NEW PHOTO OF TEAM GREEN.

"Do you support Israel?"

I don't know - what do you mean by "support Israel"?

Do I support Israel's current war in Gaza? No.

Do I support Israel's right to get its citizens back? Yes.

Do I support Israel's settlements in the West Bank? No.

Do I support Israel's right to exist? Yes.

Do I support Israel's current government and leaders? No.

Do I support Israel's right to defend itself? Yes.

So I dunno, do I "support" Israel or not? What about Palestine?

Do I support reparations for Palestinians in the West Bank? Yes.

Do I support Hamas? No.

Do I support Palestinians in Gaza being free from war? Yes.

Do I support Hamas' violence against Israeli citizens? No.

Do I support Palestine's right to exist? Yes.

And then there's this...

Do I support the destruction of Israel? No.

Do I support the destruction of Palestine? No.

Do I support a world where Israelis don't fear death? Yes.

Do I support a world where Palestinians don't fear death? Yes.

The only way to achieve actual peace in the region is to support peace between Israel and Palestine. You cannot get this if you destroy Israel OR Palestine.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Hamas is publicly executing Gaza opponents ON VIDEO. Silence from the world.

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

Hamas is bragging that it murdered 11 Gaza citizens yesterday.

Outside of some Israeli media, no news site or "human rights" NGO  has said a word.

Palestinian human rights activist Howidy Hamza tweeted Thursday, "As expected, Hamas began executing Gazans the moment the ceasefire deal was reached, accusing them of 'working with the occupation.' Just today, they executed 10 Gazans, and they promised to do more in the coming days. This isn’t a novel tactic; it’s an age-old strategy employed by Hamas to silence critics and instill fear among citizens who oppose their rule. I would greatly welcome a position from the pro-Palestinian movement advocating for pressure on Hamas to end its ongoing oppression of the people in Gaza."

Do you think this wasn't also happening during the fighting? After seeing this video, can one doubt that Hamas would use the war as an excuse to kill its critics and then blame Israel? 

Beyond that, isn't it likely that Hamas would sometimes kill innocent women and children just for the PR value of blaming their deaths on Israel? 

The people who spent so much time and money pretending to defend Palestinian lives have been struck dumb in the face of incontrovertible evidence of Hamas murdering people in Gaza. Palestinian lives really don't matter to these hypocrites if Jews cannot be blamed. 

Here is your mission.

It never really sunk in until you mentioned it but yeah, there is something weird and gross about how a handful of the characters on Team Green are disabled, especially when the show is choosing to portray them as the villains, or at least that's what the casual audience thinks.

it's a stark contrast to game of thrones/asoiaf, which is still praised to this day for its inclusion of multiple disabled characters. tyrion, jaime, and bran each had several dedicated episodes exploring what happened to them and how they are disadvantaged and discriminated against in a world not made for their bodies.

on the other hand, aemond and larys are widely viewed as evil. their disabilities are footnotes in the origin story of sick and violent individuals, as if they are disney villains. helaena is the epitome of the magical savant stereotype/trope, and she goes from cryptic to conversant, touch-averse to touch-neutral, whenever the writers want to show that she approves of team black or hates team green. people care more about rhaenyra getting scratched and luke getting threatened by alicent than the person she was fighting for, the person who actually permanently lost an eye.

this is wild to me because we literally watched aemond and helaena grow up. there was so much opportunity to show how aemond's depth perception would've changed as he trained with criston and learned how to ride vhagar. so much opportunity to flesh out helaena's prophecies and communication style. and don't even get me started on how larys's entire relationship to his body is reduced to an evil foot fetish. there's no examination of how disabilities have affected any of these characters' lives or how they've made accommodations. the only reason why any of their disabilities are brought up is to vilify or ostracize them. it's deeply dehumanizing and ableist

"Uhm hair colour is not proof of the boys parentage, it's not that important of a detail."

EXCUSE ME FRIENDS NED STARK WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THE PLOT OF A GAME OF THRONES

Actually planning on doing that.

I’m half tempted to rewrite season 2, just for the sake of fixing the mess they have made. I shall title it “Fuck You Condal” and it shall be known as the ‘I reject your fanfiction and substitute my own’ movement. Anyone wanna help?

For a friend who wanted links to some posts I made about antisemitism, allyship, and how to support Palestine without being antisemitic—which is both possible and easy to do!

How do you know if you’re antisemitic?

How to be a good ally for Jewish people. I responded to a wonderful ask from @faggotry-enjoyer about how to be a better ally and to discuss Israel/Palestine with people who are inclined to distrust Jews due to unexamined antisemitism.

Important post about the dangers faced by Jews as an extreme minority. There are good examples in the reblogs and replies and tags—both of great ways for non-Jews to provide support as well as if antisemites denying their own antisemitism. Therese even one example of ways Jews can and do disagree with each other while remaining respectful without delving into antisemitism OR Islamophobia OR denying the rights and dignity of Palestinians. Jews can do this and so can non-Jews. But that can’t happen if people hate us too much to listen to anything we have to say.

