I'm Kind Of At A Point Where The "queer Spaces" I Feel Safest In Are The Ones That Have A Pet Cishet

I love how literally every version of the Princess could be interpreted as a piece of the Shifting Mound and, no matter how weird our relationship with her gets, it’s still applicable to our relationship with her as a whole.

Smitten and Damsel show how the Long Quiet and the Shifting Mound are star crossed lovers.

Skeptic and Prisoner reflect their inability to escape without working together. They are both Prisoners, even if only one is wearing a shackle.

Hunted and Beast present them both as archaic forces of nature that must change and adapt. As death, Beast is an offensive predator, and as life, Hunted is defensive prey.

Stubborn and Adversary demonstrate that the two gods are true equals in every sense, and that death means nothing to them in the end as long as they have each other.

Cheated and Razor show how conflict is in their nature, and that no matter how much violence the Shifting Mound dishes out, the Long Quiet is always strong enough to stand against her.

Broken and Tower show the contrast of Shifty’s embrace of her godhood vs the internal conflict of the Long Quiet, as well as the desire to embrace her for everything she is regardless of her flaws. Perhaps, in a twisted way, Broken shows an embrace of our godhood as a whole…

Cold and Spectre demonstrate the dynamic set by the Construct: a killer and his victim, as well as showing the true power of the Long Quiet, and showing that, underneath the struggle and conflict, LQ could end this all disturbingly quickly if convinced to.

Paranoid and Nightmare show the fear that infects the dynamic of the two gods, like Paranoid’s fear of the Nightmare and the Nightmare’s fear of sharing her heart, along with the desire to know the other but the inability to do so organically.

Opportunist and Witch, like Stubborn and Adversary, show the equality of their relationship, but rather than one built out of mutual respect, its mutual animosity fostered by the artificial tension of the construct. It’s the opposite of Skeptic and Prisoner, as, rather than realizing they can escape together through mutual trust, they both try to win against the other when it’s not a winning game.

Contrarian and Stranger show the inherent contradictions in the Gods’ natures; like Shifty says, aspects of who they are contradict themselves, and nothing can exist without contrast and change.

I’m still educating myself on the history of Israel and Palestine, but it seems to me that the main reason that people on the left are so in favor of a Palestinian state and not an Israeli state is because of the widely accepted narrative of Israelis being “the white colonizers” in this situation. If this assessment is correct, I think it exposes part of the problem with how willfully the left has accepted the idea of white people being colonizing bad guys. I don’t want to minimize white European’s legacy of imperialism of course, I believe dismantling that legacy should be done with care and a strong foundation in factual reality, because leftists have learned to hate the white settler, and that seems to be all fine and good until suddenly all it takes to dupe those leftists into anti-Jewish behavior is to convince them that Jewish people are white settlers. It seems that, in a movement aiming to combat hate, prejudice towards ANY group, even if it would appear to be punching up, acts as a blind spot through which they can find themselves acting prejudiced towards a historically down-trodden people.

The problem with antisemitism and anti-Zionism

Someone recently reblogged this post I shared that called out antisemitism in pro-Palestinian rallies. An action I was initially happy about, until I went into this person's blog, and saw a lot of posts that I, as an Israeli-Jewish person, find incredibly antisemitic. I found myself utterly baffled by that. Because this person clearly recognized the things said in these rallies were extremely antisemitic, and yet, they posted a lot of things that were rooted in the same antisemitic worldview. Can't they see it? And I think the main problem with the current pro-Palestinian movement is that they honestly can't see the line between being on the side of compassion and humanity and being critical of Israel's actions, to spreading horrible lies and dehumanizing Israelis and Jewish people. And the ugly truth these people refuse to face is that the reason they can't see when they cross this line is probably unconscious antisemitism.

You don't need to hate Jewish people to be antisemitic

Antisemitism, like many other forms of racism, often works on an unconscious level. Maybe you have Jewish friends. Maybe you fought for better Jewish representation in media. Maybe you are even Jewish yourself. But over the years you have been exposed to a lot of antisemitic ideas and stereotypes that altered your worldview and made you more vulnerable to believing Jewish people are the bad guys.

If your gut reaction to this is- "but Israel is actually doing bad things, so I'm actually right about hating them." Please keep reading.

Your idea of Israel and what it stands for is based on the worldview of the most radical right-wing Israeli activists at best, and blatant lies at worst.

Imagine if we took the words of the most radical Republicans out there, the ones that go after trans kids and believe women should have no right over their own bodies, and believe all Americans are supporting this idea. That wouldn't have been very fair of us, right? Because there are a lot of people in America who are fighting for a better future. A lot of people who are standing up for human rights.

