so it's possible you've talked about this & I just haven't seen it (I don't follow you, I just stalk your blog) but I don't see how a one-state solution (which I think would be the ideal outcome) is teneble under current conditions. Israelis & Palestinians seem to basically hate one another, how could a binational state be established without immense social discord/dominance of one group (Israelis, probably) over the other?

I wrote some idle thoughts about that here

Ig my inclination is to think any future single state encompassing all of greater palestine could only realistically be established under the auspices of some foreign conquest or occupation, unless the single state is just an israel at the end point of its current trajectory or gradual ethnic cleansing. Which is in its own way a sort of foreign conquest, probably among the least desirable anywhere within the realm of possibility (ISIS would ig prolly have been worse). There is no real hope of contemporary palestinian liberation forces and their successors, vital tho they are, regaining the whole breadth of their lost territory entirely on their own initiative without active external aid. My fantasies in this direction tend towards smth like an extremely intensive UN mission; i have a friend whose own involve some kind of larger regional power annexing the territory to govern it as a province of some pan-arab republic or whatever. Either way, the management of the ethnic conflict would fall largely to some power beyond just the palestinians and israelis themselves. "What would happen if a unified palestinian state were established tomorrow?" Idk. What would happen if tomorrow you woke up as a lizard?

This is not a very cheerful or inspiring way to think about the future of the conflict, but i also do not think it closely affects the appropriate attitude westerners like most readers of my blog should take in the near term: pressuring states to back off from military/diplomatic/economic support of israel, shows of solidarity with the palestinian ppl, opposition to moves towards "two state solutions" that amount essentially to authoritarian puppet regimes in gaza and the west bank

Really a pity this problem was never successfully nipped at any stage that could plausibly be described as the bud

"Hello beautiful~" Hero purred at the Villain, landing on a nearby rooftop and sat on the edge in a mocking pose; in which in return were given a glare by their nemesis - their grip to their weapon not letting go.

The criminal rolled their eyes at the Hero in return as they raised their weapon to their face with an intimidating smirk "That was my line, y'know~ Pfft Heroes aren't supposed to steal.."

"Well guess you can try to find another line then." Hero smiled back and in cue they grabbed their own weapon from their belt. Oh this is gonna be fun..

what makes minedai even sadder is that we never rlly see daigo try to build a bond with anyone else like he did with mine it rlly shows how badly it effected him like yeah he reached out to shinada in y5 but that’s rlly it and he probably would wanna leave him alone after that and not involve him in any yakuza stuff so i don’t think they would’ve hung out or anything like that afterwards. All he rlly had were saejima and majima but they were more like babysitters than anything, wish we saw more of their dynamic tho like we did with majima and daigo in dead souls since that was fun and we were lowkey robbed but in canon he’s just as lonely as he was before majimas promise to kiryu. And mine is the only person he really had a meaningful relationship with romantic or not they were still really close and we don’t see that again with daigo ever (from what i recall after y3) ok sorry for rambling LMFAO

even with shinada, he reached out to him more so out of 'duty' and trying to make up for the misfortune that befell him because of yakuza than wanting to rekindle any kind of friendship they might have had in high school (though it sounds more like they were just acquaintances if shinada needing a second to remember who daigo was is anything), so yah i doubt they really had any kind of bond afterwards

dead souls really was the only time after Y3 where we got to see daigo be more sociable with someone, but its as you say majima and saejima are more like retainers than close friends

thom yorke i love youuuuuuuuuuu

ouguhhh just read the summary and article from this post about alexandre baril's work on suicidism (oppression of the suicidal) and the opening paragraph of the conclusion in the full article. thoughts. rotating

i was thinking about the. thick white gloves. while reading. remembered that one post about how csa being horrifically taboo to talk about compounds survivors' trauma and shame and went Maybe something similar re: suicidality and suicide... the suffering multiplied by the silence, the risk of dismissal or instant change in perception in anyone you tell... and even in 'mental health' spaces the perception that suicide as a topic is dangerous to talk about- that it could be triggering instantly and automatically- is like. i think there's some paternalism there and there's some shamefear and there's some oversimplification and there's the fact that it plays well into the existing well-taught impulse to avoid the discomforting. but like. this post also about how getting through suicidality is maybe only possible by considering the option thoroughly. i am just thinking. idk. yall know me yall know i think about this topic a lot

slowly making my silly run speed up outfit

now bc of that one post abt zelda getting fridged whenever that one guy directs a zelda game im thinking abt tetra just getting turned to stone in ph and like. what would it have been like if she were an actual character in ph. what would she have done how would this have changed the story

now i stopped playing pentiment in the middle of act 2 and just checked wiki articles to see what takes place in the rest of the game so maybe im missing some crucial gameplay that wouldve fixed all my issues but. at the risk of being excommunicated (lol) i was rly disappointed w the games structure and thats why i didnt keep going. dgmw i really enjoyed the setting and most of the gameplay and throughout act 1 i was really invested in the story and mystery and investigation, and the game was really cool in a lot of ways. but. in the end. a mystery/investigation story that doesnt have an answer and whoever you accuse will be found guilty and there is no right or wrong just does not work for me and i can only see it as a poor decision.

