#That was incredibly cunty behaviour

[kayfabebabe]

I lowkey love Ludwig for trying to DESTROY L^gan P^ul backstage...

[thatswhatsushesaid]

jesus

ok so this was my reblog to that OP right

including the bit at the bottom re: no dogpiling. anyway i think this was a perfectly polite way for me to assert that this person is being rude and should maybe change their behaviour when engaging with fandom stuff on tumblr. definitely me at my least cunty i think. anyway they ignored me but also:

like…. ok?? but also damn this is a wild way to respond to someone telling you to just be aware of how your actions are impacting other people’s ability to enjoy a shared fandom space. incredible.

[jade-marie]

Incoming rant, re Beth and that 2.09 script

***Just putting it out there. I’m not a Rio stan, before anyone tries to pull that bullshit with me. I don’t “stan” anyone, let alone a fictional character. I enjoy some characters and I don’t enjoy others, easy peasy***

So, I’m sure we’ve all seen the latest script to screen and the fact that Rio being treated like a prostitute was the intended effect. I saw so many people analyse that episode, trying to defend it in the past, saying that people probably just misinterpreted it, that it didn’t really come across like that, etc. Now when we get confirmation… fucking crickets. A few comments here and there, but no grand analyses in sight. Surprise surprise. I genuinely have so many issues with that scene, the script and the reaction to it.

Firstly, it was disgusting on Beths part. That’s not how you treat anyone, let alone someone you supposedly care about. But that’s the point. She never cared about him, on a human level. He makes her feel confident, he makes her feel sexually satisfied, but she doesn’t give a two shit flying fuck about him as a person. That was reaffirmed by her making jokes about his rotting corpse, dancing on his grave and continuing to plot his murder. Yet no one will admit that. Instead of taking the whole thing at face value they’ll analyse everything, down to song lyrics, to try and prove that she had deep feelings. Nah, she wanted to get laid by someone who wasn’t dean. They had amazing on-screen chemistry and I genuinely think he started to develop feelings for her, but not one single thing she’s done would suggest she actually cared about him, beyond physical attraction. Granted, bans and Krebs will probably backtrack on that next season, to save face after the shitshow that was season 3.

Secondly, Beth stans are defending her behaviour. Can you not see that it’s problematic as fuck? Can you imagine if the roles were reversed? A man lured a woman back to his house for sex, under false pretences, plops a stack of cash on the bedside table when they’re done, dumps her and dismisses her like a fucking hooker? Can you imagine the uproar? Can you imagine the shit people would get for defending it? Now imagine Rio did that to Beth? Keep that same energy and stop being hypocritical fuckwits. You can enjoy a character without defending fundamentally cunty behaviour, it’s not that hard.

Thirdly, the racial undertones of the way his character gets treated are beyond a joke at this point, anyway, but the scripts make it worse. His character literally exists as a metaphor for Beth being torn between her white picket fence life and something else. He isn’t allowed a story beyond that. Beth wants to get laid, while simultaneously sticking it to dean? She gets Rio. Beth wants to have one last act of rebellion before crawling back to dean with her tail between her legs? She lures Rio to her house, fucks him, dumps him and pays him for services rendered. Then she gets annoyed when he’s not willing to clean up after her anymore. Later we see his character reduced to a stereotypical Latino thug by the finale and she puts 3 bullets in him as one last act of shirking responsibility for her own actions. Every single script that gets released shows how little consideration they put into Rio‘s feelings, motivations, just his general character. Every script is about her. He’s a secondary character and that is absolutely fine, but he shouldn’t solely exist for Beths development.

Rio is not supposed to be a good man, that’s absolutely fine. He’s also done some incredibly fucked up things on the show. But as far as him and Beth, as far as their personal interactions go, he had never treated her with that kind of disrespect and it was completely unwarranted. So why the fuck is nobody saying it? Once again, you can enjoy her character, while also speaking out about her shitty behaviour. I’ve seen people trying to justify it because “he interrupted her while she was speaking and called her a bitch on several occasions during season one.” What the fuck? What. The. Fuck? just like her character needs to develop self-awareness, people who so furiously defend her every time, should also be willing to admit when she’s in the wrong. Its absolute fucking bullshit, at this point and the silence is about it is so loud.