The emotional toll of antisemitism on Jewish people.

Example of the death threats we get that are designed to make us look like bad guys.

If Jews can learn about the Holocaust in detail before we even reach the age of ten, you can and should too.

Don’t trust people who rely on bad sources. People do make genuine mistakes. Here’s an example of bad faith link sharing. Especially when Reblogging things. Even I don’t have time to always check every source in a post. Also, it’s possible that a link seemed legitimate when it was originally posted but the source is either no longer trustworthy or the OP got better at assessing sources. If an error in their original sourcing is pointed out, they should correct it publicly. If they are sharing a link as an OP they should always take time to be as responsible as possible.

There are plenty more posts under my #leftist antisemitism tag to look into about a variety of ways that antisemitism manifests in left wing circles.

Allies, please reblog with any posts you think relevant for a someone new to dismantling their antisemitism.

I don't know about y'all but I find it very funny and a bit satisfying that despite all the anti-feminism and conservatism and pro-patriarchy accusations Alicent was thrown, so many people of color and queer folks (and other definitely radically left-leaning people) still watched hotd and rallied behind her and flock together to defend her (despite being accused of being pro-conservatism ourselves in doing so).

And I wonder... Why is that? What nerve did Alicent touch that make us so protective of her, of her story and point of view?

I would be very interested in hearing the museum design rant

by popular demand: Guy That Took One (1) Museum Studies Class Focused On Science Museums Rants About Art Museums. thank u for coming please have a seat

so. background. the concept of the "science museum" grew out of 1) the wunderkammer (cabinet of curiosities), also known as "hey check out all this weird cool shit i have", and 2) academic collections of natural history specimens (usually taxidermied) -- pre-photography these were super important for biological research (see also). early science museums usually grew out of university collections or bequests of some guy's Weird Shit Collection or both, and were focused on utility to researchers rather than educational value to the layperson (picture a room just, full of taxidermy birds with little labels on them and not a lot of curation outside that). eventually i guess they figured they could make more on admission by aiming for a mass audience? or maybe it was the cultural influence of all the world's fairs and shit (many of which also caused science museums to exist), which were aimed at a mass audience. or maybe it was because the research function became much more divorced from the museum function over time. i dunno. ANYWAY, science and technology museums nowadays have basically zero research function; the exhibits are designed more or less solely for educating the layperson (and very frequently the layperson is assumed to be a child, which does honestly irritate me, as an adult who likes to go to science museums). the collections are still there in case someone does need some DNA from one of the preserved bird skins, but items from the collections that are exhibited typically exist in service of the exhibit's conceptual message, rather than the other way around.

meanwhile at art museums they kind of haven't moved on from the "here is my pile of weird shit" paradigm, except it's "here is my pile of Fine Art". as far as i can tell, the thing that curators (and donors!) care about above all is The Collection. what artists are represented in The Collection? rich fucks derive personal prestige from donating their shit to The Collection. in big art museums usually something like 3-5% of the collection is ever on exhibit -- and sometimes they rotate stuff from the vault in and out, but let's be real, only a fraction of an art museum's square footage is temporary exhibits. they're not going to take the scream off display when it's like the only reason anyone who's not a giant nerd ever visits the norwegian national museum of art. most of the stuff in the vault just sits in the vault forever. like -- art museum curators, my dudes, do you think the general public gives a SINGLE FUCK what's in The Collection that isn't on display? no!! but i guarantee you it will never occur, ever, to an art museum curator that they could print-to-scale high-res images of artworks that are NOT in The Collection in order to contextualize the art in an exhibit, because items that are not in The Collection functionally do not exist to them. (and of course there's the deaccessioning discourse -- tumblr collectively has some level of awareness that repatriation is A Whole Kettle of Worms but even just garden-variety selling off parts of The Collection is a huge hairy fucking deal. check out deaccessioning and its discontents; it's a banger read if you're into This Kind Of Thing.)

with the contents of The Collection foregrounded like this, what you wind up with is art museum exhibits where the exhibit's message is kind of downstream of what shit you've got in the collection. often the message is just "here is some art from [century] [location]", or, if someone felt like doing a little exhibit design one fine morning, "here is some art from [century] [location] which is interesting for [reason]". the displays are SOOOOO bad by science museum standards -- if you're lucky you get a little explanatory placard in tiny font relating the art to an art movement or to its historical context or to the artist's career. if you're unlucky you get artist name, date, and medium. fucker most of the people who visit your museum know Jack Shit about art history why are you doing them dirty like this

(if you don't get it you're just not Cultured enough. fuck you, we're the art museum!)

