☿

it is so funny that you guys are accusing op of caring “only about pixels and not real people”, when you yourself are not actually defending any iranians from harm but instead.. using them as rhetorical cudgel to feign moral superiority in a ship war… how odd. is that defintionally even more performative?

also not even to add what an absurd take this is? why are you equating a snarky "haha you you were wrong" quote tweet to somebody making fun of iranian bombardment. she didn't say "your country is being bombed your opinion doesn't matter". it's a tragic situation yes, but tragedy does not render somebody immune from disagreement especially in what is (and i qoute) a "cartoon ship". nor does it make said disagreement harassment. all you have done is snuck in an unsubstantiated claim that the tweet was even about the iranian zutara's suffering at all. a completely useless point of view that can't even be applied universally because it would be frankly insane! please, just use words correctly.

but let’s not talk about the war on iran without some aid:

the tweet you’ve shown me doesn’t matter either tbh. who are you to police somebodies emotional reactions to a fictional and real life genocide? you think you hold this weird moral superiority over when she herself is deeply affected by it? is that not blaming a victim for what she feels… hmmm… sounds a lot like victim blaming right. yeah don’t be weird babe. clearly that care doesn’t equate to giving them the same moral weight, let’s put our thinking caps on.

And Zutaraanti deleted her original post because of mass reporting for racism. You can see the screenshot Sneezy sends. You can also check Zutaraanti's Twitter for her replies, double-downs and awful non-apology, because she's proud of her racism. I'm not doing it for you because you're lazy and think this is about a ship war. Also, to make this bigger for others who actually care, look at the dates of the tweets and what's being asked—"I didn't know" my ass.

Me telling you shut up wasn't because I was worried about what you had to say, but a warning you'll expose your own stupidity and bigotry. You use these words but obviously have no idea what they mean. I recommend learning about micro-aggressions, passive racism and even stochastic terrorism, which both you and Antizutara are courting in rhetoric.

And FYI, I call out bigotry against my own regularly on this blog, no matter the topic. I could give less crap about fiction when real people get hurt (which is the CORRECT priority—I don't care how you feel about fake genocides, but if you go after real people for a fake one, congrats, you're an ass at best, imperial DARVO at worst). Anyway, those who want to seek the truth, here is Antizutara's Twitter:

Ad hominem is actually what you are doing, in derailing the actual argument at hand to talk about how much you don't like zutara shippers, rather than engaging with the argument presented. You are the one who resorted to personal attacks, presumably because you were uncomfortable engaging with the substance of the argument (that being OP's hypocrisy, and the way they treat real victims of actual genocides over pixels on a screen that cannot be harmed).

If you want to seem as if you have any leg to stand on in your own fannish arguments, you may want to work on this impulse you seem to have to lash out at shippers because they react poorly to instances of harassment and abuse.

this is the exact interaction that happened here.

zutaranti: saying that zuko paid more attention to katara as a genocide victim makes no sense.

sneezypeezy: you quoted an iranian under bombardement so you harassed her. (and then somebody goes on to say they are racist)

definitionally (let’s use merriam-weber) an ad hominem is an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made. that is exactly what happened here. the other situation had nothing to do with the current one at hand, yet it was still used as an attempt to undermine her argument. it is not “derailing an argument”. please omfg i don’t know why i’m explaining basic concepts to clearly grown women.

like i have been continually saying, words have meaning. just because you find something mean or even slightly distasteful doesn’t make it suddenly immoral. it isn’t harassment and IS an ad hom.

i also like how you say i’m committing that same logical fallacy then… go on to do commit another one yourself. you blatantly strawmanned me. i did not “derail an argument”. it was already derailed when i made my reply. all i did was respond directly to sneezypeezy’s tactics and then after that i quite blatantly said why that tweet was not a personal attack (literally talking about the substance at hand). what derailing is happening here exactly? how am i uncomfortable talking about it when i replied with an entire paragraph dedicated to the tweet in my original reblog? what unrelated personal attack on their character is happening other than me saying they’re being illogical — which is not unrelated as i inferred it from their response itself. nothing is “telling” babe, i replied to this one specifically because of the strong accusation (and the fact that it was one of the first i saw); i don’t have time to respond to every stray post.

also not even sure what your “real victims of genocide” even means when zutaranti themselves directly said they were a personal victim of it, again adding to my point of the perfect victim! you’re picking and choosing! you can’t just pull rank and dismiss its very tired. bookmarking a tweet and making a snarky quote tweet is never that deep, rest abeggg and stop begging the conclusion.

a singular quote tweet is not harassment or abuse please go outside and talk to real people. i find it quite funny how i’m apparently “lashing out” for my completely calm response, however lady of bath who told me to “shut the fuck up” and called me a clown is absolved of this. i think somebody is having a tantrum and reacting poorly and it isn’t me… :(.

p.s. am i allowed to now call this microaggresive language to use towards a black woman?