I’ve seen people comment on the Bellamy Blake situation, even though they don’t even watch the 100, yet remain fucking silent about this. It’s okay to enjoy the show, it’s okay to enjoy beths character. What’s not okay is remaining silent about, or even worse, defending fucked up behaviour. Stop defending shitty behaviour. Stop defending problematic, borderline racist, writing. Just call a spade a fucking spade and be done with it. Fucking hell. 

[harryfeatgaga]

Honestly it’s not about Harry but seeing the reaction of black fans seeing him out there marching, seeing them feel heard and seen and supported by their fave makes me so happy. I know this is a much bigger issue but to know that the person you admire and love and support stands with you and cares and is out there marching for you is a really cool thing and I’m glad that black fans can know Harry truly does support them

YES! EXACTLY! seeing my black harrie friends and mutuals soooo happy is making me incredibly happy its so nice to see 💜💜💜

Anonymous said: I hope to god these protests continue for the next few weeks until the government literally cant ignore it and have no choice but to own up and rectify their cunty behaviour

god I know

Anonymous said: My city been because of the riots and protestsI know

yeah most places didnt have one before them or well at least not as strict 

[parabelled]

Sorry if this is an inappropriate ask. Please feel free to ignore in that case. What do you think of RFK's rumored affairs, including the horrible Monroe stuff? Personally, I think he was unfairly maligned, simply because he was the middle brother of JFK and Teddy, who were proven cheaters. Biographers like James Hilty or Larry Tye have argued that he was too much of a prude and too cautious to be a womanizer. Certainly no woman has ever come forward, unlike in JFK's case.

Hey there! Sorry for the delay in answering, but I basically wanted to educate myself more on the topic and then get back to you; it’s not gauche at all, especially if you consider it from a historical perspective, which I try to when undertaking a historical analysis of anybody, even with someone I might genuinely like.

I tend to agree. One of what is called the ‘definitive’ Robert Kennedy biography, “Robert Kennedy: His Life” by Evan Thomas, which I’m currently reading, is ridiculously detailed in this aspect, and provides a lot more perspective on RFK’s views of women, etc.

RFK, as opposed to JFK or Ted Kennedy, for all extensive purposes, was a feminist. He was famously a ‘mama’s boy’ as a child, mercilessly teased for it, and tried to compensate by being the family protector and as tough and controlling as his old man wanted him to be.

That being said, his father couldn’t beat out his natural sensitive sensibilities which became his defining trademark later in life once he got out from under his grasp (it took the debilitating stroke of his father, but he finally did it). He was forced to become his own man despite constantly supporting others, and it was the hints of this man that sort of informs my perspective of any rumours of infidelity.

1. This is a man who basically was horrified when his date opened her mouth when she was kissing him at twenty. The man didn’t know about French kissing until twenty, despite his two older brothers and his father being famous womanisers. A lot of people describe RFK as ‘lost in the shuffle,’ the only boy amongst a sea of girls until Teddy was born. We have to remember that despite being close later by circumstance, RFK and JFK were not bosom buddies growing up, and rarely spent time together unless with family, which is understandable, with almost a decade between them in ages. So I think any thought of JFK’s behaviour ‘rubbing off’ on RFK is sort of a moot point.

2. This is also a man who as a child Thomas hints could have been considered so sensitive that he became clinically depressed, just it was never diagnosed (To be fair, if you read how much even his own family considered him a failure, I couldn’t even imagine living through it. It’d drive you crazy). He famously would spend more time than the three times a week required in mass, and would stay there for at least three hours, praying and lingering, as if looking for some sort of shelter from the storm. He didn’t drink or smoke until he was twenty-one, and lost his virginity because his father paid someone to take him to a brothel. Reportedly, he said afterwards something akin to ‘Not bad, but not great either.’ This was obviously a kid for whom sexual activity or debauchery was not at the forefront of his psyche.

3. Because he wasn’t part of ‘The Golden Trio’ of his older, more social and stunning siblings, including JFK, he had to carve out a niche role for himself, despite pretty much being a C- student and failing at most stereotypically ‘Kennedy’ things he tried his hand at. That was the role of the protector of the family name for the good part of his life. I honestly think it speaks volumes that he said on the campaign trail that people could say whatever they wanted about him, as long as they liked JFK. We all know JFK was a notorious cheat, and the fact that RFK took that mantel on just goes to show how much this identity as the protector defined him. I don’t think honestly he’d risk that just to have a fling with a girl.