i think i've talked about this before on this blog but the best-exhibited art exhibit i've ever been to was actually at the boston museum of science, in this traveling leonardo da vinci exhibit where they'd done a bunch of historical reconstructions of inventions out of his notebooks, and that was the main Thing, but also they had a whole little exhibit devoted to the mona lisa. obviously they didn't even have the real fucking mona lisa, but they went into a lot of detail on like -- here's some X-ray and UV photos of it, and here's how art experts interpret them. here's a (photo of a) contemporary study of the finished painting, which we've cleaned the yellowed varnish off of, so you can see what the colors looked like before the varnish yellowed. here's why we can't clean the varnish off the actual painting (da vinci used multiple varnish layers and thinned paints to translucency with varnish to create the illusion of depth, which means we now can't remove the yellowed varnish without stripping paint).

even if you don't go into that level of depth about every painting (and how could you? there absolutely wouldn't be space), you could at least talk a little about, like, pigment availability -- pigment availability is an INCREDIBLY useful lens for looking at historical paintings and, unbelievably, never once have i seen an art museum exhibit discuss it (and i've been to a lot of art museums). you know how medieval european religious paintings often have funky skin tones? THEY HADN'T INVENTED CADMIUM PIGMENTS YET. for red pigments you had like... red ochre (a muted earth-based pigment, like all ochres and umbers), vermilion (ESPENSIVE), alizarin crimson (aka madder -- this is one of my favorite reds, but it's cool-toned and NOT good for mixing most skintones), carmine/cochineal (ALSO ESPENSIVE, and purple-ish so you wouldn't want to use it for skintones anyway), red lead/minium (cheaper than vermilion), indian red/various other iron oxide reds, and apparently fucking realgar? sure. whatever. what the hell was i talking about.

oh yeah -- anyway, i'd kill for an art exhibit that's just, like, one or two oil paintings from each century for six centuries, with sample palettes of the pigments they used. but no! if an art museum curator has to put in any level of effort beyond writing up a little placard and maybe a room-level text block, they'll literally keel over and die. dude, every piece of art was made in a material context for a social purpose! it's completely deranged to divorce it from its material context and only mention the social purpose insofar as it matters to art history the field. for god's sake half the time the placard doesn't even tell you if the thing was a commission or not. there's a lot to be said about edo period woodblock prints and mass culture driven by the growing merchant class! the met has a fuckton of edo period prints; they could get a hell of an exhibit out of that!

or, tying back to an earlier thread -- the detroit institute of arts has got a solid like eight picasso paintings. when i went, they were kind of just... hanging out in a room. fuck it, let's make this an exhibit! picasso's an artist who pretty famously had Periods, right? why don't you group the paintings by period, and if you've only got one or two (or even zero!) from a particular period, pad it out with some decent life-size prints so i can compare them and get a better sense for the overarching similarities? and then arrange them all in a timeline, with little summaries of what each Period was ~about~? that'd teach me a hell of a lot more about picasso -- but you'd have to admit you don't have Every Cool Painting Ever in The Collection, which is illegalé.

also thinking about the mit museum temporary exhibit i saw briefly (sorry, i was only there for like 10 minutes because i arrived early for a meeting and didn't get a chance to go through it super thoroughly) of a bunch of ship technical drawings from the Hart nautical collection. if you handed this shit to an art museum curator they'd just stick it on the wall and tell you to stand around and look at it until you Understood. so anyway the mit museum had this enormous room-sized diorama of various hull shapes and how they sat in the water and their benefits and drawbacks, placed below the relevant technical drawings.

tbh i think the main problem is that art museum people and science museum people are completely different sets of people, trained in completely different curatorial traditions. it would not occur to an art museum curator to do anything like this because they're probably from the ~art world~ -- maybe they have experience working at an art gallery, or working as an art buyer for a rich collector, neither of which is in any way pedagogical. nobody thinks an exhibit of historical clothing should work like a clothing store but it's fine when it's art, i guess?

also the experience of going to an art museum is pretty user-hostile, i have to say. there's never enough benches, and if you want a backrest, fuck you. fuck you if going up stairs is painful; use our shitty elevator in the corner that we begrudgingly have for wheelchair accessibility, if you can find it. fuck you if you can't see very well, and need to be closer to the art. fuck you if you need to hydrate or eat food regularly; go to our stupid little overpriced cafeteria, and fuck you if we don't actually sell any food you can eat. (obviously you don't want someone accidentally spilling a smoothie on the art, but there's no reason you couldn't provide little Safe For Eating Rooms where people could just duck in and monch a protein bar, except that then you couldn't sell them a $30 salad at the cafe.) fuck you if you're overwhelmed by noise in echoing rooms with hard surfaces and a lot of people in them. fuck you if you are TOO SHORT and so our overhead illumination generates BRIGHT REFLECTIONS ON THE SHINY VARNISH. we're the art museum! we don't give a shit!!!