#anti wayside

[technicallydelightfulpenguin]

Look how they massacred my girl Stella.

"All what Stella wanted to do is throwing parties and gossip with her friends and everyone hated her for it , god forbid a woman have hobbies."

Submitted by @fromdusttoashes

[dieletztepanzerhexe]

We're doing a sort of Holy Cross sacral architecture route with the documentary guy but instead of visiting the most prominent churches in the area we just walk around looking at the ugliest kitschiest the most unfortunate disfigured deformed cursed wayside shrines. And there is plenty of them to choose from!

For example this one, he said that she looks relatively okayish now (uhm... okay... if you say so...). In the past she used to have healthy red lips painted on and pupils in her eyes, made by 2 black dots (patrzałki)

Our Lady of the Powerful Reflector (they want to be able to see every detail of her!!). And look, there are even 🤢- amd may allah forgive me for uttering this word - thujas 🤮 behind her.

[atlasisnothere]

one of the most wild things about rolling into the torchwood fandom a good fifteen years late is scrolling through the popular works on ao3 and seeing the sheer amount of hatred and vitriol that so many people held for gwen cooper. like??? fighting for my life here having to filter out multiple variations of the gwen bashing/anti-gwen-tag and even then some writers have such an unconscious dislike for the character that they'll slip nasty OOC characterisation in anyway. and it always seems to stem from this idea that she was 'stealing' jack's affections away from ianto but like. did these people not notice that the insane-straight-baiting-codependent-thing gwen and jack had going on was two-sided. did they miss the fact that literally every relationship in this show is toxic to at least some degree. some of these fics were rendered almost cartoonish in their going out of the way to point out how terrible and whiny they saw gwen to be. it all seems as yet another case in the epidemic of taking the woman perceived to be 'getting in the way' of a popular mlm ship and exaggerating or simply fabricating negative traits in order to justify shoving her to the wayside by proclaiming that she's a terrible person but. my god. gwen cooper my messy and flawed woman you will always be famous to me.

[im-totally-not-an-alien-2]

Halloween prompts year 2 day 30

Danny became aware suddenly, the memory of his mothers parting shot as he fled fresh in his mind. He panicked, thrashing around in what felt like a thick liquid when his hand hit what felt like a wall of glass.

A tube? Was Danny floating in a freaking vat somewhere? He didn't remember anything after being shot down by his mom but he knew if he was in a lab somewhere he needed to escape!

In moments he was on the ground surrounded by wierd fluid and shattered glass. He ripped the oxygen mask off his face and threw it away from him as a violent shiver wracked his body.

Looking up he was surprised. He was expecting the bright shiney metal of his parents lab, or the white of the GIW lab, heck, even the wierd purple thing Vlad sometimes had going on would have made sense. As much as he would have hated to have been saved by the fruitloop, it would have been a familiar fight.

The devil you know and all that.

But no, this lab was all dull blacks, dark grays and inky shadows. The tubes around him bathing the atmosphere in a soft green glow that barely illuminated anything.

Great. Wonderful. Just what he needed. More people making more problems for him.

Danny picked himself up off the ground, shuttering again and was surprised to realize he didn't have any clothes on.

Danny decided that whoever had kidnapped him was going to get acquainted the Anti-creep stick. Luckly there was a closet nearby with what looked like a superhero costume in it. Okay. Hes dealt with weirder situations.

He put most of the suit on, leaving behind the cape, mask and chest straps. Danny had to admit he liked the red and black look. The gold was a nice touch...too...

Oh no. Where these supervillian clothes?! Red and black are totally Saturday morning cartoon villian colors! His mind started whirling, somthing that it doesn't usually do as he made his way over to the darkened computer almost by instinct.

Then he looked up.

There wasn't a lot of light in this place, but there was enough to see his reflection in the blackness of the computer monitor. One problem.

That wasn't his face.

He was as this strangers face twisted into confusion and horror. Was he overshadowing somebody? No. No...he was...Tim Drake? He watched as his reflection furrowed his brows.

No. He was Danny Fenton, son of Jack and Maddie Fenton. Local mad scientists.

But...he was Tim Drake, son of Jack and Janet Drake. Archeologists.

A distressed sound left his throat as he slid to the floor, two entire lifetimes flashing before his eyes as he tried to figure out what was real. He tried using his powers but nothing happened. That should have answered everything, right?

But that wouldn't explain how he had shattered the entirety of the thick glass of his tube prison. The glass had been completely shattered and landed in a circle around the tubes base in a way no punch could have done, no matter how powerful. Does he have powers that are simply unavailable right now or is there another explanation?

Either way he should probably wear a mask so people don't ask why Tim Drake is dressed as Red Robin, huh?

Oh god. Red Robin.

He woke up in a cloning pod in one of Red Robins secret labs! He remembered Jack, Maddie, other Jack, and Janet's treatment of him. He recalled each and every dismissive comment, every empty promise. Every time the bleachers were empty at his vollyball games. Every time he was left home alone for an "important" dig. Every time his parents ran off because a ghost might be nearby. Every time Tim would throw everything to the wayside to focus on a case. Every time Tim would throw away his own health and well being for a goal. Every time...

Danny straightened up and pulled himself off the floor before he started typing away at the computer and planning his next moves.

Regardless of what was happening, if he was Danny overshadowing a clone or if his life as Fenton was just a dream from a pod, he knew one thing for sure.

