#it's so ahistorical but it's also like ...

[torahtot]

sth that always frustrates me is when people on here say things like "jewish ppl u can let go of connection to israel bc you can be at home in the countries you live in!" and someone responds with a whole essay on how antisemitism is alive and well.. bc that still accepts the original premise. you're saying yes, i agree, we would not feel a connection to the land if antisemitism didn't exist, but it does. this ignores the root misconception that makes someone say things like that, which is that they deny (or simply don't realize/understand) our connection to the land, which transcends the existence of antisemitism in the diaspora. walk into any orthodox school that doesn't even consider itself zionist, and you'll find the kids having conversations with their teachers about how to reconcile feeling comfortable in galut with the desire to properly mourn the beit hamikdash & yearn for mashiach so that we can return. this isn't metaphorical in the slightest; many of them will make aliyah whether mashiach comes or not (and it won't have anything to do with secular zionism or antisemitism). eradicating antisemitism in the diaspora would never change the fact that we are in galut. if they were smart they would actually shift the conversation to why we don't need an explicitly/exclusively jewish state in order to live safely & thrive in eretz yisrael, but they won't bc a) that would require accepting the validity of our connection to it and b) they consider it "validating settler fears" or wtvr the fuck. so instead they will continue to be totally inept at realpolitik solutions & fail to see eye to eye in conversation with jews bc they fundamentally misunderstand.. everything about us.

#or max theyll say uhm we never said ull b KICKED OUT or KILLED we think u should safely live under [nationalism but in the other direction] #it's actually very telling that if you look at activists *in* i/p who do real things instead of internet activism #the entire reason they're successful is bc they do what im talking abt here. they acknowledge the reason it's important #to both of us is not bc of antisemitism or oppression but just bc it's our homeland #also to be clear you can explain why the feeling of the need for a state is fueled by antisemitism #but 2 conflate the state w the land & say that our connection to the land can be erased or made metaphorical once antisemitism is conquered #is bs and wont get you anywhere #shoutout to that one post i saw saying yearning for eretz yisrael was always metaphorical... im So Tired #like besides being ahistorical that really only reflects the lived experience of the most assimilated among us. it's true for u maybe #but my community was absolutely not dicking around when they spoke about galut #nachi speaks #on galut #also if anybody normal wants to reblog this if u have sth to say too long for replies. lmk ill consider it

[anghraine]

I don't know what brought it to mind, but I got to thinking about Han's hilarious expression when Leia tells him that she loves Luke because he's her brother, and we all know exactly why he's so "lol what" until he decides to roll with it.

I do really enjoy that he's allowed to have this response that doesn't minimize how absolutely batshit this reveal would be for anyone actually involved in the situation, despite it working conveniently to wrap things up in the narrative.

I also enjoy that after he processes the shock of Luke and Leia being siblings and Leia knowing about this (with zero explanation of how long she's known about it at that point), he's like ... eh, whatever, this is awesome actually.

#i have my issues with film canon han but i do really enjoy that his ultimate response #is basically 'weird but whatever works' #also because i sometimes low-grade ship han/luke i do think from that angle it's even funnier #because han is thinking he's like the sexy dangerous YA love triangle option vs leia's wholesome bff luke #but if you subscribe to the han/luke gospel he's realizing that /he/ was the YA heroine all along :P #yes i know this take is extremely ahistorical but it amuses me personally so. #(also both luke and leia are simultaneously the wholesome yet dangerous option) #(and i will die on this hill #leia is sexier though) #anghraine babbles #deep blogging #/ #// #/// #//// #///// #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #* #** #*** #**** #***** #star wars #han solo #leia skywalker organa #luke skywalker

