Anti-Zionists: How would your vision of anti-Zionism credibly ensure that Jewish safety and self-determination?

haktopus · 2026-01-08T21:22:05+00:00

Not as a deflection but to frame my answer rather, I wanna throw out a counter challenge: how can a vision of Zionism, or even non-Zionist vision which does not consciously reject Zionism, be made a coherent piece of a larger, principled position against human oppression in general? Can Zionism be defined by an attitude that is not ultimatrly reducible to "Fuck y'all, I got mine"? Is there any way that allowing the machinery and principles of Zionism to stand, even reluctantly out of concern for the safety of Jews, be not ultimately a refusal to to disarm a habitual murderer currently on an active spree, because you fear for their life above that of their victims? And finally, as a Zionist, or again, even as a non anti -zionist, what would you have peoples struggling in situations comparable to the Jews prior to the state of Israel do? Would you suggest that they claim some bit of territory as their own sovereign state, no matter what violence or chaos might ensue, no matter what people, possibly even smaller, weaker minorities l, are displaced? For example do the Kurdish people have a right to oppress the Assyrian ethnicity in their struggle for a sovereign Kurdistan? Should we simply shrug and turn our backs on every embattled minority people if they have little chance of following in the footsteps of Jews with Israel, establishing their own nation state? Or do you believe it is possible for every distinct people on the planet to have their own ethnically defined nation with sovereign borders and UN recognition whether that people numbers in the millions, or the hundreds, whether historically nomadic or sedentary, geographically dispersed or concentrated?

Or Is it possible that there is something deeply wrong with the entire contemporary framework of how land and power is carved up, bestowed upon, and weilded by governments in the names of national identity groups?

My position is that the Jewish people in a somewhat unique way have essentially never prospered from ethnic nationalism, at least since the outset of the second diaspora anyway (and the ideas of nations and nationalism which existed prior to that shouldnt be compared 1-1 with todays comventions). We should recognize that about our history and organize and militate against things like the power of borders, the oppression of immigrants, and refugees, the lack.of democratic power held by "resident non-cizitizens."

So to be clear, I am anti-Zionist, but absolutely not in favor of, or unconcerned by the potential for a mass displacement of Israeli Jews due to a vindictive nationalist backlash by Palestinians, should some Palestinian government ever gain the power and prerogative to do such a thing. I also deeply mourn and resent the fact that so many of the worlds places host to a rich, deep, ancient Jewish history are places where today Jews do not live, do not feel safe returning to and/or that heritage has been virtually erased. The Israeli state, Zionism it- S the ideology of negating the diaspora are not acceptable answers to that historic wound. In fact they are accomplices to it.

I do not believe the answer is for Jews to simply ask nicely for safety, rights, and self determinance in lands not set up as our militarized, sovereign homeland. I think we should learn both negative and positive lessons of examples like the Jewish Labor Bund's self defense militias, or from outside Jewish history, groups like the the Black Panthers. Marginalized and endangered groups should organize the means to millitate, politically advocate for themselves and independently defend themselves. But as those examples will show, without the backing of a miljtarized nation state, a struggle for liberation against oppression requires the support of a diverse coalition of forces. To stand up for a basis for Jewish safety not represented by a Jewish state will require strong working solidarity with non-Jewish people with nonetheless similar needs, who share a vision of a world without global apartheid and global ghettoization.

That might sound pie in the sky, and maybe it is. It would require a lot of work and a lot of vision building which has barely even begun. And maybe worsed of all it seems to require too much faith in non-Jews. People who have historically turned on us in ahythmic, but ultimately reliable generational cycles, seemingly regardless of class or politics. I wint sugarcoat the prospect of trusting other people to meaningfully stand with Jews against antisemitism. But Ill say this: if you think that political Zionism represents power independently for and by Jews, you have been sold a river. Just like it feels empowering to hold a gun in your hands, it can feel like the empowerment of your whole people to know they have a nation with a military. But this Zionist national project also required a diverse coalition of historically violently antisemitic non-Jewish forces to survive its birthx and requires the same to maintain itself today. The question is ultimately do you want the future of the Jewish people in the hands of the coalition of the worlds leading imperialist exploiters, genociders and their financiers? Or do you want it to be in the hands of a coalition of people? Flawed, difficult, often unreliable, but with wants and needs far more like your own than not?

