So you’re arguing what exactly?

That since they both came in an oppressed the local Arabs of the 1830s (who are in no way ever included in the definition of Palestian?) and took their land that but migration continued so the Israeli pushing of Palestinians off of the land is just a continuation of what both sides did to the definitely never Palestinian Arabs who were there earlier and so it isn’t wrong?

You’re not wrong in that if the Palestinian death toll hasn’t swayed someone already, they’re probably not going to be swayed.

I’d hope its to convince the government of Israel to get rid of corrupt leader Netanyahu, and to work towards an equitable two state peace agreement with an independent Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza.

Or failing that, to convince people that unconditional support of the current Israeli government is bad, actually. Something many Israeli themselves believe (not to mention non-Israeli Jews).

An acidic heat

I’ll give you the story as I can recall it…

The trip was reliving the person’s life from top to bottom, and at various points hearing huge applause or boos or an emotional rection of some kind, and turning round and seeing that they were on the set of “This Was Your Life” with a huge studio audience. The presenter would give a prize, joke or something and ask some questions which led back to reliving their life and soon forget about the “show” until the next time the crowd went wild. It is said it felt like a lifetime, I don’t know how long the trip lasted in measured time.

This is basically what a DMT trip can be like I’ve heard. With infinite forgetting and noticing the being viewed conceit again.

Yes but also most of those films were bad at the time too.

It certainly sold itself as feminist and forward thinking, but the conservatism of USociety certainly took control of the scripts early on.

Or maybe both?

As was detailed by someone else the Doylian reason why heroes don’t change the status quo is that people want to see our world in media, not a fantasy one and that this means only villains are allowed to want changes, but since the people funding the production of media tend to be invested in the status quo status quo changing ideas tend to be flanderised and done by people who do evil and selfish acts to reinforce standard morality.

I thought he gave some villain speech about getting his gang and people like them what they deserved and bringing down Stark and Co. But I could well be mistaken or misremembering since I only saw it once, quite some time ago so you may very well be right.

I dunno, I think making things like this is Clowes’ lifeline. He makes comics about how dirty and self hating he is to keep himself going.

So I reckon it’s no waste of time and reduced global suffering and pain.

Congratulations, you’re now at level 2 of the joke.

Legit though Clowes’ work is all about self-loathing and feeling dirty. It’s not easy or pleasant.

Off the top of my head the villain in one of the Iron Man films was opposed to US war crimes and imperialism, New New Spider Man 1 had the Vulture as a villain whose deal was Stark and the wealthy were screwing people over.

In Batman Begins 3 Bane is a pastiche of anarchism/anti-capital ideas until revealed that that’s a play by Talia.

Well intentioned extremist is a pretty common villain trope in general.

It’s not.

It’s just reposting 4chan stuff. That post is fine, but look over the community and you’ll find a lot of punching down and the odd dog whistle post.

I’m not sure the guy invoking Soros is meant to be taken seriously or sympathetically.

Edit: also the artist is the Jewish artist Eli Valley, apparently.

And this is why, little bushes, we must always have birds and give to them our first sprung berries on tribute.

Which creates a space where people with personal affiliations get away with it and gather. And then when called out on their shit, tell the “for the lulz” crowd that people are coming for their freedom.

It may be, but even knowing all that it is hardly helpful advice, and at least out of context and not knowing the people talking doesn’t seem to contain empathy or sympathy.
And is devoid of criticism of the actual leaker of the photos.

You’re not wrong.

But I also don’t think it’s a big delta in risk chance in a lot of cases, meanwhile in some parts of the world (looking at you East Asia) spy cameras are a huge problem.

There are, I imagine millions of nude photos taken that never leak.

I think a reason many feminists feel strongly on the issue is that it really throws society’s whore-virgin paradigm into relief, where women with sexuality are pushed to take the blame for their actions without much (any) consideration for them as people. Which is the reason “just don’t take them” gets the hostile reaction it does, and is a ridiculed response.

OK so because it’s selfies, so person 1 is responsible for her images leaking in a way person 2 is not?

Or do you feel that selfies are a level above and beyond just nude photos by virtue of having been self taken? If so, what sets nude selfies apart from sexy photos taken by a long term partner if anything?