[roobylavender]

considering what you have spoken about regarding selina do you also get frustrated with like…i cant quite explain it but sometimes especially in more recent years shes been posed or positioned like some sort of damsel that needs a big strong man to save her and like im not saying she should be portrayed with the “hollywood level feminism” for lack of a better term im just think about how old versions of selina would have hated that. like im just thinking of anytime in the reeves movie where bruce grabs her or forces her mouth shut or even when he didnt allow her to kill falcone and im just thinking she should claw the fuck out of him for that. i just miss a version of selina who wouldnt allow anyone to walk all over her personal autonomy like that

oh absolutely! in fact this is specifically why i can't stand loeb's take on her character lol (and as we both know that was a significant point of reference for the reeves film). it's really jarring to transition from her volume one and two canon to the long halloween / dark victory / when in rome. i think a lot of people tend to latch onto these books because tim sale's art is to die for and it's obv hard not to enjoy a good murder mystery. in that aspect they're still books i can enjoy in isolation. but i find it very difficult to enjoy them as a selina fan specifically because in every single one it's like she's looking for solace and security in a man and i'm not sure why. like what was so bad about her original backstory of having a deadbeat dad (whether you ascribe to the volume one or volume two version of him) and why did she need to go looking for her "real" father in carmine falcone. why did she need to seek out temporary boytoy relief in italy. why did she dream about being saved by bruce. none of it really has a reason other than to create a "lack" in her for the sake of it being there, because she'd never needed a man like that before in her post-crisis narrative. as you mentioned it was quite to the contrary and she was fiercely independent and protective of her own peace, esp from men. when she felt empty or without a connection or lifeline to someone real, it was mostly about people like maggie or holly or arizona. her people

what i think it ultimately comes down to are two things: the first thing is the diminishment of her post-crisis origins. after all, it's convenient to ignore how distrustful selina is of people, and of men with power at their leisure to abuse specifically, when her post-crisis origins are no longer relevant to her personal characterization. although selina's status as a sex worker is more prominent now, it was more or less completely swept under the rug for the bulk of volume two. loeb also refused to engage with it in any capacity. it only really resurfaced with the conclusion to volume two because it drew direct parallels to how we initially found her in volume one, and then brubaker expanded on it once again in his take on the character, which was notably juxtaposed against a pre-existing romance with bruce and brings me to the second thing. i've already waxed about this at length so this may very well be recap but i really don't think selina's lack of control over her personal autonomy can be divorced of the modern portrayal of the romance. when selina looking for security and understanding and comfort in bruce is what drives the romance forward there's not much room to maintain her original values and guarded demeanor, if not her outright defensiveness and hostility. a lot of people look at the extensive trauma selina has experienced and argue that she deserves to be in a relationship with someone who allows her to let those walls down. this isn't incorrect in theory. but it does repeatedly ignore who she is. it's kind of like the point i was making about bruce yesterday. exploring the inherently abusive nature of robin or of bruce's right to his children in light of that fact is interesting to do, but the actual execution has rarely managed to take into account who bruce actually is

for however nice it might be for selina to let her walls down romantically and look for solace in bruce—and i say this mostly for the sake of argument, personally i would argue against its necessity—it's realistically not something she's actually going to do. at least not as willfully as she's been portrayed to. realistically she's going to make it extremely hard, which if anything is precisely the appeal. i love it when selina gives bruce a hard time. i love that it's not supposed to be easy or maybe even a possibility for him to win her over bc there's so much about his own ideological stances that's flawed and in opposition to her own. she doesn't have to be any less unrelenting in her principles and worldview for that romance between them to be compelling bc at the end of the day the entire crux of it is that against all odds bruce cares. for however wrong he thinks she might be in a given moment or in her stance against the government, he knows who she is and how hard she's fought and what she's survived and it makes him sympathetic to her because she's real. she's a wonderful character through which to explore the logical limits of bruce's self-righteousness and categorization of crime, as well as a wonderful mirror to hold up to his face as he starts to ask himself whether what he's doing is really the only means of keeping the city safe. and the novelty of it all is that you don't have to sacrifice her character for any of that to be true. writers have simply deluded themselves into believing that they have to and that's why we are where we are today