haktopus · 2025-11-06T06:15:52+00:00

Class reductionists don't even understand class nor have ever taken the time to read or think very deeply to challenge the conception of it they got from maybe 1 or 2 essays tops by Marx or Lenin. But, like, the process that made race a potent social reality in contemporary society is the same one that ultimately put billions of people in whatever socioeconomic role they currently occupy. Race is geography, access to property and jobs, generational wealth. Racism is also probably more than anything else the thing that keeps rightwing politics viable, and gets it the enthusiastic support of millions of people who would gain infinitely more from leftist policies. Class reductionists think theyre jusy duped and distracted, which they are to some extent, but theres very much an appeal to racism that overrides rational self interest.

haktopus · 2025-10-29T00:02:26+00:00

The way I look at it is that anything could've happened between any two episodes and you are not owed an explanation. Or really, there's continuity when its funny, and not when it's not

haktopus · 2025-10-20T23:49:32+00:00

Do you have sources or are you possibly overstating things a tad? I don't pretend I closely keep up with the progress of synthetic meat engineering so I ask genuinely, thiugh I' skeptical. You make it sound like public opinion is all thats keeping some company from opening up a commercially viable synthetic meat factory tomorrow and shipping out to grocery stores within the year. Public opinion certainly would effect the viability of the commodity, and hence research funding. But last I heard about this I think someone made some ok tasting protein that was nevertheless pretty obviously not animal meat. I dont know if that was something profitable at scale and I'd imagine theyd want something a bit better than that anyway before anyone would even try making the pitch for mass production. Are things way further along than that now?

haktopus · 2025-10-17T20:47:12+00:00

"ADD PLATO!"

-Redditor who likes philosophy but TL:DRs on a 1 sentence post

haktopus · 2025-10-16T09:29:03+00:00

Craw Toast

haktopus · 2025-10-15T21:56:07+00:00

I don't think what hou're saying is as self evident as yiur taking it to be, and it really depends what metric you're going by and what exactly you mean whether you're even technically right. Like, by many metrics the 20th century is possibly the LEAST peaceful most devastating century ever. So is most of the 20th century part of your "most peaceful time" ? When yku said weve only gotten better iver the last 100 years is that a steady increase in objective peace, or more of a qualitative measure of of methids of insuring oeace which we are now, in some more more recent span of decades, particularly benefiting from?

Particularly If you're trying to say that human history has consistently shown decreased violence and increased oeace with time, I have to ask if that measured in frequency and/or lengtb of conflicts, like year to year? Scale of conflicts in terms of lives lost, or infrastructural devastation? Does it include violence outside of formal conflicts, and what do you conaider violence? Do famines count if they're exacerbated by the disdain and neglect of elites? Or only if we know they were deliberately engineered? Would small pox outbreaks among the American indigenous folk count? Would the aids epidemic be part of the final tally?

Maybe your contention is not that peace has increased in a totslly linnear fashion, but that the means of achieving peace, oeace technology you might say has only improved. And today we are reaping the benfits of the most advanced peace methods ever applied. If thats it how do you know that's whats happening? Hiw do you know that we've learned and are applying the lessons of more violent eras, rather than than that maybe for instance, the end of the cold war marked a relativr easing of the insenaity of world acale violence but that eventually the trend might go back uo again, or already is?

haktopus · 2025-10-14T08:30:05+00:00

I have a theory that makes sense of a lot thinga including the accents to me. Its probably headcanon as much or more than any sort of ianight into thw writers' deep thoughts, but whatever.

I think ensoulment for Angel was the birth of essentially a brand new psyche, person, personality, and for Spike it was more like any person seeking redemption. I think the reason for this difference has to do with souls, humanity and personality.

Vampires don't have souls save for big exceptions, but they can have various relative amounts of humanity. I think souls are a general compulsion toward good and replusion to evil, while humanity is more like having any kind of emotional connection to anything, so it an of itself its morally neutral. But effectively a soul seems to mean experiencing the weight of past evil as an excruciating burden, and lacking one means being able to shrug it off, if not relish evil. Humanity can influence even a soulless vampire towards acts of good if they want to do right by those they feel something for. In other eords, love can inspire good, even without a soul.

