#also editing this it’s okay to reblog this

[harpieisthecarpie]

Edit: keeping the og reblog for posterity but I was incorrect in my presumption and the hate crime DID happen. The Independent spun it in a way I'm critical of all the same.

Alright, I had quick pointers on red flags in posts but I wanted to do more in-depth digging to be sure I wasn't talking out of my ass. Here's what I found:

I searched up Amber Muhm as my first thread to pull, and like nevermindmorpheus nearly all the results were articles from 2023 citing her as a local activist working with trans women and trans femmes.

There were a few articles covering the same crime that was alleged in The Independent! That's if "covering the same crime" suddenly translates to "reposted the exact article on their own site", of course. That batch largely consists of automated websites like Yahoo and MSN News.

The only other source I found on my "Amber Muhm" search was by Amelia Roessler with Minnpost, a nonprofit journalism group whose primary audience is Minnesotans. That article, "Police negotiation with Red Wing gunman leads to discovery of a dead woman" was published November 18th, 2024 as part of their Glean segment, a twice daily compilation of Minnesota news from various sources.

That Minnpost article refers to what we're curious about here:

And that link leads to WCCO, also known as CBS News Minnesota, specifically the article "2 transgender women attacked in downtown Minneapolis, advocates say" by Kirsten Mitchell that was published Nov 18th, 2024 at 1:42 CST

Our Independent article in question "Crowd cheered as two transgender women were attacked at Minneapolis rail station, advocates say" by Kelly Rissman was published Nov 18th, 2024 at 19:26 GMT (7:26 PM).

That converts to 1:26 PM in CST, which means The Independent article existed for a slim 16 minutes prior to that WCCO piece. As far as I can tell, the WCCO article's main divergence from The Independent is the lack of assertions that Minneapolis Police and Amber Muhm specifically told The Independent all this info.

Basically, it seems to me like Kelly Rissman, via The Independent, was the primary (and sole) source for this supposed crime that "a crowd cheered" over. And considering the lack of updates on an highly topical event and the article's lack of corroborating evidence (like video) I feel okay giving my tips.

So what are the red flags we can see right in OP's screenshots of the article?

The title's claim ends with "advocates say" and the header similarly uses "according to a rally organizer". It signals that the article is reporting based on allegations and hearsay, especially with how vague those references are

Why do you need to rely on advocates for all the info on a very public crime? Bystanders record violence even when they aren't cheering for it.

What kind of advocates are they? Trans rights advocates? Anti-LGBTQ+ advocates?

Why is a rally organizer your main source about 2 victims of what would for sure be considered a hate crime? And not even for info on the crime itself, but about the circumstances around the women's move to Minnesota.

What does the title focus on? That similar WCCO article focuses on the actual attack, whereas The Independent's title opens with "crowds cheered". Why emphasize the bystander reaction over the act of brutal violence?

It's an article by The Independent.

This is where we are. Anti-trans pogroms have begun and the community is living in fear. Things are so bad that some of us are unable to live anymore.

Where is the left? Where are our allies?

#TDoR2024

[slydiddledeedee]

I’m not a parent so I really have no authority to say this but it makes me so sad whenever I see a little kid with a phone or iPad or some other piece of distracting technology…I think it’s going to be so rough on those kids once they reach middle and high school and if they or people around them don’t stop the cycle they will become very sad, very unfulfilled adults. Giving a child a tool that plays endless videos on stupid stuff is doing far more damage than it’s worth

[edwardbonnets]

how to ask the demon you've been smitten over for 6000 years to dance: an angel's guide

bonus:

[bwooom]

READ MY WEBCOMIC

STOP MAKING ME LOOK AT SCREENCAPS FROM THAT VELMA SHOW !!! I WANT TO PRETEND IT DOES NOT EXIST AND YOU ARE MAKING IT SO DIFFICULT

[zorasink]

ok last reblog with the links too :)! okay i got the link of the official canon information about dreamtale https://www.deviantart.com/philocake/journal/Dreamtale-Canon-Facts-Last-Update-12-29-19-769007316 theres also a tumblr link as well (same info as the deviant art but i recommend the deviant art link since that one is updated from 2021 at the latest) https://www.tumblr.com/philocake/185675950801/canon-facts-about-dreamtale?source=share and here's a official canon info in joku's blog in a google document https://docs.google.com/document/d/11-Lxf3AeR464xdhdfaQmnoMKhTdLpGzGdYWSe4-R13E/edit?usp=sharing

Transcript: Dreamtale story and endings spoilers. I'm 99.99999% sure none of the endings have been published yet but the creator talked about them.