#you're so real about the reeves movie btw i think she should have kicked him off of a building personally #outbox #also not something i mentioned above but i think a looooot of people cling to bronze age selina #because it was purportedly her first 'positive' portrayal. personally i would argue against that though #i think her golden age iteration was plenty 'positive' and there was an inherent understanding that although she loved supervillainy #she wasn't necessarily evil in a way comparable to other rogues. she always had an inclination towards mercy and bruce Noticed that #which is what made their relationship really interesting. bc she was committing crimes and in his head he was like #yeaaaah she's wrong. but she's also not hurting anyone per se. and she's so pretty. let me turn a blind eye it's fine #these were more generic ideas that newell subsequently rewrapped in new skin and then further developed along a political lens #but i think a lot of people comparatively prefer bronze age selina bc it fully embraced a romance in the most traditional sense #so at the end of the day a lot of the fan sentiment really comes down to preferring wish fulfillment over good storytelling. at least imo #bronze age selina to me is one of the most boring characters ever. and i also hate that she has to 'prove' she's no longer villainous to br #to bruce. and the fact that he suspects her. like since the 40s it's been word of law by the ogs that bruce Doesn't suspect her #he's the first person to not suspect her while everyone around him is judging him for it #i know writers and perspectives change etc etc but when that's what the original creators of both characters are telling you #i feel like it has to hold some weight #so yeah. bronze age might as well be the shit under my shoe it's so boring and bland and most of all ahistorical #bronze age batkat i mean

[catilinas]

cic. att. 14.10.1 trans. e-pistulae / lucan, pharsalia 7.638-46 trans. a.s. kline

#i just think it is funny that cicero and lucan both make avery similar point about past events causing survivors / people born later to #experience a form of living death / political death etc #(+ i think caesar winning the civil war. in which the big victory Was the battle of pharsalus. is important to when cicero thinks the Being #Dead started) #AND YET. lucan chooses to get weird and ahistorical About Cicero Specifically and puts him in the battle of pharsalus like. for funsies #like lucan voice well maybe mr mtc You Did actually have the opportunity to do something or die about it #like. he didn’t. he extremely very much Did Not. but it is SUCH a silly coincidence #that the guy making the same complaint is the guy lucan retroactively frames as hypocritical for making that complaint #like for WHAT. i still don’t get what cicero is even doing in the pharsalia. go home marce tulli!!! #also i don’t think this is intentional on lucan’s part (unless…?) #i just see a state of living death and i’m like. oh i am going to translate this SO literally #intertextual ghosts is when you translate cicero via the lucan that doesn’t exist yet or something #epistulaeposting #cicero #pharsalia #the fear: that nothing survives. the greater fear: that something does. #beeps

[tedhugheshater]

moids will say the biggest nonsense with the world's whole confidence and continue with their days

#please ignore how i fight with these stupid asses in chess.com LMFAOOOOO #he also had the chat blocked so i couldnt even respond #lame ass behaviour #and also if i was ''arrogant'' (which i was not half as much as i shouldve been) was because one dude was literally saying how inferior #women are and being the most ahistorical person ever #and then this scrote gets into my DMs completely uninvited mansplaining to me women's history #like yeaaa i bet you know so much more than me lil incel #its almost as if. ive studied history for years. who wouldve guessed. its almost as if i named plenty of historical examples to prove the #other pea brain male chauvinist wrong #i hate men so much i think im breaking up with my years long boyfriend bro #mine #women in chess #receipts #<- ?

[wonder-worker]

It is difficult to argue that [Edward IV] was wrong in what he did. His advancement of [Richard of Gloucester] can be criticized only by those who believe that the only good nobleman is an impotent nobleman. Medieval kings did not think in these terms. Gloucester’s power was valuable because it ensured royal control of a significant and troublesome part of the country. Nor can Edward be blamed for not foreseeing the ends to which Gloucester might put his power. The duke had been a loyal upholder of the house of York, a central figure in Edward’s polity*; there was no obvious reason why he should not occupy the same role under Edward V. In this respect, precedent was on Edward’s side. Previous minorities had seen squabbles over the distribution of power, but no young king had ever been deposed. Even royal uncles traditionally drew a line at that, something which explains why Gloucester’s actions seemed so shocking to contemporaries and, perhaps, the reason why he got away with it so easily in the short term.

In the immediate sense, Gloucester must take final responsibility for what happened in 1483. However one explains the motives behind his actions, things happened because he chose that they should: there is nothing in the previous reign which compelled him to act as he did.

-Rosemary Horrox, "Richard III: A Study of Service"

*Richard was also, yk, Edward's own brother who had been entirely loyal during his life. The problem wasn’t that Edward trusted Richard, the problem is that Richard broke that trust in a horrible and unprecedented way to usurp a 12-year-old. Please understand the difference.

