[ SECRET POST #3762 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3762 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 57 secrets from Secret Submission Post #538.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I think there's still a difference with how you're characterizing it. It's not like she thinks those are good things to do detached from anyone else. She's not out there actively cheering for blood in itself. It feels to me like you're erasing the distinction between "necessary evil" and "actively good". Unless she's explictly said "I think killing Palestinian kids is actively good in and of itself and should be pursued as a policy end regardless of what else we do".

I know it may seem pedantic but I just feel like it's better to be clear about the moral argument. If she's all right with ethnic cleansing, say she's alright with ethnic cleansing. If she's in support of the settlements, say she's in support of the settlements. Those are both pretty fucking serious arguments in themselves so it just bugs me to get rid of the context.

[soldatsasha]

Yeah, it's pretty disingenuous to say she's explicitly said something, without backing it up.

It's totally possible to support Israel in general, while condemning many of the actions they've taken. Saying "I support our troops!" doesn't mean "I support our troops murdering children!"

(I don't support either side, ftr. I think they're both pieces of shit at this point.)

[(Anonymous)]

i remember there was a lot of backlash when she posted a picture of her praying for the lives of idf soldiers or something like that. idk... we wouldn't condemn an american actor for doing that, so i don't really see why we should be angry at gal gadot. she did serve in the idf, but she had the most pogue job a person can have. i'm just sick of discourse on gal gadot because it inevitably looks something like this:

person a: gal gadot is a terrible human being who, like, literally strangles palestinian children with her own bare hands
person b: no!!! she is a woc and the most progressive choice possible for this role!!!! no criticism allowed!!!!!!

tbh i think we should ban any conversation about her on the internet. nobody's mature enough to handle it.

[soldatsasha]

idk about that. There's plenty of people who would condemn anyone for praying for soldiers. Maybe you don't remember Democrat online discussions from the Bush years?

Gal Gadot discussion always turns into a shitshow, but it's not just her. Anytime Israel-Palestine comes up it instantly devolves into this. People fucking LOVE to coopt it and turn it into a symbol of their own political beliefs, either with Palestine as the innocent victims being gunned down by the Israeli-American machine of war, OR with Israel as the innocent party beset by antisemitism and the Legions of Evil.


Unfortunately the internet will never stop wanking about stupid shit. Best to ignore it if you can.

[(Anonymous)]

People fucking LOVE to coopt it and turn it into a symbol of their own political beliefs,

It's good to keep in mind that people do this with literally every single political issue; Israel-Palestine is just a particularly polarized, vicious example.

(I mean that as a sincere "keep in mind" not a Tumblr-sarcasm "keep in mind")(I think it's really easy to forget how central this process is to most political discourse in contemporary society)