Just like the United States isn't a homogeneous entity, filled with only trump supporters, Israel is also an incredibly diverse place, with people who have radically different ideas about how Israel should look. Even the current Israeli government, which is extremely right-wing, and has people in it I personally believe should have never been in a position of power, is probably a lot less evil than you were led to believe by ill-intent strangers on the internet. Mainly because this is still a democratic government, in a democratic country, which has a lot of checks and balances that (for the most part) manage to prevent people with radical ideas from making them into official policies.

I don't blame you for believing the reports you see from Gaza. As a pacifist, and as someone who voted for left-wing parties ever since I was eligible to vote, someone who truly believes the Palestinians has a right to self-determination and sees how problematic the occupation is, I struggle a lot when I see posts about the suffering of the people in Gaza. Wars are horrible. I never want to see other people suffer. Let alone children. I wish I could go there right now and take all of them somewhere safe. I wish none of this was happening.

But I also know who my people are, and the values they stand for. And what I noticed about these anti-zionist posts is that they are often written in a biased, misleading way. They often attribute malicious intentions to Israel's actions. And they often jump to conclusions, without giving Israel the benefit of the doubt. Without asking the right questions. And often, without any sort of proof. Some of these posts are outrageous lies. Others are incredibly biased and fail to mention the terrorist organization Israel is fighting against.

Only a small amount of them are coming from unbiased sources that describe the reality of the situation without giving in to personal interpretation.

But most of you can't tell the difference. You are seeing lies about how IDF soldiers are targeting children, or about how Israel is lying about their true evil intentions, and you accept them as the truth, without questioning the intention of the person who wrote that post. Without stopping to think this is incredibly dehumanizing to think Israeli people are capable of such monstrous actions. Without examining your own biases. And that's incredibly problematic, and yes, this is antisemitic. Because you would have never spread this kind of accusation about any other group of people without definitive proof.

This isn't to say our soldiers are never wrong, and that there aren't any bad apples, or even systematic problems in the IDF and every allegation should be thoroughly investigated, because any harm to innocent people is terrible, unavoidable as it may be. And ideally, even terrorists should get a fair trial.

But if you think soldiers in Israel defense forces, who are mostly 18-21-year-old Jewish men and women from all sides of the political spectrum, are inherently evil and baby killers, you are in fact antisemitic.

Even if you believe your type of anti Zionism isn't antisemitism being anti-zionist is still not a great position to take.

I never defined myself as a zionist before. But it was more to do with my own disconnection with Judaism and my ideas about the place of religion in modern society than my belief about the right of Israel to exist.

I think it would be amazing to live in a utopian world where we have one multicultural democratic state where everyone lives together in harmony. But I’m also a realistic person. And someone who wants to keep living as a free woman with full rights in my home country.

And while I never felt particularly zionist, I was never an anti-zionist, and I never believed zionist was a bad word.

I'm probably not the first person who tells you this, but Zionist isn't a synonym for "everything I hate about Israel". It doesn't mean "a person who supports the occupation", or even "a person who only cares about the life of Israelis" or "someone who fully supports the Israeli government".

So what does it actually say? Let's look at a dictionary definition.

Do you notice what the definition doesn't say? Anything about Israel's borders or about the idea of a Palestinian state. There are many types of Zionism, some more radical than others. But as I said before, is it really fair to judge an entire group of people based on the idea of the most radical of them?

The truth is, most of us just want to live in peace. We want to go to work without finding ourselves at the scene of a terror attack or running to the shelter because of rockets. We want all the hostages to come home. We want to feel safe in our own homes. This is what it means to be a zionist. This is what you are standing up against. Not the "occupation," or the "settlers" or the extremists in the government. Just regular people who want to live their lives.

Zionism isn't colonialism

Jewish people are indigenous to the land of Israel. This was the land we dreamed of in 2000 years of exile, and it's a huge part of our religion and our culture. This doesn't mean the Palestinians don't have a claim to the land as well after living on it for so many years, or that what they went through in 1948 wasn't terrible, but it doesn't magically make Israelis into white colonialists who woke up one day and decided to take over a random land.

A lot of mistakes were made. In 1948, and especially in 1967. And we are paying for them now. But the idea that Israel is a colonialist state that represents everything that's wrong with society is entirely false.

If you support the existence of a Palestinian state but don't believe Israel deserves the same right, you need to ask yourself why that is the case.

Is that because you don't believe Jewish people when they tell you about their connection to the land of Israel? Because you think there is something inherently wrong with the existence of a state that is only for Jewish people? (But have no problem with all the Muslim and Christian states out there) Because you think Palestinian deserves to live from the river to the sea and Israelis should have nothing, or whatever the Palestinians would be willing to give them? Because you are more comfortable with the idea of Jewish people as a minority in a Palestinian Muslim state than the idea of them having their own free country? Because you think you know better than us what our future should look like?

Because all of these reasons are antisemitic.

New In Stars and Time sequel idea just dropped.

