why are all the anti-sjws creepy 25+ year old men who stalk and harass teenagers
I’m a 20 year old female.
I’m a 19 year old
I’m a non-binary 15 year old.
22-year-old woman. Absolutely zero interest in stalking or harassing teenagers.
I am a 16 year old female. Thanks for playing but try again (:
17 year old female with no interest whatsoever in stalking or harassing anyone.
felt we needed a gif here.
24 years old and female. I don’t stalk teenagers, they stalk (and dox) me.
Honestly, the more I think about this moment, the angrier I feel. Yeah, fine, the scene itself was amusing, but it also felt like a fairly transparent dig at the fans.
The show does them from time to time. Sometimes it’s funny, and sometimes it’s just not. Remember Becky the slash fan, who was just sooo pathetic she had to kidnap Sam for a date to her reunion? How was that supposed to be anything other than insulting?
The interrogation scene in King of the Damned has that same feel. It’s just insulting, instead of the weird tongue-in-cheek humor they were maybe going for, it’s just rude.
I’ve never liked the writers behind this episode, so it’s no real surprise to me that they put in some stupid line insulting the fandom, but it’s not like they’re the only ones to blame.
Carver is running the show.
Jared and Jensen are actors and the show and have had no problem speaking their mind in the past when they weren’t okay with a line. There were plenty of people between writing and broadcasting that could have said “Hey, this is kind of shitty. We’re insulting the fans with this line, maybe we should ditch it.”
Considering how often the cast/crew goes on about how grateful they are for the fans, how the show wouldn’t still be on without its dedicated fanbase, these kinds of moments seem that much more insulting.
Like a friend that’s nice to you when they want something, but picks on you when they want to look cool to the popular kids.
And you can say “maybe it was just unintentional, maybe it was aimed at Bieber fans”… I guess it’s possible everyone was too blind to realize how this would apply to the show’s OWN fandom, but I doubt it.
racist truck people?
Eugenie Ross-Leming & Brad Buckner are the writing team who brought us:
- Racist ghost truck killing black people who turn out to be secondary characters in their own story (1.13)
- Two witches want a divorce and Sam & Dean have to convince them to make up (7.05)
- Dean gets used for sex by an “Amazon” to father a superbaby that tries to kill him (7.13)
- Ghost hookers who have no agency before or after death (7.19)
- People possessed by the curse of a “Mayan” Elder God (that acted like an Aztec one) & turned into cannibals against their will, also Dean getting sexually harassed by someone trying to kill him (8.03)
- Kevin Tran gets tortured and everyone is really stupid (8.07)
- A black woman wears a collar, turns into a literal dog, and calls a white guy “master”, while their society looks down on their sexual relationship as forbidden (8.15)
- A giant, gaping black hole where everything the series has established about reapers, Hell, and Purgatory used to be (8.19)
People really don’t believe Ancient Egyptians were ethnically African?
They referred to themselves, not as ”Egyptians” (a Greek term) , but as ”Kemmui’’, meaning, ”the blacks”.
The country itself they called, Kemet, or black nation.
'Kem' is the term for black in the ancient Egyptian language. It is represented in hieroglyphs by a stick charred at both ends.”
"km.t, the name of Ancient Egypt in Egyptian; Egypt (Coptic: Kemi)
r n km.t, the native term for the Egyptian language
(Ref: The Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, Vols 1&2, E.A. Budge, Dover.)
Note: words inside brackets are the determinatives or word classifiers along with their English meanings.
Kem, kame, kmi, kmem, kmom = to be black
Kememu = Black people (Ancient Egyptians) in both Ancient and modern Egyptian (Kmemou).
Kem [khet][wood] = extremely black, jet-black
Kemet = any black thing. Note: “t” is silent - pronounced Kemé
Kemet [nu][community, settlement, nation] = Black nation = Ancient Egypt.
Kemet [Romé][people] = Black people. Ancient Egyptians.
Kemit [Shoit][books] = Black books, Ancient Egyptian literature.
Kem wer [miri][large body of water] = The Great Black sea (The Red sea). This sea is neither black nor red, this is in reference to which nation, Black or Red, at a particular time, controlled this body of water.
Kemi fer = Black double house; seat of government. Note: by reference to Wolof again, we know that to make a plural of per or house, the “p” becomes an “f” or fer. Thus fero=great houses (double), it is not pero as Budge writes.
