#paramilitary murder | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

186-3 · 5 months

Text

courting antisemitism

so i recently decided to take a look at the latest stonetoss comics (probably because i love suffering). and while i was expecting some content on the israel palestine conflict, what i did not expect was how... standard it seemed. well, most of it at least, but i'll get to that in a second.

for context, if you don't know what stonetoss is, it's a (poorly drawn) webcomic known for having radical alt-right views - meaning it's incredibly racist, homophobic, transphobic, islamophobic, antisemitic. all that fun stuff.

so while i was expecting to see bad stuff, one of the first things i saw on the topic of israel was this:

terrible art aside, this comic is making a point that i usually see in left wing circles: that israel is pinkwashing genocide.

curious if there was more like this, i kept looking, and the comic right before that one was this:

again, this makes points that i usually see in left wing circles. that american healthcare is crazy expensive, that canada tells poor people to commit suicide, and that israel is bombing hospitals.

why does stonetoss, this well known alt-right nutjob, now seem to be bringing up left-wing talking points?

curious, i kept going deeper:

well this is... odd. clearly, stonetoss is trying to say that israel is on another level of bad, even worse than russia, iran, and north korea. i can possibly see someone on the left making the argument that the russian invasion of ukraine isn't as bad as what israel is doing in gaza, or that at least north korea isn't invading any other countries, but... iran??? the country that has a police force designed to enforce religious law, and gets away with murdering women who do not properly cover their hair? the country that props up paramilitary groups in countries all over the middle east, including lebanon, yemen, and yes, palestine?? that's completely ridiculous

but, given how much more israel is in the news nowadays than any of these other countries, i could see why someone would buy this

and now, we're starting to get to the crux of what stonetoss is trying to do. when someone sees this, they might be inclined to agree with it. they might begin to think that israel is the worst country on the planet

and that might not seem so bad at first. but the more you hate israel, especially irrationally, the more you feel allowed to dehumanize those who support it. the more you might be willing to agree with this comic, which came out two days prior to the one above

this comic says that jews, as a whole have no desire to exist with other people. it is blatantly antisemitic

i'm sure you could imagine some young leftist who sees the comics above this one and thinks, "this guy makes some good points". and then, when they get to this one, they might realize that this is antisemitism

or, they may not.

and that would start them down the road to becoming an antisemite.

this is what stonetoss and other alt-right nutjobs are hoping to achieve. to take left wing fury at israel, and direct it at jews.

we saw it with those neo-nazis at the palestine rally, and we're seeing it again here.

and if you've found yourself agreeing with what stonetoss has said so far, i would like you to see the last comic stonetoss put out before october 7th:

this horrifically racist comic is in reference to an environmental activist who was murdered by a black man in early october. this blatantly racist garbage is the kind of stuff stonetoss usually puts out.

but as soon as october 7th happened? these were his next two comics:

stonetoss completely changed the comic's tone as soon as the current crisis started. why?

to get as many people as possible to get on board with hating jews.

and i know many of you might be thinking that "well, everyone knows that stonetoss is racist garbage. nobody is going to fall for this"

except, as we saw with the neo-nazis at the rally for palestine, it's not always that obvious who the antisemites are and who is just rallying for peace. they are often a lot better at disguising it than stonetoss is.

AND EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF THAT

EVERYONE, no matter HOW much experience you have, can fall victim to propoganda. EVERYONE needs to be aware of what people around them are saying, and able to pick out hateful rhetoric, because even the stuff that is just kind of toeing the line of what's hateful is still putting your foot in the door

be cautious, everyone. and stomp out hate where you see it.

#israel #palestine #stonetoss #racism #antisemitism #tw racism #tw antisemitism #jumblr #rant #long post

10K notes · View notes

imsobadatnicknames2 · 2 months

Text

Yeah... the USA's abuse of Latin America is a republican issue.

