#Ed Schmitt

[nade2308]

Sir, please

@thethistlegirl

[darshanan-blog]

Ordinary Angels - Movie Review

Directed by Jon Gunn from a script by Kelly Fremon Craig and Meg Tilly, the film “Ordinary Angels” focuses on real life story where the town of Louisville rallied around 4 year old Michelle Schmitt (Emily Michell) to help get her a liver transplant during a raging blizzard in January of 1994. LIttle Michelle who once came to be known as “snow baby of Louisville” may have just remained an ordinary…

[titleknown]

So, while I've talked about this in other posts, I figured I may as well compile it in one post with this nifty propaganda poster (more on that later)

Long story short, they're bringing back KOSA/the Kids Online Safety Act in the US Senate, and they're going to mark it up next Thursday as of the time of this post (4/23/2023).

If you don’t know, long story short KOSA is a bill that’s ostensibly one of those “Protect the Children” bills, but what it’s actually going to do is more or less require you to scan your fucking face every time you want to go on a website; or give away similarly privacy-violating information like your drivers’ license or credit card info. 

Either that or force them to censor anything that could even remotely be considered not “kid friendly.” Not to mention fundies are openly saying they’re gonna use this to hurt trans kids. Which is, uh, real fucking bad. 

As per usual, I urge you to contact your congresscritters, and especially those on the Commerce Committee, who'll likely be the ones marking it up.

Those senators are:

Maria Cantwell, Washington, Chair

Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota

Brian Schatz, Hawaii

Ed Markey, Massachusetts

Gary Peters, Michigan

Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin

Tammy Duckworth, Illinois

Jon Tester, Montana

Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona

Jacky Rosen, Nevada

Ben Ray Luján, New Mexico

John Hickenlooper, Colorado

Raphael Warnock, Georgia

Peter Welch, Vermont

Ted Cruz, Texas, Ranking Member

John Thune, South Dakota

Roger Wicker, Mississippi

Deb Fischer, Nebraska

Jerry Moran, Kansas

Dan Sullivan, Alaska

Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee

Todd Young, Indiana

Ted Budd, North Carolina

Eric Schmitt, Missouri

J.D. Vance, Ohio

Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia

Cynthia Lummis, Wyoming

Again, it doesn't work unless you do it en-masse, so make sure to call ASAP and tell them to kill this bill, and if they actually want a bill to allow/get sites to protect kids, the Federal Fair Access To Banking Act would be far better.

Also, this poster is officially, for the sake of spreading it, under a CC0 license. Feel free to spread it, remix it, add links to the bottom, edit it to be about the other bad internet bills they're pushing, use it as a meme format, do what you will but for gods' sake get the word out!

Also, shoutout to @o-hybridity for coming up with the slogan for the poster, couldn't have done it without 'em!

[sixstepsaway]

i've had some thoughts bouncing around for a while about ofmd s2, and in light of the news, i'm going to brain dump some of them. if you don't feel like listening to me complain about HBO and would rather just go cry about OFMD not getting season 3, that's chill, go ahead, no hard feelings

so.

season 1 was absolutely the definition of lightning in a bottle. it had great acting, great writing, gorgeous set and costume design, it was great, and not only that but it was unabashedly queer

jim had a whole episode dedicated to "actually i'm not a woman i'm just jim" and then everyone - even the bad guys, even the antagonists, even their nun nana, everyone - referred to them as they/them after that, no questions asked

the main character went through an arc that was basically figuring out his sexuality and going "oh shit, i love a man" on a show that was not directly advertised as "OUR QUEER MEANS DEATH" like a, y'know, Queer Show would be

and stede and ed's romance felt like it was important. It felt like the pirates of it all was mostly incidental, background, filler, just fun to pad out the situation and give them things to be challenged by (the badmintons!) while also being fun on its own. it's the kind of show where if you pulled all the characters out and slapped them into a whole other situation like space agents or time travellers or everyone lives together in a loft runs a bakery... it'd still work. sure, the badmintons would be less murderous and run a competing bakery or something, but it'd still work, because the focus was on the characters, and on the romance between stede and ed

the first three episodes of season 3 felt that way too. the love between stede and ed was paramount and if you swapped to a mafia au or a bakery au it'd still work (with some gentle adjustments for ed's Behavior™ to be fair)

but.

season 1, they kept saying it was a rom com, and it felt like one. it was just a rom com that was set at sea! how fun!

now, rom coms have tropes. they have genre-specific things that you kind of expect from, well, a rom com. you expect mess. you expect things like ed fucking off with jack because he doesn't feel good enough

(i've recently been rewatching new girl and although some of the humor makes me cringe, it's still a great show, and one of the main things about it is that everyone is messy. no matter how much schmitt loves cece, he's going to make mistakes. no matter how obviously nick and jess are going to end up together and belong together, they're going to sleep with the wrong people, make mistakes, break up etc. it's as much a rom com as ofmd.

one of the things that makes new girl so good and makes me love the main couples so much is how hard they work to be together, how they fight adversity and the mess of their own flaws and toxicity and still get together because they love each other most, in the end)

i remember in s1 thinking how if stede had been a woman, jack would have been too, and ed would've had at least one romantic/sexual scene with jack when he ran away with him

but i also remember thinking, "yeah, but the show hadn't explicitly done the his name is ed reveal and the kiss on the beach yet, and the reveal hits so hard, it makes sense not to do that earlier", and tbh i stand by that

which brings me to s2, after the first three eps, where they tried to go back to rom com and it just felt... forced.

rom coms usually have adversity. they have other characters that directly and truly threaten the main pairing by being interesting to those characters! no matter how you feel about izzy, he was framed as a love interest or as an ex that was still complicated, but the show very much tiptoed around that

does "i have love for you" and "i loved you best i could" make sense for the characters? yeah.

do i feel like if ed was a woman, she and izzy would've had a messy rebound relationship for stede to have to contend with, for the two of them to come out the other side of wanting each other from? yeah.

ofmd s1 felt unabashedly queer. s2 felt like they didn't want to be too gay.

they put olu with a Woman™, they put jim with a woman almost like it was less queer and more acceptable this way than queering olu, they completely waved off olu and jim's relationship and dropped any concept of polyamory because that would've made it even queerer, not less queer