In Ancient Egyptian, the ordinary adjective always follows the noun it modifies, whereas a sanctified adjective usually comes before its noun. The sanctified adjectives are:
Kem — Black
Suten - Royal
Nter —- Holy, Sacred
Kem ti = Black image, sacred image : ti oubash = white image
Kem ho = Black face/title of a god : ho oubash = white face
Kem ta = Black land, holy land : Ta deshret = Red land (also; Ta Sett)
This rule does not apply when Black is used as a noun-adjective of nationality:
Hompt Kemet = copper of Black; Egyptian copper : Hompt Sett = copper of the Red nations; Asiatic copper
Ro in Kemet (page 416a) = speech of Black; mute ro n Kemet = word of the mouth of Black; the Egyptian language
Kemet Deshret = Black and Red; good and evil; fertile and barren, etc.; Duality
Deshretu (page 554a,b) = red ones, red devils. Used also to refer to the Namu and Tamhu; not a complimentary label.
The following Ancient Egyptian words acknowledge the origins of Pharaonic Egyptian civilization;
Khentu Hon Nefer (page 554a) = founders of the Excellent Order. Budge: “peoples and tribes of Nubia and the Egyptian Sudan.” For “Hon” see page 586b.
Hon Nefer (page 1024b) = Excellent Order
Kenus (page1024b) = mighty; brave (from Kenu, page 772a)
Ta Khent (page 1051b/page 554b) = land of the beginning.
Eau (page 952b/page 17b) = the old country
Ancient Egyptian’s Worldview:
The Egyptian’s view of the world was the exact opposite of the current Western one. To the Egyptian, the top of the world was in the south (upper) towards the African interior, the bottom (lower) towards the north, hence upper and lower Egypt; upper and lower Syria.”
"Oh yes, the black soil business.
Most scholars outside the modern western cover-up establishment have rejected the false interpretation some have given to Kemet, ostensibly alluding the term Kemet to the alleged ”black soil” of Egypt. There’s nothing in the term, outside the imagination of western myth-makers, to suggest the Egyptians referred to the color of the soil or sand, rather than the people, in naming their country. Our position is consistent with the testimony of the ancient Greek writers, eyewitnesses who unanimously described the Egyptians as a black people, closely related to the ”Ethiopians”.”
And white Hollywood casts white actors and gives them tans.
i will never not reblog this. i know too many people who for real dont think Egypt is a part of Africa.
My only thing here is that at least part of the reason we think the Egyptians believed the world was opposite of the way we do — north was south/south was north etc — was because the Nile flows south to north.
Apart from that very nitpicky little thing — yeah you have no idea how much this grates my nerves
“The war neither began with us nor is it going to end with our lives.”
— Bhagat Singh
On April 13, 1919, in violation of a British colonial ban on meetings or gatherings, peaceful protestors assembled in Punjab, India to object to the recent killing of nearly 30 Indians in a previous protest. Unprovoked and without warning, colonial forces arrived and opened fire on tens of thousands of unarmed, defenseless Indians, mostly Sikhs, indiscriminately killing 379 men, women, and children. An estimated 1,200 were wounded.
The onslaught known today as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, or the Amritsar massacre to Punjabi natives, is said to have lasted 20 minutes. Yet, despite its brevity, for the move to action it spurred throughout colonial India it remains a seminal event in the fight for Indian independence. One man, 12 year old Bhagat Singh, was especially moved. The massacre planted in Singh’s young mind a longing for the freedom of his people that would propel him forward by any means necessary.
Eventually he would be hung by British colonial authorities for his propensity to fight brutal occupation with every method employed against the Indian people. In the wake of his death, for the majority of the world who does not know or care about the necessity of armed struggle, he has been forgotten. His story, and those like his, has been put on the back-burner while men like Gandhi have been memorialized as the embodiment of what oppressed peoples should do when faced with a conscienceless occupier.
Such is not far from the expectation of Palestinians in the wake of decades of Israeli apartheid and occupation: In one form or another the question has been asked, “Where is Palestinian Gandhi?”
