#and not for the reasons conservatives hate Hollywood

[aizenat]

Drake Bell has not processed what happened to him at all. This is hard to watch.

[jewish-vents]

We're all aware of how white supremacists claim Jews are responsible for immigrants and social justice and vaccines and well anything associated with the left.

We need to talk more about the left's version where Jews are responsible for all the conservative stuff like when marlon brando said jews are the reason for racism in hollywood. This version is now very mainstream and seen as normal and a mandatory belief in leftist spaces. That's why they emphasize the genocide thing. That's why they are saying that Israel is responsible for all the evil in the world.

Interestingly enough it gets quite conservative as we see with leftists saying anti vaxx shit to "oppose" Israel 🤣

Lastly when they are forced to accept that Israel does good they try to pull out the "secretly evil" antisemitic bullshit. For example Israel supports gay rights. Yes they weaponize it but the reality is judaism is more accepting of gay people than other religions. That's where pinkwashing comes in. Instead of rightfully calling out Israel's weaponization of their gay rights, the entire conversation is about how Israel only accepts gays to spite Palestine. They claim it's completely insincere and that they secretly hate gay people. Classic antisemitism. The Jew is always secretly evil.

.

[ginawankenobi]

What my first impression of the Lost characters would be if I were watching for the first time now:

(I love all these characters like they’re my own family, and like my own family, I will not hesitate to roast them)

Jack: main character syndrome but won’t acknowledge it. Probably voted for Bush in 2000 for “fiscally conservative” reasons. A take-charge dude.

Michael: who’s Walt? Disney? (Sorry Mike, I 🤍 you)

Shannon: valley girl, definitely drives a pink vehicle. Only drinks soy lattes. Could be a Hollywood scream queen.

Charlie: but why’s the rum gone? Oh hey there, Meriadoc!

Claire: could also be a scream queen. So cute. Why flying at 8 months preggy, though? Desperation? Determination? Fear?

Boone: lifeguard. Auditioned for a Baywatch reboot. (I legit forgot he was actually a lifeguard and cried laughing when he mentioned it later)

Hurley: faints at the sight of blood, too pure for this world

Rose: lucky lady #blessed

Jin: Korean is a beautiful language and that’s a beautiful man. Very corporate-looking, though.

Kate: obvious love interest for Jack. Can be talked into anything if she finds the guy attractive. (jk, but only kind of)

Sawyer: broody. Started smoking at 13. Marlboro approached him about being a model for them. Gets into fist fights regularly. (I 🤍 you so much James but let’s face it, you had a LOT of growing up to do.)

John: chill dude. Likes oranges.

Sayid: another take-charge dude. Main character but doesn’t know and never acts like it.

Sun: hates being subservient. Will fight against it.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ali Winston at The Guardian:

As the University of California, Los Angeles is reeling from a late-night attack on a student protest encampment for Gaza last week, attention is turning to the disparate group of counter-protesters who had rallied against the encampment in the lead-up to the violence, including during chaotic dueling rallies two days before. Many witnesses to the 30 April melee observed that the small group of assailants – many of them masked – did not appear to be students. More than 30 people were injured, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair). Authorities are still working to identify the perpetrators, and have not made any arrests.

But researchers studying hate and anti-government groups have confirmed the presence at the counter-demonstrations of several far-right activists who have been involved in anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-vaccine protests across southern California over the past three years. Narek Palyan, an Armenian-American from Los Angeles’ Van Nuys neighborhood, was photographed on UCLA’s campus on 26 April amid a group of counter-protesters, and again on the evening of 30 April, hours before the assault on the protest camp. Palyan took part in several “Leave Our Kids Alone” demonstrations at school board meetings in southern California over the past year, where he was at times photographed making Nazi salutes. His social media history is rife with antisemitic and anti-LGBTQ+ posts. The Leave Our Kids Alone protests have cropped up at school board demonstrations, book readings and Pride celebrations throughout southern California, focusing anger from conservative parents on the recognition of LGBTQ+ identity and students in both curriculums and classrooms.

The demonstrations, part of a broader rightwing effort to sow unrest and undermine an alleged “liberal agenda” at US schools, have at times been marked by violence and drawn far-right participants from around the region, including people associated with local Proud Boy and Three Percenter militia chapters and fundamentalist Christian churches.

Manuk Grigorian, one of the organizers of some of the southern California “Leave Our Kids Alone” protests, was also present at the counter-protests at UCLA on 30 April. Grigorian frequently appeared on Fox News to discuss the school board demonstrations last summer, where he leveled false claims that certain public education districts were “grooming” children to develop LGBTQ+ identities. Michael Ancheta, a former mixed martial arts fighter who in the past associated with southern California Proud Boys and assaulted a journalist at a 2021 anti-vaccine protest in West Hollywood, was spotted among the pro-Israel crowd at UCLA on on 28 April, when pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian protesters staged dueling rallies near the encampment, and again on 30 April. Ancheta, who until recently ran an Instagram account under the handle “Antifahunter”, has been a frequent participant in the Leave Our Kids Alone demonstrations.

[...] The reason these counter-demonstrators are drawn to protests over the war in the Middle East, he said, was that they see them through the prism of a broader rightwing view that “traditional” societies and families are under threat. “Their animosity towards the campus demonstrations are part of this Christian far-right perspective that LGBTQ folks are threats to Christianity, and so are Palestinians or Muslims,” Cravens said.

[...]

Beyond UCLA, a number of far-right actors, including a violent white supremacist charged in connection with January 6, the founder of the Proud Boys, and a former member of the streetfighting Neo-Fascist Rise Above Movement have stood alongside pro-Israel demonstrators confronting Gaza solidarity encampments at universities across the country.