It's not like the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state featured some of the worst foreign policy moments regarding Latin America in recent memory, like support for the 2009 Honduran coup and the 2012 Paraguayan coup, shutting down a minimum wage increase in Haiti because it would have affected American companies using Haiti as a source of cheap labor, multiple free trade agreements that wrecked havoc on the economy of several Latin American countries, and many more things. Also Plan Colombia during the late Bill Clinton administration saw the USA give millions of dollars in military aid to one of the most far-right governments my country's ever had, essentially subsidizing the work of goverment-allied far-right paramilitary squads which murdered countless union acivists and afro-colombian and indigenous social leaders. Republicans aren't clean when it comes to foreign policy here either but fucking say they're the only ones trying to wage war on us lmao.

1K notes · View notes

clevercrumbish · 2 years

Text

Bro I fucking hate Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria I hate how no matter how ADHD diagnosed I can get and how much medicinal pseudometh I can get put on there's fuckall doctors can do about how if two mildly upsetting things happen at the same time I become violently suicidal for the rest of the day

#suicide tw #I am straight up not having a good time #For those playing along at home somebody was mean to me on reddit #And a murderous internet stalking collective unsuccessfully attempted to get my friend executed by a paramilitary

0 notes

stealth-liberal · 7 months

Text

I have now seen the pictures of the children who've been kidnapped and brought into Gaza. These are CHILDREN, little kids. Apparently, videos are being released by Hamas.

So. I am going to be clear, if you support this... I hope you die in a fire. Hamas is a paramilitary terrorist organization, and it is listed as such by over 80 countries in the world. If you support this... you're a monster. This is child abduction and child murder.

I live in a red area, right wing antisemitism is rampant. Both of my children have been bullied to insane degrees for being Jewish (more than for being lesbian in my daughter's case). When violence occurs in Israel, reprisals occur ALL OVER THE WORLD for diaspora Jews. I will be driving my kids to and from school as I don't trust these Qanon antisemites to not try something.

The sad part for me? The leftists will be silent. They don't care about the civilians and little kids abducted into Gaza, where they will most likely be executed. They also don't care that right-wing antisemites are a clear and present danger to my family, and we have quite literally been attacked by them before.

Hamas, other terrorists and right-wingers want all Jews dead. The left is HAPPY to sell them the rope and then turn around and whistle while they declare their innocence.

I support Israel's right to exist, and it's right to defend itself. That does not mean I support everything they do, I am not in a cult. Netanyahu is as evil as the head of Hamas. I stand by that statement. I am against the settlement policy. It is legalized cruelty. I stand by that statement.

But, I think y'all need to realize something about the Jews. We fight amongst each other A LOT. We will scream at each other till we lose our voices. We are not and never have been a monolith.... Until you start trying to kill us. The time from the fall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judea at the hands of the Roman Empire through the Holocaust taught us well. The Haredi man I wouldn't have at my table yesterday to break bread with because I find nearly all of his stances repugnant is family today. Not family I like. Not family I want to spend time with. Not family I enjoy. But he is family today because y'all decided to cheer when people are killing and abducting us. We unite all the way up and down the line when people start killing us and put our other issues with each other on the shelf. Because when the killing starts, y'all tend to either cheer or ignore it, so we have only us to rely on.

If you want us gone, you'll have to kill each and every single last one of us. Every man, woman, child, and elderly person. And we won't go easy, and we'll take as many of you with us as we can before we die. We've learned our lessons well.

If y'all don't like that, then look in the mirror because y'all are the ones who taught us those lessons in one way or another.

#sl speaks #jumblr #jewish #the jewish people #israel

535 notes · View notes

luimnigh · 8 months

Text

The charitable interpretation of the law passed in the British Parliament today, an amnesty for all crimes committed by both paramilitary groups and British soldiers over the course of the Troubles, is this:

It is perfectly fine for British soldiers to murder innocent civilians, citizens of the United Kingdom. They will not be investigated for it. They will be given amnesty. They will face no justice.

That is the charitable interpretation. That is giving them the benefit of the doubt.

That is assuming they see the people they murdered as fellow British, and not something other and lesser than British. That this is a rule for all British citizens, and not an exception made for a certain group. That it's okay if members of that group died.