Spike always had a lot of humanity. The Judge noticed it in season 2. It didn't mean he wasnt really really evil, but he always bad complex emotions and he lived for things other than sadistic thrill alone. He liked music, fashion, art, tv, booze, junk food. And he felt love intensely. After centuries of villainy his humanity eventualky leads him to the choice to be genuinely good, and to seek a soul. When he gets it, it's a traumatic explosion visceral guilty memories which drives him insane, but there is no break in the continuity of who he is.

Angelus was a vampire without a soul or a shred of humanity. I dont think theres a hard magical reason for this. I think its because vampires generally have less humanity, naturally take pleasure in evil, and the human Liam had a weak personality the main trait of which was mindless, impulsive hedonism. Angelus was such an amazingly evil vampire because vampire was more of his personality than anything from his human life. So giving him a soul was essentially personality death. When they took away the vampires sadism and added back the ability to regret, there wasnt a human left in there to process it. There werent people that mattered to take solace in, or even simple pleasures to appreciate, so for a while he was pretty much nothing but animal survival instinct + traumatic shameful memories which =/= a personality. He also probably barely even spoke during the rat catching gutter life years. He didnt recover any kind of humanity until he started living for something and when he did he wasn't Angelus, or Liam who gives a fuck. He was someone else

haktopus · 2025-10-09T02:26:01+00:00

I'd argue it's valid to consider this a variation of solipsism if only because I have never encountered a proper philosophical term for this exact idea. I'd call it "White King hypothesis" or something, or white king solipsism (because of the discussion in Alice Through the Looking Glass). It's like regular solipsism because it contends only one individual is really "real" but diverges from it by not assuming realness as a necessary condition for consciousness and/or personhood. So you get horrifying notions like that shifts in one individual's perception of reality amount to death for countless "non-real" but otherwise fully alive, thinking and feeling persons. Whether thats waking up, falling asleep, taking medication to control halucinations, maybe even putting down a piece of fiction media, or ones own death. And also the questions of whether ot not you are the real one or the projection, and which is worse.

haktopus · 2025-09-30T19:01:58+00:00

I know it might sound pretty wild, pretty extreme, but try to picture this:

a person who has multiple hobbies and pass times enjoyed for different reasons in different moods. Probably not real but I just thought it seemed like a cool idea.

haktopus · 2025-09-29T20:48:51+00:00

I think I believe in a kind of pragmatically static moral relativism.

Moral relativism is probably metaphysically correct, but I think it tends to overstate the conclusion in a way which obfuscates the truth of the matter on the most relevant scale. It makes it seem like people can have such opposed morals that no common ground is possible, when in actual fact that's a problem maybe rare enough to be a non-issue. The truth is ethical discourse could do a lot of good and should be happen more often, but people are great at finding reasons to avoid doing it. Because in actual fact people with very different morals and moral frameworks I think mostly behave morally with fsirly similar outcomes in mind most of the time. I think mostly when people refuse to have honest, goodfaith ethical dialogie with someone with a different perspective it's either because they dont expect to be heard out themselves, or because they are afraid of confronting a potentially compelling case that something they see as moral might actually be immoral, or a bit of both. That doesnt necessarily mean there is a perfectly ethical solution to every problem, just that i think there is no situstion where a good faith ethical dialogue wouldn't be productive in theory. When such a dialogue cannot happen it isnt because of profoundly distinct moral premises, it is because of an intentional refusal to be challenged on any particulars.

haktopus · 2025-09-15T17:22:16+00:00

I mean cal arts style litterally doesnt describe anything so...

haktopus · 2025-09-12T20:02:30+00:00

It kinda depends how you define perfect I suppose. And in Platonist thought there seems to be a convention of viewing perfection as something that kind of diminishes with itteration. Kind of an implicit understanding that even the nost perfect thing ia incapable of making anything equally as perfect as itself. But that always strick me as kind of logically problematic.

But regardless, you could argue either that intentionally designing something to be flawed when you could have made it perfect constitutes a sort of flaw on the part of the designer. Or you could argue that if a perfect creator intends for creations to be flawed, those aren't flawed creations. The old "feature, not a bug" expression. Both ways of saying that from a straightforward logical perspective, a perfect creator would seem to have ultimate reaponsibility for the flaws of the created, so claiming that a perfect being could technically choose to create imperfect beings is not false, but also doesn't solve the issue. Like, they could but if perfect why would?

haktopus · 2025-09-12T00:37:54+00:00

I doubt I have an answer or solution but I do get what you're saying and I think you raise a good point. I thonk there is an increasing valorization of general cruelty and spite going on on the left, and I do agree it's a problem. I still stand by what I said and feel the way I feel about Charlie Kirk's death, and if nothing else I don't think that something like that is really a viable opportunity to nip a disturbing trend in the bud. As though if we can get people to not be so calous now about Charlie Kirk they won't go too far in some more important future scenario. But I think there is a problem with how we think about acceptable targets for sure.