Lindsay Schubiner, the program director at the Western States Center, has been tracking this trend. To her, the activist presence is part of a broader rightwing effort to sow chaos and undermine democratic institutions. “These white nationalists, religious extremists and anti-democracy actors are political actors who are opportunistic and strategic – they have a goal of ratcheting up the temperature and escalating tensions between groups, and when there’s so much attention on a situation like the current crisis in Gaza, they show up,” Schubiner said. “We’ve seen attempts to co-opt and reframe the debate about the current war by characterizing pro-Palestinian students and faculty as un-American, which is incredibly troubling.” Gene Block, UCLA’s chancellor, has condemned the attack by “instigators” on 30 April, and Karen Bass, the Los Angeles mayor, has called the assault “abhorrent and inexcusable”. Bass likened the 30 April assault to the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.

The assault came after days of tension between camped-out students and counter-protesters at the Westwood campus. For days, counter-protesters turned up to the campus to confront the student demonstrators, with shouting matches occasionally erupting into scuffles. Aside from the rightwing school protesters, other extremist elements were documented on UCLA’s campus. On the weekend before the raid, photos emerged of a flag featuring the symbol the Jewish Defense League, a virulent Jewish supremacist organization founded by Meir Kahane that has committed “countless terrorist attacks in the US and abroad”, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The JDL was formally delisted as a terrorist organization by Joe Biden in 2022, over protests from Palestinian groups.

Why are far-right groups disrupting campus protests for Palestine? To cause trouble and stoke their war on “liberal colleges.”

[leighlew3]

For some reason I couldn’t send the link of this post but I could download the picture and send it (hopefully)

This is what I was references in that ask to you lol

Ah. And... yeah. A painful and unnecessary creative choice.

Look, overall I'm loving Picard, despite quite a few issues with some creative choices and contradictions, because this nostalgia is incredible and so appreciated and being able to witness these characters in action again has been WONDERFUL.

That being said... well, I'm about to launch into a ramble.

Buckle up, and keep reading if you'd like...

Picard had an ICONIC legacy female character in an interracial wlw relationship with a dynamic new Black female character -- both women over the age of 50 no less, an amazing thing to explore on screen -- and it worked. And so many fans loved it and felt represented and thrilled to kingdom come. And it fit with the Star Trek brand of inclusion and acceptance in a modern society. It also made Voyager fans of 25 years feel vindicated and seen, having Seven not only confirmed as sapphic, but actually exploring it on screen and finding love, even if a "happy ending" for Seven was never in the cards for many reasons, they could have explored why instead of just sweeping it under the rug off screen and reducing it to one awkward glance between them, a joke from Worf, and that was it. Seven and Raffi deserved better. Queer fans deserved better.

Alas, they tossed it in the trash for no valid reason at all, and at the worst possible time in our current social and political landscape of an outdated and frighteningly dangerous resurgence of homophobia, transphobia, etc. Life imitates art, and art imitates life. And thus, now we see conservative-run media companies catering again to the vocal, hateful little groups and extremist far right fear mongers. There is a very obvious bias of late again against LGBTQ content (especially wlw due to the frightening rise in misogyny yet again lately) across nearly every channel and streamer and studio.

For that matter, even beyond LGBTQ stories, there's also a significant reduction in the exploration of ANY sexuality on screen across the board lately, even for cishet couples. We somehow went from Hollywood being absurdly and unfairly exploitive towards women and putting actors in uncomfortable and unnecessary situations, to some sort of bizarre, puritanical, utterly sexless exploration of romance on screen. And even a reduction of romance entirely in many cases, for that matter. We went from one extreme to the other, and it's absolutely nuts.

Anyway, back on the topic of Picard, the two actresses who previously were captains of the ship and ALL about the pairing have since seemingly now had to backtrack, make excuses for this bizarre decision, or just not speak on it at all. And that's beyond sad.

And again, it makes me concerned that if Seven does get her own spin-off or is a part of a new spin-off again, they'd likely not include Raffi nor explore Seven being with women further. Which would just be LITERALLY going backwards in time to the days of Voyager where many (not all) straight male fans tried to claim her as theirs and theirs alone while reducing her to just "the hot Borg in a cat suit" even though everyone else knew she was three dimensional as hell, one of the best written and acted characters in franchise history, and inherently representative of the LGBTQ community.

Anyway, I really really hope they prove me wrong and Saffi get a satisfying ending in this show, and if nothing else, even if they don't have a future together in other series, any other shows at least continue to embrace Seven's pansexuality. It's important.

Alas right now my trust in creatives in the TV space who are under the pressures of conservative-run media conglomerates... is limited. Even once seeming allies are showing sides to themselves lately that are... concerning, to say the least. People who previously would tell incels to F' off, and weren't afraid to stand up to and block phobes on Twitter are now blocking queer fans for just asking "WTF?" about queer favorites being sidelined or ships being tossed in the trash. People who previously seemed to truly see and value queer fans are now bordering on just using them for clicks and stringing them along on likely hopeless efforts regarding show survival. And people who actually do mean well and usually stand up loud and strong for LGBTQ audiences are suddenly growing very, very quiet if not even in some cases TURNING on their queer fans entirely as TPTB remove more and more wlw content from airwaves and streamer services.

It's all very disheartening. As a writer who has had this conversation so often with producers and executives, I GET IT. The fight is NOT an easy one. And most the time inclusion efforts are flat out shot down. But it feels like so few people are walking the talk anymore. People who capitalized heavily on LGBTQ characters and ships and fans for a few years when it was hot are now turning their backs when the going has gotten rough. And that's frustrating for us all.

But, the good news: these things are often cyclical. So if everybody can hang in there, stay strong, and fight the good fight online and IRL, rock the VOTE, etc and drown out the hateful voices that want the LGBTQ community silenced or worse, then I believe we can set (or force, in many cases) the misguided, fearful, extremist-rightwing-catering media companies back to the proper side of history.