4. He was supremely Catholic. This tended to make him a Moralist, until proven otherwise. However, one of the things I think everyone loved most about his character was that if he was proven there was a grey area, he would admit his wrong and move on. That sounds simply nowadays, where politicians famously flip-flop on positions all the time, but this is different than flip flopping on positions; you could literally see him GROW as a person.

That being said, early in his life and in his career, he did tend to see women as this precious thing to be protected or sinful. There are stories where he literally fired a campaign worker for swearing in front of female staffers, at the same time saying women were the best workers because they just worked the hardest. He would have men walk female campaign workers to the subway to make sure they got home alright if he kept them late. I think later in life, the more ‘sinful’ women he knew, judging by his behaviour, he didn’t pain women as these two dichotomies, but the moralism of being brought up so strictly Catholic was the starting place from which this grew (Famously he married his wife Ethel, who almost considered becoming a nun).

5. Which brings me finally to your actual question, about the rumours about the affairs, in particular Marilyn Monroe.

To be honest, judging from what I outline earlier, that’s basically why I don’t think he really had an affair. Some border on the ridiculous (homosexual affairs)), to others which were more plausible (aka guilt by association being surrounded by the dozens of women JFK cheated with), but all don’t tend to take into account one important thing: Bobby.

Bobby, for all extensive purposes, was the opposite of his brothers. It was the only way he was able to find an identity within the family after years of trying to emulate them. Ted, being much more social and athletic, from what I understand, fell in line with the Kennedy men cheating pretty easily. But Bobby had to prove himself by being the OPPOSITE of what was expected. If they swerved right, he swerved left. It was the only way to distinguish himself in the eyes of his father. If Jack was flighty and rebellious, Bobby was stable and dependable. Everyone who knows him describes him as being almost TOO loyal. I honestly don’t think it’s in his character as the one black sheep in the family (They literally called him ‘Black Robert’) to cheat, especially considering the heavy influence Catholicism had in his life.

6. Which brings me to the Marilyn Monroe rumours. From all the research I saw, RFK only met/associated with Marilyn four times that can be proven: once, at a dinner party where they first met, which was quite sweet because the next day Marilyn wrote to her father and mentioned RFK by name, saying he had ‘the most wonderful sense of humour,’ which if you know anything about Bobby, is the most hilarious mental image ever. Marilyn, the epitome of glamour but sweet as a button, oohing over Bobby, who probably was just spewing self-deprecating black humour all night. But honestly I find it sort of adorable. xD

The second recorded instance was where Marilyn was at Madison Square Garden and famously sang ‘Happy Birthday’ to JFK. RFK was with there with 15,000 other drooling men. There’s also a pretty adorable story that RFK was the only person sensitive enough to realise that Marilyn was basically a hunk of meat to them about to be torn apart, and pretty much guided her to safety, not only to save the image of his brother, but to save Marilyn as well.

The third instance was where Ethel and RFK invited Marilyn to come to a pool party at their place, but she refused. Part of the Kennedy family was married into actors, so Pat Kennedy was actually great friends apparently with Marilyn, so this isn’t really that out of the ordinary.

The last recorded instance was where Bobby went to talk to her about Jack and keeping a low profile, and although nobody really knows what was truly said there, that’s presumed to be what the trip was about. With Bobby’s schedule as Attorney-General, he was recorded doing a multitude of other things that day, so I doubt anything actually happened.

Then there is that weird thing where people say RFK orchestrated her death and that bullshit, which is absolutely ridiculous conspiracy theory zones, but it’s proven he was 350 miles away the day she died with his wife and family, so nothing doing there.

From what I understand, the two people who were said to start the rumours that Marilyn slept with both RFK and JFK were Marilyn herself and Peter Lawford, who was going through a ridiculously bitter divorce proceedings with Pat Kennedy at the time and was a known alcoholic and druggie, and from what I’ve heard, sort of an all around cunt: basically openly marrying into the family for the prestige and as a boost to his acting career, and that’s the only reason he was in the original Ocean’s Eleven as a favour to the Kennedys, but I digress. I can see him saying stupid shit just to get back at the Kennedys and due to the mythos of the family, some of it sticking the more scandalous things he said. I don’t put too much stock in him and once again, always thought of him as a cunty-Mccunt-cunt (To be fair, I remember my mum said one day when the original Ocean’s Eleven was on TV everyone thought he was a cunt too in the 60s, so there you go XD).

