For The Record As Well,

For the record as well,

There's a reason why it's Jack who dies instead of Rose (besides the point that she's the protagonist) and that is that Jack is the poor one in their relationship.

The whole thing about the Titanic, both the movie and the actual tragedy, is that it's about class. It's about how higher class people get to live every time while poor people need to beg and fight and play dirty to survive (just like the high class people, with the only difference that poor people are punished for it).

Jack had to die because he represents the poor people in the Titanic, the one who were barred from accessing deck until it was no longer possible, the ones who were treated like dogs being waken in the middle of the night while upper class got the calm polite treatment, the ones who didn't have the right to live.

So yeah, I'm gonna cry on my bed now

For the record.

The reason why Jack does not survive, regardless of wether he could fit or not, is that Jack represents the victims of the Titanic and everything that was lost.

While Rose represents the survivors who somehow made it and got to tell the tale.

In the end, all the survivors of the Titanic lost something that day, which they could never recover. May it be friends, family, lovers or the life they had before, it's something that sunk with the Titanic and they would never recover.

It's the irony that a cold, useless piece of rock survives, but the bright, warm soul full of potential perishes.

I really think someone should tell men that that "hardened woman" they are trying to fuck and are sure have a softer side does have a softer side — just not for him, or one he'd understand as soft anyway

Really, I'm tired of men coming to me saying "oh, I know you're there's melted butter beyond this frozen heart"

Yeah, pal, maybe you should check if I'm fucking interested in being soft to you, asshole

Ugh, I'm just so angry at that

Yeah, I am fucking soft — to my MOM. You don't get privileges, fuck you. Fuck that. Ugh, men

Hello dear friends

My name is Ahmed Khalil from the Gaza Strip. I am a member of a family of eight. Our home was destroyed, and we were forcibly displaced from northern Gaza to the south after orders from Israeli forces.💔🙏

With a heavy heart and a feeling of shame, I am sending you this message from under the bombardment and destruction. The relentless bombing never seems to stop, making Gaza an unsafe place to live.🥺🍉

I ask you to stand by my side and help save me and my family. We urgently need your financial support and help in sharing my posts so that I can secure the basic necessities for my family. Additionally, your donations can help us evacuate to a safe place.🙏🙏🍉

Your small donation and sharing will make a difference and have a significant impact. Please don't hesitate to donate and share.🍉🙏

Thank you for hearing my story.

My campaign is verified by @90_ghsot /@gazavetters

list of vetted fundraisers (#77) so please dont hesitate to donate whatever you can, and please keep sharing.🍉🍉🥹

https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ahmed-khalils-family-evacuate-to-safety

Hey, guys! Please help Ahmed and his family leave Gaza Strip!

Donate what you can or please repost this so it reaches the most people it can.

Thank you <3

gofundme.com

Donate to Help Ahmed Khalil's family evacuate to safety, organized by Mohammed Khalil

Hello, among the hundreds of tragic stories, I am sharing my painful sto… Mohammed Khalil needs your support for Help Ahmed Khalil's family

Love, I'm not sure how you think all your points don't prove mine.

What I'm saying about Gale isn't that he isn't a good revolutionary at all, I'm saying, however, he's not an example to follow. So let's go through all of the points you make, shall we?

"What about the families, Katniss?" meaning, the families of his district. His community, the people he lived with his whole life, you mean.

It's easy to empathize with one's own community, the harder part of revolution is to understand not everyone is oppressed the same and empathize with the ones whose oppression doesn't look like yours. One thing that Gale repeatedly doesn't do.

So, the Nut provides weaponry to the Capital, right? And who produces this weapons? Is it the peacekeepers? Or is it the people of District 2?

The same people, mind you, who had their children thrown into the games despite having fought for the Capital during the Dark Days. The same people who were judged by the Capital as animals despite having more money then them, like with Sejanus. Their oppression is more insidious but it's there, that's why Katniss says that "they have no fight" between them.

Because they are not the real enemy.

Throwing a bomb at them is like killing factory workers for working on producing weapons for the US. Maybe it'd slow them down, maybe it'd cause problems, but at the end of the day, if the Capital had won, those people would be just another casualty of war and proof of the revolution's "barbarian ways".

