ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
When it comes to war matters, I was taught that there will always be innocent causalities. The utopia of a "clean war" in which innocents will be always safe from enemy fire, unfortunately, is very distant and far from our global scenario today. We delude ourselves believing that we live in civilised times, and that our wars today may not always be fair, but they follow rules. But when we hear the news of civilians being targeted as enemies, just because of their ethnicity or nationality, this illusion falls apart. We're not talking about those soldiers with rules and codes that we see in films and series, but about passionate warriors, usually blinded by nationalism and consumed by fear and hate. A good war... isn't.
Therefore, when Israel messes things up like that, it has to come with apologies and explanations. But it also requests for comprehension, for as a country surrounded by detractors, Israel will not just stand by and let Ramas endanger its population. Several people understand this and embrace Israel's cause... and this is what I saw today, just a few hours ago from this essay: a march in Copacabana, in a sunny Sunday afternoon, with Israel sympathisers waving little flags of both Brazil and Israel. The reason for the civic march was "for peace", as some hapless cop who was monitoring the event explained to me. That's what they all told me there: it was a march "for peace". But the more I got into it, the more I realised what it was really about: it was about Israel’s “right to exist”.
I started seeing some posters displaying our Christ the Redeemer about to be bombed, along with the question: “to what extent would you go to defend yourself?” My natural response would be “I would defend myself”, or for a more complex response, I would say that I would eliminate the enemy in the most clean, effective and direct way as possible, and I would make sure new enemies wouldn't appear again by also focusing on what created the original enemy in the first place. However, something I would never answer in a million years is that I would just recklessly blast the enemy away, regardless if innocent people would die. There may always be some collateral damage, no matter how well you lay plans. But one thing is when a fatality happens, and the other is not to even take that in consideration. Now tell me, aren’t these people on their “right to exist” as well? What is the message here? That one has more rights to exist than the other? That one is more valuable than the other?
I didn't notice on the meeting even one Arab-related flag; everybody there was talking about love for Israel, but I saw nothing about uniting the nations in Western Asia. One man there kicked things up some notches by bringing a poster declaring "I’m a Catholic and I love Israel because it is the only country in the Middle East that would allow me to worship Jesus Christ". It's classic ignorance fuelled by prejudice. The people there were trying to convey the message that Israel is the “good guy” from the Middle East. So I realised... those were a bunch of close-minded idiots. They were not talking about peace; they were trying to silence valid criticism with justifications - and to an extend, to say those innocent people caught in the cross fire deserve no sympathies. I had to get out of there fast before I started an argument with those people, before I would do something I would regret dearly. You can't win arguments with stupid people, ever.
Israel’s intention of defending itself from the terrorist group Ramas is justifiable: no-one here is contesting that. What is not justifiable by any stretch of the imagination is the excessive usage of force, to the point the number of civilian causalities far surpass that of enemy causalities. Of course that Ramas - as a disgusting terrorist organisation that it is - sets its bases around populated areas, specially with the intent of using them as human shields. They set themselves close to schools, hospitals, and even ONU posts, that are incapable of doing anything: if they want to stay there and help those people, they have to follow the rules set by Ramas. But still, don't the Israeli Forces take this into consideration before firing the missiles? Don't they take into consideration the very civilian lives at the other side? Would they be as sloppy if such lives were Israeli?
"Oh, but Ramas is targeting Israeli innocents". Ramas is a terrorist organisation with no morals and deserving of no respect. They may be more sophisticated than other terrorist groups, but that doesn't make them less terrorists. Israel, as a country that desires international respect, cannot simply fall to the level of these criminals; they must eliminate them, but without disregarding innocent human lives.
Let me make clear I have nothing against Israel as a nation, and that once again, they are on their right to defend themselves. But when something like that happens, of course there needs to be some international reprehension. And there was. And there has always been: several international artists and entities have boycotted the country throughout the years due to its constant military incidents and policies. And every time, Israel then has to remind it's not committing genocide, but defending itself from a real enemy. What should be criticised is not the intent, but the means.