I am in shock. I'm just. Floored. I haven't kept up with apple brothers Dreamtale in forever but yesterday I found out that 1) passive Nightmare is dead for good and Dream can't save him in ANY of Dreamtale's future endings 2) Nim, the twins' own mother, might be or is part of Corrupted Nightmare together with the evil spirit entity that is hunting Dream and the golden apple down (but dream's bro is still dead forever, from what I've seen) and 3) Nim is horrible and petty to the max and not in an entertaining way. She deliberately forced an emotion balance on the Multiverse because she hated mortals. She did not have to do it but she did. So many stories act like the emotion balance is a natural part of the Multiverse and is good for the Multiverse but it's NOT. It's only there because Nim hates everyone. I never liked the emotion balance idea but now I found out the entire Multiverse has to suffer and will die if Dream does because of Nim's pettiness???? Why does no one talk about this? How did I miss this? I. I'm questioning everything I thought I knew about Dreamtale canon. Were these things revealed not long ago? Was Nim not so bad in the preboot?? Did fanon change her character and downplay what she did and it made me forget how horrible she is??? I wouldn't mind if she was treated as morally gray but NO. Where the hockey stick did the "good Guardian and mother Nim" idea come from???? She's up there with XGaster and Handplates Gaster in the AWFUL parent awards.

I'm sorry about the questions but please, if any of this is fanon and not canon or I'm missing important context PLEASE tell me where I'm wrong because I am questioning so much of what I thought I knew about canon Dreamtale as a whole and I''m not going to spend my time looking at an canon I don't like anymore. I can't lie, this makes me hate the balance idea SO MUCH MORE. If it was just Dreamtale, it'd be fine but no, the emotion balance was forced into the Multiverse and changed how it worked to make Dream more special. UGH WHY.

[leenfiend]

what’s ur type first < prev next > full comic

[spikes-got-anger-issues]

[dailybloopy]

[i-may-be-an-emu]

Hugs (if you want them) for all my american moots and honestly just everyone who’s scared 🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂

[spocksgotemotions]

“You are not a fish, Mr Spock.”

“No. Nor am I a man. I am…”

[atopvisenyashill]

why do you think jonsa is happening tho? jonerys is different bc they are going to be enemies, but i don’t see what jonsa does for the story

so let me first lay out roughly what i think is going to happen should jonsa become canon. I personally love going down meta and graphic spirals, so I'm including links to other people’s theories/explanations/graphics of events too - also I would like to shout out @istumpysk because half these metas and gifsets were stuff I found on their blog initially, and also was the one who really convinced me that jonsa is less of a crackship and more of a contender for an actual canon theory, and from there i really found my niche in this fandom. specifically this meta about jon being the mummer's dragon is what pulled me out of my "we're never getting twow and if we do it's just gonna be that stupid dany has jon's magical baby while tyrion watches, then they all die theory" slump and lit my brain on fire again. let's goooo:

The Ashford Tourney Theory - Something Shady goes down at the tourney Petyr has planned that requires Sansa to make a quick getaway, and likely causes her to run into Brienne while fleeing. This theory for me is about hinting at Sansa's romantic future, allies, and how she's getting the hell out of the Vale: both the dark haired, Not Targ Looking Targ Prince that is the son of A Great Prince That Never Was being her romantic endgame but also it's about Brienne (/Dunk) getting her the hell out of there and becoming Sansa's number one ally and protector (with Sansa's number two being Bronze Yohn!! But he's not fleeing with her - if he helps her get out of the Vale, it'll be to cause a distraction or a fight so Sansa can slip away unnoticed. Bronze Yohn is coming with the knights of the Vale later to help defend his girl!).

The Girl In Grey - Out of options on where to go, Sansa & Brienne makes a long, fast, and dangerous trek to the only family she knows is still alive: Jon Snow at the Wall. No, I don't think Alys Karstark is the girl in grey on a dying horse; I think she's a red herring, the same as the scene where Sweetrobin destroys the snow castle, and that the real girl in grey (who slays the savage giant) is Sansa. Melisandre says that she sees "Jon's sister" but doesn't specify more than that, or how she knows it's Jon's sister, even - why would she assume Alys is Jon's sister and not some random Northern girl? Why was she so sure that it was his sister? It's because Alys isn't the girl in grey, it's Sansa, her horse dying because she's traveled halfway across the continent with Brienne and Pod, desperately trying to keep ahead of the dozens of people hunting her down.

The Blood of Winterfell - Sansa and Jon will reclaim winterfell together. This one is similar to above; just like Alys was a red herring, the scene where Sansa rebuilds the castle has a lot of foreshadowing (imo) but that isn't the moment in the prophecy Arya hears. The Savage Giant is Littlefinger, the castle of snow is Winterfell, and Sansa is going to liberate her home alongside Jon and what's left of the Northern lords.