He did not need another neglectful parent.

Aka Danny runs around Gotham avoiding the bats, the press, the rogues, the petty criminals, the mob, and the police. He fails of course and manages to somehow make enemies out of everyone all while having a massive identity crisis and searching for a new home far far away from here before Tim Drake figures out who he really is...

[here-there-were-dragons]

basically i think what happened is that they realized releasing new ancients is basically the only thing that significantly drives player numbers and site visitors in the short term, so they're just hyperfocusing on doing as much of that and only that as possible. the same way that the minecraft devs have become obsessed with adding a whole bunch of new and mostly useless bloat no one wants every update rather than fixing any of the glaring issues the game has had for years, because at the end of the day "LOOK NEW SHINY THING" will always sell better and get more eyes on screen and butts in seats than a glaringly long-needed code optimization.

so they're pumping out as many ancients as possible as fast as possible at the complete expense of literally every single other feature, because they know that's the one thing several thousand more people than usual will still regularly show up (and make them ad revenue) for. people don't turn out in droves for apparel or art fixes. people certainly don't turn out for, unfortunately, battlestone recolors, vistas, or scenes. everything they've been doing lately has been optimized to get as many people checking out the site at once as possible.

and as a side note, when they originally said "the ancient breed pipeline won't affect the speed/quality ect of the other development pipelines" i think we all knew that unless they were planning to hire new people just to make ancient breeds (or else obtain a mystical time distorting artifact to make there be more hours in the day) that was a complete fucking nonsense lie. that's just not how time management works. no matter how well-separated your development pipelines are the time to work on them still has to come from somewhere, or someone. you are still, fundamentally, going to be doing more work.

the staff might claim to be anti-crunch, but you kbow what could help them even more? actually slowing down with updates and gene expansions, and take time to go back to look at OLD bug reports (how long Strawberry Twinkle Aether M been broken for? since Aether's been introduced?? bro????) and take care of them, before adding 5 billion more genes and files into their pile.

there is seriously no need for huge gene expansions every x weeks. i beg you go back to the old ones and do what you can, instead of adding 50000000000 more with weird errors into the evergrowing backlog. this is more anti-crunch.

[kittyit]

One thing I don't like about trans critical spaces is how they are focused on trans women being unattractive and 'cringe.' this is just my personal experience, but I have been sexually victimized by multiple trans women, most of whom passed, many of whom were skinny and beautiful and most of which had high brow tastes and no interest in anime or other cringe topics. one of these TIMs was a serial sexual assailant and I think probably attracted to underage boys, and she was also beautiful and charismatic. Meanwhile, I also know multiple trans women who are good people and don't infringe on female spaces but who are conventionally "ugly", broad-shouldered, and have masculine interests. It also seems like the only thing TIMs criticize about each other publically is being "ugly", large, or fat.

my position has consistently been for about 15 years that mocking someone's appearance is not a feminist act. it simply isn't.

mocking appearance is essentially a cruel hobby, it's primate social aggression we're using our huge brains for. it's really fun, and that's why almost everyone does it. i sometimes do it too, in private, in intimate company, and it's enjoyable. i say this to clarify that despite my position, i don't set myself apart or above from women who do it. i do it too. and it's constant in basically every subculture online. julie bindel actually posted on her facebook recently troubled about this same thing. as you said, it's so common in queer/trans circles too, the long-forgotten 2013 values of tenderqueerism fallen to the wayside. stan culture, politics, just basically everything...i really can't stress enough that in my opinion, it is a hobby

mocking appearances is not feminist or activism. it quite often is anti-feminist. it's kindergarten stuff to not judge a book by its cover. it doesn't matter what a male person looks like - he is still male and all considerations that apply to male people apply to him. i don't need to think a male person has a hideous appearance to criticize him for any of the oppressive acts he's doing. focus on appearance (or other unrelated personal attacks) often takes the sting out of a criticism of someone's character, morals or actions and makes your argument easier to dismiss. and of course the now mocked & dismissed concept that when you rip into someone's appearance, you do friendly fire to anyone around who shares those features. but of course this doesn't matter to anyone because it's 1. so fun 2. we're so used to it 3. everyone is doing it 4. so who cares? (I do. However)

i also just can't really scrape up that much finger wagging anymore at women who do spend a huge amount of time blowing off steam mocking the insane parodies that trans women present as. it's basically evil imaginative play. it's just not activism and acting like it is, as you said, is really detrimental to radical feminism being understood as a feminist way of thought that deeply affects women's lives.

as for the rest of this, have you read pronouns are rohypnol? you do not have to call a serial rapist pedophile you knew she. there is no one here but us, he cannot hear you. i encourage you to free up processing power in your mind, especially if you've survived trans male violence. calling the men who harmed you he can be a turning point in reclaiming your own sense of reality, it was for me

[one-divides-into-two]

"If we treat the Stonewall Uprising as initiating the modern gay mass movement in 1969, the left-adventurist line was initially dominant, and fell by the wayside in the late 70s. Those who led the first wave of the LGBT movement of the 60s understood themselves (however incompletely) as participating in a revolutionary movement and process: In broad strokes, the early “left” line groups of gay liberation located the center of gay oppression in the family form itself and were explicitly in solidarity with the women’s movement as in many ways the same as their own (ideologically if not always practically). The British Gay Liberation Front’s Manifesto reads