(i'm using queer here as a definition more of breaking boundaries and being outside of the norm to the extent it makes cishets deeply uncomfortable and the queer in question aren't conforming to society's standards. and this reading of s2 (and s1) is entirely subjective, it's just what's been bubbling here for me)

pete and lucius went from "we don't own each other" to marriage, with no footnotes of what marriage meant to them specifically, whether they were, in fact, conforming with the 'norm' of marriage (exclusivity, labels, definitions etc) or whether they were still chill about these things or whether this now meant no more penis drawings

the queerest episode was probably the party episode (which was so good), but even that was especially queer because some cast members fought to make it so (con wanting izzy's drag to be beautiful not funny has HAUNTED ME, because that means it was originally supposed to be played for laughs!!) not because it was that way naturally

the fact i read somewhere that the party and the drag was originally lupete's wedding makes so much more sense to me because yeah, they WOULD have a wedding like that, but instead they got a lame final episode wedding because it would have been way too queer to do it at calypso's birthday with drag and queer joy everywhere

it also would have been more realistic to the lucius and pete we got in season 1.

there were a lot of things in season 2 that felt... weird. we've talked about it. we have all talked about it.

the final episode, even outside of the thing i hated most, was just horribly written imo. there's big sweeping gestures and no kind of real emotional pay off for the main relationships (lupete included), and everything got tied with a neat little bow at the end

i remember when we were told s2 was 8 episodes and how much the budget had been chopped thinking, "ha, we're so not getting a season 3"

i remember when i realized how weirdly rewritten most of season 2 had been thinking, "yeah, there's not going to be a season 3"

i remember when bitching about ed's arc being totally truncated and handwaved thinking, "mm, we're not getting a season 3"

and i remember when the Revenge sailed off into the sunset with everyone but ed and stede on board thinking, "oh yeah, we're done."

just enough was left open that a season 3 could happen.

just enough was left open that if a miracle happened, there'd be something to do with season 3.

but i genuinely, 100%, hand on my heart, think djenks knew he wasn't getting a season 3

and don't get me wrong, i'm not absolving him of the poor writing choices he made in season 2, but i am saying it makes a lot more sense if you think of it from the perspective of corporate meddling and having everything taken away while he was actively trying to make season 2

we already know HBO cut the budget a ridiculous amount so they just had to make everything work with what they had. we already know HBO cut the episode number.

season 2 plays out like they prepped a good chunk of it, ready for 10 episodes, and then HBO cut the budget and cut the episodes

and so things had to be changed and chopped about. ed's arc got lots of screen time and focus for three episodes (before the cuts) and then things got quicker, and fast

characters were cut for time and for budget reasons.

and then i think towards the end of production and the end of writing, djenks learned the odds of season 3 were minimal at best, and he panicked

i think the original plan was probably for ed's arc to go for the majority of season 2. maybe a middle piece where he and stede tried but it still wasn't Right (last night was a mistake) because ed had so much to work on and so much to heal

i genuinely wonder if the finale was completely rewritten at the last minute because to me it makes way, way more sense from a narrative standpoint for things to have been more staggered out. let's consider ten episodes instead of 8:

episodes 1-5: same as they were when aired, including the gravy basket giving us set-up for what ed's dealing with internally, giving us something to latch onto and prepare for his redemption. NO KISS AT THE END OF EPISODE 5. episode 6: ed is still wearing the bell. he's sort of done his amends with lucius, but now he needs to do amends with the rest of the ship. stede is still learning his piratey ways, so there's hijinks in the background. jim and archie and olu try to decide what their relationship is after the garlic and all, and debate room arrangements. lucius and pete announce their engagement. stede and ed nearly kiss. episode 7: more ed redemption arc. he's still working at things, he's shying away from violence because violence is what took him down this dark path to begin with. maybe we get some discussion of his father. stede, blind to ed's flaws, insists he's nothing like his father! ed tries to make amends with izzy but somehow this is the hardest of all because he hurt him the most of all. izzy gets chance to apologize for what he now sees as his part in pushing ed down into the darkness (trying to drag blackbeard back) and izzy's apology makes ed feel worse somehow and gives him some absolution when he finally figures out how to return his own. ed kisses stede but says he wants to take it slow. episode 8: wedding episode!! calypso's birthday!! ed uses his loot to bankroll lupete's wedding. stede reacts with violence to ned and we know from everything before that ed is actively trying to distance himself from the violence of piracy because, yeah, of course he is. is it a good idea? nope. does it make sense to his character for him to still be putting a good chunk of the blame on piracy for his actions, rather than accepting the parts of his whole and learning how to regulate those parts healthily? yes. anyway, stede reacts to his own violence by clutching for ed, ed feels after like his boundaries were pushed. same as show. episode 9: ed is having a meltdown. he and izzy have started to heal, so izzy watching him stare at fishing boats and just chatting to him like nothing happened actually makes a lick of sense. lupete are on their honeymoon at jackie's. olu gets to hook back up with zheng and archie and jim want to go along because they're not super happy on the ship still because although ed is doing better, the past of what he does still hangs over everyone. olu, zheng, jim and archie do not discuss the poly of it all properly, and it's hilarious and a mess, and gives us something to look forward to handling in season 3. ed freaks out about stede being violent when he's the one thing he felt like wasn't violent (and thus safe for him to be with), and about taking it not at all slow, breaks things off and runs away. izzy gets stede to come back to the ship. stede gets into a fight with zheng, the bombs go off, whatever (not a fan of this for her sake but if it has to happen, it can happen) episode 10: ed is off fishing but it's not going well and he's pissing pop-pop off all the time because he's not good at fishing. stede and co are handling the ricky of it all. the episode is mostly the same at the start, but instead of ed immediately going "omg, i gotta save bae" he doesn't find out about the attack until right at the end of the episode. stede and co make it back to the revenge and escape safely, and when ed retrieves his leathers and returns he thinks they're dead! he threatens/tortures/whatever some english and they say no, stede escaped! they all escaped! the season ends with ed, all decked out in his leathers, with his sword, now in the position stede was last season: staring out over the water, planning to find the man he loves.

this sets season 3 up for ed to be on his own for a little while, for him to handle and figure out how to channel his violence into something 'good' (wanting to find his love, wanting to protect his crew etc).