"Oh, but Ramas is targeting Israeli innocents". Ramas is a terrorist organisation with no morals and deserving of no respect. They may be more sophisticated than other terrorist groups, but that doesn't make them less terrorists. Israel, as a country that desires international respect, cannot simply fall to the level of these criminals; they must eliminate them, but without disregarding innocent human lives.
Let me make clear I have nothing against Israel as a nation, and that once again, they are on their right to defend themselves. But when something like that happens, of course there needs to be some international reprehension. And there was. And there has always been: several international artists and entities have boycotted the country throughout the years due to its constant military incidents and policies. And every time, Israel then has to remind it's not committing genocide, but defending itself from a real enemy. What should be criticised is not the intent, but the means.
Therefore, when Israel messes things up like that, it has to come with apologies and explanations. But it also requests for comprehension, for as a country surrounded by detractors, Israel will not just stand by and let Ramas endanger its population. Several people understand this and embrace Israel's cause... and this is what I saw today, just a few hours ago from this essay: a march in Copacabana, in a sunny Sunday afternoon, with Israel sympathisers waving little flags of both Brazil and Israel. The reason for the civic march was "for peace", as some hapless cop who was monitoring the event explained to me. That's what they all told me there: it was a march "for peace". But the more I got into it, the more I realised what it was really about: it was about Israel’s “right to exist”.
I started seeing some posters displaying our Christ the Redeemer about to be bombed, along with the question: “to what extent would you go to defend yourself?” My natural response would be “I would defend myself”, or for a more complex response, I would say that I would eliminate the enemy in the most clean, effective and direct way as possible, and I would make sure new enemies wouldn't appear again by also focusing on what created the original enemy in the first place. However, something I would never answer in a million years is that I would just recklessly blast the enemy away, regardless if innocent people would die. There may always be some collateral damage, no matter how well you lay plans. But one thing is when a fatality happens, and the other is not to even take that in consideration. Now tell me, aren’t these people on their “right to exist” as well? What is the message here? That one has more rights to exist than the other? That one is more valuable than the other?
I didn't notice on the meeting even one Arab-related flag; everybody there was talking about love for Israel, but I saw nothing about uniting the nations in Western Asia. One man there kicked things up some notches by bringing a poster declaring "I’m a Catholic and I love Israel because it is the only country in the Middle East that would allow me to worship Jesus Christ". It's classic ignorance fuelled by prejudice. The people there were trying to convey the message that Israel is the “good guy” from the Middle East. So I realised... those were a bunch of close-minded idiots. They were not talking about peace; they were trying to silence valid criticism with justifications - and to an extend, to say those innocent people caught in the cross fire deserve no sympathies. I had to get out of there fast before I started an argument with those people, before I would do something I would regret dearly. You can't win arguments with stupid people, ever.
It is true that several of these Arab countries are oppressive against their own people... but then, it's not bombing their innocent population that will right this. In the same way Israel suffers international reprehension for its actions, so should these Arab countries for oppressing their people and imposing belief systems: nobody should be untouchable. So no, I'm not declaring Israel is the only one wrong, for things are much greyer than that. And the central problem in the Middle East is that such different cultures can't coexist in peace, not due to cultural differences, really, but due to a vicious circle of retaliation: one side tosses a stone, the other tosses it back, then there's yet another stone, and it goes on forever. They can't accept to live together in the same country, let alone the same neighbourhood. We're not talking about some bickering football relationship, but a long conflicted history. Such nations won't simply put their wounds aside so easily, and when it seems that some progress is being made, something minimal happens and sets all the dialogue and diplomacy back to zero again.
The people at that parade didn't care for dialogue, really. They didn't care with everlasting peace, which would be achieved with understanding, dialogue and approximation. They don't want to get close to the enemy, they don't want dialogue. They want more distance, which leads to less sympathy and even less mutual understanding. And is the other side equally as guilty of this? Yes, it is. And what can be done? The answer would seem simple: there needs to be a mediator, right? Someone to bridge the sides, to hear them out and to stop all of that blood-spilling. To let things be, just like England and France eventually did. But it's never that easy. Because England and France themselves took centuries to finally - and definitely - get along.
We'll be seeing this in the Middle East unfold for a long time. But I just hope that was the last parade of indifference I saw in my life.