and at last because this is the last reply i’m making to this situation. just because something makes YOU uncomfortable and you don’t like it doesn’t make it immoral. nobody has done anything to disprove the points i made. it’s actually very funny how lady of bath blocked me when i asked for proof, and then said she “told me to shut up” so that i “wouldn’t expose my own stupidity”… yeah right. sounds like she had no point to make, how unfortunate.

it is so funny that you guys are accusing op of caring “only about pixels and not real people”, when you yourself are not actually defending any iranians from harm but instead.. using them as rhetorical cudgel to feign moral superiority in a ship war… how odd. is that defintionally even more performative?

also not even to add what an absurd take this is? why are you equating a snarky "haha you you were wrong" quote tweet to somebody making fun of iranian bombardment. she didn't say "your country is being bombed your opinion doesn't matter". it's a tragic situation yes, but tragedy does not render somebody immune from disagreement especially in what is (and i qoute) a "cartoon ship". nor does it make said disagreement harassment. all you have done is snuck in an unsubstantiated claim that the tweet was even about the iranian zutara's suffering at all. a completely useless point of view that can't even be applied universally because it would be frankly insane! please, just use words correctly.

but let’s not talk about the war on iran without some aid:

That does seem a bit like they are prioritizing at the very least their entertainment at the expense of others. And that is harassment. Whether they wanted to bully someone experiencing wartime or simply doesn't care to think of those who ship different things as people we may never know. Because outside of insisting on their self-righteous vendetta against us for liking different characters they've been quite silent.

So.. do let me know if I've missed anything you brought up. Or if I resorted to ad-homs instead of addressing the actual subjects you intended.

“we have no reason to believe their intention was innocent”. lmfao that is not how burden of proof even works? you do understand that for guilt you need evidence. it isn’t normal at all to start off under the presumption of guilt within any rational framework. if i say to you; you’re a racist until you prove otherwise (without anything to base that claim off) it makes 0 sense… you can’t just declare stuff because it “feels right”. all you’re admitting is that you have no substantive to proof her intent of making fun of a war. what a heavy and baseless accusation.

you can’t just arbitrarily add words to definitions; even if it was starting a shipwar for entertainment, that does not equate to harassment. a snarky tweet and a discussion ensuing ≠ continually threatening, harming, intimidating, harming or humiliating a person. let’s even say they were stirring shit for entertainment, that’s annoy at best.

also quite silent about what?? it’s a completely absurd accusation. why would they owe you clarity. who are you to demand justification?anybody whose mum didn’t snort copious amounts of xanax while pregnant would know that. you aren’t the moral arbiter you think you are, all you’ve done is send a very incoherent and meaningless string of sentences.

it is so funny that you guys are accusing op of caring “only about pixels and not real people”, when you yourself are not actually defending any iranians from harm but instead.. using them as rhetorical cudgel to feign moral superiority in a ship war… how odd. is that defintionally even more performative?

also not even to add what an absurd take this is? why are you equating a snarky "haha you you were wrong" quote tweet to somebody making fun of iranian bombardment. she didn't say "your country is being bombed your opinion doesn't matter". it's a tragic situation yes, but tragedy does not render somebody immune from disagreement especially in what is (and i qoute) a "cartoon ship". nor does it make said disagreement harassment. all you have done is snuck in an unsubstantiated claim that the tweet was even about the iranian zutara's suffering at all. a completely useless point of view that can't even be applied universally because it would be frankly insane! please, just use words correctly.

but let’s not talk about the war on iran without some aid:

the tweet you’ve shown me doesn’t matter either tbh. who are you to police somebodies emotional reactions to a fictional and real life genocide? you think you hold this weird moral superiority over when she herself is deeply affected by it? is that not blaming a victim for what she feels… hmmm… sounds a lot like victim blaming right. yeah don’t be weird babe. clearly that care doesn’t equate to giving them the same moral weight, let’s put our thinking caps on.

it is so funny that you guys are accusing op of caring “only about pixels and not real people”, when you yourself are not actually defending any iranians from harm but instead.. using them as rhetorical cudgel to feign moral superiority in a ship war… how odd. is that defintionally even more performative?

also not even to add what an absurd take this is? why are you equating a snarky "haha you you were wrong" quote tweet to somebody making fun of iranian bombardment. she didn't say "your country is being bombed your opinion doesn't matter". it's a tragic situation yes, but tragedy does not render somebody immune from disagreement especially in what is (and i qoute) a "cartoon ship". nor does it make said disagreement harassment. all you have done is snuck in an unsubstantiated claim that the tweet was even about the iranian zutara's suffering at all. a completely useless point of view that can't even be applied universally because it would be frankly insane! please, just use words correctly.

but let’s not talk about the war on iran without some aid:

He was the son of the Triumvir Mark Antony and his second wife Fulvia Flacca Bambula.

He was raised in his father's divorced wife Octavia's household after he was orphaned when his father committed suicide following his defeat at the battle of Actium in 30 BC.