Men will literally study Paracelsus, translate 1600s alchemical texts and distill potions for melancholy before going to therapy

This election was never about anything more to you than your moral purity, was it?

All y'all fuckers when you say you ain't gonna vote

The Hill

Why the cease-fire protest movement is good for democracy — and potentially for Democrats in November 

The ongoing protest vote movement is reinvigorating the 2024 presidential primaries.

Though the nominees are locked in, the stakes of the remaining 2024 presidential primary elections are still gigantic. In fact, the health and evolution of American democracy may hang in the balance.

That’s because of this year’s protest vote phenomenon, as primary voters increasingly use their ballots to demand a permanent cease-fire in Gaza.

In previous uncompetitive primaries where the front-runner was a shoo-in, protest votes ran around 7 percent. This year, as it became apparent that more than 1 in 10 primary voters were casting protest votes for a cease-fire, the Biden administration “freaked out” and changed course.

A majority of likely voters polled, including 76 percent of Democrats, have consistently called for a permanent cease-fire in Gaza, but their demands went unheeded by U.S. policymakers. In fact, on Feb. 20, the U.S. vetoed a widely supported United Nations resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza.

Being deaf to voters’ foreign policy preferences is nothing new; it’s business as usual. The Constitution has no provision for national referenda on policy issues, and no formal mechanism to register voter preferences on policy issues in national elections, other than by voting for candidates. As democracy scholars have long observed, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” 

But that pattern began to shift on Feb. 27, when more than 100,000 protest voters in the Michigan presidential primary checked “uncommitted” on their ballots, so delegates at the national convention would be free to call for a cease-fire. A week later, the Biden administration began calling for a six-week cease-fire. Then, as March primaries continued to rack up larger-than-expected numbers of protest votes, the U.S. dropped its opposition to a U.N. cease-fire resolution, allowing it to pass.

These are pyrrhic victories for Palestinians, as civilian casualties continue to mount in Gaza. On the other hand, protest voting may also be part of the reason why President Biden is disagreeing so publicly with Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, and why Israel’s planned ground assault on Rafah, with its massive refugee camp, hasn’t happened yet. It may also have played a part in developments adjacent to Gaza, including Israel scaling back its counterattack on Iran under pressure from the U.S. and other allies, and the U.S. considering sanctions on an Israeli military unit occupying the West Bank. Whereas former President Trump vows lockstop support of Israel, Biden seems to be signaling willingness to pressure Israel to moderate its attacks in hopes of winning back protest voters’ support.

These signals may or may not have saved lives in Gaza. But they’re important and could yet have far-reaching consequences because they demonstrate protest voters are accomplishing something exceedingly rare in modern American history: moving the needle on U.S. foreign policy.

The shift began with the New Hampshire primary in January, when a small group of grassroots organizers mounted the Vote Ceasefire (VCF) campaign, which proved the concept that primary ballots could be used creatively to register demand for a cease-fire. Since Biden wasn’t officially on the ballot there, voters had to write candidates in anyway. From there it was an achievable step to get voters to write in “cease-fire” instead of the candidate’s name. Starting just a week before the primary and operating on a shoestring budget, VCF convinced 1,500 voters to do just that, and got state election officials to count and report those ballots. 

The idea that primary ballots could be used to convey demand for cease-fire struck a chord, and VCF got inquiries from groups across the country. Local groups in some states with write-in options on their ballots launched their own Vote Ceasefire campaigns. In other states, advocates found different techniques. The Listen to Michigan campaign got 13.2 percent of Democratic primary voters to mark “uncommitted” on their ballots. That stunning result spawned a national “uncommitted” campaign. Other variations emerged, like vote “uninstructed” in Wisconsin or “leave it blank” in New York.

What they all have in common is creative use of the primary ballot to demand a timely, permanent, meaningful cease-fire in Gaza. Taken together, they are converting the disaffection and sense of powerlessness many primary voters feel as their support at the polls is presumed while their demand for cease-fire is ignored to a sense of agency and power to make a difference. That represents a historic shift in U.S. politics, and perhaps in U.S. democracy.

More needs to be done to translate demand for a cease-fire into action. Protest vote campaigns in upcoming primaries in Maryland and Oregon will keep pressuring Biden to secure a cease-fire — not during the Democratic National Convention in August, not in November, by which time tens of thousands more Palestinians may die, but now. 

While this poses some risks for the Biden campaign, it’s also an opportunity. Widespread protest voting is a sign of disaffection, but also of how voters hope to be heard. If Biden is responsive and effective in demanding cease-fire and preventing wider war, he’ll win the vast majority of them back.

Either way, the ongoing protest vote movement is reinvigorating the 2024 presidential primaries. In terms of the race for the nomination, these elections are mostly alienating, irrelevant formalities. But as laboratories for showing how voter preferences can affect policy, they are now vital exercises in building a stronger, more direct American democracy.

I have a thing to get to but had to get this out real quick