Marilyn herself had a lot of her own problems at the time, and I wouldn’t ever really want to blame her for those things, because I always felt bad for her and the way she was manipulated and used by men from a very young age. From my perspective, she learned to define herself BY men and what attention they gave to her, due to a rocky family upbringing and suspected abuse, which I always thought was so incredibly sad. I always saw her as this sort of broken loose cannon that was manipulated but ultimately snuffed out.

From what I understand, her saying that came from tapes with her psychologist, where she claimed she slept with both of them. Keep in mind, this is towards the end of her life where she was ridiculously stocked up on barbiturates and alcohol. To be honest, I think she wanted to sleep with Bobby after realising he was protecting her, but the feelings weren’t reciprocated to the point it was consummated. Marilyn always seemed to go after people who could protect her in some way, but where other men would protect her out of love for her image and her glamour, and be (usually, Arthur Miller excluded) these examples of machismo and manliness, Bobby was famously shy around women and sweet (To be real, Marilyn could have used a ‘Bobby’ in her life to keep her on track; someone who saw her as a real human being and not just her glamorous image, but I digress). So even if he did want to sleep with her, I don’t think he would act on it, because he wasn’t a man driven by sexual urges.

The reason I don’t believe what she said was particularly true in terms of RFK (we all know it was true in terms of JFK) was because A) She and the only other person who said it were known druggies/alchies and famously unreliable as sources (Peter Lawford), and B) The one person who WAS reliable as a source (in however unscrupulous a way he was) was J.Edgar Hoover. That man had files from sun-up to sunset on JFK’s different liaisons, missteps, etc. It IS a bit of speculation on MY part, but do you think, even if there was a rumour that Bobby was stuck up in something, it would be in the Hoover files? Why would JFK’s liaison with Marilyn be in the files but not Bobby’s? Arguably Bobby was the one person more disliked in Washington; you would think this would be something Hoover would jump on.

I think also because Marilyn would want something with Bobby, I don’t see her above saying it until it was real. This is a woman who was used to living in a sort of fantasy world of her own creation that she was very well aware of (contrary to her public image, she was very smart and constantly attempting to improve herself), so I think it’s not above considering that she said it because she was hoping or imagining that such a thing would come to pass.

This leads into rumour and speculation that is profoundly unhistorical and I don’t really care to get into it, but I think that is the historical nub someone can base their hat on. I don’t think if RFK had affairs, it wouldn’t be recorded by Hoover, wouldn’t be something that he had tremendous levels of Catholic guilt about, and would have come to the forefront, because it would have affected him in a way it wouldn’t have affected his brothers. So even if he DID have an affair, I think he would feel genuinely guilty about it, which to me, puts it in a different area than someone who just constantly cheats and doesn’t give a shit.

Hoover also didn’t particularly have a reason to go soft on RFK. I’ll quote the book ‘Bobby and J.Edgar,’ which is more rumour-mongering than actual history for the most part, but the summary of their two positions is outlined well:

“For Hoover, Hersh writes, “America amounted to a kind of Christian-pageant fantasy of the System” that was threatened by “Commies and beatniks and race-mixers … hell-bent to eradicate this utopia.” Kennedy saw “gangsters” undermining unions, corporate America and, yes, even politics. Here was the nub of their quarrel: subversion versus corruption.”

History has pretty much played out that Bobby was right (including today with Trump in power), so they had no reason to see eye to eye. It’s a complicated area of history that can often degrade into rumours, scandal, and stupidity, which I don’t particularly care to go into, but from a purely historical aspect, I hope you can see why I think it would basically be contrary to his character; not because I’m trying to be one of those people who hold up a holier than thou view of the Kennedys (that family was something else), but because I don’t particularly think it was in his character and identity as this Good Bobby/ Bad Bobby dichotomy of someone who was seen in the media as the person who had to clean up after his brother’s mess, and that was often true.

Hopefully this somewhat answered your question and remained relatively historical rather than scandalous in nature, as I try to stay above all those sorts of things in pure historical analysis. Sorry for the late reply. xx

[analytic-chaoticism]

In Regards To ‘Let’s Talk!’