#wars of the roses #edward iv #richard iii #edward v #my post #The arguments of Ross and Pollard (et al) are so profoundly unserious and ahistorical #casting an unforeseeable turn of events as a predictable ('structural') one as David Horspool rightly puts it #Ross specifically is entirely dependent on his own horrible view of Elizabeth Woodville and her family as the basis of his analysis #but anyway. as Horrox points out later in the book: #''although earlier events [during Edward's reign] cannot be said to have caused the crisis they did have some bearing in how it developed' #namely Edward's legacy of forfeitures in the 1460s; manipulation of property descents; and fluctuating royal favour. #the most prominent and politically important of all of these were the manipulation of the Mowbray and Howard family fortunes #This is often used to enhance the unserious and ahistorical arguments of historians like Ross and Pollard that Edward doomed his son #But as Horrox points out: Edward's reign did not exist in a vacuum and needs to be analyzed by actual historical context. #from a broader perspective his actions were not especially transgressive as far as English kings were concerned #NO MONARCH (Edward III; Henry VII; etc) died with every single one of their nobles 100% content and supportive #they weren't living in Disney movies and there's no point holding Edward IV to fairytale standards that did not exist. #More importantly Horrox points out that Edward's actions (eg: the Mowbray and Howard cases) need to be put into actual perspective #They were not perceived as problems and did not cause problems during his own reign. #They did not cause problems after he died before Edward V arrived in London. #They only became problems after Richard decided to seize power and deliberately exploited them as bribes for political support #Had Richard decided to support his nephew or work with the Woodvilles - Edward's actions (@ the Mowbrays and Howards) would be irrelevant #(It's also worth pointing out that we don't know WHEN Richard decided to usurp. It if it was a more gradual desire then his depowering #of the Woodvilles by exploiting Mowbray & Howard discontent would not have not affected *Edward V's* ascension or prospects) #ie: the problem isn't that discontent existed with a few specific nobles (that was normal) the problem was how Richard took advantage of it #In theory this sort of thing would have been a potential threat for ANY heir to the throne whether they were a minor or an adult #In itself it's not really unique to Edward and it's silly when historians criticize him and him alone for it. It was more or less standard. #(if anything the fact that he was able to do them so successfully is an indication of his authority) #We come back to Horspool's point: 'Without one overriding factor' - Richard's initiative and actions - 'none of this could have happened.' #which is where this analysis of Horrox's comes in :)

[florentium]

Trying to keep my history thoughts on the matter to myself online so that I don't get turbo cancelled but I just have to point out that there is a huge difference between THE British Museum and A British museum.

For Christ's sake.

#like that's just factually incorrect #THE British Museum made no such proclamation #one small museum in hertfordshire did #also all sources about this person were written by enemies #and should not be regarded as an unbiased account of firsthand statements #it's just...... such an ahistorical sloppy decision #like there is so much queer history #so much well-documented evidence of queer history from all over the world #and you pick this #and attach an uncontemporaneous modern-lens category to it based on political slander #i suppose it did its job though by generating press for the museum

[navree]

"cleopatra faced oppression" the fuck she did oh my god i hate y'all so much

#personal #i thought we couldn't get any stupider than 'cleopatra was culturally black' because like....no #because a) someone's idea of 'culturally black' varies from country to country #and b) what an american for instance would consider 'culturally black' is based on idea that's at max a hundred years old #but no cleopatra the literal queen descended from an incestuous colonizer dynasty ruling one of the richest countries on the mediterranean #did not 'face oppression' where was she facing oppression she OWNED SLAVES #the closest that woman ever came to facing oppression was like maybe the last week of her life when octavian was in alexandria #but even then not really??? #and they're so clearly not talking about any gender discrimination that she dealt with because this whole thing #is a defense of that stupid 'no cleopatra was black actually we promise' #god i'm getting anti cleopatra pilled by ahistorical bullshit i'm gonna end up hating her before the year is out at this point #also can we please focus on like any other egyptian queens ever #why's it always cleopatra's macedonian ass in the spotlight egypt has thousands of years of history #and a good chunk of those thousands of years did actually have female primary rulers #who were ethnically egyptian to boot #like goddamn there's more to egypt than just the cleopatra show and a lot of it is much more interesting

[biteapple]

also wrt my therapist not working where i was getting therapy anymore .. im realizing it was as of Halloween SO im wondering if just like. something happened on Halloween that got them fired...?

