The Lunacorva's Random Notes

switch-up-snowfox:

lunacorva:

switch-up-snowfox:

lunacorva:

beardedmrbean:

ALT

They’ll just scream pinkwashing and something about how you’re a bigot for not accepting their way of life.

There’s a lot of important context missing in this thread.

First, it’s not being made clear what is being argued here.

Is this thread simply saying that homophobia is a bad thing and these views ABSOLUTELY should be opposed? Well, then I think there’s no issue here. Countries and people are not a monolith afterall and we can agree on the idea that the mass slaughter of Palestinians and continuous invasion of their territory is wrong whilst simultaneously opposing highly homophobic attitudes from Palestine.

As a believer in giving benefit of the doubt, I find this first interpretation quite likely

HOWEVER, it’s possible some might take this as a means to justify the continued violence against Palestinians and occupation of their lands.

The argument goes “Israel HAS to wipe out Palestine because if they don’t this is what they will do the LGBT people”

Such an argument, of course, could easily apply to almost any nation on earth at some point or another.

For example, in the United States, homosexual relations were criminilised in several states up to as recently as 2003.

Would this institutional homophobia mean the mass slaughter of thousands of US citizens (civilians included) or the forced occupation of their homes would be a good thing?

I’m sure everyone here would agree. No. It is not.

But of course, then saying it justifies mass slaughter and occupation in Palestine would then create a doublestandard.

(Incidently, it is this Double-standard that is referred to when people talk of “Pink-Washing”. It is, essentially, the idea that “Slaughtering civilians in Palestine is okay, because we’re protecting the LGBTQIA+ from them)

The next bit of important context missing is WHO said that.

Imagine this. Someone in Amercia says that Australia should be bombarded with nukes.

Well, it’s a VERY different story depending on whether that was said by the PotUS in a military meeting, or your drunk uncle Bobby Joe during Thanksgiving.

In this case, that clip is apparently from a preacher in Israel. Which means judging Palestinians right to live based on that sermon would be like (to continue my analogy from above), judging American’s rights to live based on, well, insert a Westburo Baptist speech here.

the post is a response to people going "queers for palestine” and its basically pointing out its LGBT people advocating for a government and group that is openly stating it will kill them for being who they are, which is considered a point of them being at best horrifically misinformed and at worst suicidally stupid, which is paired along with other points that they believe the openly genocidal terrorist group when they claim that the people they are attempting to genocide are, in fact, the ones doing the senseless genocide.

Well, two things on that. First, as said, that quote was from a preacher in Palestine, not a member of the Palestinian government. Does that NEGATE the idea of the government holding those views? No, but using it as a representation is misleading.

Second, as I said above, “we can agree on the idea that the mass slaughter of Palestinians and continuous invasion of their territory is wrong whilst simultaneously opposing highly homophobic attitudes from Palestine.”

For the third point regarding Genocide, an important perspective is that support for the people of Palestine and the opposition to the mass deaths of civilians does NOT equate to support for Hamas. Similar to above, one can hold the Israeli government AND Hamas accountable for their crimes.

So, the idea that the Israeli goverment is commiting a genocide.

Where is this coming from? Is it solely propaganda used by Hamas to justify their own actions?

Well, lets look at what independent sources unaffiliated with either nation say on the matter.

First, we have a rather extensive article from Amnesty International detailing the actions commited by Israel and Hamas.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/8668/2024/en/

We also have another post from them stating that Israel’s actions are genocidal

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/

We also have this report from Doctors without Borders, detailing the extensive destruction commited by Israel

https://www.msf.org/msf-report-exposes-israel%E2%80%99s-campaign-total-destruction

As well as others.

https://www.msf.org/gaza-israel-war

Neither organisation is Jewish, Israeli, Arabic, nor Palestinian. They are not affiliated with any government, nor have they had any history of antisemitism or islamaphobia. So any argument one could make of “They’re lying to support their side!” would seem rather dubious. This is about as neutral a source as you can get.