Though, even if ridiculously, it could be speculated as to where Palestinian Gandhi might be — a thought to be revisited later — we ought to ask why anybody would pose this question at all. The reality is asking this question is a sinister method of delegitimizing Palestinian armed resistance and self-defense. It is a tactical ploy to remove the focus from the violence Israel continues to perpetrate against Palestinians in order to place the impetus for peace solely on those suffering most. It is, in its purest form, victim blaming. And it has been incredibly effective.
Gandhi: A Myth to Which We May Not Want to Aspire
“In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience.”
— Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture)
Nonviolence played a significant role in Indian independence, absolutely; but the premise that under the tutelage of Gandhi it was the premier force driving the nation toward liberation is a cherry-picked version of history. It downplays into nothingness the fact that the post-WWII crown could no longer maintain the brute force and financial obligation needed to run a global empire. Indigenous American scholar Ward Churchill in Pacifism as Pathology dismantled the myth that nonviolence effectively acted alone or in a vacuum unto itself:
“…Gandhian success must be viewed in the context of a general decline in British power brought about by two world wars within a thirty-year period. Prior to the decimation of British troop strength and the virtual bankruptcy of the Imperial treasury during World War II, Gandhi’s movement showed little likelihood of forcing England’s abandonment of India. Without the global violence that destroyed the Empire’s ability to forcibly control territories (and passive populations), India might have continued indefinitely in the pattern of minority rule marking the majority of South Africa’s modern history, the first locale in which the Gandhian recipe for liberation struck the reef of reality. Hence, while the Mahatma and his followers were able to remain “pure,” their victory was contingent upon others physically gutting their opponents for them.”
At best Gandhi worship ignores — at worst it erases — the revolutionary actions of people like Bhagat Singh and others who galvanized the resistance movement in colonial India. It removes the context of fear created by armed struggle, a reversal of the fear that underpinned British control of a country where Brits were enormously outnumbered. George Orwell, the famous author of 1984, as a former officer in the Indian police noted:
“Gandhi has been regarded for twenty years by the Government of India as one of its right-hand men… It was always admitted in the most cynical way that Gandhi made it easier for the British to rule India, because his influence was always against taking any action that would make any difference. The reason why Gandhi when in prison is always treated with such lenience, and small concessions sometimes made when he has prolonged one of his fasts to a dangerous extent, is that the British officials are in terror that he may die and be replaced by someone who believes less in “soul force” and more in bombs.”
The material and philosophical reality of nonviolence is one of insufficient means dictating for itself an impossible end. The sectarian nature by which many proponents of Gandhian doctrine preclude or lambaste the use of armed resistance only helps doom a people’s fight for liberation because it effectively counteracts any positive gain they together might achieve. A truly encompassing liberatory praxis must recognize the use of armed resistance as a legitimate and necessary method of achieving liberation. The dismantling of the Gandhi myth is therefore of primary importance in attaining such a praxis.
But what about Gandhi the man himself, his political doctrines aside? Recently feminist writer and activist Arundhati Roy shared her own criticisms of the late nonviolent leader, saying:
“The story of Gandhi that we have been told, is a lie. It is time to unveil a few truths, about a person whose doctrine of nonviolence was based on the acceptance of a most brutal social hierarchy ever known, the caste system. Gandhi believed that a scavenger should always remain a scavenger. Do we really need to name our universities after him?”
There are, of course, more critical views of Gandhi’s personal habits — his methods for testing his resolve for celibacy for instance — but at the core of his legacy lies an irrational, one-sided lore of a man whose message and methods were inadequate, however helpful, and whose moral character was as flawed as anyone else’s. The real reason Gandhi is lauded while revolutionaries like Singh are diminished has more to do with what we do not know and why we are not taught it than with what we think we know.
In other words, if we were taught the truth that armed resistance does bring about significant change, we might be inclined to try it.
Reclaiming Resistance from Israel’s Tactical Propaganda
“Respect existence, or expect resistance.”
Knowing the pitfalls of Gandhi’s character/nonviolence, that in reality his methods could only be successful when buttressed with armed resistance and the bankrupting of Britain’s military and financial prowess, why would anybody ask “Where is Palestinian Gandhi?” Well, it’s pretty simple really: If people buy into the idea that there ought to be a Palestinian Gandhi to do what the myth of Gandhi dictates, then if no Palestinian is successfully doing it the rest of the world can continue to blame Palestinians for Israeli initiated violence instead of holding Israel accountable.