The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family...At some point nearly all gay people have found it difficult to cope with having the restricting images of man or woman pushed on them by their parents...we are expected to prove ourselves socially to our parents as members of the right sex (to bring home a boy/girl friend) and to start being a 'real' (oppressive) young man or a 'real' (oppressed) young woman

The Boston Gay Men’s Liberation group argued in their manifesto for the collectivization of childcare and housework, saying

Rearing children should be the common responsibility of the whole community. Any legal rights parents have over ‘their’ children should be dissolved and each child should be free to choose its own destiny. Free twenty-four hour child care centers should be established where faggots and lesbians can share the responsibility of child rearing

Others explicitly aligned themselves with the national liberation and anti-imperialist struggles of the time –Third World Gay Revolution went so far as to explicitly call for armed struggle towards establishing socialism. The gay struggle, to these organizations, was necessarily part of the struggle for the end of capitalism and the liberation of all oppressed and exploited peoples.

Nevertheless, these groups primarily took the left-adventurist line, and the failure of these organizations to place politics in command and take up Marxism fully (despite its influence within the movement), and the failure of the leading Marxist organizations of the time to cast aside their chauvinism, place politics in command, and embrace the LGBT movement (most notably RU/RCP, which maintained that homosexuality was “perpetuated and fostered by the decay of capitalism” and to be eliminated under socialism until 2001 and engaged in conversion therapy-style practices on their gay cadre), allowed the bourgeoisie to co-opt the movement and suppress its revolutionary strains. By the end of the 1970s the main left-adventurist groups that emerged from the movement's popular initiation via the Stonewall Uprising (GLF, STAR, TWGR, etc) had collapsed, and were replaced by the newly dominant right-opportunist trend, represented in groups like Lambda Legal (founded 1971), GLAD (1978), and the Human Rights Campaign (1980). Occasional left-adventurist ruptures emerged over the succeeding years, with ACT UP's break (rooted in part in gay and lesbian anti-imperialist solidarity work in the preceding years) from Gay Men's Health Crisis representing the most significant of these, but over the next three decades the bourgeois "marriage equality" became the central demand of the movement, with the implication that once these various reforms proposed by the right-opportunist trend were enacted, the gay movement would cease to be necessary.

In the first two decades of the 21st century these reforms were realized, and the idealist fantasies of the leading bourgeois gay organizations were not. These reforms were granted because they reaffirmed the bourgeois family form, successfully assimilating the leading upper strata of LGBT people as a method of defusing the movement as a whole. While in some ways the broad social acceptability of homosexuality, transness and gender nonconformity have increased, the reaction to these reforms has produced a vicious effort to oppress the lower strata, typically trans people.

Indeed, all empirical evidence points to the continuing existence of anti-gay and anti-trans oppression. In our younger years, parents, teachers, and other authority figures will attempt to suppress any expression of homosexuality, transness, or gender non-conformity. The passive and active social enforcement of your sex/gender role is a universal experience, but is felt particularly acutely by those most directly in contradiction with those roles. When this fails, authority figures sometimes resort to violence and sexual abuse – gay and trans children suffer higher rates of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse across the board as compared to their cis and straight peers. LGBT people as a whole make 10% less than the average worker. This is felt more acutely among trans people, particularly trans women (in line with their cis counterparts), who make just 60% of the average. What bourgeois sociological evidence does exist points to significant discrimination in housing, jobs, medical care, etc. Accessing medical care is a struggle of its own for trans people – getting the treatment needed for basic day-to-day existence is often humiliating and expensive.

For younger LGBT people, particularly trans people, this political sequence has produced significant "whiplash." We grew up in a period of a real increase in broad social "acceptance," and being told that these reforms would guarantee an end to our oppression. But the utter abdication of leadership by the rightists following the reforms (after all, "we won") and the reactionary backlash has left the movement with a vacuum of political and organizational leadership at a crucial conjuncture. In the absence of this leadership, small groups have begun to emerge, largely taking up the left-adventurist anarchist line, sometimes explicitly. In some ways, this is a positive situation for communists. The broad masses of LGBT people are crying out for leadership in their struggle against the reactionary offensive, and the failure of the bourgeois rightist line to provide its promised victory has revealed to many gay and trans people, particularly those of the lower strata, the bankruptcy of reformism.

The current assault on our self-determination by the reactionary wing of first-world politics presents us with an opportunity to smash that trend, to effect a final rupture. Gay and trans people, particularly trans people, are increasingly forced into direct confrontation with the bourgeois state (through its repressive laws) and its extra-legal shock troops (with trans events becoming one of the primary targets for street fascist attacks). Not since the AIDS crisis have we seen such direct confrontation – and with it, openness to revolutionary communist political projects.

The task before communists in the gay movement is therefore to rectify the line of the movement through theoretical and practical struggle, to offer leadership to the gay and trans masses, and transform this movement into a detachment of the world proletarian struggle for communism."

Half the Sky: Preliminary Materials for a Proletarian Feminist Politics

[cfcreative]

Dumb BG3 thoughts based on a single pun for Korydass…

The Companions & Their Relationships to Makeup

Thoughts under the break…

Lae’zel: “Tchk! It is called battle paint, Istik!”

