laren bc i love her and all but she deserved better and we could have made the points that were made there in other ways). like. put him face to face with picard for the first time since the ds9 pilot and have them reassess each other after this time. i don’t know exactly how i’d see that dynamic playing out but i think bringing them back together to try to negotiate a threat would be super interesting AND like. i would really love to see picard going to sisko for advice about fatherhood tbh. maybe picard has read jake’s work and is familiar with the fact that they have a very close relationship so in trying to bond with jack he realizes sisko could be a really good person to learn from, even if they’ve had personal struggles in the past (and even if they’re never like Friends now). idk feels like a way to bring sisko back in and give him some closure that would have worked thematically on multiple levels.
like idk i dont have a whole plot seeing as ive been thinking about this for. not very long. but by focusing more on the changeling plot and giving it personal relevance we can focus on questioning starfleet and the federation, and how having to question these things picard has dedicated his whole life to affects his identity, but ideally to me the conflict would be one that shows the potential for positive change.
9 notes
·
View notes
@fullybeautifultheorist replied to your post “I know I have some drafts that at least mention...”:
Tbh the fact that Cole was possessed doesn't really change much. Cole was egoistical and obsessed murderer in season 3 as well as in season 5. There is literally no meaningful change in his behavior during all 3 season. And even un season 7 he is playing peeping Tom
Hmm, honestly, I see your point, but I think I would disagree. I’m not a fan of Cole’s, by any means, but I think knowing that he did not purposefully become the Source of All Evil and he wasn’t in full control would change things for at least Phoebe. I don’t want to whitewash his sins, because there are many but there is at least some kind of inherent tragedy in his loss of agency and autonomy after he tried to redeem himself. He really was trying to become good, even if it was for flawed reasons. I also think that it could bring either more pain or comfort to Phoebe and the sisters, because on one hand, they hadn’t been tricked so badly that Cole had never actually changed sides but on the other, they’d still been manipulated enough that they thought he never did if that makes sense.
7 notes
·
View notes