Iullus was to leave for Alexandria along with this elder brother Marcus Antonius Antyllus according to their father's wishes sometime in 34 BC, but for reasons unknown, his stepmother Octavia only sent Antyllus and kept him with her.

Named after Julius Caesar by his father, Iullus married his stepsister Claudia Marcella Major after her divorce from Agrippa in 21 BC. He became praetor in 13 BC, consul in 10 BC and Asian proconsul in 7 BC and was said to be highly regarded by Augustus. He is mentioned by Horace in his own poetry where he speaks of an occasion when Iullus intended to write a higher kind of poetry praising Augustus for his alleged success in Gaul. Iullus was a poet and is credited with having written twelve volumes of poetry on Diomedia sometime before 13 BC, which were destroyed after his death.

Although when it began is unsure, Iullus became a lover of Julia the Elder. Marcus Agrippa died in 12 BC and Julia had been forced to remarry her stepbrother, Tiberius. Julia's marriage to her stepbrother had become a disaster and she was desperate to divorce him. Tiberius had left Rome in 8 BC leaving Julia and her five children by Agrippa, Gaius Caesar, Lucius Caesar, Julia the Younger, Agrippina the Elder, and Agrippa Postumus, in Rome. Julia felt that her children were unprotected and may have approached Iullus to be a protector for her children, especially her two elder sons, Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar, who were Augustus' joint heirs.

Tacitus censures Augustus in “calling, as he did, a vice so habitual among men and women by the awful name of sacrilege and treason, he went far beyond the indulgent spirit of our ancestors, beyond indeed his own legislation.”

In the telling of Cassius Dio:

when [Augustus] at length discovered that his daughter Julia was so dissolute in her conduct as actually to take part in revels and drinking bouts at night in the Forum and on the very rostra, he became exceedingly angry. He had surmised even before this time that she was not leading a straight life but refused to believe it. For those who hold positions of command, it appears, are acquainted with everything else better than with their own affairs; and although their own deeds do not escape the knowledge of their associates, they have no precise information regarding what their associates do. In the present instance, when Augustus learned what was going on, he gave way to a rage so violent that he could not keep the matter to himself but went so far as to communicate it to senate. As a result, Julia was banished to the island of Pandateria, lying off Campania, and her mother Scribonia voluntarily accompanied her. Of the men who had enjoyed her favours, Iullus Antonius, on the ground that his conduct had been prompted by designs upon the monarchy, was put to death along with other prominent persons, while the remainder were banished to islands. And since there was a tribune among them, he was not tried until he had completed his term of office. As a result of this affair many other women, too, were accused of similar behaviour, but the emperor would not entertain all the suits; instead, he set a definite date as a limit and forbade all prying into what had occurred previous to that time. For although in the case of his daughter he would show no mercy, remarking that he would rather have been Phoebe’s father than hers, he nevertheless was disposed to spare the rest. This Phoebe had been a freedwoman of Julia’s and her accomplice and had voluntarily taken her own life before she could be punished. It was for this that Augustus praised her.

Both contemporary and modern historians have suggested Iullus had designs upon the monarchy and wanted to marry Julia before her children Gaius and Lucius came of age possibly to form some sort of regency. Although no substantial evidence was ever provided by Augustus for such a claim. It is possible that she planned to divorce Tiberius and make Iullus Antonius protector of her sons.

The scandal finally broke in 2 BC, Augustus took action on his daughter Julia's alleged promiscuity. Iullus was exposed as her prominent lover. The other men accused of adultery with Julia were exiled but Iullus was not so lucky. He was charged with treason and sentenced to death. He was either executed or according to Velleius Paterculus, died by his own hand rather than be humiliated by execution.

He had at least 3 children with Claudia Marcella, namely Iullus Antonius, Lucius Antonius and Iulla Antonia.

In the heart of Gaza, amidst the chaos of conflict on Tilal al-Hawa Street, our family's journey of displacement began. Our humble home, where generations of memories were woven into its walls—laughter, tears, and dreams—is now a place overshadowed by fear and uncertainty.

As aggression escalated, the once familiar sound of bombs became relentless, shaking the ground beneath our feet and shattering the peace we cherished. Day by day, we clung together, finding strength in our unity amid the turmoil.

With each passing moment, the danger grew, and we faced an impossible decision: to stay and risk our lives, or to flee in search of safety. With heavy hearts, we chose to leave behind everything we held dear, carrying only the essentials as we embarked on a perilous journey through streets strewn with rubble and constant danger.

Now, stripped of our home and the security it provided, we find ourselves in the darkest days of our lives, lacking shelter, stability, and the basic necessities to survive. The reality of our situation is harsh, and we appeal to your kindness and generosity to help us escape the conflict zone, where hope for a decent living feels beyond reach.

Your support would mean the world to us, providing a chance to rebuild our lives away from the conflict's grip and to find a safe haven where we can begin anew. Every contribution, no matter the size, brings us closer to a future where we can once again know peace and stability.

Hence, I humbly appeal to you to help us leave the Gaza Strip. So that we can have a decent living.