maybe season 3 flashes back to baby!ed again and the fact his first act of violence against his father wasn't motivated by anger or spite, it was motivated by wanting to protect someone he loved: his mum.

then season 3 they find each other again, and maybe they meet in the moonlight for the parallel to hit even better, they finally get back together properly, for good, with maybe some comedic issues along the way, and ed finds his place in the world to be less "blackbeard, the terror of the seas" and more "ed protects those he loves."

i honestly think this is probably how the show was originally meant to go, or at least something close.

i think midway through season 2, djenks heard it was over and he (rightfully) panicked and threw together a finale that tied up as many loose ends as he could because he knew.

and i dont think there's anything that could've been done about it. i think it was dead in the water (no pun intended) the moment all the MAX/HBO/whatever reshuffles happened, I think it was too queer and I genuinely think executive meddling made a lot of the more queer elements go away, possibly right down to trying to wipe away the exes/love interests of it all with that whole father figure thing

and, again, i'm not absolving djenks of some of his more baffling writing decisions. he's a grown man and he makes his own choices. but i am saying i think it explains a LOT about why the finale we got is what we got, and i'm not sorry stede and ed ended the show together rather than apart or with their lives hanging in the balance or something

anyway these are just a bunch of thoughts i've been having, tied together by the cancellation.

[ballata]

In Gioventù impariamo.

In vecchiaia capiamo

Non ce piu un Altare ( della patria) ma una sacrestia di politici impazziti per trovare collocamento dai ministeri un giù. La tradizione è morta. Tradizione non è la conservazione di una memoria ma la trasmissione di un eredità. I troppo tradizionalisti fanno danni diventando ideologhi legati al passato che se decontestualizzato è fuori sede. La tradizione quando è statica non serve a nulla, muore, ed invece dovrebbe essere trasmessa come un eredità per essere perpetrata. Se non si muove la tradizione muta in egocentrismo e la sua rappresentazione estetica sarà solo il narcisismo.

C'è una formula per riassumere il disagio di una civiltà. Ed è la crisi dei valori. Una formula in verità generica che racconta "la caduta degli dei". Contro i "valori" insorsero Heidegger e Schmitt che la ritenevano una bestemmia, poiché al Valore si addice un Prezzo, dunque i Valori sviliscono anziché nobilitare l'uomo. In realtà non sono i Valori a cadere ma il terreno su cui si fondano, su cui crescono. Insomma è la mancanza di educazione civica, humus fertile dove nasce la morale, quella che sta venendo meno...

[gregor-samsung]

“ L'umanità in quanto tale non può condurre nessuna guerra, poiché essa non ha nemici, quanto meno non su questo pianeta. Il concetto di umanità esclude quello di nemico, poiché anche il nemico non cessa di essere uomo e in ciò non vi è nessuna differenza specifica. Che poi vengano condotte guerre in nome dell'umanità non contrasta con questa semplice verità, ma ha solo un significato politico particolarmente intenso. Se uno Stato combatte il suo nemico politico in nome dell'umanità, la sua non è una guerra dell'umanità, ma una guerra per la quale un determinato Stato cerca di impadronirsi, contro il suo avversario, di un concetto universale per potersi identificare con esso (a spese del suo nemico), allo stesso modo come si possono utilizzare a torto i concetti di pace, giustizia, progresso, civiltà, per rivendicarli a sé e sottrarli al nemico. L'umanità è uno strumento particolarmente idoneo alle espansioni imperialistiche ed è, nella sua forma etico-umanitaria, un veicolo specifico dell'imperialismo economico. A questo proposito vale, pur con una modifica necessaria, una massima di Proudhon: chi parla di umanità, vuol trarvi in inganno. Proclamare il concetto di umanità, richiamarsi all'umanità, monopolizzare questa parola: tutto ciò potrebbe manifestare soltanto — visto che non si possono impiegare termini del genere senza conseguenze di un certo tipo — la terribile pretesa che al nemico va tolta la qualità di uomo, che esso dev'essere dichiarato hors-la-loi e hors-l'humanité e quindi che la guerra dev'essere portata fino all'estrema inumanità. Ma al di fuori di questa utilizzazione altamente politica del termine non politico di umanità, non vi sono guerre dell'umanità come tale. L'umanità non è un concetto politico e ad essa non corrisponde nessuna unità o comunità politica e nessuno status. “

Carl Schmitt, Le categorie del ‘politico’, saggi di teoria politica a cura di Gianfranco Miglio e di Pierangelo Schiera, Il Mulino (Collezione di testi e di studi / Scienza politica), Bologna 1972; pp. 139-140. (Corsivi dell’autore)

Nota: il volume raccoglie una serie di testi tratti da opere di Carl Schmitt pubblicate fra il 1922 e il 1963 dall'editore Duncker & Humblot, di Berlino.

[aew-kun-age-regression]

-Slasher/Horror Masterslist-

(Anything horror or of the spooky genre including kid friendly spooky movies such as Ghostbusters, Monster High, ect)

Moodboards

Caregiver!Stu Macher & Billy Loomis (Scream)

Caregiver!Egon Spengler (Ghostbusters)

Caregiver!Michael Myers (Halloween)

Caregiver!Thomas Sharpe (Crimson Peak)

Caregiver!Stu Macher & Billy Loomis (Scream)

Regressor!Jason Voorhees (Friday 13th)

Caregiver!Laurie Strode (Halloween)

Little Shop of Horrors Themed StimBoard

Caregiver!Ed & Lorraine Warren (The Conjuring)

FNAF StimBoard (Five Nights At Freddie's)

Caregiver!Michael Myers StimBoard (Halloween)

Caregiver!Stu Macher & Billy Loomis StimBoard (Scream)

Caregiver!Danny Torrance (Doctor Sleep)

Regressor!Stu Macher (Scream)

Caregiver!William Afton (FNAF Movie)

Luke Nightingale (Daniel Isn't Real)

Beetlejuice Moodboard

Regressor!Danny Torrance (Doctor Sleep)

Regressor!Tatum Riley (Scream)

Caregiver!Ellen Ripley (Alien)

Caregiver!Jason Voorhees (Friday the 13th)