Here is also a UN report.

https://press.un.org/en/2024/gapal1473.doc.htm

And an article from WorldWithoutGenocide

https://worldwithoutgenocide.org/genocides-and-conflicts/israel-palestine-conflict-history-causes-and-international-law

I aimed to find sources that were not sites like “HamasAreHeroes.com” or “IsraelDidNothingWrong.org”

These are multiple sources of human rights organisations (And a UN report) reporting multiple direct, concrete examples of, at BEST, repeated mass murder of civilians and deprivation of basic human rights. Something a lot more damning than simply “Hamas say they’re the good guys and people online believe them.”

And several of these organizations have been slammed for relying on the numbers and word of organizations with either direct ties to hamas, which have been proven to be lying about a lot of their numbers and have been busted quietly editing the casualty rate down, or in some cases other groups who’ve openly shared hamas’ goal of israel’s destruction and genocide, IE Al Jazeera.

The UN’s word in particular is dirt considering their security forces sex trafficking scandel, and their inability to keep serial human rights abuser nations off their human rights board.

“its the opinion of one preacher” Luna, friend. Gaza’s penal code 1936, article 152, criminalizes homosexuality. There’s evidence and cases of people being murdered specifically because they’re homosexual. And homophobia is a known issue amongst many muslim communities and societies.

Finally, Israel doing fucked up shit doesn’t erase the culpability of hamas or other terrorist groups for their fuckery.

your engaging in a lot of midwittery right now my guy.

“And several of these organizations have been slammed for relying on the numbers and word of organizations with either direct ties to hamas, which have been proven to be lying about a lot of their numbers and have been busted quietly editing the casualty rate down, or in some cases other groups who’ve openly shared hamas’ goal of israel’s destruction and genocide, IE Al Jazeera.”

I assume you’re referring to articles like the report from the Henry Jackson Society noting that there were numbers missing from the death toll and calling into question the reports from the Hamas controlled Gaza Health Ministry

(https://henryjacksonsociety.org/publications/questionable-counting/)

Reasonable (Though it would have helped your case to provide a source.)

However, we have a report from peer reviewed medical journal The Lancet finding that, if anything, the death toll is UNDERREPORTED by the MOH

(https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)02640-5/fulltext)

And later estimating no evidence of an inflated mortality.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)02713-7/fulltext

Second, this extensive report that found the MoH reports to be about 70% accurate.

https://gaza-civilians.airwars.org/

(Keep in mind, for the death toll for Palestinians to be even CLOSE to the death toll for Israelis, it would have to be inflated by over 2000%. Not even CLOSE to the 30% discrepency reported)

We also have a research university in Sweden that reported over 20'000 deaths.

https://www.uu.se/en/news/2024/2024-06-05-mapping-the-death-toll-in-gaza

——-

Moving on from that however

“"its the opinion of one preacher” Luna, friend. Gaza’s penal code 1936, article 152, criminalizes homosexuality. There’s evidence and cases of people being murdered specifically because they’re homosexual. And homophobia is a known issue amongst many muslim communities and societies.“

This statement. While true (https://www.equaldex.com/region/palestine) Continues to ignore the very first thing I said.

"homophobia is a bad thing and these views ABSOLUTELY should be opposed? Well, then I think there’s no issue here. Countries and people are not a monolith afterall and we can agree on the idea that the mass slaughter of Palestinians and continuous invasion of their territory is wrong whilst simultaneously opposing highly homophobic attitudes from Palestine.”

To ignore that very clear part of my post is the first sign that you are engaging in this in bad faith.

(For context, for those still reading in good faith, the point of highlighting the preacher was to illustrate that this was a poor example to use, rather than a claim that homophobia in Palestine did not exist)

Furthermore, it ignores the larger point made that, while absolutely bad, the countries blatant homophobia does not and CANNOT excuse the mass murder of its civilians. This is something that was a core point iterated multiple times across my post to the point that it very much WAS my post.