yes ik that in the end you can uncover the "big bad" mastermind who provoked the murders, but to me putting a twist villain who isnt the actual culprit but who motivated the culprits in the end of the game doesnt make up for, like, the rest of the game? an investigation story where your investigating is meaningless does not make sense to me. was that the point of the game, maybe? to make me feel like nothing i did in the game mattered and i had no power over the setting? i certainly felt that way at times - in act 2, i felt like i had kind of spent the entire first act playing a role (in the rpg sense - as in it definitely felt as if i got to make a lot of choices about who andreas is, what he values, what his morals are) only for that to not matter at all as in the next act i had to play as someone who had made choices that seemed meaninglessly selfish and was in the uncomfortable situation of apologizing in-character for stuff that the character i had previously been playing as, who i thought i was making meaningful choices as, who i had been trying to make as considerate and kind as possible, would not have done.

i think if the point is that i dont actually have control in this game, not over the main character, not over the events, not even over figuring out the truth, then yeah, i had that impression. but thats not really the game i thought i was playing? i thought i was playing a game where my choices mattered and where i was solving a mystery and that was not the case.

idk. maybe i had specific expectations i shouldnt have had, or maybe i just failed to get something about the game, but despite being very beautiful in its graphics and having a lot of fun stuff and interesting characters.. when i finished act 1 i still thought "fuck, i didnt play well enough, i didnt uncover all the clues i shouldve and i didnt get to the correct conclusion, im gonna need to replay this to figure out who the actual culprit was!"... only to find that actually what felt like i had failed this part of the game was the intended way it would go down, and i even had accused the person who imo was the best choice of culprit.. i feel like getting to the end of an investigation arc with what should have been the most satisfying ending for me and instead thinking i had fucked it up and played wrong is a very unsatisfying way to write a mystery and it put me off enough that im not really interested in doing it all over again just so i can finish the game.

i really do think people are way too interested in "redemption" in fiction and similarly, in real life as well. a popular user on here had a post going around about how you shouldn't be proud to declare you had a neo-nazi phase, and that you're now different or whatever, and the op had to delete the post/disable reblogs because so many people disagreed, stating the importance of changed behavior or whatever, instead of focusing on... the kids hurt by that behavior and i do think that's crazy. I'm not saying that mentality comes from media, but people really, really do like sympathizing with characters that abuse women, are racist, or harmful in general, and i think it's strange that the possibility of a hypothetical change is more interesting and entertaining or valuable (?) compared to victims just existing..? especially when the issue involves children

im home earlier than i thought

i think my thing about dean's whole like. deal. is that, especially in the context of the last couple of seasons where chuck-as-storyteller is represented as actively villainous, there is so much potential to say some really interesting things about like.

what happens to a person (who already has control issues) when every time he has a serious disagreement about how to handle a situation with someone, the world is rewritten to be in agreement with his opinion. Like if every single time your 'gut intuition' proves correct and the other person is wrong to a degree that jeopardises the entire world it makes sense that you would become increasingly more pigheaded about things.

and conversely if every time you disagree with a particular person about serious issues, no matter how sensible your perspective, you end up facing cosmic consequences, it makes sense that you would find it harder and harder to stick to your guns about things.

and i just think it would have been so interesting if the chuck big bad plot line had included the reveal that lilith being the final seal was rewritten to make sam wrong. or the leviathan were written into the story to create more negative consequences for cas' actions. because in both of those cases it felt like the narrative justification for dean being in the right and the other person being wrong was that there were completely unforeseeable consequences which no one involved knew about or were considering when they were disagreeing.

season 4 is a little more complicated for me cuz i do think there were reasonable arguments for both dean and sam's perspectives HOWEVER dean did not actually say any of the reasonable arguments available to him and also the actual thing that makes sam 'in the wrong' is making killing lilith a bad thing which like. they both wanted to do that sam was just more successful than dean so like?

looking back on all my y7 comics is so funny but now im compelled to organize them 'chronologically' and see what that looks like

now one cares if ur mom loves you soooo muc and u love her soooo much and ur omg arent mothers soo great always bs. shut up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

oh im gonna throw up all over myself HOW DO I ALWAYS FORGET EVERY TIME THAT FRIDAY = LIMITED LIFE