The charitable explanation is a chilling indictment of the British Government. The other explanation was British policy for eight hundred years.

I kinda hoped it had stopped being British Policy.

#uk politics #irish politics #british history #irish history #the troubles #northern ireland

460 notes · View notes

tainbocuailnge · 1 month

Text

my favourite arknights lore is that dreamland fairies are real there are real people who can physically enter your dreams and whose actual profession is dreamland fairy and their job is to colect and preserve children's treasures in their secret fairytale castle detached from linear time and two of those fairies are on the payroll of our paramilitary pharmaceutical company. and the hyper murder nightmare theater troupe has the same kind of castle and its implicitly even the actual same castle because the owner of the dreamland castle is there chilling like she lives there.

#arklance

113 notes · View notes

hollowed-theory-hall · 3 days

Text

Dumbledore, Tom Riddle, and what makes a psychopath

First of all, I'm not a licensed therapist or psychiatrist, but I love reading things online. I also love analyzing fictional characters, so why not do both and show why Albus Dumbledore shows just as many signs of ASPD (Antisocial Personality Disorder) as Tom Marvolo Riddle and that both men are much more similar than they'd like to think.

Whats ASPD?

ASPD, also known as Antisocial Personality Disorder, is a personality disorder. This disorder encapsulates both what people commonly call "psychopaths" and "sociopaths" and is actually mischaracterized often. It is a real mental disorder and not all real-life people with ASPD are dangerous to be around like the fictional ones, some live completely lawful murder-free lives. This post is mostly an interesting thought exercise and not meant to be a diagnostic tool or to be seen as how all people with ASPD are.

So, personality disorders refer to mental disorders that affect thought processes, personality, and how a person interacts with the world as a whole. ASPD, as its name suggests, focuses on social interactions. It is categorized by a lack of empathy, a penchant for lying, irresponsibility, and disregard for other's rights or feelings along with a lack of remorse.

All in all it sounds a lot like what we'd associate with Tom Riddle, but Dumbledore fits just as many of the symptoms required for an ASPD diagnosis.

How is ASPD diagnosed?

The DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) categorizes and describes how to diagnose all clinically recognized mental illnesses. The DSM-5's diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder:

A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

Disregarding the law, indicated by repeatedly committing acts that are grounds for arrest

Being deceitful, indicated by lying repeatedly, using aliases, or conning others for personal gain or pleasure

Acting impulsively or not planning ahead

Being easily provoked or aggressive, indicated by constantly getting into physical fights or assaulting others

Recklessly disregarding their safety or the safety of others

Consistently acting irresponsibly, indicated by quitting a job with no plans for another one or not paying bills

Not feeling remorse, indicated by indifference to or rationalization of hurting or mistreating others

2. The individual is at least age 18 years.

3. Evidence of conduct disorder typically with onset before age 15 years.

4. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

So let's look at the boys, shall we?

This isn't meant to be a professional diagnosis, I just want to show how similar Tom and Dumbledore are in certain ways neither of them would like to confess and for that, we'll look through the behavior patterns used to diagnose ASPD.

1. Disregarding the law, indicated by repeatedly committing acts that are grounds for arrest

With Tom, this category of behavior is easy to tick off. He murdered multiple people. He led a terrorist organization. He cast illegal dark magic, including all three unforgivables, I don't think anyone would argue Tom didn't do many illegal things.

The thing is, Dumbledore disregards the law just as much, if, in different ways.

The Order of the Phoenix that he leads is an illegal paramilitary group separate from the government that is kept a secret from law enforcement at large and the general population, as shown in the news article leading to the publication of Rita's book:

WHAT was the real purpose of the secret organization known as the Order of the Phoenix?