The fact that such a critical part of my statement was outright ignored (Not merely countered, criticised or disagreed with, but treated as if it did not exist and had not been said) is such a blatantly inaccurate reading of my post that I am left with only two options.

Either Switch completely failed to understand what I was saying.

Or deliberately chose, in bad faith, to ignore the vast majority of what had been said in order to misrepresent my side of the conversation.

I KNOW Switch is an intelligent individual, so I unfortunately cannot give him the benefit of the doubt that this was innocently ignorant.

Leaving me to conclude that this was done deliberately in bad faith.

A fact compounded by Switch then resorting to Ad Hominems at the end

“

midwit (plural midwits)

1. (neologism, chiefly Internet slang, mildly derogatory) A person of middling intellect; someone who is neither particularly dumb nor notably intelligent, especially if they act as if they are smarter than they are. 
   
   Essentially, trying to remove key pieces from an opposing view to make it seem weaker than it actually is, then calling the now artificially weakened view inferior.
   
   A perfect example of a strawman argument.
   
   For those still following, I hope the linked articles are helpful.

switch-up-snowfox:

lunacorva:

beardedmrbean:

ALT

They’ll just scream pinkwashing and something about how you’re a bigot for not accepting their way of life.

There’s a lot of important context missing in this thread.

First, it’s not being made clear what is being argued here.

Is this thread simply saying that homophobia is a bad thing and these views ABSOLUTELY should be opposed? Well, then I think there’s no issue here. Countries and people are not a monolith afterall and we can agree on the idea that the mass slaughter of Palestinians and continuous invasion of their territory is wrong whilst simultaneously opposing highly homophobic attitudes from Palestine.

As a believer in giving benefit of the doubt, I find this first interpretation quite likely

HOWEVER, it’s possible some might take this as a means to justify the continued violence against Palestinians and occupation of their lands.

The argument goes “Israel HAS to wipe out Palestine because if they don’t this is what they will do the LGBT people”

Such an argument, of course, could easily apply to almost any nation on earth at some point or another.

For example, in the United States, homosexual relations were criminilised in several states up to as recently as 2003.

Would this institutional homophobia mean the mass slaughter of thousands of US citizens (civilians included) or the forced occupation of their homes would be a good thing?

I’m sure everyone here would agree. No. It is not.

But of course, then saying it justifies mass slaughter and occupation in Palestine would then create a doublestandard.

(Incidently, it is this Double-standard that is referred to when people talk of “Pink-Washing”. It is, essentially, the idea that “Slaughtering civilians in Palestine is okay, because we’re protecting the LGBTQIA+ from them)

The next bit of important context missing is WHO said that.

Imagine this. Someone in Amercia says that Australia should be bombarded with nukes.

Well, it’s a VERY different story depending on whether that was said by the PotUS in a military meeting, or your drunk uncle Bobby Joe during Thanksgiving.

In this case, that clip is apparently from a preacher in Israel. Which means judging Palestinians right to live based on that sermon would be like (to continue my analogy from above), judging American’s rights to live based on, well, insert a Westburo Baptist speech here.

the post is a response to people going "queers for palestine” and its basically pointing out its LGBT people advocating for a government and group that is openly stating it will kill them for being who they are, which is considered a point of them being at best horrifically misinformed and at worst suicidally stupid, which is paired along with other points that they believe the openly genocidal terrorist group when they claim that the people they are attempting to genocide are, in fact, the ones doing the senseless genocide.

Well, two things on that. First, as said, that quote was from a preacher in Palestine, not a member of the Palestinian government. Does that NEGATE the idea of the government holding those views? No, but using it as a representation is misleading.

Second, as I said above, “we can agree on the idea that the mass slaughter of Palestinians and continuous invasion of their territory is wrong whilst simultaneously opposing highly homophobic attitudes from Palestine.”