Caregiver!The Creature StimBoard (Lisa Frankenstein)

Caregiver!Danny Torrance StimBoard (Dr Sleep)

Caregiver!Michael Myers (Halloween)

Regressor!Billy The Puppet (Saw)

Caregiver!Egon Spengler (Ghostbusters)

Caregiver!Thin Man (Little Nightmares)

Regressor!Heather Donahue (The Blair Witch Project)

Caregiver!Egon Spengler StimBoard (Ghostbusters)

Caregiver!Ellen Ripley StimBoard (Alien)

Story/Fanfics

Headcannons

Caregiver!Michael Myers Headcannons (Halloween)

Caregiver!Slenderman Headcannons (Creepy pasta)

Core 4 Classification Headcannons (Scream 5 & 6)

Caregiver!Danny Torrance Headcannons (Doctor Sleep)

Caregiver!Ellen Ripley Headcannons (Alien)

Caregiver!Egon Spengler Headcannons (Ghostbusters)

Playlists

Art

DNI Banner

Stu Macher (Scream)

Danny Torrance (Dr Sleep)

Foxy (Five Nights At Freddie's)

Mike Schmitt (FNAF Movie)

Joey & The Creature (Abigail & Lisa Frankenstein)

Michael Myers (Halloween)

Ellen Ripley (Alien)

Ethan Landry & Chad Meeks-Martin (Scream)

Thin Man (Little Nightmares)

Ghostbusters

Paci Icon

Mindy Meeks Martin (Scream 5 & 6)

Ethan Landry (Scream 6)

Tatum Riley (Scream)

Tara Carpenter (Scream 5 & 6)

Joseph Oda (Evil Within)

Joey & Sammy (Abigail)

Lisa Swallows (Lisa Frankenstein)

Taffy (Lisa Frankenstein)

Billy Loomis + Stu Macher (Scream)

The Creature (Lisa Frankenstein)

Edward Scissorhands

Ghoulia Yelps (Monster High)

Amanda Young (Saw)

[surfingkaliyuga]

I guess I made it as blog, I’m a cited source. Reading a random paper about the Greek influence on the German propaganda and seeing my original url was unexpected but nice. The second citation comes from a German book about Corneliu Codreanu. I couldn’t find a proper PDF, so the actual screenshot comes from the Romanian edition. Both sources:

Brzostowski Z.I., Greckie echa w propagandowej ikonografii III Rzeszy Niemieckiej – płaskorzeźby z Budowa koło Złocieńca autorstwa Willego Mellera. In Bogna Łakomska (Ed.) Kultura materialna i jej symboliczne aspekty, pp. 72-87, Gdańsk 2019

Schmitt O.J., Capitan Codreanu: Aufstieg und Fall des rumänischen Faschistenführers, Hamburg 2016

[cattyanon]

OKAY. Finally the post with my thoughts on the FNaF movie.

First, non-spoiler thoughts: AUGH I LOVED IT!!! SO MANY THINGS THAT SURPRISED ME AND A FEW THAT MADE ME GO "IS THAT A REFERENCE???"

Anyways moving onto spoiler territory below the read more!

Hooooo boy how to start... I guess I'll just take it from the top.

That intro scene was really neat! Loved the thing with the mask as a reference to getting stuffed in a suit. Then of course there's the actual 8-bit intro which was *chef's kiss* and a quote-able moment.

Me, watching the kids get lured away: *dramatically* NO KIDS DON'T DO IT. DON'T TRUST HIM. NO YOU FOOL!! D:

It's not the exact stuff I said but that's the gist of it. :P

Anyways moving onto our boy Mike Schmitt... He totally went overboard with punching the guy. Like damn, just detain him.

Then there's his dau- I MEAN SISTER Abby because uh. Who was expecting that reveal? Very much caught me off guard and did me a confusion. Also autism solidarity~!

Okay, what next... The getting of a new job I suppose. One thing I wanna point out here that my mom actually noticed later on was that the guy giving the job looked like what would later be revealed as William Afton (maybe I should double check this fact but whatever). But her genius of connecting dots doesn't stop there!

So you know how the guy cuts himself off when saying Mike's full name upon getting to the last name? And how it was revealed William Afton kidnapped his little brother? Well my mom made the connection that the reason he cut himself off is cause he recognized the last name! Anyways I thought that was a really neat catch by my mom so I had to share! <3

Moving onto him actually getting the job, I first wanna say that the the restaurant looked soooooo cool! And the mini jumpscare with Balloon Boy was quite a surprise, and then followed by Mike turning it around? Hilarious. AND THEN THEY DO A SECOND TIME LATER. If it wasn't clear I found this very funny. And the first time it happened I was like "FAIR. I'd do that too."

Now the police woman being Vanessa was definitely a surprise! Tbh I haven't played or watched Security Breach cause one day I wanna play it myself so um. For future reference i'm not familiar with the lore of that game since I've actually done a really good job at avoiding any major spoilers.

As a quick side note, the quote of me saying "SOMEONE'S GONNA DIE~" happened when those idiots broke in to sabotage Mike. And since this slightly dipped into spoiler territory I didn't mention the fact a made a few variations of that. Things like "SOMEONE'S ABOUT TO DIE~" and "SOMEONE HAS DIED~".

Now for that actual sequence. First thing I wanna say is LOVED IT. Assholes kinda deserved it, although I did say stuff like "ya know, maybe you should get out of there...? That would probably be a good idea." knowing they were probably all gonna die anyways. And Bonnie in the closet? AWESOME REFERENCE TO FNAF 1. As for the final quotes for this section of the movie, it was during when the lady/final survivor was shown on screen. The moment I saw her I was like "YOU SHOULD REALLY GET OUT OF THERE." followed a few seconds later by me saying "oop- too late." once stuff happened since once the animatronics acknowledge you it seems like you're pretty much screwed unless you get lucky

Then Mike brought his d- sister Abby to the pizzaria I was like "DONT DO THAT" before shortly afterwards realizing that the animatronics weren't actually very likely to hurt her since she's a kid and not an adult. For a second I questioned this when she screamed but of course it's then revealed they were just tickling her. And speaking of that...