Shadowheart: Loves it, is clearly talented & practiced with it—also wildly jealous of Isobel’s eyeliner game. Has she worn poisoned lipstick? Probably at least once she can’t remember.

Astarion: Will deny that he uses anything. Actually uses everything he can get his hands on. Has gotten incredibly good at doing things by feel/memory. The only reason he isn’t more dramatic with it is that pesky lack of reflection.

Gale: Has a meticulous skincare routine and a manicure kit. Very particular about his hands AKA “The finally tuned instruments with which I compose the intricate melodies of my art!” Used to have a haircare routine, but it fell by the wayside when he wasn’t leaving his tower.

Wyll: Careful haircare routine. Enjoys eyeliner and eyeshadow. Was much more fussy about everything when every other day he had to attend a ball. Much more practical now that he’s been the Blade of the Frontiers.

Karlach: Is interested, but since there weren’t cosmetics that could stand up to the fiery hells of Avernus at her disposal she hasn’t had a chance to dabble. Unironically will ask Wyll (before anyone else) for ideas on what she could/should wear, because he’s her bestie and that’s who you ask!

Halsin: Works solely with what nature gave him, gods bless the man.

Minthara: Has a makeup/skincare/haircare routine that is precisely timed down to the minute. Has absolutely worn poisoned lipstick on multiple occasions. Also has painted her nails with poison. Not for a specific reason, just to test out the practicality of it. Didn’t use it again because it chipped too easily.

Jaheira: Used makeup more often when she was younger. After her kids and “bonus kids with weapons” (The Harpers) she didn’t bother as much with it. She still does her hair exactly the way Khalid loved it, though.

Alfira: Adores makeup! Stage makeup, everyday makeup, you name it! Can be overly ambitious with it.

Lakrissa: Never was interested when she was younger, in fact, was pretty anti-makeup… then Alfira begged her to try an eyeshadow. Alfira fawned so much over Lakrissa afterwards that Lakrissa has been wearing it ever since.

Isobel: Effortlessly an expert in makeup. Obviously adores a dramatic eyeliner and eyeshadow. Occasionally gets the whim to practice on Aylin. Takes up a more vigorous skincare regimen after resurrection because she’s quietly alarmed by the “clamminess” of her skin. (Nobody else thinks she feels clammy).

Aylin: Fully believes she is perfect without makeup. Fully believes she is also perfect with it. Does not own any of her own cosmetics. Really only wears makeup when Isobel puts it on her. Makes a lot of loud excuses about not understanding mortal hair-care because it prompts Isobel to wash and brush her hair.

Korydass: ��Make up? Make up with whom? Have I offended someone?!”

[awesomestarfighter]

#yes to everything #and honestly that’s what bugs me abt fics and the shows #they constantly bring anakin up in a positive manner has he hadn’t spent 21+ years destroying peoples lives #Owen and beru raised Luke and media always has him going “my father”’ this and that #so little reflection on yoda and his teachings #so little reflection on his aunt and uncle #and poor ahsoka knowing any Vader making her say that she WONT LEAvE HIM (anakin) BEHIND AgAIN and then turning around #and telling Luke he is just like his father #sis you were the golden child and he was your abuser no one is going to be proud of a friend reminding them of that #and she was starting to realize he was bad and new media fucked up by giving her powers to “save “ him #instead of forcing her to confront the idea that she’ll never get him back that he’s fallen to the dark side and there’s nothing she can do #abt it #sad for what they did to her and her true potential

oh hey, remember that post about how Anakin and Ahsoka's relationship was a lie from the very beginning because every happy memory she has of him she formed when he was already a mass murderer? how the idea of Anakin before he fell to the dark side she has in her mind was never even the truth?

well it took me ages to realize but the very first mission they have as master and apprentice brings them to the place he committed the mass murder. like i knew it but I didn't get what it meant. ahsoka spends the whole movie thinking anakin is just grumpy about his past but he's dragging the ghost of a horrible massacre!! and still thinking that little kid is annoying for being so bubble and happy about a planet he hates so much!! he thinks it's her way of thinking that's wrong and needs to be corrected, never once realizing as he's walking across Tatooine that he absolutely should not be mentoring a child when he has killed dozens of them.

he just expects to build a master/apprentice rapport with her - expecting trust, obedience, attention of her - while just... lying. about everything. I don't even mean this in a bashing way, just in a 'it's fascinating and bonkers when you think about it' way.

it's not just ahsoka's image of anakin that was missing a VERY critical piece that would change her entire perception of him if she had known, it's that anakin is reminded by circumstances of that critical piece at the very start of their relationship and doesn't seem to think it matters.

he lies to obi-wan, but they have a prior relationship he doesn't want to destroy. but he lies to ahsoka knowingly as he builds a relationship he did not have to build. I don't know what I think about that other than huh, there's a lot of unpacking to be done here

[vaspider]

Hey, sending this off anon so you can answer privately if you wish. I'm really confused about the difference between being anti-Zionist and pro-Palestine. I've been using both interchangeably for myself, but apparently that's incorrect? I don't know who else to ask.

So... I haven't had anon on in like 12 years, I don't do private answers, and I don't talk about I/P online.

But let's talk about a different issue instead. Let's talk about reproductive rights instead, as a means of just talking about why being anti-Thing1 doesn't mean you're pro-Thing2.

