how i stalk my crushes on social networks: *50 weeks deep into their instagram*

how i stalk my profs: *finds all the scientific articles they wrote and reads them*

AMAZING article about what it means to participate in anti-Zionism work both online and in person.

If your anti-zionism does not in any way acknowledge that it is a way of thought and practice led by and for Palestinians, then you need to reevaluate your "anti-zionism" label.

Some passages that felt especially relevant to tumblr:

If we accept, as those with even the most rudimentary understanding of history do, that zionism is an ongoing process of settler-colonialism, then the undoing of zionism requires anti-zionism, which should be understood as a process of decolonisation. Anti-zionism as a decolonial ideology then becomes rightly situated as an indigenous liberation movement. The resulting implication is two-fold. First, decolonial organising requires that we extract ourselves from the limitations of existing structures of power and knowledge and imagine a new, just world. Second, this understanding clarifies that the caretakers of anti-zionist thought are indigenous communities resisting colonial erasure, and it is from this analysis that the strategies, modes, and goals of decolonial praxis should flow. In simpler terms: Palestinians committed to decolonisation, not Western-based NGOs, are the primary authors of anti-zionist thought. We write this as a Palestinian and a Palestinian-American who live and work in Palestine, and have seen the impact of so-called ‘Western values’ and how the centring of the ‘human rights’ paradigm disrupts real decolonial efforts in Palestine and abroad. This is carried out in favour of maintaining the status quo and gaining proximity to power, using our slogans emptied of Palestinian historical analysis.

Anti-zionist organising is not a new notion, but until now the use of the term in organising circles has been mired with misunderstandings, vague definitions, or minimised outright. Some have incorrectly described anti-zionism as amounting to activities or thought limited to critiques of the present Israeli government – this is a dangerous misrepresentation. Understanding anti-zionism as decolonisation requires the articulation of a political movement with material, articulated goals: the restitution of ancestral territories and upholding the inviolable principle of indigenous repatriation and through the right of return, coupled with the deconstruction of zionist structures and the reconstitution of governing frameworks that are conceived, directed, and implemented by Palestinians.  Anti-zionism illuminates the necessity to return power to the indigenous community and the need for frameworks of justice and accountability for the settler communities that have waged a bloody, unrelenting hundred-year war on the people of Palestine. It means that anti-zionism is much more than a slogan. 

[...]

While our collective imaginations have not fully articulated what a liberated and decolonised Palestine looks like, the rough contours have been laid out repeatedly. Ask any Palestinian refugee displaced from Haifa, the lands of Sheikh Muwannis, or Deir Yassin – they will tell that a decolonised Palestine is, at a minimum, the right of Palestinians’ return to an autonomous political unit from the river to the sea. When self-proclaimed ‘anti-zionists’ use rhetoric like ‘Israel-Palestine’ – or worse, ‘Palestine-Israel’ – we wonder: where do you think ‘Israel’ exists? On which land does it lay, if not Palestine? This is nothing more than an attempt to legitimise a colonial state; the name you are looking for is Palestine – no hyphen required. At a minimum, anti-zionist formations should cut out language that forces upon Palestinians and non-Palestinian allies the violence of colonial theft. 

[...]

The common choice to centre the Oslo Accords, international humanitarian law, and the human rights paradigm over socio-historical Palestinian realities not only limits our analysis and political interventions; it restricts our imagination of what kind of future Palestinians deserve, sidelining questions of decolonization to convince us that it is the new, bad settlers in the West Bank who are the source of violence. Legitimate settlers, who reside within the bounds of Palestinian geographies stolen in 1948 like Tel Aviv and West Jerusalem, are different within this narrative. Like Breaking the Silence, they can be enlightened by learning the error of colonial violence carried out in service of the bad settlers. They can supposedly even be our solidarity partners – all without having to sacrifice a crumb of colonial privilege or denounce pre-1967 zionist violence in any of its cruel manifestations. As a result of this course of thought, solidarity organisations often showcase particular Israelis – those who renounce state violence in service of the bad settlers and their ongoing colonisation of the West Bank – in roles as professionals and peacemakers, positioning them on an equal intellectual, moral, or class footing with Palestinians. There is no recognition of the inherent imbalance of power between these Israelis and the Palestinians they purport to be in solidarity with – stripping away their settler status. The settler is taken out of the historical-political context which afforded them privileged status on stolen land, and is given the power to delineate the Palestinian experience. This is part of the historical occlusion of the zionist narrative, overlooking the context of settler-colonialism to read the settler as an individual, and omitting their class status as a settler. 