(DH, 24)

This organization is illegal in their world. Additionally, Dumbledore shows no care for the ministry or its laws once it suits him. (It's not necessarily a bad thing because the Ministry of Magic sucks, but still). He showed as much in all his interactions with people like Fudge and Umbridge, going as far as actually resisting arrest in OotP after the DA was discovered. (again, he is right for doing it, but it still shows a disregard for their law, which I personally consider healthy because it's the Ministry of Magic)

And then, of course, there was Dumbledore's quest for muggle domination with Grindelwald:

Your point about Wizard dominance being FOR THE MUGGLES’ OWN GOOD—this, I think is the crucial point. Yes, we have been given power and yes, that power gives up the right to rule, but it also gives us responsibilities over the ruled. We must stress this point, it will be the foundation stone upon which we build. Where we are opposed, as we surely will be, this must be the basis of all our counterarguments. We seize control FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

(DH, 309)

None of which sounds awfully legal. His intentions back then were to rule over the muggles and take control by force if they had to. Showing that even in his youth, Dumbledore didn't have much consideration for the law.

2. Being deceitful, indicated by lying repeatedly, using aliases, or conning others for personal gain or pleasure

There are many examples of Tom lying for various reasons, I picked out one of them to exibit here:

Riddle laughed his high laugh again. “It was my word against Hagrid’s, Harry. Well, you can imagine how it looked to old Armando Dippet. On the one hand, Tom Riddle, poor but brilliant, parentless but so brave, school prefect, model student . . . on the other hand, big, blundering Hagrid, in trouble every other week, trying to raise werewolf cubs under his bed

(CoS, 288)

But Tom lies a lot. Both at school, at the orphanage, and about his identity. He lies to his followers often and I'd say he also lies to himself, but that's another matter. This category literally mentions using an alias and that is one of the things Tom (or, well, Voldemort) is well known for.

As for Dumbledore, he lies and conceals just as much. Abeforth said he was always this way:

“I can’t leave,” said Harry. “I’ve got a job—” “Give it to someone else!” “I can’t. It’s got to be me, Dumbledore explained it all—” “Oh, did he now? And did he tell you everything, was he honest with you?” Harry wanted with all his heart to say “Yes,” but somehow the simple word would not rise to his lips, Aberforth seemed to know what he was thinking. “I knew my brother, Potter. He learned secrecy at our mother’s knee. Secrets and lies, that’s how we grew up, and Albus. . . he was a natural.”

(DH, 477-478)

The "greater good" was all for the sake of appearances, it was a deception — a lie to make muggle domination more palatable for the general population. He lied in his position as headmaster and in his relationship with Harry:

Not telling Harry about, well, anything, and justifying it to himself by telling himself Harry would be better off not knowing, even when it isn't necessarily true.

Lying to Lockhart to get him in a dangerous position Dumbledore knew he was unfit for.

Lying about Lupin being a werewolf (this one is a lie that does have a good intention behind it, but I count it here anyway)

Lying about the petrifications in 2nd year. Dumbledore was at the school last time the Chamber opened and knew what was going on, still waited for Harry to act.

Same in 1st year. Harry himself says he's pretty sure Dumbledore always knew about Quirrell but wanted to give Harry the chance to face Voldemort.

Lying to Harry about Malfoy not being anything to worry about, even though he knows what's going on. But instead of agreeing there is concern and it is being dealt with he just tries to gaslight Harry.

I can go on, but I think the gist is clear.

3. Acting impulsively or not planning ahead

They are actually both planners when they want to be. But they can also be impulsive on occasion, if more rare for them. We'll consider this a symptom they don't have, mostly.

4. Being easily provoked or aggressive, indicated by constantly getting into physical fights or assaulting others

Now, Tom can get provoked and react aggressively, although, I won't call it easily. Tom actually avoids unnecessary bloodshed when possible:

He saw the small boy’s smile falter as he ran near enough to see beneath the hood of the cloak, saw the fear cloud his painted face. Then the child turned and ran away. . . . Beneath the robe be fingered the hand of his wand. . . One simple movement and the child would never reach his mother. . . but unnecessary, quite unnecessary. . . .

(DH, 295)

I mean, he wouldn't have been prefect and head boy if he constantly got into fights. So I feel safe in saying Tom didn't get into fights often and much of the behavior we see towards his followers is fueled by both general frustration and his feeling they deserve this punishment. These punishments are planned, they aren't often impulsive and in the moment of rage (and when they are, it's only when Harry Potter is involved).