For the third point regarding Genocide, an important perspective is that support for the people of Palestine and the opposition to the mass deaths of civilians does NOT equate to support for Hamas. Similar to above, one can hold the Israeli government AND Hamas accountable for their crimes.

So, the idea that the Israeli goverment is commiting a genocide.

Where is this coming from? Is it solely propaganda used by Hamas to justify their own actions?

Well, lets look at what independent sources unaffiliated with either nation say on the matter.

First, we have a rather extensive article from Amnesty International detailing the actions commited by Israel and Hamas.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/8668/2024/en/

We also have another post from them stating that Israel’s actions are genocidal

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/

We also have this report from Doctors without Borders, detailing the extensive destruction commited by Israel

https://www.msf.org/msf-report-exposes-israel%E2%80%99s-campaign-total-destruction

As well as others.

https://www.msf.org/gaza-israel-war

Neither organisation is Jewish, Israeli, Arabic, nor Palestinian. They are not affiliated with any government, nor have they had any history of antisemitism or islamaphobia. So any argument one could make of “They’re lying to support their side!” would seem rather dubious. This is about as neutral a source as you can get.

Here is also a UN report.

https://press.un.org/en/2024/gapal1473.doc.htm

And an article from WorldWithoutGenocide

https://worldwithoutgenocide.org/genocides-and-conflicts/israel-palestine-conflict-history-causes-and-international-law

I aimed to find sources that were not sites like “HamasAreHeroes.com” or “IsraelDidNothingWrong.org”

These are multiple sources of human rights organisations (And a UN report) reporting multiple direct, concrete examples of, at BEST, repeated mass murder of civilians and deprivation of basic human rights. Something a lot more damning than simply “Hamas say they’re the good guys and people online believe them.”

beardedmrbean:

ALT

They’ll just scream pinkwashing and something about how you’re a bigot for not accepting their way of life.

There’s a lot of important context missing in this thread.

First, it’s not being made clear what is being argued here.

Is this thread simply saying that homophobia is a bad thing and these views ABSOLUTELY should be opposed? Well, then I think there’s no issue here. Countries and people are not a monolith afterall and we can agree on the idea that the mass slaughter of Palestinians and continuous invasion of their territory is wrong whilst simultaneously opposing highly homophobic attitudes from Palestine.

As a believer in giving benefit of the doubt, I find this first interpretation quite likely

HOWEVER, it’s possible some might take this as a means to justify the continued violence against Palestinians and occupation of their lands.

The argument goes “Israel HAS to wipe out Palestine because if they don’t this is what they will do the LGBT people”

Such an argument, of course, could easily apply to almost any nation on earth at some point or another.

For example, in the United States, homosexual relations were criminilised in several states up to as recently as 2003.

Would this institutional homophobia mean the mass slaughter of thousands of US citizens (civilians included) or the forced occupation of their homes would be a good thing?

I’m sure everyone here would agree. No. It is not.

But of course, then saying it justifies mass slaughter and occupation in Palestine would then create a doublestandard.

(Incidently, it is this Double-standard that is referred to when people talk of “Pink-Washing”. It is, essentially, the idea that “Slaughtering civilians in Palestine is okay, because we’re protecting the LGBTQIA+ from them)

The next bit of important context missing is WHO said that.

Imagine this. Someone in Amercia says that Australia should be bombarded with nukes.

Well, it’s a VERY different story depending on whether that was said by the PotUS in a military meeting, or your drunk uncle Bobby Joe during Thanksgiving.

In this case, that clip is apparently from a preacher in Israel. Which means judging Palestinians right to live based on that sermon would be like (to continue my analogy from above), judging American’s rights to live based on, well, insert a Westburo Baptist speech here.