[thelesbianpoirot]

if you ever do feel like mocking saltburn please do. god that movie was ridiculous. just disjointed nonsense and shock factor (although, for me, the most 'shocking' scene was actually the end when he's about to unplug the ventilator or whatever, just because of the suspense and horror i felt knowing he's some deviant freak who's probably not above abusing an unconscious elderly woman.)

I tried to hold back on mocking Saltburn because the director is a woman, I hated the Barbie and only made a single post about it, because I didn't want to obliterate the film of a woman just trying to say some feminism 101 talking points while still making a giant toy advertisement. Especially a woman I know can make good movies, she made ladybird and I did enjoy that.

But when I found out Saltburn was directed by the woman who wrote, co-produced and directed promising young woman, I realize I had to say something. Emerald really isn't a survivor of assault, she can't fucking be, if she thinks promising young woman isn't a fucking slap in the face. I have never hated a protagonist and plot more. The message of her movies are any lacking substance. They have down right conservative messaging masquerading as radical, and are so misguided. Sheltered rich kid movies. She can't write for shit and people are blowing smoke up her ass. There are many male nepobaby hacks and frauds in hollywood, Emerald fennel is a rare female version. Saltburn is no different from promising young woman. I will be quick because I am about to go to sleep. She wrote that one too. She can't write. She could be a good produce and director, but not as a writer. Her ideas are uninspired, childish and not realistic. And she isn't inventive enough to make viewers suspend their disbelief. She made no effort to hide that the main character was sinister. I don't blame Barry, he's a good actor, he can do innocent and evil, but the movie showed it's hands so fucking early. I knew within the first 15 minutes where this movie was going and the only thing that shocked me was the blatant-ness of it all. This feels like the plotline of a season of dynasty, when I know she wanted it to feel like succession.

Oliver Quick is character that should be dismantling the wealth elite. He isn't poor, he's upper middle fucking class. I could not take any solace in a working class character seizing the wealth of the rich. His family is fucking loaded. Do you see his house? His happy loving parents. He is not a hero, or even anti-hero, he's no better any of the rich people he killed or had a hand in killing. If that is the point, what is the point. Everyone is an entitled rich evil bastard in succession, but they are people, they don't see themselves like that and we the audience no matter how aware we are, can fall victim to caring about them. At no one in this movie do I care about Oliver Quick or any of the other characters. They weren't people, just quirks and archetypes.

Is she saying poor (middle class really) people are entitled psychopaths social climbers? We hate and love the rich and famous because we want to fuck them and be them? Is that the message? I think she decided to make it a comedy after she saw the completely boilerplate boring runt of a film she made, so she added wacky scenes to get comedy from it, I did not laugh, not even in a dark things are funny sense. It just pissed me off more and more. I paid to see this on my day off, took the bus into the city and everything, emerald give me my day off back!

Does the women's wealth make their treatment okay? The sexual manipulation of the younger sister, and the abuse of an unconscious elderly disabled mother?

Young women are horny for Jacob Elodi, who isn't even a good actor, he's just tall, like I can't see a reason why this man is famous another than he's tall, and straight girls need to feel small and little to feel sexy idk. The whole film is dedicated to how enigmatic Jacob elodi's character is, and how someone wanting to be him or be with him could drive them to murder. Yet he is a PLANK. A BRICK WALL. THERE IS NOTHING THERE. He will never be Jude Law/dicky greenleaf (i.e charismatic asshole).

Yes, putting nonsensical meaningless shocking scenes in your movie doesn't make it good. Having a jump scare in your horror movie doesn't make it scary, you just surprised people, got a natural human response from them. I cringed, scrounged up my face, rolled my eyes and complain about the movie, that doesn't make it thought provoking. Just irritating.

She wanted this to be her THE MENU (Latest hollywood class struggle critique) mixed with Talented Mister Ripley (sympathetic but psychopathic protagonist tries to blend in with the cold shallow rich people).

But what she did was connect a series of aesthetic shots (jacob Elodi montage that belongs in a music video at best), weird sexual shit social media will cling to because it is weird and sexual, and location shots/scenes that looked like meaningful things should be happening but nothing is there. Film twitter tiktok can't stop talking about this dumb movie, and she got what she wanted. I can't wait till she makes a good movie for once, instead of relying on backlash, outrage to fuel her film career.

[wendytestabrat]

THOUGHTS ON THE NEW EPISODE:

•kyle is still a terrible friend to stan like honestly kyle seems like one of those fake friends that only hang out with u when they want shit from you LOL. like i was so pissed off when he went up to stan and asked to use his charger after he had been ignoring him for days on end

•this def was a kyman episode on cartman’s end and he was projecting by trying to get stan and kyle together bc he was rlly the one who missed being around kyle even more than stan. there’s a lot of moments in past episodes where cartman makes gay jokes about stan & kyle and acts like they’re a couple bc he gets sour and jealous of them LOL. the reason why we know this is because cartman will happily try to break up stan & kyle when it’s convenient for him and he knows he’ll get kyle all to himself so why would he give two shits about keeping stan & kyle together if there wasn’t something in it for him?

• i liked how this episode showed kyle finally avoiding cartman for once & minding his business and making friends with someone who’s not him which was nice to see even though kyle’s toxic side started coming out again midway through the episode when he couldn’t stop getting butthurt about cartman saying he runs hollywood and they pretty much revealed he only wanted to be friends with token (yes i’m saying token not tolkien SUCK IT THAT WAS HIS NAME FOR OVER 20 YEARS I DON’T GIVE A FUCK THAT THEY CHANGED IT CALL ME RACIST) bc he’s black and he thought token would be understanding over how victimized kyle feels for being jewish like bitch please lol. this was another example of kyle being ignorant and racist af yet he always jumps down cartman’s throat for being racist.