Stone and Snow Remains - THIS is where Sansa and Jon will fall in love while fighting for the North. This is also the part where you lose a lot of people, because they think the evidence is real weak sauce but like, I also think the Jonerys "evidence" is weak af too (and no wonder, we have at minimum 2k pages left to get through!!). There's several believed foreshadowing points to this one, bare with me for this weird ass formatting because I can't do sub bullet points on tumblr:

1. Sansa's linking of snow with love and affection - "drifting snowflakes brushed her face as light as lover’s kisses, and melted on her cheeks...She could feel the snow on her lashes, taste it on her lips. It was the taste of Winterfell. The taste of innocence. The taste of dreams." along with her snow maiden and snow knight.

2. Bael the Bard and the Rose of Winterfell - the chapter where Sansa gets her period for the first time, Cersei refers to it as “flowering” a dozen times, linking being a maiden (a young girl, not quite of age or just barely of age) to flowers and several people refer to sex as ~plucking. Also notice the one who stole her from KL is Lord BAELish.

3. Aemon the Dragonknight & Queen Naerys - Sansa compares herself to Naerys, Joffrey to Aegon, and wishes for an Aemon, among the many similarities between her life and Naerys'. Jon not only calls himself Aemon, he has a deep connection with a different Aemon Targaryen. And if you’re thinking “Sansa isn’t Naerys, X is Naerys” I would remind you that Sansa as a character existed first, George purposefully had her compare herself to Naerys, and parallels don't belong to just one character.

4. Jenny of Oldstones and The Prince of Dragonflies - there's honestly a lot of parallels between them but like the Aemon/Naerys parallel, the Jenny/Duncan one stands out to me.

5. Janos Slynt - I mean. Iconic. This was the scene that made me first think about what their relationship could be in the future and there’s a reason Jonsas fixate on it. It’s about Sansa being desperate for a hero and the hero she dreamed about being Jon the whole time. 6. Societal Alienation - There's the bastard parallels here, the "it would be so sweet to see him again", the "Winterfell belongs to my sister, Sansa." It's about how Jon, through circumstances of his birth, finds himself alienated from the rest of society and reconnects with his prim and proper sister Sansa, who finds herself alienated from the rest of society as well but for vastly different reasons.

Robb’s Will - Howland is going to show up in the North, along with Maege and Galbert, with some WILD news about why Jon can’t rule Winterfell. There’s a lot of contention around this. Bran probably shows up around this time too, and Arya gets to the Riverlands to discover Lady Stoneheart and give her the gift of mercy. This is where all the inheritance stuff is going to happen and I have no idea how it's going to go down besides it's going to be messy as all fuck.

The Pact Of Ice And Fire - Jon & Sansa get secret married bc they’re in love, not siblings, & jon is the only man she trusts not to steal her claim. This isn't the only possible foreshadowing instance of a marriage either - some believe the Sandor/Sansa scene during the Battle of the Blackwater is foreshadowing as well (personally I feel that's a bit of a stretch but I wanted to include it anyway).

Jon As An Envoy - I talked about this in my "what's Jon's ending" a little but I believe Jon will act as an envoy for either Sansa or Bran to Aegon VI, essentially playing out a similar story that he does in the show with Daenerys. By which I mean, Jon is not the King because the ruler themselves do not go as an envoy, that’s stupid and dangerous, but he goes as an ambassador for Sansa or Bran, to treat with a new claimant to the Iron Throne that is gaining support - Aegon VI & Jon Connington. They will probably clash, Jon will probably have yet another identity crisis, there had BETTER be gay incest subtext, then Aegon dies, and Jon has his sixth quarter life crisis in a row.

“King” of the Gift - again, something I touched on in my Jon meta is that I think he’s going to have a hand in resettling the Gift. Personally, I think it's likely that Jon leaves to protect the claims of his siblings (see: Duncan and Jenny) and goes to the Gift to help resettle it to keep out of the way. This ending is typically referred to as the "bael the bard" ending but i like to think of it as the "brandon's gift" ending instead - though he is not physically with his family, Jon feels fulfilled having confirmed his family loves him through reclaiming Winterfell and marrying Sansa, being reunited with Arya, and being given the Gift by Bran. Sansa claims her children were fathered by a wolf.

So…what does all this do for the story?

Well, in my opinion, several things.