THE ANIMATRONICS INTERACTING WITH ABBY WAS AMAZING AND SWEET AND I AWW-ED MULTIPLE TIMES. It was also really cool to watch them move around. Like that and the scene where Bonnie fell over and then gave a thumbs up when asked if okay totally slayed me. And everyone in the fort just laying on the ground? That was adorable! Also that marionette/baby looking- hey wait a sec could that be a reference to Markiplier's FNaF 2 playthrough??- animatronic was so neat! At first I questioned if it was supposed to be the marionette but upon further inspection I was "yeah that probably is."

And then Mike ends up pissing the ghost kids off...

Poor guy gets torn apart in the dream world which we previously learned reflects onto his body in the real world. That was a big "oh shit" moment because I didn't consider that Vanessa would be there. And then, rightfully so, Mike grills her about how she knows everything she's told him so far and to my anger KEEPS DEFLECTING WITH THE SAME DAMN ANSWERS.

But eventually it's revealed thAT WILLIAM AFTON IS HER FATHER AND THAT'S HOW SHE KNOWS SO MUCH. I don't know if this is general knowledge from Security Breach that I avoided but DAMN did that catch both me and my mom by surprise! My mom even had a neat theory (albeit wrong) on why she knew so much which was that maybe Vanessa had been given to the ghost children/animatronics in an exchange in the past like how they wanted Abby, except that time it worked out. Which, again, was wrong, but I thought it was a really neat theory!

When Golden Freddy went to pick Abby up at first I was like "Freddy?? No, I'm pretty sure he doesn't look like that" but then the ghost kids represening Golden Freddy appears and it's like "YOOOOO GOLDEN FREDDY?! DANG HE LOOKS DIFFERENT."

I also wanna point out that I think it's neat how when he dropped off Abby and she looks behind her once at the entrance it reveals Golden Freddy is gone since he's always been one of the most ghostly animatronics.

And then shit goes down on a rescue mission for Abby...

Mike spilling the water to taser them was genius! For a moment I thought he was gonna get them to slip and fall first but hey. End result was the same. Then he saves Abby from Chica but UH OH they forgot about the cupcake! And to be fair, so did we. Although around that point I was like "I swear there's an animatronic I'm forgetting about..." which turned out to be Foxy which was a very "OH SHIT" moment since Foxy is by far the most lethal of the animatronics considering not only does he have a hook but he can run.

Then there's confrontation with William Afton!!! Man that was so cool!!!!!

Another "OH SHIT" moment was when he stabbed Vanessa/his own daughter. I was thinking to myself that "well she might survive!!! maybe!!!!!???" and then of course it's revealed later that she did survive but is in coma...

But anyways, back to the showdown, I loved how absolutely insane Afton was. It shocked me when he made the animatronics do what he wanted considering that he killed them but then it turns out he was manipulating them!!! D: Then it was Abby and her art skills to the rescue!

I thought it was dumb how instead of Afton being like "What, noooo, i didn't do that!" he was like "I CREATED YOU SO YOU OBEY ME." which of course didn't work out. And even if he had gone with playing dumb I think they still would've fucked Afton up anyways cuz it's clear they love and trust Abby. Then the animatronics attack and I'm sitting there going "SPRINGLOCK FAILURE, SPRINGLOCK FAILURE" and then right after that woopsie doopsie springlock failure screwed ye and I yelled "SPRINGLOCK FAILURE!!!!!!!!!" while still trying to somewhat use my inside voice. And then he started convulsing and bleeding and I'm like "FNAF 2 REFERENCE LETS GOOOO" and then when they dragged him away I was "into a backroom mayhaps??" a few times in which it is a revealed that yup. He got dragged into a back room. Then it cut to black and I say in a deep voice "I ALWAYS COME BACK."

And as anybody is obligated to when they hear the infamous song, I sang along to the credits! I didn't get tripped up by the cutoff/end credits scene with the song because I had seen a video on Youtube not long ago about the end credits (tho i did skip the cutscene) and I was like "I HAVE to know if it's that one FNaF 1 song" in which it brought me unbridled joy to know it was used! :D

As a final bit, there's 2 references I wanted to talk about. The first is a potential reference in the movie and the second is a reference i made.

When Mike was in the back room and saw all the assholes who tried to sabotage him I saw a very specific animatronic among them- a dog. And immediately my mind went "SPARKY THE DOG HOAX REFERENCE?!?!"

For the second thing, when Mike and Vanessa were talking about stuff and mentioned how they can't go back in time I said aloud something along the lines "Maybe find a ball pit?" Then there was the moment Abby hid in a ball pit and I was like "OH SHIT A BALL PIT. WASN'T ACTUALLY EXPECTING TO SEE ONE" and while it wasn't magical and I was pretty sure it wouldn't be since it was near the end of the movie it was still amusing.

[moonwatchuniverse]

Walter Cunningham (1932-2023)… Ad Astra Remembering USMC aviator / NASA astronaut Walter Cunningham, the last surviving Apollo 7 astronaut, who passed away aged 90. Cunningham, a patriot, aviator, explorer, husband, brother and father, was selected as NASA astronaut in 1963 and flew as Lunar Module Pilot on Apollo 7, a test mission which was instrumental to NASA’s Moon landing’s program success. Cunningham went on as head of the Skylab branch Astronaut Office and left NASA in 1971. With his passing, only 11 Apollo-era astronauts are still alive: Aldrin, Anders, Borman, Duke, Haise, Mattingly, Lovell, Schweickart, Schmitt, Scott and Stafford. Cunningham often wore chronographs such as the NASA-issued Omega Speedmaster. His personal Rolex Cosmograph Daytona 6239 pilot wrist watch was auctioned in 2013. Colorful artwork by Dutch Space artist Ed Hengeveld. (Photo: EH Space Art)

[crazy-so-na-sega]

«Chi dice umanità cerca di ingannarti» recita una famosa citazione di Carl Schmitt. I tempi in cui viviamo sono forse la conferma più nitida di tale perentoria affermazione. Avete mai ascoltato una persona sensata predicare qualche cosa che appartenga autenticamente all’umanità?