Not even saying how dumb and disorganized it'd be to just blow the Nut and leave them to starve slowly under there, therefore denying the Revolution's own chance to seize these weapons, of seizing control of the flow of supplies, of seizing control of troops and gathering even more people for their own side. Not even saying what it'd do for the Revolution's propaganda.

Because you know, an organized revolution isn't just about gathering a bunch of people and weapons and attacking, it's also about spreading the revolution's prerogative, it's about convincing the people of their own struggle. Revolution doesn't work if you win but have a whole majority of people who oppose you in the territory you've won. It needs propaganda, it needs to be adhesive.

Otherwise you can win and never get to change anything because the people you claim to represent doesn't support you anymore.

Gale's idea for the Nut could've cost them the war, both strategically and politically, if it was done earlier in the war.

And the Capital? Is it the people in the Capital's own fault they're are systematically oppressed and alienated? Is it the avoxes choice to be slaves for the Capital? Is it their choice to be trapped there, most of them unable to reach District 13, like the Avoxes Katniss and Gale see running in the forest?

Sure, Gale has a lot of love — for people whose oppression he understands. He denies, however, the deep intersectionality that exists in oppression, the complexity of this oppression. And to deny that, is to deny the liberation of classes that also need liberation but don't look like you.

And I refuse to enter the discussion of whose oppression is more pressing. You don't have liberation unless every oppressed people is liberated.

Sure, I'm not saying the people in the Capital or even in the loyalist districts don't have much more privileges than Gale, Katniss, and the other Districts had. But that doesn't make them a free kill zone. I do support violent revolution, what I refuse to support is stupidity.

And do not accuse me of racism because I deny Gale's ability to represent revolutionary hate. I could very well cite Reaper or Thresh as better representatives of revolutionary qualities.

It's not by occasion that District 11 is the one to begin the revolution: all of the characters who represent District 11 exemplify perfectly what should be expected from a true revolutionary. They're compassionate people who understand no oppression looks the same and will NOT fight unless it's absolutely necessary to do so.

When Reaper gathers the bodies of the children who died in the arena, he gathers ALL the bodies, even of the kids from loyalist districts because he knows they're all oppressed. His empathy reaches all oppressed people, not only people whose oppression look like his.

That's revolutionary love. When he defies the Capital after giving the kids some dignity, that's revolutionary hatred.

When Peeta and Katniss want to donate their Victor's prize with Rue and Thresh's family, when all of the tributes from the Quarter Quell join their tables and have lunch together — that's revolutionary love.

When Katniss tells people to turn to the real enemy — that's revolutionary hatred.

When Fidel Castro tells people that the Revolution's use of violence is justified because that's the only language their oppressors understand, he doesn't mean it's fair game to annihilate your enemy. A revolution's ideal isn't to annihilate the enemy — it's liberating the oppressed. Cuba didn't exactly destroyed the US last time I checked for example but they did liberated their own people internally.

That's the crucial difference Gale's ideals and actions don't differentiate between. Armed struggle is more than fine but violence isn't the only tool at disposition and we shouldn't act like it is. Not only because it makes us forget the very purpose of the struggle but also because you don't win a war by only having the biggest army or being more ruthless than your enemy. War is decided by many other factors than this.

Violence for liberation is more than a must. Stupidity isn't, lacking will to empathize with others isn't, lacking of significative and critical strategy isn't, because that's lack of organization. Many of the reasons, for example, why Che left the fight in Congo was because their lack of popular support and internal conflicts between the revolutionary side.

Why do you thinks that is? Because organization comes from various fronts, and there's always other ways to consider how yo fight a revolution. Sides Gales doesn't acknowledges or recognizes.

White or non-white, Gale is a mediocre example of revolutionary so stop presuming things about me regarding my understanding of what I read and start respecting that some people do have both the intelligence and the academic background in both political science, war strategy and racial studies, and can still have a different take on a literary fiction than you do.

I don't appreciate being told what my own values and morals are by people who don't know me and don't seem interested of having a conversation instead of just dumping their frustrations and projections on me.