•cartman’s antisemitism has still toned down A LOT like i’ve mentioned before how he’s not as antisemitic as he used to be & so he showed more awareness of that and how antisemitism is wrong like when he got mad at cupid ye for praising hitler or whatever lol. when cartman was saying jews run hollywood i don’t rlly think he was being antisemitic that was just him obsessing over kyle and jewish culture like he always does bc he has a fascination for it lol. but they showed how cartman’s antisemitic behavior is basically a manifestation of his schizophrenia getting out of control, i mean that’s at least the way i interpreted the scene with him giving cupid ye his meds. it def does add more sympathy to cartman’s character bc he is trying to be better he’s just an extremely mentally ill and neglected kid lol.

•i don’t blame cartman & stan for getting annoyed by kyle and token’s tiktoks LOL i hate tik tok like nothing on there is funny or entertaining i don’t understand why people are so obsessed with watching strangers dance on the internet like tf. like srsly have ya’ll ever picked up a book before? it makes sense that kyle would be into something as dumb as that bc he sucks and he’s a follower and has 0 personality or originality and just does whatever will get him clout & money

• gotta love matt & trey for having common sense and calling kanye out on his shit unlike all the dumbass conservatives and shit who still keep defending kanye like the man is not well just bc he’s calling out a bunch of woke shit and the establishment that does NOT mean he should be an ally lol. but that’s just matt & trey’s libertarian views as usual they never swing too far left or right when critiquing anyone which is what i love about them. i love how they make a lot of conservative points but they also have the common sense to call out people like donald trump and kanye west on their shit when conservatives go too far. i swear like i loved candace owens until she started kissing kanye’s ass and defending everything he did and then when her fans wanted her to share her thoughts on the alex jones interview she was like “stop asking me to talk about kanye!1!1!!” 😩 like BITCH stfu lol.

[anewp0tat0]

hey so who are your favourite characters in black butler? like a top ten or something

heyyyy thanks for asking! sure, always nice to cover the basics. ofc this will probably not be surprising to anyone who's heard me rant for a while now, but I'll explain it anyway.

top 3 first:

1. Ciel: an atrocious guy with very little social personality, and one of the best written protagonists I've personally read. I'm just really into digging through this guy's brain, and when he isn't destroying people he's doing things that end up being funny.

2. Sebastian: another well written protagonist, despite the fact that we know absolutely nothing about him other than the fact that his personality is "cats, I'm better than everyone, except for agni maybe". I remember in my first year in the fandom a friend and I had a like 2 hour long text conversation about how much we hated and loved Sebastian. terrible guy, couldn't have the series without him, leaves a lot to think about.

3. Grelle: she's just as if not more atrocious than the last 2 cause she made these awful decisions herself, but that doesn't stop me from respecting her work ethic and just thinking she's awesome in general. and aside from how cool she looks, I think her inner thoughts and relationships with her coworkers is so curious, there is a lot to explore here. compelling character for me.

and following:

4. Elizabeth: she's one of the purest characters out there and she is so complex. a good amount of people hate her or just find her annoying for whatever reason, but I think the trend here is that the more flawed the character is the better. she's trying so hard to please everyone. probably one of the most relatable characters in her own way.

5. Soma: the source of joy in my life, God I wish he was my friend. he and Agni are basically equal in my ranking, I think they're just the kid mentor duo, but unfortunately only one of them has the chance to keep developing... ;;;^;;;

6. Agni: "agni" was good every day of his life until the end. the only thing he did wrong was out of loyalty for Soma, Sebastian should be jealous of him cause he is all the butler that Sebastian will never be. plus he just cries sometimes and I respect that.

7. Ronald: this is such a fun guy, and yet I am capable of having long conversations about him and everything that he could have possibly been through, it has been done. his workplace dynamic is perfect. everyone needs a Ron.

8. Finny: another pure being, he's such an interesting and honestly rare character, I don't often see other people like him in media, so obviously he's interesting. he's one of the only characters in kuro who have deep trauma and yet doesn't act negatively on it, either because he's unable to comprehend it at length or because his love and positivity for all things is just stronger. also he's Ciel's big bro fr.

9. Meyrin: she's awesome, Hollywood and feminists alike wish they were able to write a strong female character like her😏 she's freakishly powerful and one of the most feminine people out there, and she deserves that after what she's been through. I will never stop supporting her, she's everyone's big sis and she's adorable.

10. Bard: proud dad to all the servants, he's the wacky beer uncle that we all wish we had. he's conservative but just give him some time cause he does care about people and what makes them happy.

hope this satisfies you and doesn't completely contradict your own list of favorites! have a good day

[beardedmrbean]

https://x.com/fuckkoroks/status/1780650702894989334?s=46

Canadian government: *Treated their native population so inhuman Andrew Jackson would blush*

Leftist: Pushing for MAID on the homeless is the result of capitalism

Okay does leftists talk to any mentally ill person who don’t romanticize mental disorders often tell them it usually the GOVERNMENT that cause issues for us

Let me use my autism as example, as you already know the idea of autism=low functioning muted white kid

Also non white and female autistic people, when you are usually part of communities that barely understand mental illness as it is. You usually are undiagnosed for a while

Of course it got better…but the autistic “community” on tumblr shows the bitterness

Ugh another rate, I hate how modern kids media tell autistic kids (it’s fucking insufferable with black kids characters) that it a SUPERPOWER

But as you know the government been trying to kill people like me for generations as we are “burdens” to the system

Yes yes this in Canada, but I don’t understand how leftists are shocked by it?