(I swear to fuck if anyone comes onto this post and tries to say I made some sort of direct weird parallel between Israel and either of the examples below to try to 'prove' something about me or drag me into stuff I have said I don't talk about, I will yeet them into the fucking sun. The purpose of these examples is solely to use easily-understood references to explain how you can be anti-Thing1 without being pro-Thing2.)

If someone is anti-abortion, that doesn't mean they're pro-parenting or pro-baby. It's about where their focus is, right? Lots of people are just like 'well, we don't think abortions should exist. There should be no abortions.' Well, great. But what's your plan for the people who are pregnant and don't want to be? They're not going to stop existing just because you think abortions shouldn't exist.

But a lot of people who are anti-abortion don't have plans for that. All they have is a firm belief that abortions shouldn't exist. No one should need them, no one should want them, no one has a right to them. All other concerns go by the wayside.

Or the people who live around me who want homeless people off the streets, but have no plan for how to get people off the streets. They just say 'well, there shouldn't be any homeless people on the streets of Portland,' but their answer is fines and jail time. (This is a real thing happening where I live, btw. Fines for daytime camping, as if that's going to help people get off the streets. Now they have a fine they also can't pay with all of the money they don't have.) These people have no plans for affordable housing, they feel like it's perfectly acceptable to define someone as 'turning down' shelter even if that shelter requires you to be inside by 9 PM and the unhoused person doesn't don't get out of work until 11 PM. Their focus isn't on the positive thing -- people obtaining housing security -- it's on the thing they think shouldn't be happening: unhoused people where they have to see them/be inconvenienced by them.

You can be anti-abortion without being even remotely pro-parent or pro-baby. You can be anti-homelessness without being pro-housing security. It's all about what your actual focus is.

In this case, the question you have to ask yourself is: is it more important to me that to be anti-Zionist or to be pro-Palestine? I can't answer that question for you, because, like I said, I don't talk about I/P at all online, and -- more importantly -- it's going to completely depend on how you, personally, define Zionism, let alone anti-Zionism, and how you, personally, define being pro-Palestine.

You're gonna have to wrestle that one out on your own.

[colorisbyshe]

ACTUALLY one last complaint about veilguard, i think my pettiest but strongly felt complaint is, it's actually obnoxious and anti-dragon age to have companion romances trigger without your involvement. like dorian and iron bull was, in fact, completely avoidable if you did not want them together. if you romance one of them or simply do not include them in your party together, the romance does not happen.

taash and harding happened even though i kept them 100 feet away from each other. if i tried to skip their light house banter, they literally just... would stay at the same place in the light house, together, each time i went back until i finally listened ot their banter. if i left early during the banter, the next time i came back the same banter would start again. i literally was not allowed to not witness taash and harding

neve x lucanis went HARD until i fully committed to her romance. of course i wanted neve in my party because i was romancing her and i often wanted lucanis in my party because once he's hardened, it takes more effort and thus more quests with him in party to build up his relationship. so any time i had them in party, they were one step away from sucking face. while i had neve 90% locked into my own romance.

like i do think if your rook is ACTIVELY flirting with a character, the game should probably not have YOUR flirting scenes OUT CLASSED by the same companion flirting with someone else

what the fuck?? it's especially bad because for a SIGNIFICANT portion of act 1, you only have four companions unlocked and the two main locations you go to are... minrathous and treviso, which makes neve / lucanis an even more natural choice for companions

like... one ship i just don't fucking like (sorry laash or hardaash or whatever you are called) and one is watching my gf flrit with someone else...

and emmrich x strife is actually QUITE lovely but also comes out of NOWHERE and is INHERENTLY what happens if you choose not to make emmrich a lich like it HAS to happen... what? i think it's sweet and emphasizes how keeping emmrich mortal opens him up to more connections in life that lichdom would deprive him of ubt also ??????

why is this game so intent on unavoidable companion romance while aLSO making the romance YOUR CHARACTER has so subdued and kinda left by the wayside? ithought this was a ROLE PLAYING game why are YOU THE DEV playing more with MY BARBIE DOLLS than i am???????????????????????????????????????????

[artistsmellslikeunemployment]

Things that natla did do:

- Katara stealing a water pouch from a merchant shop at night

- zuko draws!

- include pieces from the books and comics (mother of faces, Kyoshi‘s personality,

- „water the most promising seed“

- Katara standing by and smirking as Sokka flounders trying to impress Suki but her not buying any of it

- Katara never letting anyone talk over her once diplomacy fails

- Bumi‘s armpit hair

- Zuko talking about Lu Ten

- Azula learning to use a blue flame and failing

- what can I say, the actors make the show very enjoyable 🤷🏼‍♀️

- Kuruk refusing to take possession over Aang‘s body/ Avatar state

- overall I think they drew info from the books about the other eras

- the sound of Iroh‘s firebending reminding of a dragon‘s growl

- Avatar Roku making fun of Avatar Kyoshi

- Zuko basically enthusing about Kyoshi‘s strength only to then get his ass kicked by her

- Suki (and mom) gushing over seeing their role model Kyoshi in action

- random woman with broom and Zuko letting her hit him

- Aang running away at the end, after the battle. He might not have run from his responsibility but he ran from the consequences

- „have you seen my flying bison?“ which is way better because even less believable

- Katara being bold enough to train her waterbending in the abandoned fire navy ship around Wolf Cove

- emphasis on Sokka‘s inventory skills and by elongation his bad ice dodging skills

- Zuko deciding to stay with/ look for Iroh instead of chasing Aang twice

- Lu Ten‘s theme playing every time Zuko and Iroh confess their love for each other

- Omashu‘s part of the earth kingdom being India coded

- Zuko so specifically being triggered by the word „compassion“ but not „empathy/ emphatic“ because he actually does believe in kindness and much like Azula is still trapped in the pressure of having to represent all his father believes

- Zuko looking disgusted all the time

- 41st division bowing to their prince

- I had fun watching it and most of it makes sense tbh.