Gale and Revolutionary Hate

Okay, it's been a while since I last spoke about THG but I'll give it a try because I've been thinking a lot about this matter.

It's been a while since I saw someone on TikTok defending Gale because, if I remember correctly, he was somewhat of a true revolutionary. The person meant that Gale not only believed in the Revolution but also thought violence was justified for it and although I don't disagree with it - I do think violence is justified in the face of oppression - I think this person forgot a crucial part of what is needed in a Revolution: organizing.

When Marx first brought up the idea of hatred as fuel for the Revolution, what he meant wasn't scorching and annihilating the enemies but using the hatred (born out of indignation for our oppression) as motivation to organize. Organization means being able to get together, form a community, and with that be capable of resisting capitalistic oppression.

And that's exactly what is lacking in Gale.

Don't get me wrong, there is a tremendous anti-violence message in Hunger Games - although I attribute it more to the trauma Katniss goes through because of it (which is warranted) than any ideological point Collins could be trying to make. And that message is definitely not one to pass when the motives of the Revolution are fair but anyhow, the point is: message or no message, I still believe Gale isn't a good example of a revolutionary.

That's because Gale, although filled with an appropriate amount of hatred to fuel a Revolution, lacks another essential aspect of a revolutionary, one Che Guevara puts quite well: "The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality."

That's because love is the thing that should be at the core of your hatred. Otherwise, we fall into a trap: in our hatred and need to destroy our enemies, we forget why we're fighting in the first place - the people who are oppressed by this enemy.

So the fact that Gale is willing to go so far as to explode the people out of the mountain on District 2, that he'd bomb the Capital with no care for the people who are there on the side of the revolution but unable to get to the other side of the fight, is what makes him a bad revolutionary.

Because his hatred isn't filled with the notion of community, he sees anyone who doesn't rebel loudly and proudly as an enemy, which simply isn't true. Not everyone will help the Revolution by making a fuss, or by fighting, not everyone can do that. Gale's unwillingness to understand so shows that his hatred isn't founded in any idea of community between the oppressed or love for the people he's a part of but actually is founded in personal offense of the Capital against him and the people he cares about.

Although that's a valid sentiment if your motivations are wrong, so will your actions.

And that's why I think Prim (in the films) and Peeta are the closest thing to a good revolutionary we've got there:

Prim understands there's a reason for violence, which she doesn't partake in not because she thinks it is wrong but simply because it's not her. More than that, Prim's capacity to empathize isn't blurred by her need to survive like Katniss's (understandably so, of course) so she is able to see the people who become collateral damage with kindness and openness that lack in Gale, for example.

Peeta is the same: he understands the necessity of violence but he won't partake in it unless it's the only way (which reminds me of Fidel Castro's quote: "Revolutionaries didn't choose armed struggle as the best path, it's the path the oppressors imposed on the people. And so the people only have two choices: to suffer or to fight"). Peeta chooses to be kind but his violence stems from the hatred this very kindness creates.

So no, I don't think Gale is a good revolutionary regardless of how The Hunger Games was written.

I really like how this is structured by the way lol (:

Okay, let's go through this again because I'll have to draw it out to you, it seems:

First, moral compass and doing things he doesn't agree with because of Katniss or other people? That's not synonym of empathy. Everyone does things they don't specailly want to do, specially in war; everyone has a moral compass and uses it to guide their actions, but moral compasses don't come with empathy attatched to them just for being a moral compass.

Empathy is an exercise, it's a constant effort to not only understand others but also do what's possible to make sure you got it right. And it demands us to deconstruct the very values and points of views we learned since we were kids because we (just like Gale and Katniss) live in a world that weaponizes our needs and puts us against each other in an effort to contain us.

When Katniss has acess to the very people she despises because of the Capital's thinking construction, she is still able to empathize with them. That's not something I can say about Gale's constant mocking and bad-veiled disdain for the people who gave up averything to accompany Katniss in the revolution even amidst their own ignorance, for example, or even his reaction to Peeta being used against Katniss by the Capital (which is one of the worst things he did in regards to lacking empathy btw).