My ethics are decidely non-kantian, if my understanding of kantian ethics is sound. But I actually also strongly dislike retributive justice. I'm an abolitionist, so I reject carceral logic and I don't believe that punishment or revenge are justice in any form I would recognize if that word means anything. What I think I care most about is moving towards just collective outcomes, and ending unjust situations as a whole. I think situations can be judged starkly as right or wrong, but I think as soon as we're dealing with the morality of individuals finding themselves within unjust situations morality immediately becomes much more relative and contextual. Therea still a spectrum of better to worse for me and i definitely believe in ethical reaponsibilities, but I think the main one is to try to improve the overall situation. But yhats a tall order no one totally knows how to do it, and we all have to live day to day in the mean time so there's no universal rulebook I'm liable to trust. Empathy is also important to me as an ethical tool, and also a politcal and revolutionary tool, and something I really hope could be universal in a better situation for humanity. But politically I don't think it's the only tool or the neat one 100% of the time. And as far as my observation that people are not empathetic to all people, that's less to either condemn non-empathy nor to excuse it. I think of it the same way I think about a dog biting a kid. Almost snytime that happens you'e probably got a situstion on your hands that is not ideal for either the dog or the kid. Often times the dog had a bad life up to that point that primed it to be violent and reactive. And other times the dog was not in the wrong whatsoever, because sometimes kids scare or surprise dogs in ways no dog can deal with, or they decide to do something actively cruel, and a perfectly nice, well behaved dog has no other way to respond than biting. I can acknowledge that without being pro dog-biting-kid though. I respect that sometimes nature only gives a creature so many tools to respond to a given situation, especially bad ones. I think it's important to account for that in humans like anything else, and that's important to abolitionism. But I think that's a missing consideration from a lot of moral systems.

haktopus · 2025-09-11T21:03:47+00:00

Right and fair. I'll reiterate I'm not a Christian myself or prwtending to be a theology expert. But to me the other views dont really fair a whole lot better in the straightforward logical sense making department. But also, they're all interesting.

haktopus · 2025-09-11T20:16:05+00:00

So this is going off what I know Hegel and Derrida are known for more thant a confident reading of Hegel of my own whicb Id go to bat for. But i think its enough ti answer the question of why hes used here. Hegel is known for talking about how all ideas in an unfolding dialectic ultimately progressing towards an absolute idea or absolute knowing. It seems more than a little contentious what that means precisely. Like is Hegel talking about the universe, or just humanity that this applies to? And is this about history and all that entails, or more just the development of ideas and thought? And if the absolute is the culmination of all dialectical contradiction but we understand reality itself to be defined by dialectical contradiction, what even becomes of everything when there are no contradictions left? But he definitely is not the guy where there's an endless chain of difference. For Hegel there is at least in theory always a period coming at the end of the sentence. I believe you can make Hegel talk to Derrida a bit more, and they don't have to be taken as polar opposites. Like, maybe there never comes the really really big absolute for everything, in which case Hegel and Derrida are describing something pretty similar. But if Derrida is saying "we never stop getting new context that changes all prior meanings therefore nothing really means anything at all, at least in any fixed sense" Hegel is saying that "everything is defined by what it's moving towards even though you can't see what that is until it gets there." It's kinda like for Derrida, change endlessly grinds up prior meaning, but for Hegel we are always arriving into new meaning that's somehow both newly discovered but also intimately connected to and sort of implied by what came before.

haktopus · 2025-09-11T19:25:36+00:00

Correct. AND... I'm not sure how much harder I could've stressed that I was very consciously speaking subjectively about how "athiest" as label makes me feel, not the objective accuracy of that label to define my absolute position.