It is essential to note that Palestinians have never rejected Jewish indigeneity in Palestine. However, the liberation movement has differentiated between zionist settlers and Jewish natives. Palestinians have established a clear and rational framework for this distinction, like in the Thawabet, the National Charter of Palestine from 1968. Article 6 states, ‘The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.’ When individuals misread ‘decolonisation’ as ‘the mass killing or expulsion of Jews,’ it is often a reflection of their own entanglement in colonialism or a result of zionist propaganda. Perpetuating this rhetoric is a deliberate misinterpretation of Palestinian thought, which has maintained this position over a century of indigenous organising.  Even after 100 years of enduring ethnic cleansing, whole communities bombed and entire family lines erased, Palestinians have never, as a collective, called for the mass killing of Jews or Israelis. Anti-zionism cannot shy away from employing the historical-political definitions of ‘settler’ and ‘indigenous’ in their discourse to confront ahistorical readings of Palestinian decolonial thought and zionist propaganda. 

[...]

In the context of the United States, the most threatening zionist institutions are the entrenched political parties which function to maintain the status quo of the American empire, not Hillel groups on university campuses or even Christian zionist churches. While the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) engage in forms of violence that suppress Palestinian liberation and must not be minimised, it is crucial to recognise that the most consequential institutions in the context of settler-colonialism are not exclusively Jewish in their orientation or representation: the Republican and Democratic Party in the United States do arguably more to manufacture public consent for the slaughtering of Palestinians than the ADL and AIPAC combined. Even the Progressive Caucus and the majority of ‘The Squad’ are guilty of this.

Leila Shomali and Lara Kilani

SPAMTON IS [[salty]]! Finally got around to animating everybody's favorite number 1 rated salesman! 🕺 (watch with audio 🔊 or click "Keep Reading" to view transcript)

Spamton: NOW ACTUALLY I'VE NEVER BEEN COMFORTABLE WITH THE WHOLE [[adoring fan club]] THING. PERHAPS THAT'S WHY I FIND YOUR [[obvious disdain]] FOR ME SO [[refreshing]].

Noelle: ObViOus?!!? I was trying so hard to hide it...

That other guy would fuck it up so that you made macaroons instead of macrons

They're approaching menacingly with a bag of shreaded coconut

now see that would be quite interesting, and definitely be making the most out of the use of time travel

also if someone goes that far, then they absolutely deserve the chance to ruin my macarons lol

omg the mash special is not only gonna feature new interviews from the still living cast members, and archival interviews of some of the deceased members, but also new interviews from both wayne rogers and bill christopher recorded specifically for this special just a year before they passed away...

CONGRATS!

Finally finished this WIP after a year sitting in my drafts. I think it came out super cute. Hope yall like my take on all the grumpuses.

just kill me

Physicists: With enough effort and study, we can absolutely decipher everything to a scientific level

Oreos: >exists

Physicists:

Anson Mount for Instyle Magazine

Promoting Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Season 2, Anson did an interview and a photoshoot for Instyle, titled "Anson Mount Is Leading With Heart", written by Christopher Luu, June 14 2023. He talks about Star Trek, his past roles, personal life, hobbies and favourites. Read full article here.

Photography by Mark Elzey.

Source: Instyle article (includes video interview!) + Instagram

“When you have a strong father figure, it's a big part of our lives. This version of Frankenstein very much goes down that thematic road. So, I feel like this is the third film in Guillermo's father trilogy.” — producer J. Miles Dale

i feel u on 1920s hate. when everyone is like ‘finally women are free of ~restrictive~ corsets’ and its like . first of all. didnt need to be. second. how do u think the curvier women were achieving the 1920s silhouette. quickly.