What I don’t get (logic mistakes):

- Mai being too openly anti fire nation by saying she wouldn’t ever come back if given the chance

- Iroh finding the Blue Spirit‘s mask in Zuko‘s pile of clothes but maybe that’s not even a negative.

- no talk about the meaning of the necklace

- Gyatso Living in the Spirit World (doesn’t Aang have enough guides with all his previous lives?);

- that assassination attempt on Ozai and Azula infiltrating the plan? Was this meant to show Ozai‘s cruelty and Azula‘s strategic thinking??

- what was Bumi‘s point exactly?

- Yue being a spirit fox. Why? It added nothing.

- „i bet you taste like chicken“ no opossum chicken. just chicken.

- Kyoshi being the narrator

- Aang being able to communicate with his past lives only by visiting their shrines and not in the right order (usually the avatar has to contact every avatar before him in the order of their lifetimes before he can get through to the next)

- Aang being shamed and gaslight by everyone

- confusion over what happened to the villagers as well as Katara and Solla by mixing Hei Bai‘s and Ko‘s stories as well as the Fog of Lost Souls and creating a new loophole into the spirit world when people stand too close to Aang while he meditates? Also, Ko‘s „Magic“ with individuality and his reason for stealing faces when showing emotion is lost.

- with all due love, what was Suki‘s mother for?

- Wan Shi Tong randomly sitting at some wayside

- Why wouldn’t normal people understand Wan Shi Tong? How are they planning for Team Avatar to find out about the solar eclipse if not through Wan Shi Tong‘s library later?

- Iroh suspecting Ozai behind the apparent assassination of Zuko so openly in front of Zhao

- Iroh justifying his war crimes with „I was a soldier“??

- Iroh „sacrificing“ himself in Omashu when the earth kingdom forces were looking for the firebender even though they both would’ve gone undetected otherwise

- Iroh killing Zhao

- does Momo carry the spirits‘ life now?

- the fire nation inventing a solar system model to predict Zosin‘s Comet and potentially the eclipse as well

[moongirlwidow]

Hi, I’m Vera Volkov Heladottir-Banner

I’m mostly retiring from my work as a my work as the vigilante, Avenger and Mercenary the Winter Widow, but that’s probably where you know me from. If you don’t know me, congratulations

I’m an ambiamorus, 17-year-old sapphic and my birthday is August 11. I’m mostly a scientist these days, with a focus on psychology and biochemistry, as well as a part-time historian. I’m in my senior year at Midtown and a little over halfway through my Bachelors

Red Room File || Timeline Explanation

My family

Mother — @goddessof-death

Father — @imnothulk (no he isn’t married to Mama, that’d be fucking weird)

Sister — @nev-valkyriesdottir @official-tasha-romanoff

Brother — @white-wolf-actually

Partners — @midtown-braincell-holder @definitelynot-peterp4rker (we literally all live together so stop asking if I’m cheating, they’re literally close friends)

Uncle — @verygoodlawyer

Neiflings — @little-jamie-carter @jonny-do-shifty-thingy @iyla-difransisco @azalea-romanoff @child-of-wonder @ducktamer415

Blog Rules:

— No nsfw stuff

— no racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, anti-semitism, Zionism, etc etc

- stand with Palestine & Ukraine

— mod -- @over-bi-the-wayside

// = OOC

[inky-duchess]

Do you have any resources on Nicholas II's and his family's personal prejudice directed towards the jewish people? I know that a great deal of the noble class - and even the rest of the romanov house - was prejudiced against jewish people to the point of pinning the revolution on them, but not much about Nicholas II and his family themselves.

From what I understand: Nicholas II wasn't as anti-semitic as many others in the government or in his family (though he was). The man didn't particularly love them - but it is known through documents recovered that he did attempt to send out edicts which halted pograms, as he hated them. But, as both a result of misdirection from prejudiced officers wo reported to him, and his own faults (looking at many other matters, and jewish concerns potentially falling to the wayside). By the end of his life, his views had changed to be slightly more tolerable, possibly?

(I've also heard he had the book of zion with him at Ipatiev and another book titled the Great and the Small or something along those lines - though I've also heard people state he knew the zionist book was false and didn't like the propaganda + other editions circulated, so it was more holding to something familiar? but I don't know any sources other than the alexander palace forums)

On the other hand, though he has been sanctified as a Passion-Bearer in Orthodoxy, I'm also looking for the opposite side of him - credible sources pertaining to his crueler tendencies regarding anti-semitism (most likely when he was younger? I think he was told that his father and uncle were killed by jewish people, which obviously wouldn't help).