I think the main barrier here is that most people in the greater fandom describe Sansa's story as ~growing past childish wants~ and Jon's as ~rejecting love~ and I do not agree with either of those takes even a little bit. This is where (imo) the dividing line between Jonsas and the rest of the fandom is. I don’t think the answer to Sansa’s question “will anyone ever marry me for love” is going to be “nah" - that's not just a sad story to me (wanting to be married isn't childish! craving intimacy and understanding isn't childish! it's also not wrong for a child to be childish!), I think the idea that Sansa (or Jon) will not find another love just doesn't line up with how George approaches his story. Who Sansa's husband will be has been such a big question, and her story is so heavy into the more romantic tropes like courtly love and chivalry and the line between politics and love and identity, that the question of Sansa's hand in marriage will be plot relevant. I also think it's kinda naive of people to pretend like George isn't very interested in the sexual dynamics of the characters he writes about (yeah, sure, no woman needs a man but "needing a man" is not what this is about. look at everything this man wrote in F&B and tell me he is going to write a female character that longs for sex and desire and doesn't get it!).

After AGOT, nearly every time Sansa thinks about marriage involves her longing for love but believing she will never get it because a man will only ever love her for her claim. Giving her a man - like Jon - who not only will not steal her claim and in fact has defended it twice over already, who will love her for who she is and not what she can give him, is a really important aspect of her story in my opinion.

As for Jon, I am even more firmly against the opinion that his story is about rejecting love; Jon’s story is about wanting to be a good man, to measure up to his father ~despite~ his bastard blood. When Aemon asks if Ned would choose honor over love and Jon stubbornly says yes, Jon is wrong and it’s important to not forget that. Ned has never once in his entire life chosen honor over love; he chooses his daughter’s life over his honor, he chooses his sister & her son’s life over honor, he chooses Arya & Nymeria over honor, and on and on!!! Ned chooses love at almost turn but none of his children know that just yet - look at Robb choosing Jeyne’s honor over his own and how upset he is at the idea that Ned would be disappointed despite the fact that Ned would have understand Robb’s decision! Jon's whole arc is tied up in realizing that it is not wrong or dirty to feel and choose love, passion, and desire and if he never has another romantic arc again, I think you lose the second part of that lesson which is "you are responsible for how you act when you feel love but that doesn't mean that simply choosing love makes you a bad person."

There's also the fact that George has talked a lot about "who lives, who dies, who gets married" and yet we have not one marriage at the end of the show AND there's not a lot of guesses at what "who gets married" means besides Jon/erys (and even if Jonsa doesn't happen, I simply do not see Jon/erys happening. they are not similar enough, they will not be in the same space for long enough, and they are on wildlly different trajectories for their story, they are not getting married let alone having sex). I think Jonsa fits that bill very well.

These various theories - from Sansa being queen, Jon living in exile, The Ashford Tourney Theory, the secret marriage, every one of them - are ideas and themes that I have really been thinking about for about 12 years now. I think Jon and Sansa's relationship could fit with the themes in their stories, the overarching themes in the books, and my own personal opinions. I think it gives George a great opportunity to delve into the courtly love aspects he enjoys so much, as well as delve into inheritance, legacy, legitimacy, honor, incest (yes, that too), and above all, what George himself has said the whole series is about - love. The human heart in conflict with itself is what I think Jon and Sansa as a romantic couple does for the series.

[firestorm09890]

Carmen projectmoon is a great character because they went “yeah she's just the dead wife character sorry :( FUCK YOU JUST KIDDING SHE HAUNTS THE NARRATIVE” and then she haunted the narrative so hard she caused fundamental changes to the entire setting and affected literally everyone in the world of the story and she’s still haunting the narrative to this day, even after the game that was about her haunting the narrative. most recently they made her a narrator (probably) and [uh hi future bluejay here, what was originally here might not have been true but since this post was made she's done even more]. she died before the first entry of the series

[roots-symphony]

I had all and then most of you some and now none of you t a k e m e b a c k t o t h e n i g h t w e m e t

[the-kipsabian]

[link-lonk]

The way the 03 fma anime leans into the tragedy of Nina and Alexander by having the Elric brothers meet them BEFORE Ed becomes a state alchemist. Ed and Al live with the Tuckers for months (at least 4)* while studying for the state alchemist exam, they eat meals together, play together, and all sleep under the same roof. When the time for the exam comes Nina and Alexander go with the brothers every time, offering encouragement beforehand and waiting outside until it's over so she can ask them how it went. Al mentions how living with the Tuckers makes it feel like how things were before their mom died, like they're part of a real family again. They love this little girl and her dog, they really fit themselves into the roles of her big brothers. It really makes the fate of this girl hit all the harder when she's not just a child the brothers knew for a few days and felt a connection with, but one who they've come to know very well and who they really considered to be family.

* We know the Elrics lived with the Tuckers for at least 4 months because in the episode prior to their meeting (about a day) Gracia Hughes is mentioned to be 5 months pregnant. The brothers + Nina are present when she gives birth, so we know the brothers have been living with the Tuckers for 4 months at this point. It is unclear how much more time passes after that until the Nina incident.

[ladychlo]

x x