What easier for an out of touch government, spending millions of dolllars in mental rehabilitation…I think lefties presume mentally recovery is like a kid cartoon character arc. Just because a lot of us don’t act like Hollywood ideas of a damage person. Doesn’t mean it don’t take a few years to recover (I’m still am)

Or old yeller such a burden?

Sorry for ranting

I feel like everything with that tweet is being misrepresented by everyone, leftist on purpose other person because they didn't read the article, a mistake I will not make. Let's see if I'm right

Article link

If a Canadian’s only affliction was “poverty,” 27 per cent said they would be fine with legalizing that person’s access to MAID. Another 28 per cent pegged “homelessness” as an appropriate bar to qualify for MAID. And 20 per cent of respondents were fine with MAID being handed out to anybody for any reason. In other words, one fifth of respondents agreed with the sentiment “medical assistance in dying should always be allowed, regardless of who requests it.” Notably, these most absolutist supporters of assisted suicide were pretty evenly distributed among age groups, regions and even political demographics: 20 per cent Conservatives, 20 per cent of NDPers and 22 per cent of Liberals were in the “always be allowed” camp.

Disturbing so far, but nothing to do with capitalism, there's poor people in every socioeconomic system and statistically lower number in capitalist/mixed economies.

One of the more controversial aspects of MAID has been a number of high-profile cases in which Canadians with serious illnesses opted for death only after years of failing to obtain proper medical care. The Research Co. poll found a slim majority of respondents who were fine with this, too; 51 per cent endorsed “inability to receive medical treatment” as sufficient reason for an assisted death.

The state's medical system not being able to treat people is not the fault of capitalism, not after they offered maid to the woman who just wanted a lift put in so she go upstairs in her home more easily.

The practice of referring or recommending assisted suicide has also spread well beyond the traditional boundaries of the health-care system. Notably, MAID is routinely practised within the Canadian prison system, despite similar measures proving deeply controversial in Belgium, a pioneer in assisted suicide legalization.

Ya this is government cost cutting measures at this point, not a capitalist issue given the people that seem to be being offered it, that and all the reports I've seen were there actually seems to be some pressure being offered to get the procedure.

They should go back to being honest and calling it assisted suicide.

Bunch of related stuff But as you know the government been trying to kill people like me for generations as we are “burdens” to the system Yes yes this in Canada, but I don’t understand how leftists are shocked by it?

Wait they're shocked? They've been some of the one's leading the charge

I don't know what snopes says but the mixture for me is that they can't actually eliminate down syndrome, it's not something their eugenics program can accomplish.

Cystic fibrosis they could do by sterilizing anyone that has the gene, granted if one parent does and one doesn't the odds of a CF child drop to zero, so genetic screening and tell parents where both have the gene they can't have kids maybe, see how that goes over.

What easier for an out of touch government, spending millions of dolllars in mental rehabilitation…I think lefties presume mentally recovery is like a kid cartoon character arc. Just because a lot of us don’t act like Hollywood ideas of a damage person. Doesn’t mean it don’t take a few years to recover (I’m still am)

Time to spruce up the sanatoriums they closed down decades ago so we can jail people who have committed no crime, or committed a crime that doesn't generally carry a prison sentence under the guise of 'it's for their own good'

But ya it's easier to live in a fantasy land where forcing people into treatment might actually work than it is to work with people and try and get them to decide that it might be a good idea.

Or old yeller such a burden?

To be fair Old Yeller had rabies, that was a mercy killing, fatal 100% of the time and a nasty way to go.

I do get your point though.

Sorry for ranting

No apologies needed, not sure when I'm gonna be able to have the time to get through whatever your next one is though, 98% chance going to get me pa from the hospital tomorrow and if so everything is gonna be delayed a bit.

[karlie-what-you-want]

With so many artists out these days, why on earth do Karlie and Taylor have to be like ‘golden age stars’ and closet and hide? Lil Nas X for example is an insanely popular out artist. There’s no reason to hide like it’s the 50s anymore. That part about lavender marriages that’s the common argument around here is something I’ll never understand. Especially when said lavender marriages now involve young children.

This is such a strange thing to say. By that logic, why does any queer person feel the need to be closeted?

It’s great that some artists feel safe coming out, but that doesn’t mean that everyone does or has to. Taylor got her start in the very conservative genre of country music more than 15 years ago—when the world was not so kind to gay people, not at all. Perhaps the world has progressed somewhat since then, but that doesn’t mean Taylor wouldn’t still feel the pain of homophobia and fear the consequences of coming out.

Imagine that you’re a young girl trying to make it as an artist, and all of the adults in charge are telling you that if you ever came out—if anyone every discovered that you like girls—your career would be over. That everyone would hate you. Taylor “pathological people pleaser” Swift fears nothing in the world more than that, even as a woman of 32. It’s insensitive to expect that she could just move on from all of that.

Do you really think that there are no closeted celebrities in Hollywood? Do you really think that closeted people in 2023 are not valid in their fears of coming out?

As a side note: Lavender marriages have always involved children. That’s not a new concept.

[drewmoi]

okay i know you probs won’t post this (hopefully you do bc i want everyone’s opinion) buttttt……

like for starters i hate even trying to put a political label on ppl (celebs especially) but i swear as someone who’s in a midwest/southern state (growing up in a small conservative town) i can almost confidently say i think he’s slightly conservative and i wanna clarify and say that i personally don’t think that’s a bad thing. being a conservative doesn’t make you a bad person at all. i think being cruel and mean to ppl for what they believe in is cruel. or ppl who discriminate are cruel.

i wanna add that i think he’s socially liberal (believes in all these rights for EVERYONE, but is probs economically a conservative. i could be wrong but i have more reasons why i believe this)

okay but this is why i say this….

he rarely posts about politics like most celebs do (even the ones who aren’t active still post). but i’ve never once seen him post about the ab0rti0n problems or climate change stuff. (that i know of at least). and from what i can tell from most ppl in hollywood, the ones who are typically slightly to fully conservative don’t speak on their beliefs to save themselves from backlash. (like i said before even the ones who are reserved still post about ALL the problems in the world rather than just some. i hope that makes sense)

he’s from a conservative town AND family. which typically influences ppl and their views (but not always) and grew up religious (from what i’ve seen or heard he still is slightly religious)

and lastly like i said in the beginning as someone who’s from a mainly conservative country town i’ve had the opportunity to people see and learn what a conservative looks and acts like. it’s the way he carries himself. 9/10 i’m correct. and it’s easy for me to spot a lowkey one bc i know many and am just a smidge of one as well.

hopefully this doesn’t make anyone upset. i don’t intend to make this “dislike” him. i can see why ppl think he’s a liberal but for me i just get the vibe of him being a LK conservative:) i love your account and hope this doesn’t upset anyone. this is just my personal opinion.

Not gonna lie I was thinking about not posting this cause politics is a very touchy subject. But I’m a firm believer in everyone has a right to there own opinion and to share it. But I’m not gonna comment on this one just cause I don’t feel comfortable giving an answer ( Nothing towards you anon!!! ) politics in general makes me uncomfy

[darklightsworld]

Hi! I'd like to ask a question about your Fire! post, because I got asked one when I reblogged it :) Can you elaborate a little bit on what you are referring to with the edgy stuff "Friends" did? I'd like check it out. Thank you, and have a nice February.

Hi! I was referring to Weekly Shoujo Friend, the other major weekly shoujo magazines in the 60s next to Weekly Margaret. These rival magazines followed different editorial directives and had different tones overall.

Initially Friends was considered to be the more conservative one. Even though many young female artists debuted in the magazine in the 60s (this was the decade when female artists became the main content providers of shoujo magazines), they weren’t really trusted to write their own stories, and most had to work based on narratives provided by separate writers. Kodansha continued this at least till the early 70s (I have to check further), and many artists hated it, for example, Aoike Yasuko (Eroica yori ai wo komete), who came into her own only after she left Kodansha and this practice. (There are exceptions, of course, Satonaka Machiko, who debuted at the same time as Aoike in 1964 (both were 16※), was mostly doing her own thing—with editorial guidance, of course.)

Conversely, Margaret recognized faster that young female readers would rather read what artists of their age group would create, and at the same time these young artists, many of whom debuted at 15-16, would know better how to approach readers hardly younger than themselves. This does not mean that there was no editorial guidance, and editors often suggested themes, literature, movies and such for young artists to use as a template for their stories, but Margaret was less rigid and reacted to the changes in demand faster. This is one of the reasons Weekly Margaret was the most popular shoujo magazine in the 60s, the first one to break a million copies in 1967, and even overall, the second manga related magazine to reach that number after Weekly Shounen Magazine.

While Friend hung on to family oriented dramas of young girls for quite long, Margaret switched to romantic comedies faster, first Hollywood-esque, then about foreign girls in foreign setting (mostly American), then about school girls in Japanese setting. Eventually Friend shifted too, but overall the magazine seems to be darker and more dramatic to me than Margaret, the art was also plainer, less decorative overall in Friend (huuuuuge exception is Hosokawa Chieko, who had the most amazing, most decorative, most unrestricted art in the 60s). This impression got only stronger in the late 60s/1970 when Friend had several serious coming-of-age dramas, like Mayuko no nikki by Yamato Waki and stories by Machiko＆Kenji (all came with a writer, but it’s not always a bad thing). Especially Machiko＆Kenji’s works have a touch of gekiga (this was the period when gekiga was widely popular, trickled into shounen manga and led to the birth of seinen manga magazines a few years before) and occasionally mixed with shounen manga line work. Mayuko on nikki is interesting too, it has some experimental artwork as well.

All in all, even though Margaret also had dramas, sometimes addressed societal issues, coming-of-age (the latter in foreign settings more in Bessatsu Margaret), and Friend also had its share of school girl love comedies, I feel Friend, that was more serious to begin with, gained an edgier, grittier tone as well by 1970. (Disclaimer: while I have read every issue of Weekly and Bessatsu Margaret from 1963 to 1970, I have only sampled Friend, a few issues per year, so far, so these are my impressions based on that.)

And since this came from the first bed scene, sexual revolution arrived in Japan as well, and by the late 60s it trickled down to manga magazines even for school boys and school girls. The infamous Harenchi Gakuen is a result of that, which caused the quite harmful trend of boys flipping girls' skirts in schools. These topics appeared in shoujo magazines in articles and manga as well, although often from a male perspective. Naughty (harenchi) behavior was kind of encouraged, and even regarding skirt-flipping girls were encouraged to “deal with it” as “boys will be boys” *rolls eyes* (Also never forget that one Friend issue in 1970 where teenage girl nude modeling was basically encouraged—photos included! *urgh*) Gradually articles about physical maturing of teenagers appeared, both about boys and girls, which were more serious, but in comedic shoujo manga “harenchi” elements (peeping toms, skirt-flippers) became frequent, and even more serious works featured shower scenes, underwear scene, nudity. Many of these were also from a male perspective (peeping toms not getting punished, girls being embarrassed, girls showing skin… in a shoujo manga), but many artists were more forward thinking and/or showed boys at the end of the female gaze as well.

Anyway, sexuality was kind of there at the end of the 60s, kissing became more frequent, and coming-of-age narratives featured sexuality, although mostly offscreen. I remember having seen panels of people in bed in at least one story I think in Bessatsu Margaret, but I can’t seem to find it among all my photos now.※※ An there are also the junior manga titles I mentioned, that featured more mature characters and relationship. Characters are obviously sleeping with each other, so at this point, when I haven’t read all the 60s shoujo and junior manga I would neither confirm nor deny that Fire! had the first bed scene ever (depends on the definition anyway.)

※By the way, it is often mentioned how Satonaka Machiko’s debut at 16 was a shock to young mangaka aspirant girls. However, her age is just one reason, several shoujo manga artists debuted that young or younger even before her. However, this was the start of manga awards for people aiming to be a manga artist, and with this (and also manga schools, a tradition started by Bessatsu Margaret not long after and immediately copied by almost every magazine) aspirants finally knew an exact way how they could become a manga artist. Before that it wasn’t clear at all, it involved sending or bringing manuscripts to publishers or older artists and so on.

※※Found it, it was in 1971 so it doesn't matter, Juliano no asa by Nishitani Yoshiko. Well, that was crazy stuff: the boy slept with the mother of his girlfriend thinking she might be his mother o_O

[tea-with-evan-and-me]

i hate that i have to even say this but

i'm not gonna go back and forth and post asks from people who want to shame and act disgusted by evan because he could be having casual sex. evan is a grown man who is hurting no one by having consensual sex with another adult. no one is telling you that you aren't allowed to have your own personal convictions, but to impose them on another person is judgmental and unfair. evan is not your friend, boyfriend or husband - who he sleeps with is not relevant to your life. if there were reports of evan being out here spreading STDs and impregnating women, that'd be one thing, but that's not the case. quite frankly, it's wildly unrealistic and damn near delusional to think that 99% of the male population don't engage in this same behavior. no one cares if you want to stop being a fan because a hollywood actor doesn't align with your conservative beliefs about sex. this isn't an airport, you don't have to announce your departure. let me break it down below.

reasonable: i don't engage in casual sex or hook-ups. it leaves me feeling bad, and i prefer to keep sex between myself and a loving partner.

unreasonable: i don't engage in casual sex or hook-ups. people who do are disgusting, immoral and dirty and i have a low opinion of them.

i know the idea of everyone's celebrity crush dating always drudges up a lot of feelings, and i am more than fine to publish peoples thoughts, feelings and observations about the situation as it unfolds. that's what this space is for! nothing wrong with a little sarcasm and/or shade, and fair criticism is welcome. what i don't want to do is become a platform for people to be rude, judgmental and hurtful because they feel ownership over a celebrity.

i have been receiving 100-200 asks per day and honestly, it's just a few people who make a habit of being negative. so let me take a moment to just say thank you to everyone for participating in discussion and keeping things fun and informative. you all are amazing and keep me cracking up. our community is growing!

[opinated-user]

The Hayes Code was pivotal in shutting down the career of POC in Hollywood who had been able to cultivate careers pre-Code, so it makes sense to me that Lily likes it. Less non-white people in media is a common wish among conservatives, and considering she reblogs from conservatives, misgenders people, and was briefly friendly with a Nazi, it's clear that she's a right winger attempting to pretend not to be.

As someone who actually knows my film history I find this to be Tucker Carlson-esque. "Why can't things be like in the good old days where we didn't have to put up with LGBT+ people and non-whites and the villains always got punished?" is a thing that could come out of Lily or Tucker's mouth, and that's so sad to me.

No matter how hard you lick fascist, queerphobic and racist boots, Lily, you will never be 'one of the good ones'. They hate you. You can't be a pick me girl for racists and queerphobes, that's not a thing.

speaking of, while casually googling about this i found the fascinating story of Oscar Micheaux. he was a prolific filmmaker that made more than 40 film through out his career. he was there to witness people go watch birth of a nation so he responded with his own movie, with a mostly black cast being portrayed as the heroes suffering injustice racial violence. truly fascinating stuff. https://daily.jstor.org/how-oscar-micheaux-challenged-the-racism-of-early-hollywood/

but i doubt that LO will ever speak about men like him or any other POC creative person negatively impacted by the hays code, because it would break her little narrative that it didn't do much of anything and everyone else (notably, progressive people) are mad about it for no reason.

[papirouge]

Prayer circle ladies 🙏 that the balenciaga scandal wakes more people up to the world of pedophilia in fashion. Often they are higher up gay males in power with an agenda that hate women so they enforce rules to make women look as masculine/deformed for their fetish. They love to force straight men into gay shoots or gay sex (like the casting couch in hollywood) for their enjoyment too and these males are pedos into bdsm on children!! Obviously shown from that Balenciaga shoot with kids being surrounded by pedo propaganda. I want more women to burn these stores and brands down. I hope we do. We need to revive and support jobs of local seamstresses so they don’t have to work at these corrupt companies and protect anyone thinking modern fashion is a safe space. It never was

Unfortunately, nothing will change. Only normal people/normies are outraged about this, but fashion people know that in a few weeks everything will get back to normal....

Balenciaga eventually issued an apology

As a fashion graduate, I keep an eye on the fashion industry and groomers have never been remotely threatened by these scandals. And they've been MANY (Alexander Wang, Richardson, Bruce Weber, etc...). As soon as they are in a position of power, men (for the most part) abuse models. But since they aren't as mainstream as Balenciaga, normies stay unaware of that. Right now as stylist called Nusi Quero is getting exposed for sexually abusing models, licking & flashing them (without consent obviously), spitting on their mouth, and making them wear tights soaked with cat urine???

(btw side eye ing Diet Prada BIG TIME for being so wishy washy in calling out Balenciaga and being surprisingly factual on this one🤔 Weirdly enough, they went harder against Kim Kardashian (so did Candace Owens, probably to whiteknight her newfound bestie Kanye) when homegirl is nothing but a pawn but hey, she's an easier -and more visible- target than those pedo scrote hiding behind curtains... ) They usually aren't that much cautious when it comes to call out other (less known) designers for copying/stealing design, but I guess they can't go after Balenciaga like that since they probably line their pocket🤡 Like, I already knew they were sold out, but it's embarrassing how they aren't hiding anymore lol)

Oh and this predatory behavior doesn't only happens in high fashion, Abercombie OG Creative Director was known to be a creep (and OH SURPRISE! Bruce Weber photographed their campaign 🤡 I recommend you the documentary "White Hot" to understand the extent of the controversial legacy of this brand

Back to Balenciaga: there's a twitter thread exposing one of the creative of the brand's weird Instagram posts. If you're familiar with Pizzagate, you'll immediately understand there's a hole rabbit nest under this trash.

I wouldn't be surprised if internet sleuth find some other evidence of the utter degeneracy of this industry. But it's important to understand that like Pizzagate, it's not just individual, but a whole network. I'm absolutely not surprised to see Marc Jacobs commenting on her post and she mingling with Gosha Rubchinski...

Oh and while we're at it, I'd like to explain to the idiots thinking this

is a "clever" clap back, that it's not.

Regardless what delusional Conservatives think, PEOPLE (not company) are absolutely entitled to not buy products based on whatever reason. That's not "cancel culture" in and of itself. This always existed as a leverage for citizens to express themselves - that's the whole point of boycotting (were the civil rights movement "cancel culture" too?🤔) and I'm FRICKIN TIRED of idiots using this word for literally EVERYTHING. Actually, the same conservatives are actually those who called to boycott Gilette and Nike BECAUSE they didn't appreciate the statements these brands did. So how any of that any less "woke" than liberals refusing to give their money to a republican brand?

Banks...do not close the account of people whenever they get in legal trouble. This talking point I've seen many Kanye simp/Conservatives pull out is retarded. Kanye didn't get his bank account closed: the IRS froze his account over TAX EVASION. Actually Balenciaga has yet to be condemned about anything. Plus, there's also the issue of them using 3rd party for the shooting which makes harder to identify an actual individual responsible for this. Expecting banks to close the bank account of company because they got under public heat is PEAK cancel culture, so Conservatives should live up to their own standards and shut it down.

I want the fashion industry to be destroyed as much as the next sane person, but that's not the way to go. Weaponized such a serious issue for silly political catfights while spouting misinformation is NOT helping. We need to bring awareness about the network of people pushing a very specific agenda (and guess what? That's not Kim Kardashian). All of this overrides political parties and I'm SICK of seeing people using this very serious issue to shoehorn their personal grievances against Liberals. Disgraceful and Wrong.

[renardtrickster]

Saw someone claim that most if not all anti-capitalist movements are actually funded by either one of the three corporations that own everything, or by the government directly (on behalf of said corporations), and that they're responsible for things such as people believing we should hand the government more power (read: I don't think people should starve to death on the streets in the world's richest and most powerful nation), or that libertarian is synonymous with pedophile. And I think this is very funny for a couple of reasons.

First of all, I think the implication here is that those filthy anti-capitalists are actually on the corporate payroll while us noble and inscrutable defenders of capital do it from the bottom of our hearts, which absolutely isn't the case. Generally speaking, there is no money to be found on the left. The money you do get there is like, donations to individual lefty streamers, tv shows or other media that are progressive and also popular, or political campaigns that people donate to and sometimes someone with deep pockets donates to them. Of the three I listed, one of them is political campaigns that go towards a specific cause or candidate (conservatives will lie to you and say that these all just go to lining some politician's pocket and are scams but that is because they are politically illiterate and hate you), one of them is >be in Hollywood, and one of them is Hasan Piker Bought A Car with money he got in perhaps the most ethical way it's possible to get money. With the exception of the second one, these are all pretty grassroots. Meanwhile conservatives will consistently make bank with no effort. Steven Crowder has no charismatic skills whatsoever and can't even pretend he doesn't hate black people and his recent spat with the Daily Wire has revealed that he's been propped up by millionaire sponsors like Cary Katz his entire life. Speaking of, Gina Carano did nothing exceptional except make an unfunny pronouns joke right after her co-actor's sister came out and then compared being a conservative to being a Jew in Nazi Germany and Ben Shapiro immediately offered her a position at the Daily Wire. Tim Pool owns a fucking underground bunker. Not to mention Prager University being funded by the Wilks brothers and a bunch of other oligarchs, which explains why they'll have occasional episodes talking about how fracking is actually the most environmentally friendly thing in the world in between praising Robert E Lee for stopping a slave rebellion or something. In general, people grift left (when they do so at all) for the social clout which they don't even get half the time, and grift right for the money of which they will be given a disgusting amount of almost immediately.

The thing about the secret propaganda about libertarians being bad and also pedophiles is really funny though because it acts as though the only reason libertarians don't have any respect in the current political atmosphere is because they're secretly being kept down, man. When in reality the reason libertarians lack such a voice despite their loudness is because they're incoherent and unlikable. And I know this because the OP is a libertarian and the main crux of their post was that insulin is expensive because some rich douchebags got to it first, sold it for unreasonable prices, and then used that money to lobby the government into making it such that only they could sell insulin. Which I agree with, until they said that this was somehow anathema to capitalism, because "no interference no regulation invisible hand only final destination, survival of the fittest if you can't handle the heat stay out of the kitchen, money equals power, the result that reveals itself is the optimal result" as an ideology is wholesome and consistent and American until it has demonstrably awful negative effects on the world at which point it stops being capitalism and becomes a scarier word, thus allowing me to condemn people getting randomly shot while still advocating for pointing guns at people for no reason and pulling the trigger as though my existence and dignity both depended upon it.