I agree with everything Jack said, basically. I think it was a super cunty thing for Felix to do but the world is very grey and Jack explained context and intention and how mishandled everything was from start to finish very well and my stance on the matter is basically the same as his. 

Humans are inherently problematic, like, by nature. To expect someone to be perfect all the time is ridiculous, and I think everything has to be considered within context before sweeping judgements and lynch quests are made. If I treated friends who made trashy jokes like the internet treats anyone I would have not very many friends and a lot of people would not like me. 

What Jack has said about consequences and the nature of humour, and understanding humour within context, I also agree with. Now was a really bad time for these sorts of jokes with fascism and neo-Nazism on the horizon. I do think there CAN be a time and a place for these sorts of jokes but, like Jack said, only if there’s a point, a valid social commentary that it’s trying to achieve. I’ve been upset with my friends for their bad jokes and slur usage but I don’t cut them off or try to crucify them as so many on the internet - particularly Tumblr, let’s be honest - are want to do. I mean I myself am a minority and sometimes it really gets to you, and all? But it definitely requires context. 

My friends are just some teenagers and to them faggot doesn’t really mean much. They’re lacking in context, historical, personal, and modern. They’re also teenagers, so they don’t really care about these things all that much. They’re also a bit headstrong, and don’t like being wrong. But they aren’t BAD people. I wouldn’t be friends with someone who is genuinely homophobic, and they might call people faggots, or say something is gay -and yeah! it bothers me! a lot, sometimes, yeah! and of course I try to ‘educate’ them and sometimes it gets some remorse - but that’s just the culture they’ve been raised in and this is just what they’ve normalized. A big thing these days is definition separation, where people say ‘no but I’m not using it like that’ because they think that these things can vary by context. But the problem is it’s too loaded, too directed, too hateful, and too discriminatory to ever change. Something like faggot will not vary by context. You cannot just redefine it, or change how you mean it whenever you want, because that’s disrespectful of the history and all the people who have been harmed, abused, and killed under these terms. 

Which is why it’s especially rocky for humour.

Like Jack I definitely don’t condone Felix’s joke, not even in shock humour value, because it was in really poor taste and made light of a situation that you have to be incredibly careful with, especially now! I’ve never been much of a fan of his content so it doesn’t bother me that these sorts of jokes have put me off watching his channel, but I also know he’s not genuinely antisemitic - as has been confirmed through his apologies, Mark, and Jack - he’s just a bit ignorant and said some dumb things to try to be funny. Attack people who genuinely support those kind of statements, not the misguided people who try to make jokes about them. Be angry, yeah. Educate, yeah. But enough of this mob mentality nonsense. This discourse has dragged on long enough. I think we just have to acknowledge the fact that he made a problematic mistake - as we, and everyone we know, are all naturally prone to do - apologized, and the context surrounding the situation: the joke, the individuals and beliefs of those involved, and the way it was handled. It was super gross but it’s been done and apologized for, and he said it wouldn’t happen again, so let’s be happy with that okay? He’s determined to better himself and that’s what matters. He’s realized his mistake, and he wants to improve, and that’s the most you can ask of a person, and the best outcome in these sorts of situations. We’re allowed to make mistakes. Be angry, but educate. Go out and find a racist, or a homophobe, or a sexist, or an ableist, and try to explain to them what’s toxic about their beliefs and/or behaviours. People who are genuinely problematic and need the most help to reform and better themselves. Condemning someone can be understandable, but in this situation it’s a little bit overkill to bay as much as everyone is, considering who is involved. Redirect your attention to someone like Mike Pence or Richard Spencer, people who are actually incredibly toxic and GENUINELY support the kinds of ideals the jokes we’re all hating on represent. Felix was just a dumbass, not an antisemite. Richard Spencer, though? 

Can we put this witch hunt to rest now?

(And yes, please recognize I understand how humour has an affect on the reinforcement of the behaviour of the genuinely bad people, I know, yes, it’s indirect support and empowerment, but it was also just a dumb mistake, let sleeping dogs lie, please. I also wrote and reblogged a post explaining where I stand on Mark’s video, which is a mostly yes after the post where someone else reframed his opinion in a way that made sense and I could agree with e.g. holding people accountable for their actions as people instead of establishing inhuman standards which basically excuses them for their nastiness).