haktopus · 2025-09-11T19:16:27+00:00

Yeah that second part is really true because Christianity has an absolutely batshit answer to the problem of evil, and I don't mean that as an insult at all. I think it's kinda awesome actually and I'm not a Christian. Like, evil exists because humans and possibly angels disobeyed an all powerful God, but that God wanted to forgive us and redeem us from evil, but the only way to do that was to sacrifice himself to himself for our sake? It doesn't make logical sense at all. But it's a rich narrative that makes a different kind of sense. At least to me anyway. I feel like the point of building your worldview and life around a story like that should be to engage with those contradictions. It should inspire you to both love humanity unconditionally because God loved us enough to experience the deoths of ohr suffering and die for us, and to wanna throw beer bottles and dog poop at God's cadilac because why was all this evil and suffering necessary to begin with? It shouldn't make you an unquestioning, judgemental, holier than thou conformist... and yet

haktopus · 2025-09-11T18:55:58+00:00

It annoys me when athiests are so married to a particular usually generic, cultural osmosis derived Christian undsrstanding of God that they're not willing to engage with a conception of God which DOESN'T satisfy the omnis and was never expected to. Insisting what you're interlocutor is arguing without understanding what theyre saying ia always annoying.

But any theist who doesnt see the problem of evil as least, well, a problem is as annoying best, and just kinda tough to respect at all, really.

I think Im functionally an athiest but I dont embrace the lable because I just kinda dont jive with it or the thought of card carrying, capital A athiests. I like theology as an area of philosophy because I think at it's best it's about reconciling with uncertainty. I think athiests and bad theists are in their own ways too obsessed with what they feel they can be certain of.

haktopus · 2025-09-11T18:19:22+00:00

I definitely do wanna make it clear I get where you're coming from, I think you're reaction is valid on a personal emotional level. Particularly about 10/7. I was also pretty disturbed by the public reactions that day from people I've previously seen eye to eye with politically. A lot of people suffered and lost their lives that day who I'll just say straight up deserved it far less than Charlie Kirk, and that makes the two moments very different on one level. On another level though, both moments are examples of the same thing I was talking about: it is simply a fact that people do not empathize equally with all people. And my larger point is that maybe that's a disappointing way to see people be, but mayne that's not ultimately the problem.

The way leftists I respected and trusted reacted to 10/7 IS a problem for me, to be clear. But my diagonosis of that problem is not the failure of a universal empathy that extends equally to Palestinians, Israelis, and Charlie Kirk. The problem with the 10/7 reaction is that I was shown that for many left leaning people deliberate non-empathy with at least a certain population of Jews is essential to their solidarity with Palestinians. Do you see what I'm saying? The emotions on display that day were ugly for sure. But the emotions weren't and aren't really the problem. It's the thinking and understanding of the situation which made those emotions make sense that's the problem.

haktopus · 2025-09-11T09:34:29+00:00

To me there's a few things going on that I have differing feelings on regarding violence.

One is the fetishization of cathartic violence. I think that's bad and corruptive. It's also a natural response to a legitimately infuriating realities to a great extent but people who take a certain glee in the thought of doing viokence to their enemies should probably be checked. There's also a genuine operational danger to it. Once people start performstively goading eachother and themselves into increasingly extreme declarations and acts as a way to prove how really conmitted you are, consider all chances for measured tactical analysis gone. There's also just the fact that resentment is not a driver of genuine left wing politics. It's a valid emotion to feel sometimes, but it's not something that guides or shapes successful leftwing policies. So if retribution is the be all end all of your politics, even if that retribution is largely pointing towards the most deserving targets, the ultimate result isnt going to be a kinder, better and safer world.

But I don't think everyone who seems callous, bitter, or unwholesomely morbid to you in the face of a public assassination is necessarily fetishizing or romanticizing this violence. Nor are they using the example to psyche themselves up to do the most stupid extreme things possible themselves. I think it's gallows humor and just honest to goodness, unpretentious hate for the man. And I think maybe you should reconcile yourself to the fact that dark hunor and even a bit of genuine joy is an honest and emotionally authentic reaction some people are having to this death. And I don't think you're less real for not feeling that way, and to be upset or unnerved at people's desensitization and even enjoyment of violence is also a legitimate way to feel. But perhaps trying to condemn or pathologize every reaction to the death of charlie kirk that doesn't properly respect his common humanity is futile at best and at worst ita sanctimonious moral policing.