Se proviamo ad attribuire un senso alle espressioni: «l’umanità è colta» o «l’umanità è analfabeta» o «l’umanità è pacifica» o «l’umanità è guerrafondaia» vedremo immediatamente come tali preposizioni non solo risultino inesatte se confrontate con la realtà ma anche ingannevoli, come già aveva intuito Schmitt. L’umanità, invece, altro non è che una parola che designa l’insieme dei soggetti o meglio dei popoli che vivono sulla terra, un termine per definizione inesatto in quanto non esperibile nemmeno come somma.

È una concezione astratta, nel cui nome si sono commessi (e si continuano a perpetrare) grandi delitti lungo il corso della storia. L’umanità non è un soggetto della storia, non agisce, non subisce azioni, non si trova in una o altra situazione, dell’umanità non si può predicare nulla, l’umanità non si può né amare né ammirare eppure è evocata quotidianamente a piè sospinto dalle grandi potenze che regolano il mondo, cartina di tornasole utile ai dominanti per trascrivere mappe concettuali predeterminate a detrimento dei dominati, abbagliati dal candore di tale termine apparentemente universale.

Si delinea quindi nuovamente un antico conflitto che vede frapposti da un lato l’esistenza autentica dell’uomo, dall’altra l’essenza di questo, inautentica e astratta.

La tradizione del pensiero occidentale, incalzata dalle filosofie di Platone e Aristotele, ha sempre cercato di cogliere la natura delle cose individuandone le essenze; ad esempio, per essenza del cavallo ciò che unifica tutti i cavalli empirici che possono presentarsi in natura in tutta la loro varietà (grandi, piccoli, di colori diversi, etc), quindi tutti accomunati da un’essenza che è quella del cavallo. Il problema che i pensatori esistenzialisti si pongono, ora più che mai tornato attuale, è che l’uomo non è sufficientemente definito se lo si archivia mediante un’essenza. Uomo come essenza, alla stregua di umanità, è un termine generico che non ci dice nulla che esaurisca autenticamente la sua natura, la sua essenza.

Un pensatore rinascimentale, Pico della Mirandola, aveva teorizzato che l’uomo ha per essenza quella di non avere un’essenza, quindi il doversi determinare da se, squalificando qualsiasi concezione generalizzante. Il discorso esistenzialista, per certi versi, partendo da questa “assenza di essenza”, riprende un discorso che può essere riassunto in questi termini: ciò che definisce autenticamente l’uomo è la sua concreta, storica, esistenziale individualità e non il fatto di corrispondere ad un’astratta definizione quale può essere umanità.

Prendiamo ad esempio la preposizione «l’uomo è un animale ragionevole»: chi di noi si sente sufficientemente definito per compiere tale generalizzazione attorno all’uomo? Quando si parla di ragione, quali e quanti criteri vanno fissati perché questa venga reputata tale? Certo, noi possiamo definirci uomini ragionevoli perché agiamo in un orizzonte cognitivo, così come possiamo definirci bianchi e neri, europei e africani, autoctoni come immigrati; eppure queste categorie funzionali a definire l’essenza uomo non ci dicono qualcosa di più sulla nostra reale condizione di uomini. Questo “di più” mancante è la concretezza esistenziale di ogni individuo sulla quale il pensiero contemporaneo dovrebbe tornare a porre l’accento.

Di tale concretezza fa parte essenzialmente il tema della libertà ed è per questo che tale esistenzialismo deve tornare ad essere una filosofia incentrata sulla problematica dell’individualità, dell'essere agenti della propria storicità e della singolarità irripetibile di ciascun individuo. La riscoperta di tale autenticità della natura umana deve però passare obbligatoriamente dall’abolizione di termini pass-partout come “umanità”, oggi consunto dall'uso vago e retorico che se ne fa.

La pretesa di un colpo d’occhio oggettivo sul mondo e del rapporto di questo con il vivere umano è insostenibile poiché ogni uomo, in quanto pensante, non è che un singolo esistente immerso nella temporalità. Chi usa il termine umanità non solo cerca l’inganno ma è anche immorale, in quanto nell’astratto collettivo cerca riparo dalla propria responsabilità individuale, alimentando la società moderna dove vige il principio dell’anonimo a danno del singolo. Là dove si invoca umanità vi è una situazione storica in cui tale messaggio apparentemente universale a parole, è di fatto reso lettera morta, sottoposto a compromessi e mondanizzato, privato della sua verità più profonda e terribile. Un'umanità siffatta non esiste; esistono gli uomini.

-G.Pasquali

[nade2308]

I couldn't help myself once I watched the trailer (like 20 times by the point I was able to gif it).

Cannot wait to watch this movie!

@thethistlegirl

[schizografia]

Le due facce del potere 3: il regno e il governo

«Le roi règne, mais il ne gouverne pas», «il re regna, ma non governa». Che questa formula, che è al centro del dibattito fra Peterson e Schmitt sulla teologia politica e che nella sua formulazione latina (rex regnat, sed non gubernat) risale alle polemiche secentesche contro il re di Polonia Sigismondo III, contenga qualcosa come il paradigma della doppia struttura della politica occidentale, è quanto abbiamo cercato di mostrare in un libro pubblicato quasi quindici anni fa. Ancora una volta, alla sua base sta un problema genuinamente teologico, quello del governo divino del mondo, esso stesso in ultima analisi espressione di un problema ontologico. Nel capitolo X del libro L della Metafisica, Aristotele si era chiesto se l’universo possegga il bene come qualcosa di separato (kechorismenon) o come un ordine interno (taxin). Si trattava, cioè, di risolvere la drastica opposizione fra trascendenza e immanenza, articolandole insieme attraverso l’idea di un ordine degli enti mondani. Il problema cosmologico aveva anche un significato politico, se Aristotele può paragonare immediatamente la relazione fra il bene trascendente e il mondo a quella che lega lo stratega di un esercito all’ordinamento dei soldati che lo compongono e una casa alla reciproca connessione delle creature che in essa vivono. «Gli enti» egli aggiunge «non vogliono avere una cattiva costituzione politica (politeuesthai kakos) e deve quindi esserci un unico sovrano (heis koiranon», che si manifesta in essi nella forma dell’ordine che li collega. Ciò significa che, in ultima istanza, il motore immobile del libro L e la natura del cosmo formano un unico sistema a due facce e che il potere – sia esso divino o umano – deve tenere uniti i due poli ed essere tanto norma trascendente che ordine immanente, tanto regno che governo.