Dumbledore is quite the same. He is capable of getting angry when provoked, but avoids violence he doesn't see as necessary.

We'll consider this a symptom they don't have.

5. Recklessly disregarding their safety or the safety of others

So many times... for both of them...

For Tom:

He clearly doesn't care about most of his Death Eaters, he wouldn't mind if they died and he endangered them often.

He also endagers himself just as much, if not more; by mutilating himself to create Horcruxes.

And by charging into battle himself often.

For Dumbledore:

Dumbledore endangers the Order's safety repeatedly. Yes, they made the decision to join, but he is still the one sending Hagrid to negotiate with the giants and Remus to talk to the werewolves. He is still the one who sends them towards danger and is willing to risk them.

Dumbledore endangers Snape, he manipulates him into the position of a spy and wilfully disregards Snape's safety.

Harry. Just everything, since he placed him on the doorstep of the Dursleys Dumbledore has willfully endangered Harry — from the abuse to setting Harry up to face the various yearly adventures every year.

Dumbledore tells Harry in HBP he takes his student's safety seriously, but he really doesn't: he knows about the Chamber, but still waits for Harry to resolve it, even when students are getting petrified. He knew Malfoy was planning something in HBP, but allowed him to continue with his ploys that sent Katie Bell to St. Mongos for months. There are more, but I think you get the gist.

Dumbledore also endangers himself quite carelessly from how he picked up the ring, his willingness to go into battle, his drinking of the potion in the locket's cave, and his willingness to die for his own plans.

6. Consistently acting irresponsibly, indicated by quitting a job with no plans for another one or not paying bills

We actually see both of them are capable of holding jobs for a long time (Dumbledore at Hogwarts and Tom at Borgin and Burkes) and even when Tom leaves Borgin and Burkes, he has a plan for his leave.

Both show irresponsibility in other ways. Tom allows his Death Eaters to wreak havoc in the ministry in book 7 while he's off chasing the Elder Wand, Dumbledore repeatedly shows how unconcerned he is with the education of the students at Hogwarts (his actual job) by hiring people like Lockhart, who he knew to be a fraud and allowing Umbridge to be hired (he had the Order, he could've convinced the real Mad-Eye Moody to come teach, or even Tonks, but no, he needed to teach Harry a lesson about the ministry so he allowed Umbridge into the school).

7. Not feeling remorse, indicated by indifference to or rationalization of hurting or mistreating others

Well, not feeling remorse is kind of a big part of Tom's character, isn't it:

“It’s your one last chance,” said Harry, “it’s all you’ve got left. . . . I’ve seen what you’ll be otherwise. . . . Be a man . . . try . . . Try for some remorse. . . .” “You dare—?” said Voldemort again.

(DH, 625)

That he isn't sorry for what he did at any point to anyone. Yes, he shows affection to Nagini and Bellatrix, but he takes occasional joy in emberessing Bellatrix.

He truly isn't sorry because he doesn't care. He is indifferent to the suffering of most.

The thing is, Dumbledore is the same.

He shows complete cold disregard for Lockhart's situation after his loss of memories, rationalizing it as "deserved".

As I mentioned, he doesn't care when Katie gets cursed by the necklace or when students get petrified in 2nd year. He allows it to happen because it isn't happening to anyone important.

Dumbledore is hellbent on killing Tom, on utterly destroying him, this is weird for a person who supposedly believes in second chances, especially a person who let Gallert Grindlewald live. Grindelwald had a much higher death count than Voldemort. He killed and hurt way more people, but Dumbledore likes him, so he rationalizes killing Tom, but not Gallert.

He disregards Harry's pain and hurt over Sirius's death:

“Oh yes, you do,” said Dumbledore, still more calmly. “You have now lost your mother, your father, and the closest thing to a parent you have ever known. Of course you care.” “YOU DON’T KNOW HOW I FEEL!” Harry roared. “YOU — STANDING THERE — YOU —”

(OotP, 824)

He speaks calmly and coldly throughout the whole exchange, just waiting for Harry to calm down enough so he can tell him about the prophecy. Dumbledore doesn't empathize with Harry's pain.