(via switch-up-snowfox)

brazenautomaton:

argumate:

prismatic-bell:

argumate:

prismatic-bell:

argumate:

prismatic-bell:

argumate:

cantotallyeven:

argumate:

cantotallyeven:

argumate:

prismatic-bell:

argumate:

prismatic-bell:

argumate:

no-sharks-on-the-sun:

argumate:

urpriest said: Bret Deveraux’s argument was that things literally would be better if the IDF took higher casualties, or at least was willing to take them. The IDF would take higher casualties if it more often sent soldiers room by room into buildings in Gaza rather than shelling them, and if they did that they’d be much better at distinguishing belligerents from innocents. It’s for the most part what the US did in urban fighting in Iraq, and while it still pissed people off it did save lives compared to the alternative of just bombing the place.

I think I would rephrase that as “it would be better if the IDF only killed Hamas militants and not civilians, even though this would require them to take more casualties themselves, as this would reduce the deaths on net”, and while I can’t disagree with that – fewer people dying is good! – I can’t help thinking that it doesn’t serve long term Israeli strategic aims, that realistically are not limited to “eliminating Hamas”, but rather “depopulating Palestine for new Israeli settlements”.

at least in Iraq the US could just leave: there was no intention of claiming the banks of the Tigris for resettling families from Wisconsin or whatever.

yeah, i think there are more or less two ways of reading the Israeli strategy.

the more generous one is to say that they’ve concluded that they *cannot* defeat Hamas through conventional means and need to fully depopulate Gaza to achieve a lasting victory, which for the record is probably true (even if i am not particularly sympathetic to it)

but you can also look at historical Israeli attempts to funnel support to Hamas (over their more moderate rivals) as a long game designed to create a pretext for the current ethnic cleansing of Gaza, and now that Hamas provided it, that check is being cashed

it does feel like there have been decades of opportunities to integrate Palestine into the Israeli economy instead of slowly strangling it with walls and borders, if integration was ever desired.

This ignores a very basic thing:

Israel has offered, multiple times, as far back as 1946 when the first partition plans were being made.

Palestine has not only rejected the offers, they’ve done so with violence–so much so that when the Jews (not yet Israelis, just Jews) suggested having an area for themselves even smaller than Gaza, they were met with pogroms.

So what would you have Israel do? Take them by force? Because you seem to be very against that.

I think the only possible outcome besides genocide is one state.

Okay, but that’s not an answer to the question.

The Palestinians have refused integration multiple times. All attempts at peacemaking have been met with violence. Both Hamas and the PA have made it clear that if they retake all of the land it will be a new caliphate, where Judaism will be illegal as it is through the rest of the Middle East. Seven million people will be either slaughtered or forced out of the land to which we are indigenous, where we have had a presence for 4000 years.

So what would you have Israel do?

So what would

all attempts at peacemaking have been met with violence, look at what happened to Yitzhak Rabin, but that cannot be justification to mete out yet more violence in response: there is no long term peace without integration, and Israel – or a significantly powerful faction within Israel – do not see or want a future as a truly democratic and open nation that does not privilege one particular ethnicity over another, and I don’t think there can be an end to violence as long as that belief is held.

Err Israel is a truly democratic and open nation that does not privilege one particular ethnicity over another. The Arabs who live in Israel are full citizens with the same rights as Jewish (and others) who live there. Israel just doesn’t have open borders, much like basically every other nation on Earth. Incidentally, it’s illegal to be Jewish in Gaza and illegal to sell property to Jews in the PLO controlled parts of the West Bank. The last time some Jews took a wrong turn and accidentally ended up in Gaza they got immediately arrested and then lynched. So like, why is it only on Israel to repeatedly offer peace? Why doesn’t Gaza lift the ban on being Jewish? Or stop chanting “from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab?” Also like, doesn’t “one state” = “Israel absorbs Gaza and the West Bank”? Somehow I don’t think that would go over well with the citizens of either of those. Or is the solution “Israel has to let in anyone who wants to come in while Gaza and the West Bank and every other MENA country gets to keep Jews out”?

I think Israel already has defacto control over Gaza and the West Bank, and failing to acknowledge that just leaves the Palestinian people essentially stateless, with no democratic rights in the state that actually rules them.