Nicholas II’s was an anti-Semite. While he did halt progroms, this was more due to his own personal dislike for violence and the fact that the progroms did not make him popular at home and abroad. Nicholas favoured anti-Semitic policies and supported the Black Hundreds which committed many violent acts against Jewish communities. You're right in saying that there was suspicion that his uncle, the Grand Duke Sergei (who was the BIGGEST anti-Semite in the Romanov dynasty) was murdered to avenge Jewish lives but that was false, it was anti-monarchists. His grandfather Alexander II was blown up by anarchists and it was thought to have been a Jewish assassination but again, it was anti-monarchists. The books you mention are debated by historians to have been owned by Nicholas but there isn't enough evidence to support it. Here are some books for you to browse,

The Romanovs by Simon Montifiore Sebag

The Four Grand Duchesses by Helen Rapport

“The Beilis Case: Anti-Semitism and Politics in the Reign of Nicholas II” by Hans Rogger

“Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History” by John D. Klier

“Antisemitism and the Russian Revolution” by Brendan McGeever

“Russian Jews under Tsars and Soviets” by S.W. Baron

[swindledin77]

Eroticism and Early Britpunk Fashion

Recently I read an interesting post about rockstars, a once ubiquitous sub-category of celebrity that's currently fallen to the cultural wayside, and how eroticism is often an integral component of their public images.

And that got me thinking about early (as in 1976-1978) Britpunk's relationship to eroticism and sex. So here's a silly, rather disorganized write up I did on how sexual Britpunk fashion is and why I think that appealed to certain people.

Unlike many youth subcultures, Britpunk- which, for those who don't know, is the British version of the punk subculture- tended towards asexual puritanism. Both as a reaction to the free love movement of the hippies that Britpunk characterized itself as being inherently in opposition to in both behavior and values, and as an extension of the theory put forward by Greil Marcus about punks being the spiritual successors to medieval heretics who considered the material world to be wholly corrupt- including and especially carnal pleasures such as sex.

Viv Albertine notes in her autobiography that in Britpunk culture sex was treated as a commodity, no emotional attachment needed. Johnny Rotten, the main figurehead of the punk movement at the time, once famously called sex 'five minutes of squelching sounds' and his deep disgust for anything sexual did a lot to shape the subculture's negative perception of sex. There are barely any Britpunk songs from the era that portray romance as something positive and even less that discuss sex in any way at all.

So isn't it a bit odd that Britpunk fashion is so sexual? Because it is very sexual.

A lot of original Britpunk fashion is appropriated fetish gear. Bondage suits, leather, collars, and latex. SEX/Seditionaries, Malcolm McLaren and Vivienne Westwood's boutique that basically single-handedly created the iconic look of early Britpunk, carried all of this along with t-shirts with sexual images- such as a pair of women's breasts or the word 'perv' spelled out in chicken bones- or actual porn on them- such as drawings of cowboys touching tips or Snow White having a gang bang with the Seven Dwarfs. The London Leatherman, who got his start in the gay leather scene, made leather clothes and accessories for bands like the Sex Pistols and The Clash and The Slits while allowing McLaren and Westwood to sell his wares in their store. Ripped clothes that showed off the chest and chains as an accessory were also common. Because of this the average punker in London was decked out in clothes that wouldn't look out of place in a sex club.

Let's take a look at some examples.

(Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols wearing a handcuff around his wrist and a t-shirt with a drawing of gay cowboys that resembles Tom of Finland's work on it.)

(Paul Simonon of The Clash wearing a shirt that says 'everyone's a prostitute' and has two scantily clad women on it.)

(Siouxsie Sioux wearing a t-shirt with a pair of women's breasts on it.)

(Soo Catwoman wearing a spiked collar with a chain around her neck.)

(Various members of the Bromley Contingent, including actual dominatrix Linda, wearing various erotic clothing items such as a see through dress, collars, and leather shorts.)

(Jordan and Vivienne Westwood wearing full bondage suits.)

(Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols wearing a ripped version of the gay cowboys shirt that intentionally exposes his naval and nipple.)

(Adam Ant wearing a leather t-shirt.)

(Paul Simonon of The Clash wearing a leather jacket, leather trousers, and a spiked leather wristband while exposing his bare chest.)

(Alan Jones wearing a shirt that says 'perv' on it and Chrissie Hynde wearing a latex or leather top while another woman wears a latex or leather dress.)

So if Britpunk was so anti-sex, why play with such erotic imagery?

For Vivienne Westwood and Malcolm McLaren, fashion was an art form that was all about bringing the taboos of the repressed British culture out from the shadows, including and especially the aesthetics of sex. They wanted to shock people out of their complacency and liberate young people. What better way to do that then to turn something as incredibly taboo as fetishes primarily associated with gay men (latex, leather, and bondage) into the hot new couture? But neither Westwood nor McLaren were actually interested in sex (especially not with each other despite having a child together) and were content to simply explore it in an artistic and emotionally distant way. Their clothes are sexual but they aren't sexy. The eroticism exists primarily to make a point, not to tantalize.

Westwood about SEX/Seditionaries' clothes: "We’re here to convert, liberate and educate. We want to inspire people to have the confidence to live out their fantasies and change. What we’re really making is a political statement with our shop by attempting to attack the system."

But why wear these clothes? Obviously teenagers and young adults love the idea of doing (and wearing) taboo things that piss off their parents and other boring old farts. Obviously fans of the Sex Pistols, The Clash, and other punk bands wanted to dress like their idols and set themselves apart from the average citizen. But why else did punkers- in particular young female punkers- latch on so heavily to such risque fashion?