Sarà compito della scolastica medievale e, in particolare, di Tommaso tradurre questo paradigma ontologico nel problema teologico del governo divino del mondo. Essenziale, a questo fine, è l’idea di ordine. Essa esprime, da una parte, la relazione fra Dio e le creature (ordo ad Deum) e, dall’altra, la relazione delle creature fra di loro (ordo ad invicem). I due ordini sono strettamente connessi e, tuttavia, la loro relazione non è perfettamente simmetrica come può sembrare. Che il problema abbia anche questa volta un aspetto politico, è evidente nel paragone che Tommaso istituisce con la legge e la sua esecuzione. «Come in una famiglia» egli scrive «l’ordine è imposto attraverso la legge e i precetti del capofamiglia, che per ciascuno degli esseri ordinati nella casa è principio dell’esecuzione dell’ordine della casa, allo stesso modo la natura degli enti naturali è per ogni creatura il principio dell’esecuzione di quanto gli compete nell’ordine dell’universo». In che modo, tuttavia, la legge, come comando di uno solo, può tradursi nell’esecuzione dei molti rispetto ad esso ordinati? Se l’ordine – come l’esempio certamente non casuale dello stratega e del capofamiglia sembra implicare – dipende dal comando di un capo, in che modo la sua esecuzione può essere iscritta nella natura degli enti così diversi tra di loro?

L’aporia che segnerà in modo crescente tanto l’ordine del cosmo quanto quello della città comincia qui a diventare visibile. Gli enti stanno fra loro in una determinata relazione, ma questa non è che l’espressione della loro relazione all’unico principio divino e, viceversa, gli enti sono ordinati in quanto stanno in una certa relazione con Dio, ma questa relazione consiste soltanto nella loro relazione reciproca. L’ordine immanente non è che la relazione al principio trascendente, ma questo non ha altro contenuto che l’ordine immanente. I due ordini rimandano l’uno all’altro e si fondano reciprocamente. Il perfetto edificio della cosmologia medievale riposa su questo circolo e non ha alcuna consistenza al di fuori di esso. Di qui la complessa, sottile dialettica fra cause prime e cause seconde, potenza assoluta e potenza ordinata, attraverso il quale la scolastica cercherà, senza mai riuscirci pienamente, di venire a capo di questa aporia.

Se torniamo ora al problema dell’ordine politico da cui siamo partiti e che rimanda esplicitamente a questo paradigma teologico, non sorprenderà ritrovare in esso le stessa circolarità e le stesse aporie. Stato e amministrazione, regno e governo, norma e decisione sono reciprocamente connessi e si fondano ed esistono l’uno attraverso l’altro; e, tuttavia – anzi proprio per questo – la loro simmetria non può essere perfetta né inequivocabilmente garantita. Il re e i suoi ministri, la «politica» e la «polizia», la legge e la sua esecuzione possono entrare in conflitto e nulla assicura che questo conflitto possa essere una volta per tutte composto. La macchina bipolare della politica occidentale è sempre in atto di corrompersi e frantumarsi, perpetuamente in balia di cambiamenti e rivoluzioni che ne mettono in questione il funzionamento e la bipolarità nella misura stessa un cui sembrano ogni volta riaffermarli.

Il primato del governo sul regno e dell’amministrazione sulla costituzione che noi stiamo oggi vivendo non è in realtà senza precedenti nella storia dell’Occidente. Esso raggiunse la sua prima e radicale formulazione nell’elaborazione della dottrina del rex inutilis da parte dei canonisti del XIII secolo. È sulla base di queste elaborazioni che, nel 1245, il pontefice Innocenzo IV, su richiesta del clero e della nobiltà portoghese, emanò la decretale Grandi non immerito, con la quale deponeva il re Sancho II dal governo del regno, che si era dimostrato incapace di amministrare, assegnando al fratello Alfonso di Boulogne la cura et administratio generalis e lasciando tuttavia a Sancho la sua dignitas regale. La duplice struttura della macchina governamentale contiene la possibilità che la bipolarità in cui si articola possa essere messa in questione se essa cessa di risultare funzionale al sistema. È significativo tuttavia, dal momento che nessuna delle due facce del potere ha in sé il suo fondamento, che anche in questo caso estremo la dignità regale non sia stata tolta. La dualità di legittimità e legalità non è che un aspetto di questa bipolarità: il regno legittima il governo e, tuttavia, la legittimità non ha altro senso che la legalità dell’azione e dei provvedimenti del governo.

15 marzo 2023

Giorgio Agamben

[titleknown]

Do you think Section 230 is pretty much going to be passed? I've been thinking about leaving the internet completely over this.

...Well, like many things, the answer is "It's Complicated,"

Firstly, for the most part, efforts to screw up Section 230 aren't direct repealing all of it so much as carve-outs that majorly weaken it, in ways that could still deeply screw up free speech.

The recent Kids Online Safety Act/EARN IT Act is being pushed for, and while it's not in committee, given the former was sent to the Commerce Committee last time and the latter to the Judiciary Committee, they're probably gonna send it next time, and you're probably going to want to call your senators if they're in said committee to tell them to kill those bills.

The membership of the Commerce Committee:

Maria Cantwell, Washington, Chair

Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota

Brian Schatz, Hawaii

Ed Markey, Massachusetts

Gary Peters, Michigan

Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin

Tammy Duckworth, Illinois

Jon Tester, Montana

Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona[a]

Jacky Rosen, Nevada

Ben Ray Luján, New Mexico

John Hickenlooper, Colorado

Raphael Warnock, Georgia

Peter Welch, Vermont

Ted Cruz, Texas, Ranking Member

John Thune, South Dakota

Roger Wicker, Mississippi

Deb Fischer, Nebraska

Jerry Moran, Kansas

Dan Sullivan, Alaska

Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee

Todd Young, Indiana

Ted Budd, North Carolina

Eric Schmitt, Missouri

J.D. Vance, Ohio

Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia

Cynthia Lummis, Wyoming

The membership of the Judiciary Committee:

Dick Durbin, Illinois, Chairman

Dianne Feinstein, California

Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island

Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota

Chris Coons, Delaware

Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii

Cory Booker, New Jersey

Alex Padilla, California

Jon Ossoff, Georgia

Peter Welch, Vermont

Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, Ranking Member

Chuck Grassley, Iowa

John Cornyn, Texas

Mike Lee, Utah

Ted Cruz, Texas

Josh Hawley, Missouri

Tom Cotton, Arkansas

John Kennedy, Louisiana

Thom Tillis, North Carolina

Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee

So yeah.

