The Kobold Hideout

I love klezmer.

But as a former band kid, this made me die laughing.

Hey man I think you can do both. Like I appreciate man tits and those are legal p much everywhere, but if I was ogling people or touching folks without permission or clutching my pearls whenever I saw a nip it'd be a different story

It's not so much "do I think boobs are hot and do I enjoy seeing them" so much as it is "do I think it's reasonable that what I personally find hot shouldn't get to dictate how others dress"

All u really got to be careful of is how u support- cause yeah,it may come off as skeevy if u get too excited about it.

But the drum we're beating here isn't "STOP EXPERIENCING FEELINGS", it's "YOUR FEELINGS AREN'T MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY BODY" and "THE HUMAN BODY IS NOT IN ITSELF OBSCENE" and "WOMEN'S BODIES BY THEMSELVES ARE NOT PORNOGRAPHIC"

Picture the LEAST attractive person with breasts you personally can imagine. If your knee-jerk reflex is, "I no longer support that person's right to be topless", that's a Gratification motive paired with a Disgust motive.

The key is to move AWAY from Self-Gratification and Disgust and TOWARDS "Equality".

Self-gratification is something we encourage in our view of women so strongly that it almost becomes invisible- to the point of detriment to BOTH sides, which is what bedrock stone-bottom Feminism exists to address.

Your grandmother should be just as commonplace being topless at the pool as your grandpa. Your sister should be able to take her shirt off when it's scorching out and still be as safe and blasé as your brother. Seeing a mom whip out a tit on the bus to feed her baby should be as commonplace as a milk bottle.

The foundational idea is, "the primary purpose of a woman's body is for women to live, not for others to pick apart for approval".

Spin the wheel. This Greek mythological figure is trying to kill you

Spin the wheel again. This Greek mythological figure is trying to protect you

収穫祭

2015年、長屋門公園。

Posted by House of Common Sense to Facebook on May 23, 2026.

So why does "indigenous vs. colonizer" almost always mean Europeans, and almost never Bantu, Turks, Arabs, Slavs, or Han Chinese?

A few reasons, in descending order of how much they actually explain:

1. Recency and documentation. European expansion happened in the era of the printing press, photography, census records, and treaties.

The Bantu expansion left no paperwork.

The Arab conquests are 1,300 years old and mythologized as religious destiny rather than conquest.

When the receipts exist, the case is easier to make, and Europeans left receipts.

2. The winners wrote the framework. Modern human-rights language, postcolonial theory, and the very category of "indigenous peoples" were built in Western universities after WWII, primarily to process European guilt over European empires.

The tool was designed for one job.

Asking it to evaluate the Arab conquest of Egypt or the Turkic conquest of Anatolia is like asking a tax form to diagnose a disease. It wasn't built for that.

3. Christendom is critique-able; other civilizations aren't.

You can write a bestseller attacking Western Christian civilization from inside a Western university and win awards for it.

Try writing the equivalent book about Arab-Islamic conquest from inside Cairo or Istanbul.

The asymmetry isn't about history. It's about which societies tolerate self-criticism and which punish it.

So the critical literature piles up on one side and barely exists on the other.

4. The Soviet inheritance. Cold War-era anti-colonial framing was deliberately shaped by Moscow to delegitimize the West while giving its own empire and its allies' conquests, a pass.

That framework outlived the USSR and still structures a lot of academic and activist vocabulary today.

5. Race makes it legible. European colonizers usually looked different from the colonized. Turkic conquerors of Anatolia, Arab conquerors of the Levant, and Bantu expansionists in Africa generally didn't look dramatically different from the populations they absorbed.

The visual contrast made European empire easier to narrate as racial, and once a story has a clean visual, it travels.

6. And finally, Jews.

The framework's selective application reaches its most absurd point when a people indigenous to a specific land, with continuous presence, language, religion, and archaeological record tying them to it for three thousand years, get labeled "colonial settlers", while the actual seventh-century conquerors who Arabized the region get labeled "indigenous."

At that point the framework isn't describing reality. It's laundering a conclusion.