#i dont know. im honestly somewhat relieved. they did some things that rubbed me the wrong way #a la ''slapped my hand about it a bit if i said 'stupid' or 'crazy' in passing but WILL say 'crackhead' themselves''. ok. telling. #among other things... like mentioning something something ''attracted to butches'' and they immediatly google and said like #''minromantic!'' and i had to be like. im so sorry. no offense. thats not what i said. #i didnt even know how to react to that #and when i considered being bisexual the whole ''oh what two genders though?'' and i was like ''?? any and all? 'two' in bi is not literal' #she was like ''oh... i see.. our definitions seem to be different on that front...'' and looked dejected i was like... SORRY...? #i dont mind people using language to describe themselves in any way. when its something imposed on me that goes against what im saying #its an issue... like... not listening... also ahistorical definition of bisexuality and obtusely defining it... OK.. #disclaimer i dont know if im bisexual still. do feel like i have to say that for some reason

[ghoul-haunted]

oh OH I forgot I already fixed this crunchy plot point about crasso and pompeyo running on a mayoral ticket together by having them share the same home province, it's just that pompeyo's family had Debt When He Was Very Young and Left For The City (what's this? foreshadowing? in THIS economy? it's more likely than you think)

#hi cassio! it's time to get YOU a job #(cassio's father works for pompeyo and pompeyo gets cassio a job w/ crasso) #the foreshadowing is that what happened to pompeyo's family is what's going to happen to a lot of families in (checks notes) about #20 ish years after. the famine prompted a lot of people to go to the cities in a desperate attempt to find work #which left the workers on the land and farms to. basically. starve #somewhat ahistorically: crasso stays. pompeyo does too but it's because he stops by crasso's house before going back to the city #and then he decides to stay #anyway crasso Has To Stay. king of the land. you have a debt of obligation to fulfill #also your property is on a haunted road so like. abandon your people at your own peril

[juneiper-art]

I just rewatched Contact and that film is so sacred and profane coded to me. I could write so much about it. Alas. Whomst has the time.

#juneiper chats #when i was in grad school a lot of the logicians in my cohort #used to argue about the rationality and objectiveness of science and math #it's so ahistorical but it's also like ... #do you not experience the ectasy of these things #do you not see the way in which devotion and faith are axiomatic to the scientific method #and i don't mean this to demean science by saying it's based in faith #i mean it is so utterly compelling and i just want to dig my teeth into #the sacred/profane nature of Truth in both science and faith #I'm a philosophical pragmatist so i don't think there is Truth #so both science and faith are so so so like OUAGH to me emotionally #like your beliefs are so... obsessive and rich #you actually believe you can Know about this universe #that there is a Truth that is both discoverable and knowable #I'm like William James studying prophets #but the prophets are scientists #do you get what I'm saying #do you see how these two ideologies are so opposed but two sides of the same coin #foaming at the mouth

[f1ghtsoftly]

my boss and I were both raised catholic/went to catholic schools and her in laws have a tradcath son and I really appreciate that we bully him at every opportunity, what a freak.

#the trad cath thing is also insane to me because like? #have you met any latin americans? any italians? #like trad caths…it’s very obvious it’s an evangelical take on catholicism #because even very observant catholics do not act like they do #which is also crazy because evangelicals freaked out so bad about catholic immigration to the states #a huge part of being an evangelical is rejecting it #historically at least #it’s just the phenomena is so insane to me #further evidence for my take that since we’ve become a visual culture #the historical and theretical meaning of objects and identity signifiers has died #it’s about the aesthetic of traditionalism and not really the practice #and it’s so divorced from it’s historic roots it actually really bothers me #catholicism is a state religion #it’s roman in character #the point is not really to Feel #or to be a zealot #even the conventions of communion #sort of inseperable from roman sacrifice #sorry I’m going off but it’s just such an ahistoric misunderstood movement #if you want real pure religion a la intensive oneness with the spiritual you should become a radical methodist