The people at that parade didn't care for dialogue, really. They didn't care with everlasting peace, which would be achieved with understanding, dialogue and approximation. They don't want to get close to the enemy, they don't want dialogue. They want more distance, which leads to less sympathy and even less mutual understanding. And is the other side equally as guilty of this? Yes, it is. And what can be done? The answer would seem simple: there needs to be a mediator, right? Someone to bridge the sides, to hear them out and to stop all of that blood-spilling. To let things be, just like England and France eventually did. But it's never that easy. Because England and France themselves took centuries to finally - and definitely - get along.
We'll be seeing this in the Middle East unfold for a long time. But I just hope that was the last parade of indifference I saw in my life.
The rise and fall of J.K. Rowling
Butch Hartman was once one of the most innovative animators in the United States. Working closely with Nickelodeon, he became known for having a very distinctive visual style, today known as the "Butch Hartman style", and for creating fast-paced, visually hysterical cartoons filled with sometimes vulgar puns and action, thus making him one of the most identifiable figures in American animation. Good old Butch became one of the most notorious auteurs in his craft, amassing fans, and had everything to become the next Genndy Tartakovsky - another giant. But Butch slowly started to change: he published a video on his YouTube channel announcing that he was quitting Nickelodeon, and that he had a "new project" going on. In the announcement, he talked about biblical passages, about how blessed he was for his career, which was strangely unusual for him. Then one day, he revealed that his new project was a streaming platform with "wholesome" content, which apparently failed miserably. He also
The rise and fall of Netflix's The Witcher
Before I dip my toes in the conflicted relationship between Andrzej Sapkowski's The Witcher and Netflix, I would like to talk for a bit about a seemly completely unrelated movie. I know that this may seem out of place and inappropriate, but I promise it is something relevant to the theme I want to bring here. And how it's been an issue in the U.S. entertainment business for the longest time. The Garbage Pail Kids Movie is a 1987 film by Rod Amateau, and released by the Atlantic Releasing Corporation. The film was an adaptation of the collectable cards of the same name, which were a mean spirited parody of the much more wholesome Cabbage Patch Kids toys. It told the story of the titular kids arriving on Earth (because they're aliens now) and raising all kinds of hell, all while helping a pubescent boy to overcome bullying and gain confidence. The film however was savaged by critics, and largely ignored by audiences, grossing little over its budget of a million dollars. What saved it
The rise and fall of H3H3 Productions
Every once in a while, I decide to take a trip down the memory lane. I watch an old movie; play an old video game, see an old cartoon... I indulge myself. And I also watch old YouTube videos. It's a funny feeling to watch such content today, those Let's Play videos in which gamers just wanted to have fun, those early reaction videos. They're nostalgic already, and before you notice, an entire decade has gone by. YouTube has launched the careers of many people - for better or worst. Thanks to its easy accessibility, anyone could become popular, while traditional media is more selective. It's true that, as such, lots of shitheads reached stardom due to YouTube, and the world surely is a slightly worst place with Logan Paul in it. But likewise, a lot of bright minds and brilliant entertainers also made waves in pop culture starting from there. And such is the case of Ethan and Hila Klein, who run the once super popular YouTube channel H3H3 Productions. The couple had an unconventional
The dark side of Barbenheimer
I remember when the whole Doom Eternal/Animal Crossing: New Horizons thing was taking place - I believe most of us do. It was just about everywhere. It was going down hard: in Instagram, in YouTube, in Pinterest, and of course, right here in DeviantArt. It was massive, to the tune even non-gamers were jumping into it - some may very well have done so for profit, without caring much about neither IPs. And while I admit that some good content was made from that, the whole thing grew to the point it became obnoxious. So, I tried not to care about it so much. I minded my own business and carried on, as I usually do. I just patiently waited for it to die down, and it did, like all memes eventually do. But "fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony". So, years later, we have Barbenheimer: the release of Greta Gerwig's Barbie and Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer in the same day, and all the memes that came out from that. A phenomenon so massive it even got its own Wikipedia page - so
© 2014 - 2024 GusCanterbury
Comments0
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In