I’ve been arguing with someone regarding the latest rumours that the IDF is rigging toys with explosives.

They keep bringing up the 1974 Nabetiah camp, but a preliminary google showed that reporting said the toys were clean and intact rather than dirty like the area they were in.

I’m just curious if you know the history of this claim?

They're conflating two claims and got both of them wrong.

Claim one is based a real event: the Israeli reprisal after the Ma'alot massacre.

On May 15, 1974, three DFLP terrorists crossed into Israel from Lebanon, murdered a family in Ma'alot, then seized a school and took 115 hostages, most of them teenagers. 22 students were killed.

An estimated 27 people were killed and over 100 were injured.

That's the entire 1974 Nabatieh story. Terrorists attacked a school, Israel bombed the bases the attack was launched from. There are no toys in it. Nobody in 1974 alleged toys. The word "toy" appears in no contemporaneous account of that raid.

Claim two is a blood libel that didn't exist yet in 1974.

In 1998, Lebanon's permanent mission to the UN sent the Secretary-General a letter alleging Israel had dropped thousands of booby-trapped toys on Lebanese towns, and it named Nabatieh as one of them. That, in 1998, 24 years later, is where "toys" and "Nabatieh" first show up together an allegation.

Look closely at what that document is, because the people making the allegation never do. It is a Lebanese government submission that got assigned a UN document number, A/53/677, not a UN investigation, finding, or verification of anything. Getting circulated as a General Assembly document means someone filed it. That is the entire bar.

Consequently, the claim gets laundered downstream into "even the UN confirmed it."

The UN confirmed that Lebanon mailed them a letter. The letter also says the toys were dropped by fighter planes, which contradicts the 1990s field reporting that said helicopters. The allegation can't keep its own delivery method straight and dropping toys from jets is aerodynamically impossible.

Someone later took the location from the 1998 libel, stapled it to the date of the real 1974 raid, and out comes the meme your friend is quoting: booby-trapped toys, Nabatieh, 1974. Two unrelated things fused into one fake citation. The 1974 raid had no toys and the 1998 toy claim had no 1974.

The 1998 allegation never had any evidence at all.

In September 2000, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sent the Foreign Affairs Committee a memorandum on landmines in South Lebanon, which the committee then published. Among real hazards like cluster bombs and shells, it lists "even booby trapped toys, allegedly dropped by the Israeli airforce."

The word "allegedly" is the FCO's own hedge. They were not asserting it, just logging an unverified category in passing, in the same memo that elsewhere insists Israel's minefield data still needed independent verification.

Later writers deleted "allegedly" and promoted a hedged line in a government department's memo into a verified British intelligence finding. It was the opposite of verified. Note that this is not even a Foreign Affairs Committee conclusion, which is the way it gets cited. It's a government department answering the committee's mail.

Now your own observation, Anon, which is the sharpest thing in this whole exchange. The toys in the photos and videos making the allegations look clean and intact, not weathered like the bombed ground around them, and the images themselves carry no date, no photographer, and no source.

Set those clean toys against what the allegation actually claims, that aircraft dropped these toys onto Lebanese and Gazan towns.

Objects dropped from a plane or a helicopter onto rubble and left outdoors do not photograph shelf-fresh.

So the claim has to choose - either the toys were dropped, and the pristine ones are props, or the toys are pristine because a hand placed them there, and nothing was dropped from anything. The reply your friend reaches for, that this is just what a planted lure looks like, doesn't save the allegation. It concedes the toys were set down by hand, which means no aircraft dropped anything, which was the entire claim. Clean toys can only decide here which half of this story is the lie - it's one or the other.

(Kudos, by the way - you clocked the forensic problem much faster than the people circulating the images ever did.)

A shred of truth: South Lebanon was/is genuinely saturated with unexploded ordnance that children can mistake for toys.

Cluster bomblets the size of a tennis ball, scattered by the hundreds of thousands, have killed and maimed kids who picked them up. That is real, documented, and a separate tragedy from the claim on the table - because the libel is not "unexploded munitions are dangerous to children." The libel is "Israel manufactures bombs shaped like Snoopy dolls and golden eggs and drops them to lure children to their deaths."