[lightgaswaterelectricityrent]

Drunk uncle wait until you hear what they did to the bible before we could read it in modern english

#this is actually so stupid and ahistorical regardless of what you believe it's actually making me kind of mad #like 75% of people in the English translation of the entire bible have recognizable to us names including um. adam and eve #also the stories in the new testament are less than 2000 years old like they literally lived in Rome

[rotato-potato]

me graciously unfollowing ppl instead of blocking them when they reblog thinly (if at all) veiled antisemitic posts 😔

#it’s the claims with no sources and the blatantly ahistorical claims also posted without sources #can y’all pls fact check #like get a second opinion #there is like only so much I am willing to let slide #which is more than I probably should #I am just so willing to give ppl the benefit of the doubt bc truly I think most ppl are coming from a place of wanting to do good #but also like I don’t know any of you ppl so truly who is to say #bleh #speaks

[kateis-cakeis]

I think the current merthur fic Im writing is gonna either be my 2nd longest fic, or it's gonna become my longest and I don't know how I got here

#my 2nd longest is 77k and my longest is 119k - my fic is at 74k and im nowhere near a conclusion #this was just a like what if Morgana kept Merlin for longer in a servant of two masters #and what if she tortured him and get into Arthur being really desperate to find him and how that would affect him #like because of his wound in that episode like eventually everyone trying to tell him he's definitely gone by now #and then getting into the nitty gritty of lords and such #most of this is because i really wanted to get into like changing the laws on magic #we may also have a little hint of period typical (i say for the most ahistorical show ever) homophobia - but only kinda #ive never doneeee that in a fic before so i kinda wanna explore it a bit #and now im forming a monster and i havent meant to #and im almost convinced i should start posting it now #because there's 10 chapters already and i upload weekly and aaaaaah #i love this fic so much and i want people to see it but you know i dont like uploading until im done but who knows when that will be #ive been writing it for a month and a bit already

[quinnfebrey]

it’s really funny that taylor has adopted a reputation for being well-read and book smart because every time she opens her mouth about a real world issue i am forcibly reminded that she stopped going into school after 10th grade (her words), and even then, her formal education was provided by the state of tennessee.

because… what?

to frame patriarchy as this inherent thing that has ALWAYS existed and is as naturally occurring as a blue sky, is just not true. and to frame capitalism as this thing that is inherent is also just… not true. i could never unpack in just a post why those claims are ahistorical, but i will say that it is fucking nuts to look at an issue of capitalism and say “yeah it’s a problem, but, well, i’m just going to win at it 🤩” and call it feminism.

and that is the problem with white feminism. it just turns into idiots trying to speak on single topics and cherry pick their agendas, even though, in a sociopolitical or socioeconomic sense, it doesn’t work like that. you cannot talk about feminism without discussing western society, organized religion, global superpowers, communities of color, colonization, climate change, corporations, monopolies and more. anything less is useless at best and misleading at worst.

(because when you don’t, you get brain dead hot takes like “patriarchy has existed since the dawn of time, and so has money!”)

it’s like how greta thunberg said that she started as just a climate change activist, but now she’s basically a total anti-capitalist advocating for a complete disruption and overthrow to the way the world currently runs because she realized that advocating for that and advocating for climate justice are one and the same.

and if you criticize taylor swift for talking out of her ass, you’ll be hit with brainwashed swifties throwing out the word “misogyny” or “you’d never ask another celebrity this” or “you’re holding her to her own standards” because they’ve been hearing taylor’s bullshit feminism for so long that now they’ve adopted it as their own

taylor’s feminism will NEVER surpass the self-serving role it fills in her life because to do so would mean confronting the bigotry she has upheld, the questionable people she spends her time with, the wealth she is hoarding, her impact on the environment, and much more.

which is… fine, i guess. she doesn’t have to be a good feminist. but in that case she needs to pick a side and shut her fucking mouth about it. because letting her romp around spewing out the most egocentric and individualistic interpretations of it is boring and unhelpful.

#* #i knew that quote kept sticking out to me #like girl what the hell #taylor swift #time magazine #person of the year #white feminism