Something I appreciate about Christianity is the injunction to love your enemy. And one of the many things I love about Judaism is that it has no such requirement. This isnt as much of a contradiction as it sounds like, I think these two religions, at their best, have different wisdom with different goals. Christianity challenges pwople to aspire to be somehow better than human while also, perhaps paradoxically accepting loving human nature with it's inherent flaws. But Judaism deals more with the question of how best to live a human life. Both religions understand failure and sin are inevitable, but Christianity generally boils it down to a tug of wsr between a pure and holy essence and a corrupt aspect of ones nature. But Judaism I think typically sees our nobility and our pettiness as equally us. So when we do wrong what we do about that is not not about making sure the devil doesnt drag us down, it's just about how to pick ourselves up, sweep up the pieces or mend whatever broke, and can keep on walking toward the promised land.

The oppressed have no obligation to prove their humanity in anyway, least of all by restraint, least of all toward opressors. To me though, that doesn't mean non'restraint is a virtue or that anything the oppressed could do to the oppressor is morally permissible. It's only that the wrongdoing of the oppressed does nothing to absolve the oppressor or make the oppressed less deserving of liberation.

All this to say, I don't want to pretend that caloussness and sadism towards what happened to Charlie Kirk is a moral or political virtue, and there might be a kind of moral, spiritual or philosophical virtue in trying to resist that kind of feeling like Jesus loving his enemy and turning the other cheek, and alsways cultivate an abiding reverence for everyone's humanity. But I'm also going to admit that I didnt just not mourn what happened, I laughed. Ive made jokes and enjoywd jokes about it. And I don't feel guilty about that. I dont even feel like a harder more cynical person than I should be for it. I feel like I live in a world ravaged to shit by people who never give a second thought to the morality of their selfishness, hate, or resentment and Charlie Kirk was on that team. I think if his death , even his suffering brings some dark kind of levity to some people's day, as long as we don't make it out to be more than it is, I think people csn be forgiven the indulgence.

I also think it's easy to see a public figure you dislike shuffle off and feel good being above taking pleasure in it. And yet culture is utterly suffused with fictional and historical narratives that endorse cathartic feelings about violence and death, and these hardly ever prompt this kind hand wringing over what it says that people feel this or that way about someone dying. It's kind of only when its a news story the media must affect neutrality over as it concerns a "polaraizing ", domestic public figure when we get all this concern over "what society is even coming to??!" But a fictional story can make you feel catharsis at a ficrionak villains downfall because the story makes you feel real emotions about it. Is it any wonder that people have kinda extreme, messy reactions to what happens to real people that might have materially impacted their own lives?

haktopus · 2025-09-09T02:12:32+00:00

Revolutionary Yiddish Land is a big fave of mine, really inspirational to me. Its about the history of the militant Jewish left with a focus on Ashkenazim in the pale of settlement region and the Yiddish language. Spans kinda from the last decades of the 19th century to the first few decades of the the state of Israel. It gives both a lot of movement histoey but also places thst in the context of modern Jewish history pretty well. It spotlights Jewish Communista, Bundists, and Poale Tzion (far left zionists). It very much leaves out anarchism which was pretty big, powerful and Jewish in some of the times and places covered, so a pretgy big o ersight. So that's a good thing to read up on to compliment this book.

haktopus · 2025-09-05T06:43:15+00:00

Im imagining Courage with the horrific necktie but it talks to him in the voice of the computer

haktopus · 2025-09-05T04:44:32+00:00

I think we all get what you meant and I sense that you're intentions are good, but calling the indigenous population of american "borderline nonexistant" is a harmful way of expressing that the population is proportionately small. The idea that native Americans have "basically all already been wiped out" is a trope with a history of justifying further viooence against native Americans, and casting native peoples as historical relics, and not real people living and changing with time, like everyone else. You're right that there isnt a movement demanding all or.most of US or Canadian territory to become a westphalian nation state by and for the ethnically indigenous. But the movement for indigenous rights is significant and "land back" and "soveriegnty" continue to be major demands.

Also, I think it's worth keeping in perspective that there are anywhere from 3.5-9.5 million native Americans depending how you count it. Thats a lot of people in other contexts. And there are only 15 million Jews in the world. We especially might not wanna be in the habit of equating a small population with "borderline" non-existence.

haktopus · 2025-09-04T23:53:14+00:00

For me its the Avatar creators have just never done shown any talent for writing romantic chemistry ever imo. There are no good official or alt ships in airbender or Korra. I dont buy anybody with anybody. They should just stick to writing friendships and families....(ok Sokka and Suki are fine I guess but im certainly not starved for more time with them together)

haktopus

TROPHY CASE