That specific claim, purpose-built toys deployed to target children, has never been forensically verified by a single independent body. Not UNMAS, not the demining NGOs working those exact hills, not Human Rights Watch, not Amnesty.

Even the alleged mechanics don't survive contact. The 1990s versions said the toys were dropped by helicopter, and a UNIFIL officer told AFP the objects could look like a toy "or have the shape of an ordinary stone," but no independent investigator has ever recovered, defused, and documented one of these purpose-built toy-bombs. Hezbollah showed local media a rigged Snoopy doll and some golden eggs. Nobody neutral was ever allowed to examine them.

Palestinian Media Watch says this libel runs on a schedule: poisoned candy, then exploding pens, then toys. Same accusation every season, that Jews engineer products to kill children - and these claims come straight from Fatah and the PLO.

The 2025 Gaza version is the same template. A Facebook post from a Gaza health official, sourced to unnamed police, no photographic evidence, and a viral image that traces back to a 2018 video from Yemen.

A real 1974 airstrike with no toys + a 1998 toy libel with no verification + a meme that grafts the date of one onto the lie of the other = modern blood libel.

You don't need anyone to deny this for it to fall apart:

The date comes from one event, the toys from another.

The letter says fighter planes, the field reports said helicopters.

The photos have no date, no source, no chain of custody and show neat, clean toys.

The claim can't agree with itself about when it happened, who dropped it, or how.

If you want to push back, ask which it is: 1974 or 1998, planes or helicopters, and where is a single dated, sourced photograph of one of these toys.

They won't have an answer, because the claim was never built to survive questions. It was built to be forwarded, retweeted, and reposted without thinking.

That, Anon, is an important difference between you and the person you're arguing with - you can think - and you asked questions.

Don't even try signing up for Artfight if you're Jewish. I posted something totally unpolitical on their Discord where I got the star in my handle and promptly got banned for genocide denial. I didn't post anything political on that server, my Art Fight profile, and nothing "discriminatory or hateful" anywhere else.

I'm not doing nuance as an option. If you feel nuance, pick the one that best suits your feelings and explain in the *comments* so we can all see it. Please reblog so I can get enough data. Thank you!

You've probably seen people online spouting nonsense like "Israel killed most of its own people on October 7th. The Hannibal Directive proves it. Hamas didn't do the massacre - Israel did."

Let's go over what the Hannibal Directive actually was, its status on 10/7/23, and how stories about it have been dishonestly spun.

The Hannibal Directive was issued in 1986. Here's what it actually said:

"א. בזמן מחטף הופכת המשימה העיקרית חילוץ חיילינו מידי החוטפים גם במחיר של פגיעה או פציעת חיילינו. ב. במידה ויזוהו החוטפים והחטופים ולא נענו לקריאות לעצור, יש לבצע ירי נק"ל (נשק קל), על מנת להוריד את החוטפים לקרקע, או לעצור אותם. ג. אם לא עצר הרכב או החוטפים, יש לירות לעברם ירי נשק קל בבודדת, במכוון, על מנת לפגוע בחוטפים גם אם המשמעות פגיעה בחיילינו."

"A. During an abduction, the main mission becomes rescuing our soldiers from the captors, even at the cost of harming or injuring our own soldiers. B. If the captors and captives are identified and do not heed calls to stop, use small arms fire to bring down the captors or halt them. C. If the vehicle or captors do not stop, use aimed small arms fire to hit the captors, even if that means harming our own soldiers."

This isn't particularly controversial in principle. A captured soldier becomes a massive piece of political leverage, a tool for extortion, and a severe threat to national security - and accepting the risk of injuring your own people during a rescue attempt is a standard, tragic reality of combat. The underlying logic is standard across professional militaries.

Note that the directive as written applied specifically to soldiers. That distinction matters when we get to October 7.