He disregards Harry's abuse:

“Five years ago, then,” continued Dumbledore, as though he had not paused in his story, “you arrived at Hogwarts, neither as happy nor as well nourished as I would have liked, perhaps, yet alive and healthy. You were not a pampered little prince, but as normal a boy as I could have hoped under the circumstances. Thus far, my plan was working well.

(OotP, 837)

He says he knew Harry to be mistreated (and starved!) since 1st year, but he does nothing until 6th year when he needs Harry. No, instead he rationalizes Harry's abuse, it's necessary for the plan, so Harry won't be spoiled, it's for the greater good.

And, of course, he raised Harry like a "pig to slaughter":

“We have protected him because it has been essential to teach him, to raise him, to let him try his strength,” said Dumbledore, his eyes still tight shut. “Meanwhile, the connection between them grows ever stronger, a parasitic growth. Sometimes I have thought he suspects it himself. If I know him, he will have arranged matters so that when he does set out to meet his death, it will truly mean the end of Voldemort.” Dumbledore opened his eyes. Snape looked horrified. “You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment?” “Don’t be shocked, Severus. How many men and women have you watched die?” “Lately, only those whom I could not save,” said Snape. He stood up. “You have used me.” “Meaning?” “I have spied for you and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter’s son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter—” “But this is touching, Severus,” said Dumbledore seriously. “Have you grown to care for the boy, after all?” “For him?” shouted Snape. “Expecto Patronum!”

(DH, 580)

I think it's telling how Severus Snape, who despises the concept of Harry, reacts more sympatheticly and emotionally to Harry's death than Dumbledore. Dumbledore is cold and uncaring, he just calls Snape out for caring as if Snape is in the wrong for reacting the way any human would. Because Dumbledore is cold enough to rationalize any sacrifice he considers necessary.

The last quote was also about how Dumbledore used Severus. He manipulated Snape into oaths and bonds to spy for him and protect Harry. Twisted Snape's guilt to get some use out of him. And for Dumbledore, it was justified, it was for the greater good.

Results

So, Tom got 5/7 for ASPD symptoms, and Dumbledore got 5/7. And you only need 3 for a diagnosis, so, yeah...

What I wanted to talk about and get to with all of this is Tom and Dumbledore's similarities that both of them hate to see. Their despise for each other is partly fueled by it, I think. They look at each other and see some of their own traits mirrored back, but arranged all wrong.

Dumbledore sees the worst version of himself in Tom Riddle and Tom sees their similarities and Dumbledore's hypocrisy to those similarities and hates him for that.

They were both the most brilliant wizards of their respective generations, top students at Hogwarts, when they graduated, Dumbledore planned to go on a tour of the world to study magic abroad like Tom did. They both received offers for ministry positions, which they both declined because they wanted to be professors at Hogwarts. They both lead paramilitary organizations (Death Eaters and the Order of the Phoenix) and they are both willing to make sacrifices in the quest for their goals.

Tom is willing to kill and tear himself up to create Horcruxes because it's necessary in his eyes:

Beneath the robe be fingered the hand of his wand. . . One simple movement and the child would never reach his mother. . . but unnecessary, quite unnecessary. . . .

(DH, 295)

Dumbledore is willing to sacrifice Harry and himself in the quest for the "greater good":

We seize control FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

(DH, 309)

I just find the fact that both of them show psychopathic traits in equal measure in similar ways super interesting. This distorted mirror is so fascinating, especially because the respective characters would despise being compared to each other.

#harry potter #hp #harry potter thoughts #hp thoughts #hp meta #harry potter meta #hollowedtheory #dumbledore #albus dumbledore #tom riddle #lord voldemrot #voldemort #tom marvolo riddle #aspd #i guess

74 notes · View notes

blue-hair-and-pronouns-tourney · 6 months

Text

Our Lady of the Passion artwork credit to @thatneoncrisis

Propaganda

Our Lady of the Passion/Pash:

-Nepo baby soldier girl. Unimaginably hot. Total loser asshole.