But still, not once I said Gale is evil, I said, using this exact words: he's not a good example of revolutionary. Every step of these texts, I emphasized Gale's character constrution and the deep nuance in it, reason why I really like him, despite most of the fandom, and despite what you, again, projected from my texts. Criticizing a character you like, unlike it might seem to you, is actually a good sign of critical thinking, not that you secretly hate them because the fandom does.

And let's be clear, I don't think Gale is at fault for not having the empathy Katniss had to the people from other districts or even the Capita - he didn't have the chance to, his first encouters with them are in a very different situation than Katniss'. But still doesn't make him less accountable for his own haste in just jumbling all people down to bad-because-"supports"-the-Capital or good-because-is-fighting-on-my-side.

Yes, he was targeting the Nut, as was everyone else, but everyone else wasn't doubling down on the plan of burying the people there alive like he was defending to Katniss. I never said they shouldn't have target the Nut, I said there were better ways to do it than burying people there alive and letting them starve to death because there is nuance and ethics present in a war, even if the enemy doesn't respect it, like the Capital.

(Lol, I just realized re-reading that you didn't READ my reply AT ALL so the next part is just useless bc you didn't understand it on the first time, maybe try to re-read more carefully up there)

Oh, and the seizing thinking being Capital thinking... is basic war strategy something just the "evil side" is allowed to use now? Is seizing supplies something only the enemy does? Are we somehow so morally better that we don't even need supplies to win a revolution now? Don't be naive. If you think armed struggle doesn't come with a lot of morally gray areas and a lot of planning, including how to seize supplies from your enemy and stopping the flow of these same supplies, you're not thinking this through. It's like... the most basic parts of war strategy ever, I fear. And yes, if it's done by the Capital, it'd be a cruelty against the districts. For the revolution, it's just good strategy.

And yes, most of the people I cite are dead (so is Prim, by the way but I guess that doesn't suit your narrative so well right). But, you see, most of the people I cite is dead because (surprise!) this is The Hunger Games and there are like, six original characters alive by the end of the book, if that. It'd be surpring if I didn't cite someone who's dead. But of course, I can't fight the idea of "omg you're criticizing a non-white character I like so you must be a racist" narrative because in your eyes, that just makes me more of a racist, isn't this true?

There's no winning for me here (winning being me proving I'm not a racist because that's not even a possibility for you now) so I refuse to watch you trying so hard to accuse me of being prejudiced just because I happened to criticize the character you like. I made my critic of Gale based on my understanding of the character and the revolutionary values I observe in other revolutionaries. Also, technically, technically, I just watched the films, so the people I have in my head for the characters and whom I used as base to make the first text are all white - thing I've already commented in my Tumblr, btw. I just answered to your commentary on racism because I'm aware that's the case in the books.

But, just curious, do you realise your conditions for me not to be a racist for criticizing Gale just keeps growing randomly to accompany my arguments, right? So the first thing is that they need to be non-white to be a good revolutionary (from a book who is written by a white author, mind you), then I have to pick someone non-white and alive in a book series where 90% of the characters die; then what? They can't be the main character if I think Katniss is a better revolutionary before I'd think of Gale? Which isn't the case, btw, just illustrating.

By your premise, it seems I have to think of Gale as a good revolutionary because he's the only non-white character who (a) defends the Revolution and (b) is alive by the end of the book. That's not a good enough of an argument to make Gale a good revolutionary, darling, it's just grasping at straws. Instead, you maybe should ask yourself why you have to do such hard mental gymnastiscs to defend Gale's lack of organization, critical thinking and lack of empathy with many people who aren't like him. Or maybe you should ask yourself why the only main non-white character who is alive by the end of the book (with the excption of the protagonist, of course) is such a bad example of revolutionary, because that's really not my doing as you may think it is.

Except, it just occurred to me, Prim isn't really white by American standards, is she? She's Katniss full sister so even if she is "white-passing", she's not actually white because her dad isn't white. I hate how Americans see race, it makes absolutely no sense to me, but it's something to also consider.