Does it though? I’ll admit to not being fully informed on the situation of the various zones in the West Bank, but Gaza? Israel fully pulled out of Gaza in 2005 and had 0 control there until Oct 7th. The reason they have no democratic rights is because Hamas refuses to hold elections (something the citizens are now protesting). So it seems you are advocating for Israel to take control of Gaza and/or make them all citizens of Israel whether they want it or not? Make them all subject to Israeli law, which includes freedom of religion, which may in Gaza do not want?

Like they absolutely should have a state and should have democratic rights, but Hamas is the main barrier to both, and they make a one state solution impossible. Like, look at what we’ve had here in the past 2000 years. And yes, I say 2000 because this didn’t start wen Israel was established. Currently we have Gaza launching countless rockets at Israel (and yes this is still going on) and the West Bank has their program where they pay families of people who die or get captured killing Israelis. How does that make for a peaceful state? Right now, Israel has borders and people are already pissed about it. If it was one state? And Israel restricted movement within it? Well then claims of apartheid might actually be true. Prior to Israel being established we had Jews living there as second class citizens and experiencing frequent pogroms. That was in fact the impetus for declaring independence. Like, this was areas that were already majority Jewish who just got tired of being slaughtered every few years, so they setup borders to defend themselves.

But a show of peace has to come from both sides. Israel’s population is 20% Arab Muslims ethnically identical to those living in Gaza and the West Bank. The only Jews in Gaza are the hostages and the IDF soldiers trying to free them. For a single state solution to work, Gaza would need to show that Jews have nothing to fear from them by letting Jews live there in peace. Israel allows Muslim immigrants, even many from Gaza. Why doesn’t Gaza allow Jews?

yes, a workable state would require freedom of movement for everyone, without internal borders, walls, segregated towns or ethnic curfews.

Okay. But once again, you’re failing to answer the question:

How?

There are two answers if you want a one-state solution:

1) Israel absorbs Gaza and the West Bank and there is no more Palestine.

2) the Palestinians destroy Israel, rename it Palestine, and slaughter seven million Jews (and possibly two million people of other religions, including minorities like Druze and Bedouins, who live and worship freely in Israel)

So which of these are you advocating for?

the first, obviously, although I would rather it be done peacefully and not by the current process that seems to involve slaughtering a portion of the Palestinians and confining the rest in refugee camps.

Okay. But the Palestinians have refused that, because they believe the land should be ruled by Arabs and the Jews should be removed.

So what do we do? Like I’m not being sarcastic here. At this point we need workable ideas to advocate for because the last major one died on 10/7 when Hamas deliberately targeted and slaughtered most of Israel’s peace workers. If you’ve got something that’s even remotely plausible I am sincerely asking you to throw it out there.

one possibility would be to move towards making the West Bank a viable Palestinian territory: defund the Israeli settlements, allow free movement across the area, stop demolishing buildings, move the IDF out, etc. etc.

another approach would be to assimilate the West Bank piecemeal without expelling the Palestinians, so that they gain full Israeli citizenship.

for Gaza the most important thing is an immediate ceasefire, of course.

On one hand I agree with this idea for the West Bank. On the other, it runs into the problem of “there will almost definitely be violence against Israelis, especially Jews.” That is something that needs to be taken into account and is actually why I’m in favor of two-state, not one.

A ceasefire in Gaza is a great goal. It does require Hamas to either get gone or play ball, neither of which seems likely. But I would like to see it happen.

I think a ceasefire only requires a cessation of the bombing and a withdrawal of troops, it could happen immediately if there was the political will to end the bloodshed.

a useful thought experiment might be to consider what might have happened if Israel hadn’t invaded Gaza and killed 50,000+ people, and whether the current situation is actually that much better.

(similarly Hamas could unilaterally disband, but I don’t think that would solve the fundamental problem that any Palestinian authority has either been the enemy of Israel or the subcontractor of Israel, neither of which can rule a viable Palestinian state).