Exactly. I mean, yeah, it’s not their fault at all that people were saying things like that, or that it’s reached a fever pitch in recent years. Great material gains WERE being made for women, and I’m absolutely not discounting that. But much in the way that people tend to throughout history, though, they firmly believed that everything they were doing was the best and most progressive that it had ever been. And that idea has been hugely amplified in later years

I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that the 1920s were, in many ways, the beginning of a world that looks familiar to us now. Widespread film technology, continued rise of electricity, clothing-ways that seem familiar to us today in contrast to what came before (for example the advent of bras and panties, although people tend to forget there was usually also a girdle involved),  Air travel, cars becoming more popular, etc. because it seems less foreign, we accept all too readily the idea that it was better in all respects than everything earlier

(And ignore all the ways in which it would still have been foreign. Like… The 1920s were not actually the Proto – 2020s, guys. It owed for more to its immediate predecessors re: era mentality and technology and even fashion than some people would like to admit)

I don’t actually hate the 1920s – that would be pointless and reductive, since it’s an entire decade that happened over countless countries, demographics, cultural groups, etc. I think I’m with you, though, in hating the way it’s been put up on a pedestal as the perfect progressive era that was unilaterally better for women in particular

(Also, I read a book from the 1951 about the history of undergarments, and this mindset is in FULL force even three decades later.The guy finds ways to inaccurately rag on the Victorians even in chapters that aren’t about that time period, and concludes with a stirring statement that they are now living in the perfect time for underwear and that everything is so much better and more progressive than it ever has been in the past. The fact that this man- Cecil Willett Cunnington -was considered one of the highest authorities on dress history for a long time probably explains the current state of the discipline, In terms of “you can say basically whatever you want and people will believe you”)

Not Station 19 adding another random male character to this already shortened final season that is going to be in multiple episodes and take away from the already several storylines that are going on and need more time than they are getting to be wrapped up to begin with?? And it seems like he’s going to be Theo’s partner for his new independent thing. What the hell is the point of showing that? If you’re going to have Theo quit, let him go!! He’s already been unnecessary since he joined as an extra lieutenant. We absolutely do not need to still see him doing his little side job. And to see this new dude probably hook up with someone else since they’re putting emphasis on him being ‘recently single’

tadc oc I featured before

oh shit I was gonna write a well written description but I’m super lazy so

they/it, names Balloonstra. Got their name by just looking at themselves when they first came here and mumbling “….b…balloon…strwhhwjwjwj” and Caine was like “BALLOONSTRA?!?!? THATS YOUR NEW NAME”

Adopted Gangle or smth. Probably like 30 years old. Tallest out of the bunch. Barely ever talks but it can. It’s a balloon animal- not clear on what animal it actually is. Can get popped but has always somehow escaped it. Based off of like, balloon animals.

I love this!!!!

i was like “why does my asteroid city essay get a bunch of views from google (not like an insane amount but fairly steady) And i just found out. That somehow it is the top result. For if you google. “Asteroid City explained”

Oh I am *cackling* at the producers trying to claim the show was driven by Loki and Sylvie's relationship when she refused to lift a finger to help multiple times (while platonic bestie Mobius was living out romcom moments by the dozen with Loki), and honestly they could have not had her in the season at all and barely anything would change. Like, I don't like that ship but it's still SO deeply disrespectful to give them NOTHING on screen all season while giving all the cute classically shippy moments to Lokius, and then come out after and claim it was some grand, sweeping romance and also there was nothing intentional about giving all the shippy stuff to Lokius. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

Also, as I said in some tags, the "we can't get into Loki's head" like is just....peek absurdity. My brother in Christ, YOU'RE the writers! This character has been in the MCU for like, 14 years, played by Hiddleston who is *obsessed* with Loki. Getting into Loki's head should have been a cake walk! And even if it wasn't, IT'S LITERALLY YOUR JOB TO GET IN THE CHARACTER'S HEAD. Maybe this is why shows are so shitty? Instead of letting the characters drive the plot by getting into their heads and making choices from that perspective, showrunners instead twist the characters into a storyline.

ANYWAY.