From its inception, the directive was controversial within Israel. Some commanders refused to pass it down, as they were permitted to do under the Spirit of the IDF booklet. In 2011, Chief of Staff Benny Gantz clarified that the directive did not authorize deliberately shooting a captured soldier - it aimed to stop terrorists from escaping with them, not to kill the hostage. The directive was revised several times, with legal reviews consistently recommending every effort be made to avoid harming soldiers who were hostages.

In 2016, Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot officially cancelled it.

It was long gone on 10/7/23.

A Haaretz investigation, though, identified three specific instances where local commanders invoked a Hannibal-style order at points along the Gaza border: at the Erez crossing, the Re'im army base, and the Nahal Oz outpost.

The orders were primarily aimed at striking the gaps in the border fence and vehicles moving back into Gaza to stop the mass transfer of hostages. Because Hamas was taking civilian hostages, not soldiers -local commanders were adapting a soldier-focused doctrine on the fly, in chaos, without official authorization. That context matters for understanding what actually happened.

So what does the evidence actually confirm?

The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry confirmed at least 14 Israelis likely killed by IDF forces. The Be'eri incident (where a tank commander ordered fire on a house holding hostages, killing 13 of 14) is the most documented single case.

These deaths are real, they are serious, and the officers responsible should face accountability - that's the only acceptable reaction to a friendly fire incident.

At no point has any investigation found that the IDF deliberately targeted Israeli civilians.

Every documented IDF-caused death on October 7 occurred in the context of combat decisions made to stop Hamas from dragging hostages back into Gaza. These decisions were chaotic, unauthorized, and in some cases probably a bad call. A commander who orders fire on a vehicle he believes contains Hamas fighters and accidentally kills Israelis in the process has made a bad decision, but he has not committed a premeditated massacre of his own people.

There is no evidence -NONE WHATSOEVER - that the IDF identified Israeli civilians and chose to kill them. This claim exists solely to launder the responsibility of Hamas (and others from Gaza) for the atrocities visited upon Israeli civilians on 10/7/23.

The total October 7 death toll was approximately 1,200 Israelis. That number is documented and forensically verified. The 14+ deaths caused accidentally by the IDF are worth investigating and accountability should be sought- but they are not an alternative explanation for the massacre.

That's how Hamas supporters spun it.

In July 2024, when Haaretz published an investigation into Hannibal-style orders at those three military sites on October 7, this was journalism. Israeli reporters, using IDF documents and soldier testimony, holding their own military accountable for specific decisions made in specific locations.

The article did not claim Israel caused most of the deaths. It did not claim Hamas was innocent. It reported on a real institutional failure at the Erez crossing, Re'im base, and Nahal Oz outpost.

Within two weeks, that article had been shared over 16,000 times on X, almost entirely by accounts using it to argue that Israel, not Hamas, was responsible for the October 7 massacre.

Hamas supporters have elevated this sort of dishonesty to an art form: they take legitimate accountability journalism, remove every qualifier, delete the specific scope, and present it as proof of something the article explicitly does not claim and try to make the IDF responsible for the crimes committed by Hamas and other Gazans.

The people doing this aren't engaging with the Haaretz investigation. They're borrowing its brand as a prop to make the absurd allegation seem credible. It isn't - and anyone who actually read the article knows that.

The claim that Israel killed its own people on October 7 isn't a good-faith misreading of a complicated story. It's a conspiracy theory.

It takes a documented atrocity with 1,200 named victims, forensic evidence, and survivor testimony, and replaces it with a fairy tale where the Jews did it to themselves.

That's not skepticism. That's not "asking questions."

The people spreading this libel aren't engaging with the Haaretz story or the UN or any of the investigations they pretend to cite without having read them. They're using the language of accountability journalism to run interference for a massacre.

~6,000 people including Hamas, other militant groups, and Gazan civilians burned families alive, took 251 hostages, and committed widespread torture and sexual violence on October 7. That happened. The Hannibal Directive didn't make it happen. Israel didn't make it happen. Hamas made it happen.

They filmed themselves doing it, they livestreamed it, they called their families to brag about it, they celebrated it in Gaza, their leaders praised it and promised to repeat it. They want the credit for their massacre.