More importantly, if Palestinians deviate from the doctrine of nonviolence and endorse armed resistance, Israel can portray itself as victimized, or at least only retaliating in an “equally” matched conflict. This is tactical propaganda. If looked for, it is openly visible in the current struggle for Palestinian liberation.
Mainstream media has constantly berated fighters in Gaza for using armed resistance in the face of overwhelming occupation. A principle mechanism of this berating has been the method of blaming-both-sides equally, regardless of the lopsided causalities of Israel’s current and past military offensives. Hamas, an entity ironically helped to prominence by Mossad as a counterweight to the PLO, has been dubbed the central objector to proposed ceasefires by Israel, Egypt, and humanitarian agencies despite the fact that Israel has far more frequently been the provocateur. After Hamas does reject any ceasefire terms, the question of Palestinian Gandhi is mouthed ad nauseam.
But there can be no great peace negotiator when every ceasefire calls for the continuation of Palestinian oppression. Such proposals are not negotiations — they are the demands of a wolf clothed in the rhetoric of the sheep to elicit international sympathy. Palestinians know this, and by majority they have claimed acceptance of such a ceasefire would be a condition of living death.
In the film Rang de Basanti,a historical fiction of Bhagat Singh and his comrades’ revolutionary actions, a group of young friends retrace and relive the struggle for Indian independence. In the course of their reenactment they discover the corruption of their own government through the death of a loved one and come to understand Singh’s motivations for armed struggle. When they attempt to nonviolently challenge the corruption that led to their friend’s death, they are met with brutal repression, another of them having been beaten into a coma.
They assassinate the Defense Minister of the Indian government, the man responsible, in response. As the Indian government attributes the assassination to terrorists, effectively martyring a corrupt official, in their last act the group seizes a radio station to finally tell the truth about the corruption they acted against. They, like Singh, willingly die for the people they love.
Whether or not their actions were warranted they did something far too many have not: They realized that in order for nonviolence to work, those trying to kill you have to care about you.
Israel’s Zionist government does not care about Palestinians. The so-called terrorism Israel says it is fighting, in reality, is the armed resistance created by the terrorism it commits. If Israel were really concerned with the alleged “terrorism” of Hamas, its most prudent action would be to immediately cease participating in the terrorizing of Palestinians. Such is the nature of cyclical violence, but by no means is it equivalent when one party has the 6th most powerful military in the world and the backing of United States military power while the other has rocks and homemade rockets.
But this is at the core of asking “Where is Palestinian Gandhi,” to delegitimize Gazan resistance by decoupling the material reality of occupation from the right to self-defense. Jeff Sluka captured it well in National Liberation Movements in Global Context:
“The condemnation of liberation movements for resorting to… armed struggle is almost invariably superficial, hypocritical, judgmental, and unfair and tends strongly to represent another example of the generalized phenomenon of “blaming the victim.” The violence of the situation, the per-existing oppression suffered by those who eventually strike back, is conveniently ignored. The violence of the oppressed is a form of defensive counter-violence to the violence of conquest and oppression. In no armed national liberation movement I know of in history has this not been the case.”
After decades of war on Palestinians, Israel has threaded through itself a clearly defined and widely endorsed, yet often unarticulated, acceptance of violent oppression. It is a fully rationalized phenomenon for its government, with full confidence of Israeli Zionists and their sympathizers abroad, to carry out odious acts of state-sanctioned terrorism against Palestinians. Yet when those murdered, so clearly revealed in the scope of recent events, grow weary enough to fight against occupation, their resistance is totally fetishized, their humanity dehumanized.
As in the lived and cinematic experience of Singh’s life, getting past the Gandhi myth is essential to understanding the material reality of what is happening on the ground in Gaza today. This understanding must lay bare the conditions of occupation, colonization, and apartheid. When we fully grasp this we ought to remember a people’s natural right to armed resistance. Blaming Palestinians for fighting oppression from a racist, Zionist government is outright victim-blaming. It makes us tools of oppression.
If we really must ask “Where is Palestinian Gandhi,” we should realize they likely are buried under the rubble of an Israeli missile.
(Photo Credit: Mohammed Saber/EPA & AmericaWakieWakie)