“stop bombing and withdraw the troops even though Hamas hasn’t promised anything in exchange” is the correct answer. Hamas will not and can not honor any promise to not try and murder Jews and Israel’s actions can’t be based on getting Hamas to make such a promise; Israel should stop the war because the war is a very bad idea to keep prosecuting. If Israel had not bombed 50,000 people to death in Gaza and instead had done nothing, all parties involved would be better off…

Keep reading

@argumate “all attempts at peacemaking have been met with violence, look at what happened to Yitzhak Rabin,”

An important bit of context that needs to be made with that example is that Rabin was assasinated by an Israeli man named Yigal Amir. That was a case of someone from Israel rejecting peace rather than Palestine rejecting peace.

(via switch-up-snowfox)

theriu:

Me: Sweet, the mushrooms already grew back!

Furious Fairy: You miserable human, this is a fairy ring! You’re not supposed to PICK the mushrooms!!! Go away or suffer my-

Me: Oh right, here’s your half of the money I made selling the last batch.

Fairy: …

Fairy: I’ll have more for you by tomorrow.

(A/N: Please remember to not eat wild mushrooms unless you know 100% FOR CERTAIN that they are edible!)

Only potential problem, and I’m loving this blog btw, here, is that fae often have a mentality completely backwards to humans. Not only might they not have a concept of currency or even sales, the very idea could be seen as grossly offensive to them.

“Here’s your money.”

“Give me my mushrooms back before I take your eyes.”

ave-aria:

that-catholic-shinobi:

autumnhobbit:

autumnhobbit:

autumnhobbit:

autumnhobbit:

autumnhobbit:

autumnhobbit:

autumnhobbit:

finally decided to sit down and watch the incredibles again. there will be no commentary because i’m gonna be too busy watching it

okay i just gotta say

having been married for 3 years now (almost), i really love how bob & helen argue. when i was a kid it just came off to me that everyone in this movie was being super mean for no reason but when you watch it as an adult it’s different. i really appreciate that even when bob is frustrated/angry he basically never lashes out at helen or the kids, his problem is he’s withdrawn and existantialling. i also really appreciate that when they do fight they’re actually more expressing their frustration than attacking each other. it’s only later when things get real that helen (understandably) gets really angry.

also edna’s advice is actually really good, helen’s just melting down over the idea of losing her husband (which is sweet and helps us understand her character) but edna tells her to confront it immediately, hold bob to account by leaning into his concern (all his heroics being forgotten) and reminding him that she’s a super, too. direct action is a blessing in communication.

i love how the movie communicates bob’s competency, like he’s actually handling all the twists and turns of the situation rapidly deteriorating very well, the only thing that throws him off is when his family gets involved. we also see helen’s competency in the plane scene and how she immediately knows something’s up when no one responds on the radio

syndrome is such a fucking good villain, saying ‘i seem to recall you prefer to work alone’ and laughing at him when he believes he’s murdered the guy’s wife and kids???? holy fuck

as previously mentioned bob breaking down and sobbing alone in the containment room shaped my personality

ah the good old days of 2004 when having a voluptuous mom ass was a bad thing. good riddance, we don’t miss you.

also the it’s a neat little parallel to bob’s body image struggles, they really went to great lengths to showcase that these people are equals & soulmates

the kids are really well-written too, they feel very authentically their age and they both have motivations, the writing does a great job of showing how the gravity of the situation sinks in for them and forces them to rise to meet it. dash especially fascinates me in this movie because he’s just the right balance between immature and starting, just starting to get that life is a big deal and stakes are real and you’ve got to care about what you’re doing and try to do the right thing in every situation. the way the kids instinctively protect each other even though all we’ve seen of them so far in the movie is antagonism is just *clenches fist* so good

The Incredibles is incredible on every level

I appreciate the “there will be no commentary because i’m gonna be too busy watching it” followed by 8 of the truest takes on the movie, respect.

(via joshscorcher)