Besides, neither Reaper nor Thresh are good revolutionaries because they die (I'd say they die because they are good revolutionaries and Suzanne Collins couldn't have that with her anti-war agenda ofc). They are good revolutionaries, though, because they rebel but still manage to be compassionate to people who aren't oppressed the same way they are, like I already said btw. I didn't say they are better revolutionaries because they are "docile" as you seem to imply. They are better revolutionaries to me because their actions and ideals are better based on empathy for everyone and not a black and white way to see the world like Gale express many times, although, I recogize, not all of the times.

They die by condition of the book/film, not my premisse, if they had lived and joined the revolution, I'd be supporting them like I support Katniss for example when she does her part for the revolution, even if forced. But even if I'm not talking hypotheticals, last time I checked, District 11 wasn't decimated, most of them lived and I used them as example as well, thing you also ignored in your rush to pin me down as a racist and defend Gale from a critic that is based on arguments that have nothing to do with his race but his actions instead.

And yes, I can "spill academia" (and right) because that's the kind of thing I study and it's a part of how I see the world. I couldn't dissociate myself from it if I tried, so your anti-intelectualism is not a good argument. It's not even an argument, to begin with: anti-intelectualism is not really cool, neither it is so anti-classist as some people, perharps including you (see how you can manage to start a point on biases without outwardly projecting something on someone?), might think it is.

Academia is a valid source of information, actually it's one of the most realible sources even if it does have its biases. And please, don't try to use the elitism and whiteness of Academia as an argument here. I know, I've studied it, I discuss it every single semester, I activelly participate in initiatives to minimize that and to include more non-white lower-class intelectuals to the syllabus, I've participated in group studies and research groups about it, I've been doing my readings and my part.

So if you're accusing me of racism, you're gonna have to have a better argument than "he's my favorite character and I want to defend him of any criticism because people already hate on him so much" as your whole page seems to be about.

And yes (again), I do agree THG is a terrible representation of revolution as per my humble academic experience (And once again I never said it was a good representation of revolution so, again, stop projecting and implying things about my words that are not there). But that just make my point again, because if the entire book isn't a good representation of revolution, Gale would never be a good representation of revolutionary because the book's very condition of existence doesn't allow him to be so anyway.

Gale and Revolutionary Hate

Okay, it's been a while since I last spoke about THG but I'll give it a try because I've been thinking a lot about this matter.

It's been a while since I saw someone on TikTok defending Gale because, if I remember correctly, he was somewhat of a true revolutionary. The person meant that Gale not only believed in the Revolution but also thought violence was justified for it and although I don't disagree with it - I do think violence is justified in the face of oppression - I think this person forgot a crucial part of what is needed in a Revolution: organizing.

When Marx first brought up the idea of hatred as fuel for the Revolution, what he meant wasn't scorching and annihilating the enemies but using the hatred (born out of indignation for our oppression) as motivation to organize. Organization means being able to get together, form a community, and with that be capable of resisting capitalistic oppression.

And that's exactly what is lacking in Gale.

Don't get me wrong, there is a tremendous anti-violence message in Hunger Games - although I attribute it more to the trauma Katniss goes through because of it (which is warranted) than any ideological point Collins could be trying to make. And that message is definitely not one to pass when the motives of the Revolution are fair but anyhow, the point is: message or no message, I still believe Gale isn't a good example of a revolutionary.

That's because Gale, although filled with an appropriate amount of hatred to fuel a Revolution, lacks another essential aspect of a revolutionary, one Che Guevara puts quite well: "The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality."

That's because love is the thing that should be at the core of your hatred. Otherwise, we fall into a trap: in our hatred and need to destroy our enemies, we forget why we're fighting in the first place - the people who are oppressed by this enemy.

So the fact that Gale is willing to go so far as to explode the people out of the mountain on District 2, that he'd bomb the Capital with no care for the people who are there on the side of the revolution but unable to get to the other side of the fight, is what makes him a bad revolutionary.

Because his hatred isn't filled with the notion of community, he sees anyone who doesn't rebel loudly and proudly as an enemy, which simply isn't true. Not everyone will help the Revolution by making a fuss, or by fighting, not everyone can do that. Gale's unwillingness to understand so shows that his hatred isn't founded in any idea of community between the oppressed or love for the people he's a part of but actually is founded in personal offense of the Capital against him and the people he cares about.