I may as well add, If you've got the misfortune to be calling a Republican, be sure to bring up how KOSA will be used as a way for Big Government to spy on people via mandated age verification, and how EARN IT will be used to censor conservative speech.

That'll get the bastards attention. And no matter what you do, don't shut up about it, because silence means the fuckers win, just look at FOSTA/SESTA...

...Tho, in better news, the questioning in those Supreme Court suits tackling Section 230 seem to show that the justices are at least reluctant to try and do much to 230, very specifically because of how much it could fuck up.

Which begs the question, if even these fucking demons know why fucking with Section 230 is a godawful idea, what excuse do these senators have?

Point is, the efforts to undermine it aren't all at once so much as gradual and insidious. Call your senators folks, and stay vigilant.

[ihenvs3000w23]

Sense Making in Nature Interpretation

            A number of us are going to take different approaches to this week’s blog prompt as all of us are driven and interested by different aspects of nature. Some of us are passionate about specific wildlife, others are more interested in natural landscapes and some of us are still trying to understand what part of nature intrigues them the most. For myself, I have always been interested in the impact that nature plays in human health. To be more specific, what components of nature play a role in a healthy mind, body and soul.     

Nature is fascinating in itself as there are many aspects of it that play dynamic roles in relationships. The most interesting thing I know about nature is the impact that it has on human health and happiness. As mentioned in the textbook, we learn how to interpret nature through our life cycle in academic settings (Beck et al., 2018). Schools want to integrate our learning with nature through various programs and facilities as it provides individuals important life skills (Beck et al., 2018). Prior to taking ENVS*3000, I have taken a couple of ecology courses and learned about the relationship nature has on human happiness in an ASCI course I took. Human beings depend a lot on their environment for their actions and their emotions. The term used that refers to this relationship is nature connectedness. According to a study conducted in China, there is positive correlation between nature connectedness and mental health (Liu et al., 2022). We have discussed throughout the course how nature is present in music, history and our everyday lives and when we choose to understand all of these categories, we are then able to confidentially submerge ourselves in nature (Beck et al., 2018). Some find peaceful meditation to nature sounds their way of destressing while others find walks or hikes their go-to. I want to pose the question, where do you feel the calmest? What do you do to connect yourself with nature?

Personally, I have always found myself feeling my best in terms of confidence and energy when I am in the outdoors. Whether this be sitting in my backyard enjoying my morning coffee on a sunny day or taking a hike in the escarpments. I have personally noticed amazing benefits to my skin in nature as well, for example, when I am at a beach or in saltwater, my keratosis pilaris magically disappears and my acne settles as well. According to some studies, saltwater places a role in soothing and reducing atopic skin conditions (Martin et al., 2016). I have always found that nature has had nothing but positive impacts on me both mentally and physically. I also believe that it is extremely important to look at how other countries advocate for the environment. Countries like China and Scandinavian countries are very keen on ensuring they are doing their part in integrating nature and the environment into people’s everyday lives.

Beck, L., Cable, T.T., & Knudson, D.M (2018). Interpreting Cultural and Natural Heritage for a Better World (1st ed). Sagamore Venture

Liu, H., Nong, H., Ren, H., & Liu, K. (2022). The effect of nature exposure, nature connectedness on mental well-being and ill-being in a general Chinese population. Landscape and Urban Planning, 222, 104397–. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104397

Martin, H., Laborel-Préneron, E., Fraysse, F., Nguyen, T., Schmitt, A. M., Redoulès, D., & Davrinche, C. (2016). Aquaphilus dolomiae extract counteracts the effects of cutaneous S. aureus secretome isolated from atopic children on CD4+ T cell activation. Pharmaceutical biology, 54(11), 2782–2785. https://doi.org/10.3109/13880209.2016.1173069

[ballata]

Finché i carrelli della spesa saranno pieni, i disordini etnici non provocheranno reazioni. Ma la concomitanza di un significativo impoverimento e di una guerra civile strisciante porterà probabilmente a quello che Carl Schmitt chiamò l'Ernsfall, il punto di svolta.

Schimit riguardo la costituzione dice che uno dei suoi difetti sta nel fatto che essa è neutrale rispetto ai suoi stessi valori, permettendo così l’ingresso in Parlamento di forze anti – democratiche che aboliranno la democrazia.

Infatti così come la morale si definisce in base alla coppia buono- malvagio, l'estetica in base a bello-brutto, l'economia in base a utile-dannoso, così la coppia concettuale che definisce lo spazio autonomo della politica è AMICO ­ NEMICO. L'amico è la porzione di umanità in cui ci si identifica totalmente . E' quindi l'estremo grado di intensità di un'unione o associazione tra un certo numero di individui. Il nemico è la porzione di umanità in cui non ci si riconosce per niente. Ed è quindi l'estremo grado di intensità di una separazione . il nemico è l'altro, lo straniero. Noi in italiano non possiamo definire il nemico pubblico a cui fa riferimento la politica (in latino HOSTIS) mentre il nemico privato, in latino INIMICUS), a cui si può anche perdonare. Infatti dice Schmidt nella Bibbia è scritto "ama il tuo nemico" , ma ciò non ha mai giustificato che nel lungo conflitto che ha opposto cristiani e musulmani i primi permettessero ai secondi di penetrare in Europa, perché i cristiani hanno sempre tenuta ben distinta la sfera politica da quella privata. Il dare l'altra guancia è possibile solo all'INIMICUS, a cui si può perdonare ciò che si vuole, mentre nulla si può perdonare all'HOSTIS.

Lo psicoterapeuta mi ha consigliato di scrivere delle lettere alle persone che detesto e poi di bruciarle.

Io l'ho fatto, ma ora con le lettere che ci faccio?

#filosofiaspicciola #carlschmitt #liberopensiero #italia #islamizzazione #robertonicolettiballatibonaffini #nemici