-She’s part of a paramilitary organisation and the planet Earth has a crush on her.

-First of all, that is her actual name, it usually gets shortened to Pash. Considering how much internet humor the Locked Tomb books tend to have in them, she may ver well quite literally be 'Blue hair and pronouns'. Pash is the nephew of the super badass, somewhat murderous rebel leader which might have gotten her promoted a lot faster. As is seemingy family tradition she absolutly hates necromancers (Very understandable). She is very badass and, despite her disdain for swords, has two machetes strapped to her tighs.

-Our Lady of the Passion, usually referred to as Pash, is a member of Blood of Eden and serves as a bodyguard. Pash is compact and average-sized, her cheeks littered with shrapnel scars and her nose crooked. She keeps her hair buzzed on one side and long on the other, dyed a bright blue. Nona describes her face as "super-cool and fierce and handsome".

-She has blue hair, she has pronouns, and she’s willing to throw down over getting other people’s pronouns right. And she’s got two machetes. What more could you want????

-The soul of the Earth has a crush on her

Jinx:

-She's so traumatized and insane and awful. I love her.

-natural blue hair and probably doesn't care about gender or pronouns because who has time for that when your hallucinations are screaming at you?

#our lady of the passion #jinx #the locked tomb #arcane #round 1

242 notes · View notes

txttletale · 9 months

Note

The "calling police is inherently immoral" takes feel… maybe a bit US-centric? All countries have structural issues with police that come as the result of the conflict of interests between individual people and the interest of the bourgie state, but not every country's police force is a highly-militarized, highly-armed trigger-happy murder force comprised of wannabe bullies the way the US's seems to be. Some do clear that very low bar. Hell, there are tons of countries where regular police officers aren't even armed.

In my life I've called the police twice over student parties past midnight so loud you could hear them two streets away, and once over someone's dog being trapped/forgotten in the trunk of car, distressed and barking continuously.

Even in a world after police abolition, the above kind of policing will continue to need to happen. Some people are dicks, and some situations need intervention. A shitton of civil law, not criminal law, exists for a very good reason and still requires some form of police to enforce. I like to think I have a pretty hopeful view of humanity, but the reason people in my country have stopped smoking indoors, and don't leave their trash in random places, and don't piss in the middle of the street, is that all of those things are illegal and can result in police being called and getting you fined. There is absolutely no way people en masse would obey those "don't be a dick" laws without that stick hanging over them.

In a country where police are so fucked up that calling them over a minor disturbance is likely to get people killed, yeah, I would probably not call the police and just suck it up and mourn the fact that the supposed justice system has become completely unusable for its intended purpose. But not all countries are like that.

(To be clear: I don't agree with calling police over someone doing drugs.)

even in countries where the police are not just outright death squads putting young people, especially young people of colour or working class young people, into a situation where they suddenly have to interact with the police is just not a cool thing to do. you've correctly identified that the role of the police is to repress the working class, no matter whether they're the white supermacist paramilitary groups of the US or the less militarized and better at PR police forces of Europe. like. the police in the UK are also 'not as bad' as the police in the US and yet they still do all kinds of horrendous racist violent shit and kill people. even the darling of democratic socialism norway, famous for its humane prison and policing system, actually still experiences police brutality, because no matter how 'professional' and disarmed the police force is its role is to enforce bourgeois property rights through violence. the idea that there is an 'intended purpose' to the justice is just buying into the police's hype.

& hey by the way you know who leaves their trash in the street and pisses there? homeless people. people who have nowhere else to put their trash or piss. the idea that the police are the only thing keeping society from descending into 'chaos' (i.e. visible signs of poverty and homelessness existing) is genuinely deeply reactionary. it's thin blue line shit. sure, it's cool that calling the police in your country isn't playing russian roulette with someone else's life but if you think that the police aren't 'a murder force' or 'comprised of wannabe bullies' wherever you live then i think you should probably look harder and pay more attention because there are almost certainly anti-police activists there who can tell you otherwise!

#ask

259 notes · View notes