Although that's a valid sentiment if your motivations are wrong, so will your actions.

And that's why I think Prim (in the films) and Peeta are the closest thing to a good revolutionary we've got there:

Prim understands there's a reason for violence, which she doesn't partake in not because she thinks it is wrong but simply because it's not her. More than that, Prim's capacity to empathize isn't blurred by her need to survive like Katniss's (understandably so, of course) so she is able to see the people who become collateral damage with kindness and openness that lack in Gale, for example.

Peeta is the same: he understands the necessity of violence but he won't partake in it unless it's the only way (which reminds me of Fidel Castro's quote: "Revolutionaries didn't choose armed struggle as the best path, it's the path the oppressors imposed on the people. And so the people only have two choices: to suffer or to fight"). Peeta chooses to be kind but his violence stems from the hatred this very kindness creates.

So no, I don't think Gale is a good revolutionary regardless of how The Hunger Games was written.

I really like how this is structured by the way lol (:

Gale and Revolutionary Hate

Okay, it's been a while since I last spoke about THG but I'll give it a try because I've been thinking a lot about this matter.

It's been a while since I saw someone on TikTok defending Gale because, if I remember correctly, he was somewhat of a true revolutionary. The person meant that Gale not only believed in the Revolution but also thought violence was justified for it and although I don't disagree with it - I do think violence is justified in the face of oppression - I think this person forgot a crucial part of what is needed in a Revolution: organizing.

When Marx first brought up the idea of hatred as fuel for the Revolution, what he meant wasn't scorching and annihilating the enemies but using the hatred (born out of indignation for our oppression) as motivation to organize. Organization means being able to get together, form a community, and with that be capable of resisting capitalistic oppression.

And that's exactly what is lacking in Gale.

Don't get me wrong, there is a tremendous anti-violence message in Hunger Games - although I attribute it more to the trauma Katniss goes through because of it (which is warranted) than any ideological point Collins could be trying to make. And that message is definitely not one to pass when the motives of the Revolution are fair but anyhow, the point is: message or no message, I still believe Gale isn't a good example of a revolutionary.

That's because Gale, although filled with an appropriate amount of hatred to fuel a Revolution, lacks another essential aspect of a revolutionary, one Che Guevara puts quite well: "The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality."

That's because love is the thing that should be at the core of your hatred. Otherwise, we fall into a trap: in our hatred and need to destroy our enemies, we forget why we're fighting in the first place - the people who are oppressed by this enemy.

So the fact that Gale is willing to go so far as to explode the people out of the mountain on District 2, that he'd bomb the Capital with no care for the people who are there on the side of the revolution but unable to get to the other side of the fight, is what makes him a bad revolutionary.

Because his hatred isn't filled with the notion of community, he sees anyone who doesn't rebel loudly and proudly as an enemy, which simply isn't true. Not everyone will help the Revolution by making a fuss, or by fighting, not everyone can do that. Gale's unwillingness to understand so shows that his hatred isn't founded in any idea of community between the oppressed or love for the people he's a part of but actually is founded in personal offense of the Capital against him and the people he cares about.

Although that's a valid sentiment if your motivations are wrong, so will your actions.

And that's why I think Prim (in the films) and Peeta are the closest thing to a good revolutionary we've got there:

Prim understands there's a reason for violence, which she doesn't partake in not because she thinks it is wrong but simply because it's not her. More than that, Prim's capacity to empathize isn't blurred by her need to survive like Katniss's (understandably so, of course) so she is able to see the people who become collateral damage with kindness and openness that lack in Gale, for example.

Peeta is the same: he understands the necessity of violence but he won't partake in it unless it's the only way (which reminds me of Fidel Castro's quote: "Revolutionaries didn't choose armed struggle as the best path, it's the path the oppressors imposed on the people. And so the people only have two choices: to suffer or to fight"). Peeta chooses to be kind but his violence stems from the hatred this very kindness creates.

So no, I don't think Gale is a good revolutionary regardless of how The Hunger Games was written.

I really like how this is structured by the way lol (: