#anti chicago fire

[swiftiesbuddie]

LOVE the biphobia from Shay and the entire 51 station in Chicago Fire /sar

[octaviaabadassblakee]

I think I have something against firefighters named Gabriela on these firefighting TV shows. Cause Gabriela Dawson (Chicago Fire) and Gabriela Perez (Fire Country) are seriously my least favorite characters on these shows 😭😭

[sarah-cam]

i love my alive and happy endgames 💙🧡💚

[kim-ruzek]

My best friend (we are still best friends) is now engaged to my ex-husband, and I'm going to be her Maid of Honour, so I will never understand the whole "girl code" and "dating best friend ex-husband thing". My ex and I split not because something horrible happened but because didn't the same things and along the away we just fell out of love. When my best friend and ex started getting close, I just looked at them and knew.

Also, I'm huge Gabby fan but she left Matt and Sylvie and like the Monica said when asked about Brettsey -Gabby knew what would happen when she left. Also, I really don't think she would be annoyed by Brettsey the way some fans are.

YES SEE THIS !!!

You and your friend are precisely the example of why I don't subscribe to the whole don't date a friend's ex thing because in life, there are nuances to every situation and yes, sometimes the person you're meant to be with is your friend's ex.

And yes, I agree - I don't believe that Gabby would mind about Brettsey. I actually think she'd be happy for them and she also knows that both of them are really good people, so she'd know they'd treat each other right.

Thank you for asking!!

[lethalhuntress]

Chicago Fire 12x1: Barely Gone

What I Liked:

Opening with a Stellaride shower scene! They're just so beautiful!!

I love when Kelly gets an OFI case. Always good stuff.

Herman & Kidd fighting over Ritter.

Brett just being her normal supportive, happy self. I squealed at that picture of her & Julia. Then I laughed at the others b/c it's terrible photoshop.

Severide, Carver & Cruz!!!

Brett suggesting Carver take Violet as his date to the wedding. She knows Violet has or had a crush.

What I Didn't Like:

Gallo leaving.... but I understand family comes first.

The disagreement over Kelly working the OFI case. I get both sides but yeah....

Something's up with Herman & I have a feeling it's not good.

Gallo, Ritter & Violet goodbye. Tears! Gonna miss them.

Stellaride

Ok so Kelly is clearly passionate about this OFI stuff. What he did was wrong. Not contacting her at all b/c you can easily conclude that he loves the work more than her. She was an afterthought. She's scared that he will do the same thing again, but a compromise has to be made. He took his name off the Special Investigators List & he's clearly upset about that. It can quickly turn into resentment. Considering his comment to her before they got married "of course you're happy b/c you got what you wanted" something like that. It can get bad fast. I just hope they don't turn him into Jay.

I don't see this ending well & I think they might be headed for divorce if something doesn't give.

Brettsey

Don't care about Brettsey. It's just such a boring & forced ship. However, I'm happy for Brett. Specifically for her & baby Julia. She finally has the family she's been wanting. I loved this storyline with Dawson even tho it ended in 💔. Wishing the best for Brett/Julia.

Stella/Carver

Until I get confirmation with actions/words, I'm going to assume Carver still has feelings for Stella. It has been six months so maybe those feelings started to die when Stella went after Severide. They still have a past together that hasn't been revealed yet & I suspect they are saving it for a reason. I just know he's really good at hiding his true feelings when it comes to her.

Violet/Carver

Either they are hooking up or it's something else entirely. I think they are cute & there's chemistry. Although she seems annoyed or that's just a front.

Violet/Brett

Another duo I'm going to miss. That scene was so sweet. Violet is going to be amazing as PIC b/c she had such an amazing example.

Top 3 characters:

Hermann

Severide

Brett

POSSIBLE EXITS:

Severide & Hermann

[imjustavenuxwithaboomerang]

korra and gabby dawson are a bit too similar and that's just not good

[hiding-in-my-blanket-fort]

Something that bothers me very, very much about the Dawson/Casey dynamic is how often Matt is bullied into silence. I understand that relationships aren’t perfect, miscommunication happens. But there are several times where Gabby just steamrollers Matt and then complains to Kelly about Matt. She got one of THE nicest guys on the planet and she’s complaining about him. When he poses an alternative that isnt HER WAY, she glares him down until he shuts up. When he’s juggling a thousand different things and he doesn’t drop everything to do what she wants RIGHT NOW, she gets pissy about it.

Then the show piles on the Gabby praise, “She’s just so great!” but she’s just coming across as emotionally immature and very high on herself. And I really hate feeling that way about a female character.

[gins-potter]

I've always found it a bit weird how much time has been dedicated to Kelly's family and past compared to other main characters, even Matt. At this point, it feels like we know everything we need to know about Kelly's past, but with Matt, who was the main character alongside him for 10 seasons, we know so little, even with us meeting his mum, sister and niece. We just know the basics.

Matt and Stella have painful, sensitive and interesting pasts and childhoods that the writers haven't utilised or underutilised.

I would also like to learn more about Violet's, Ritters and even Boden's pasts. Like what was it like for Boden back then trying to become a black firefighter and rising through the ranks?

Completely agree. Like in the interest of impartiality, I'll say that Casey did get a decent storyline about his childhood in s1 but then it was barely touched on until s10 and even that was small. Like I would loved to have gotten more about about his actual relationship with his father, who we know was abusive, and his death. And like how he decided to go to the academy, and what happened in this years between his mother's imprisonment and joining the academy.

For Kelly, his relationship with his father in particular has been done to fucking death. There really isn't much more to explore there. If they want to keep doing storylines about his childhood, I'm begging them to explore a different aspect of it. Like we barely know anything about his mother. Or even why he decided to become a firefighter despite clearly having conflicting feelings about his father being a firefighter.

Or better yet, as you said, do a storyline about literally anyone else. We only know such vague details about Stella's childhood. She has parents she's either estranged from or are dead (think those details have changed over the seasons), she got into some trouble as a teenager, and ended up in a toxic marriage. There's so much they could do there.

Or more about literally anybody else.

[thelonelyjew]

Pride banned Jews?!?

So it's that time of year again that I see people circulating stuff that is completely fabricated about what they imagine happened at Chicago Dyke March in 2017.

First, Dyke March is not Pride. It is not meant to be apolitical or single-issue. It is explicitly anti-imperialist, anticapitalist, and, yes, antizionist. It's not the big mainstream pride Parade that has corporate sponsors (and ads for gay tourism in Israel), it's a small radical grassroots demonstration.

Ok now that that's out of the way, they did not "ban Jews". I was there. They did not "ban Jewish symbols". They did not ask anyone to leave because of their Jewish pride flag.

What actually happened was three women who turned out to be employed by Israeli pinkwashing operation A Wider Bridge participated in the march with a rainbow flag that featured a blue star of david in the center. I remember seeing it and disliking it bc it gave me Zionist vibes but neither I nor anyone else bothered them about it.

After the march there was a cookout in the park. The women were asked to leave by a Jewish member of the Dyke March Collective after several hours of hanging out at the cookout because they were harassing other marchgoers.

Immediately publications like Forward, Tablet, JTA, as well as more mainstream publications started running stories making wild untrue claims which you can still read if you Google it because none of these were ever corrected or retracted. It's clear that these AWB agents had press releases pre-written and ready to fire as soon as they managed to provoke any reaction that they could spin into a controversy.

The photos that ran along with these headlines were also misleading. One of them showed a photo of a rainbow flag with a white star in the center. The star on the flag I saw was blue, and the shade of the star has specific political connotations. Showing a different flag with the politically significant color removed is extremely misleading. The one that was carried in the march (and which, again, wasn't banned!) looked like this:

Another banner image, this one in a New York Times article, showed a young woman with dark curly hair holding a sign that says "this is who we are". She was clearly chosen to feature because of her stereotypically Jewish features. The article implies that she is one of the supposedly banned Jews. This is false. You know how I know? Bc that was the friend I was there with that day! She does not identify as Jewish, she looks like that bc she is Italian, and she had no idea she was being photographed!

I had a hat decorated with red and black stars of David, and the following year a bunch of us wore Workers Circle sashes with Yiddish text (which uses the Hebrew alphabet) as well. No one who wasn't employed by a Zionist organization was asked to leave or even questioned about anything related to Zionism or Jewish identity.

I'm resigning myself to the fact that this is going to get dug up and passed around every year and people will believe what they want to believe, but if you hear claims that some queer group "banned Jews" or something similar, please look at the source for the information and if possible try to talk to actual Jewish people who participate in the community events being discussed. And if you hear this about Chicago Dyke March in specific, please correct people. I feel like I'm going insane when this many people are insisting that what I saw and experienced wasn't real and pointing to the barrage of misleading articles as what I should believe over my own experiences.

[mariacallous]

Glad people are finally finding out that these Pro Palestine protestors are ratfuckers-by-design at best (and Republicans at worst) and that's why they support Trump:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/08/dnc-palestinian-gaza-protests/679524/

One month ago, an NBC News headline reported:

Protesters made a tiny footprint at the RNC in Milwaukee. Other than a modest daytime march on Monday afternoon, the first day of the Republican National Convention, there were virtually no protests over the event’s four days and nights.

Obviously, the story from the Democratic National Convention in Chicago is already proving different.

This is part of a pattern. Gather any large number of Democrats together, in almost any city or state, whether at rallies, fundraisers, or presidential appearances, and pro-Palestinian protesters will try to wreck the event. These actions have been building to threats of outright violence. Pro-Trump and Republican events, meanwhile, are almost always left in peace.

Of the two big parties, the Democrats are more emotionally sympathetic to Palestinian suffering. The Biden administration is working to negotiate the cease-fire that the pro-Palestinian camp claims to want. The administration has provided hundreds of millions of dollars of humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza. President Joe Biden’s terms for ending the fighting in Gaza envision a rapid movement to full Palestinian statehood.

By contrast, former President Donald Trump uses Palestinian as an insult. His administration moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. In 2016, Trump campaigned on a complete shutdown of travel by Muslims into the United States; Trump now speaks of deporting campus anti-Israel protesters. He has pledged to block Gaza refugees from entering the United States.

Trump wants to tell the story that he and his party will enforce public order. He alleges that Democrats cannot or will not protect Americans against chaos spread by extremist elements. The pro-Palestinian movement works every day to create images that support Trump’s argument. As a visibly annoyed Vice President Kamala Harris asked protesters in Detroit earlier this month: Do they want to elect Donald Trump?

Not all pro-Palestinian demonstrators are thinking about the election. Many seem driven by moral outrage or ideological passion. But for those who are thinking strategically, the answer is obvious: Yes, they want to elect Trump. Of course they want to elect Trump. Electing Trump is their best—and maybe only—hope.

To understand why, cast your mind back a quarter century.

In the election of 2000, Vice President Al Gore faced Texas Governor George W. Bush. Gore probably would have won in a straight two-way contest. But that same year, the progressive advocate Ralph Nader entered the race as a third-party challenger—and he pulled just enough of the vote to tip the Electoral College and the presidency toward Bush.

Nader later professed regret for running as a third-party candidate. But at the time, Nader understood exactly what he was doing. Defeating Gore and electing Bush was the intended and declared purpose of Nader’s candidacy. Nader detailed his logic in many speeches, including this one to the summer-2000 convention of the NAACP:

If you ever wondered why the right wing and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party has so much more power over that party than the progressive wing, it’s because the right wing and the corporate wing have somewhere to go: It’s called the Republican Party. And so they’re catered to and they’re regaled—like the Democratic Leadership Council, they’re catered to and they’re regaled. But if you look at the progressive wing … they have nowhere to go. And you know when you’re told that you have nowhere to go, you get taken for granted. And when you get taken for granted, you get taken.

To paraphrase his argument even more bluntly: If progressives caused the Democrats to lose the presidency in the election of 2000, then Democrats would take progressives more seriously in all the elections that followed.

Nader’s logic was not altogether wrong. In many ways, the post-2000 Democratic Party has shifted well to the left of where the party was in the 1980s and ’90s. But catering to the party’s left has cost Democrats winnable races, and with them, key priorities: The Iraq War and 20 years of inaction on climate change head the list of progressive disappointments since the 2000 election, and the list extends from there. Whether or not the shift was worth the price, Nader was neither ignorant nor deceived. He identified his goal and willingly accepted the risks for himself and his movement.

So it is now with the pro-Palestinian demonstrators of 2024.

They start with a fundamental political problem: Their cause is not popular. Solid majorities of Americans accept Israel’s war in Gaza as valid and fiercely condemn the Hamas terrorist attacks as unacceptable. The exact margin varies from poll to poll depending on how the question is asked, but when presented with a binary choice between Israel and the Palestinians, Americans prefer Israel by a factor of at least two to one.

The brute fact of those numbers makes it very difficult for pro-Palestinian activists to win elections. In this cycle, despite all the emotion stirred by the Gaza war, two of Israel’s fiercest critics in Congress lost their primaries to pro-Israel challengers.

From the point of view of any practical politician: If a cause is so unpopular that it cannot help its friends, why listen to its advocates?

The only answer to that question, again from the practical point of view, is the message of the protesters in Chicago: Maybe we can’t help you if you do listen to us, but we can hurt you if you don’t!

Think of it another way. Since the bloody attack by Hamas on October 7 and the Israeli response, pro-Palestinian protesters have marched and agitated all over the United States. They have occupied college campuses. They have impeded access to Jewish schools, businesses, and places of worship. They have posted impassioned words and images on social media.

Yet all of their militant action has barely budged U.S. policy. Arms, intelligence, and economic assistance continue to flow from the United States to Israel. U.S. military forces cooperate with Israel against Iranian proxies in Lebanon and Yemen. Although the U.S. has imposed restraint on some Israeli operations, Israel has mostly been allowed to fight its own war in its own way.

These were President Biden’s decisions, not Vice President Harris’s. But she was the second-highest-ranking member of the administration. If Biden’s deputy inherits Biden’s office, the message is clear: His administration’s record of support for Israel carried no meaningful political price. All of those street demonstrations and campus occupations will have amounted to so much empty noise. All of those articles arguing that Gaza explained Biden’s troubles with young voters would be exposed as ideological wishcasting.

If Harris wins, the pro-Palestinian movement will have lost.

If Harris loses, however, pro-Palestinian protesters can claim that they were responsible for her defeat. That claim might not be true—in fact it probably would not be true—but try disproving it. The pro-Palestinian movement would have at least some basis to argue: You lost because you alienated us.

If Harris wins, she may want to do something about the pro-Palestinian cause—for humanitarian reasons, for reasons of diplomacy and geopolitics, for reasons of Democratic-constituency management in particular congressional districts. But she won’t have to do it. She’ll know that the protesters tried to beat her, and they failed.

If Harris loses, however, future Democratic candidates will tread more carefully on Israeli-Palestinian terrain. Even if they privately doubt that the party’s position on Gaza explains anything truly important, they will be worried by advisers and donors who will believe it or who will want to believe it.

But what about Trump? Why aren’t the pro-Palestinian demonstrators in Chicago more fearful of Trump’s possible return to the presidency?

Although the pro-Palestine cause attracts support from progressives, it is not exactly a progressive cause. Americans associate progressivism with secularism, feminism, and gay-rights advocacy, among other causes. The Palestinian national movement, especially now that Hamas has effectively replaced the Palestine Liberation Organization as leader of “the resistance,” has become markedly religious, patriarchal, and socially reactionary. But it is also a movement fiercely opposed to American global hegemony—and that is its “anti-imperialist” appeal to Western progressives.

If you oppose American global hegemony, Trump is your candidate (as a long list of anti-American dictators have already figured out). Trump fiercely opposes the alliances and trade agreements that magnify American power and make the U.S. the center of a huge network of democratic, market-oriented countries. Trump’s “America First” bluster is actually a pathway to American isolation and weakness that will further remove American power from the world.

If you wish America ill, of course you wish Trump well. The far left and far right of U.S. politics may disagree on much, but they agree on that.

The protesters in the streets of Chicago are not acting aimlessly or randomly. The people on the receiving end of their protests would benefit from equal clarity. The protesters want chaos and even violence in order to defeat Harris and elect Trump. They are not ill-informed or excessively idealistic or sadly misled. They are not overzealous allies. They are purposeful adversaries.

The Chicago-convention delegates should recognize that truth, and act accordingly.

[sarah-cam]

have you seen the chicago fire spoilers? 🙄

yep and i'm just gonna leave this here

[kim-ruzek]

For all we know, it appears that Gabby barley keeps in contact with 51. It seems rare. So she possibly found someone new herself if she's traveling around to different places. It's been YEARSSSS.

YES YES YES

I just answered an ask saying exactly this - in my mind, Gabby is happy and is in a new relationship and is very pleased with that.

And yeah, the show has well established that Gabby very rarely, if ever really, keeps in contact with 51 which even more shows why Brettsey isn't 'wrong'.

Thank you for asking!!

[probablyasocialecologist]

In all, at least 100 people set themselves on fire in the US and Vietnam to protest the war. After a long history on multiple continents as a tool of protest against religious persecution—the precedent on which Quảng Đức was drawing—these self-immolations cemented a new association in American culture between the tactic and anti-war activism. In February 1991, during the first US war in Iraq, Gregory Levey doused himself in paint thinner and perished in a fireball in a park in Amherst, Massachusetts, leaving behind a small cardboard sign that read, simply, “peace.” Malachi Ritscher, an experimental musician in Chicago, set himself on fire on the side of the Kennedy expressway during the morning rush hour one Friday in November 2006, after posting a long statement on his website explaining that he felt there was no other way for him to escape complicity with the “barbaric war” the US was then waging. He had been arrested at two previous anti-war protests. Scholars often associate the rise of political self-immolation in the 1960s with the rise of television: a spectacular form of protest for the society of the spectacle. But of course there are less painful ways for protestors to attract eyeballs. The reality is that self-immolation registers the near-total impotence of protest—and even public opinion as such—in the face of a military apparatus completely insulated from external accountability. It the rawest testament to the absence of effective courses of action. When war consists primarily of unelected men in undisclosed locations pouring fire on the heads of people we will never know on the other side of the world, there is very little that ordinary people can do to arrest its progress. But we still have our bodies, and it is in the nature of fire to refuse containment. To ask whether self-immolation is good or bad, justifiable or non-justifiable, effective or ineffective is in large part to miss the point, which is that it is an option, whether anyone else likes it or not. It illuminates our powerlessness in negative space, but it also affirms the irreducible core of our freedom, that small flame of agency that no repression can extinguish. Since Aaron Bushnell’s death by self-immolation this week in protest of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, his detractors have warned about the risk of “contagion,” suggesting that his protest will encourage imitators (who, they imply, share his alleged mental instability). There may or may not be additional self-immolators before the slaughter comes to an end, just as Bushnell was preceded by a woman, yet to be identified publicly, who burned herself outside the Israeli consulate in Atlanta in December. But the purpose of lighting yourself on fire is not to encourage other people to light themselves on fire. It is to scream to the world that you could find no alternative, and in that respect it is a challenge to the rest of us to prove with our own freedom that there are other ways to meaningfully resist a society whose cruelty has become intolerable.

[imjustavenuxwithaboomerang]

y'all...i just watched the first four episodes of house md because i wanted to see jesse spencer and hear him talk with his actual accent

i'm going to scream into the abyss

[hiding-in-my-blanket-fort]

Wish me luck, I'm heading into s6 and Gabby Dawson already has me rolling my eyes. God grant me strength.

[gins-potter]

Yeah, I don't think any of the OC exits have been good, even Matt's, but that's more to do with the 200th episode and buildup, which felt rushed, rather than the storyline. The only thing I'm happy about is that characters like Matt, Connor, Jay etc., weren't killed off, so they can return if they want to.

I actually think Gabby's exit was good. It felt very in character for her and everything that happened in season 6 with her actually felt like a lead-up to her leaving, even if Haas didn't believe Monica about leaving until the last minute (Bria, Cordova, her fights with Matt and Sylvie). And at least Gabby and Matt had a break-up onscreen.

I also didn't hate Mill's exit, just the execution.

Trying to remember the context this ask was sent in and I think we were talking about good and bad OC exits, the majority of which we both agree were bad ha ha.

I think just looking at Matt's exit, it was good. It made sense for who the character is, it was this really nice full circle moment all the way back to the pilot, it was built up fairly well (like the Dardens didn't just pop up randomly in the 200th) and you got a lot of nice goodbye moments amongst the cast that felt cathartic. I just think the exit felt a bit off because that was a bit of a weird time in the show and the fandom, there was a lot of confusion about Stella/Miranda, Stellaride were in a weird place, there was a lot of speculation about whether Jesse was leaving or not, so I think there was a bit of uh uneasiness I guess, surrounding the exit. But looking at it purely from a story perspective, I think it was really good.

I'm gonna be controversial for a sec and say that I still think Jay should have been killed off tho. I get wanting him to be alive for the possibility of him coming back, but nothing about his exit makes sense to me and I'd just rather they'd killed him off and been done with it. Him going back to the army, the shoddy reasoning behind it, him not saying a proper goodbye to the rest of the cast, his last scene being with Voight, leaving Hailey in this awful limbo. I fucking hate all of it.

I will agree with you re. Gabby tho. As someone who was not much of a Gabby or Dawsey fan by the end of Monica's tenure, her departure made a lot of sense to me. She was always a very compassionate, giving person, so sending her to PR to do relief work is 100% in character. And I think the breakdown of Dawsey's relationship was a longer time coming than people think, and it exposed some flaws that had been there since the beginning. It's rough for the Dawsey fans, I'll fully admit that, so they probably don't see it as a good exit, but yeah I think it was fairly well done.

Mills' exit was... fine. I mean, they kinda wrote him into a hole. Medically he couldn't be a firefighter anymore, he didn't have a lot tying him to Chicago once his family left, and just yeah, apparently the writers ran out of storylines for him. Whatever that means. In my head he chilled with his family in their new place for a while and then ended up in PR and hooked up with Gabby again (sorry I'm a Millson truther).

I don't think it had happened back when you sent this ask, but I'll also submit Ethan's exit as one of the best that OC have done. As much as I'll miss Ethan, he was written out well.