Well, to steal one of the few good lines from Danny Boyle's Pistol, when you dress like that you get a lot of funny looks but no wolf whistles.

If you've spent enough time online, you may be familiar with the concept of danger hair. If not, it basically means that if a young woman has brightly colored dyed hair then she's crazy and you shouldn't bother hitting on her. Kind of like how a poison dart frog is brightly colored to let birds know that it's deathly poisonous and they shouldn't bother eating it. Obviously this phrase is misogynistic but it does have a kernel of truth to it. Throughout history certain women have chosen to dress in ways that are intentionally unappealing to the majority of men in order to ward off unwanted advances.

Britpunk fashion on women was, despite how sexual it was, deeply unappealing to men. Legs McNeil, co-founder of PUNK magazine, talked extensively about how vile he found punk girls who dressed in the Britpunk style, how sexually unappealing they were to him. Little did he know, that's why those girls were dressing like that in the first place.

Back in the 1970s, the Britpunk style was beyond shocking to the majority of people. If you were a teenage girl or young woman who didn't want anyone to catcall you or make random passes at you while you were out on the town, decking yourself out in the latest clothes from SEX was a great way to get most men off your back. Instead of danger hair, it was danger clothes. Just because you were dressed in a sexual way didn't mean you were dressed sexy- at least in the opinion of the average man at the time.

Unfortunately though you'd just be trading in one form of violence for another as it was common for members of other youth subcultures to brutally attack punks who wandered the streets alone.

These days though everyone wants a punk girlfriend. Too bad they won't be getting one!

[headspacedad]

AI and the Red Delicious Apple

If you’re reading this you’re pretty much already on the anti-AI bandwagon when it comes to its promise to steal our written works and then regurgitate them in strung-together, passably readable form in order to replace us.  You’ve seen the same, very valid, arguments against letting this happen that I have and the same, also very valid, warnings.  There is no human reason a computer should be doing something humanity has done with pleasure and without prompting, for enjoyment alone, all the way back to the beginning dusty start of time - unless you want to strip the humans out of the equation and make a profit that way, which is what this is about.  I’m preaching to the choir when I say this is far and away beyond the Bad of a Bad Idea.  What I haven’t seen mentioned though is how this is going to effect the other side of the equation.  Not the creators of art -

the receivers of it.

Once upon a time, not that long ago, in the 1880s, a farmer had a rouge plant pop up in his apple orchard.  He uprooted it but the next year it was back.  He got rid of it again and, again, it came back.  Finally, he did the sensible thing and just let the plant grow.  Sure enough, it popped out apples after a time and he entered those apples in a tasting contest - because.... those were a thing back in Ye Olden Times apparently.  Anyway, wham bam thank you ma’am! They won the contest and the taste buds of the judges.  In short order the Apples, known as Stark Delicious, hit the stores and became an overwhelming favorite across the US.  They lived up to their name for sure and soon became known as Red Delicious Apples.  Farmers everywhere focused in on one type of apple and one type of apple alone as the demand for them surged.  Everyone wanted Red Delicious and so that’s what everyone planted.  Here’s the thing though.  Uniformity is king in situations like this and, instead of more Red Delicious apple trees leading to more variety, it actually led to more uniformity.  The ‘off parts’ of the apples were bred out, unattractive yellow streaks in their color, the thin skin that let them bruise easier during shipping, all the unattractive parts were left by the wayside.  Red Delicious apples soon looked as good as they tasted.  

Except - they didn’t really taste that good anymore. 

It turns out that in breeding them for uniformity and looks dropped the factors that gave them their flavor as well.  In time, every apple was a carbon copy of the apple before it and the end result was mushy flavorless thick skinned, albeit pretty, looking apples.  These days, consumers hardly touch them and farmers have started uprooting their Red Delicious in favor of Gala and the like.  Nobody liked Red Delicious anymore because there’s nothing left of what once made them delicious.

AI regurgitates what its been fed.  When its fed variety it regurgitates, to some extent, variety.  It’s intended to put the human oddities out of business, so to speak and take its place.  To turn out polished, pretty things to appeal to people’s tastes.  And, after a while, when humanity is out of the picture, it will only have other AIs to feed off of.  In time, the variety in its cannibalization will continue to narrow down as the stories become more and more alike as nothing new gets put in, as it simply tells the same ten stories, then the same five stories, than the same three over and over again.  Until its just the same words, strung together differently, with the same theme, the same character, the same half-nonsense story.  Until the inside of that story, that piece of art, that movie are all the same mealy, uninteresting mush that every other one is.  The yellow streaks and the thin skin of humanity phased out along with any hint of flavor.  The profitability will dry up as even the most spoon-fed, computer worshipers demand better.  Humanity will pick up where it left off, figuring out how to tell its own stories, paint its own art, sing its own songs and entertain its neighbors again.  Art is intrinsic to humans.  We always find our way back to it.

But the damage to the creative world in the meantime will be like a nuclear winter.  And who knows how long it will take generations raised on ‘Red Delicious’ apples to realize there are better flavors out there.

PS - nobody pushing for AI art right now cares that its not long term sustainable or that it won’t always be profitable.  It will make them money now.  The future they ruin will be someone else’s problem.  They know that.  

They’ve always known that.