#because we clearly have issues (I'm American)

[ursie]

Brennan’s statement on Palestine :

[ ID: Statement from Brennan Lee Mulligan, on Instagram. It consists of three black squares with plain white text. The text reads as follows:

"I'm calling on my government officials to immediately demand a ceasefire and de-escalation in Gaza.

I applaud anyone and everyone calling for peace, with the understanding that real peace only exists if it deeply and honestly accounts for and fully ends violence in all its forms. Real peace addresses and corrects wrong-doing in the past and guards against it in the future. It goes hand in hand with justice and requires truth, restoration, reconciliation, reparation.

Peace cannot co-exist with collective punishment, ethnic cleansing and forced displacement. It cannot co-exist with blockades, embargoes, or with 2.2 million people, half of which are children, trapped with no hope of escape or political recourse. it cannot co-exist with murdered journalists, bombed hospitals, or years of protesters being shot and killed at the border. it cannot co-exist with illegal settlements, segregated roads, and the silent, imperial chill that settles over the gaps in the violence - the unspoken geopolitical consensus that a group of people need to unflinchingly accept permanent subjugation and occupation.

My hear breaks for every Israeli person who lost loved ones during the attacks of October 7th. It breaks for every Ukrainian person who has lost their loved ones. It breaks for every Congolese person who has lost their loved ones. I do not speak on behalf of Palestinians now because some lives are worth more than others. I speak on their behalf because I, and all Americans, have a responsibility to pressure our government because we are responsible for this. Some have said that this situation is complicated. The Unites States government clearly disagrees. It has definitively, categorically, militarily chosen a side, and I do not agree with that decision.

In wiring this, I have been wrestling with what I am sure many people like me wrestle with: There is a powerful narrative surrounding violence in the Middle East that asserts and ever-moving goalpost of self-education and study in order to even be qualified to have an opinion. As someone with a love of research, I have at times in my life fallen into the trap that I am not educated enough clever enough, or aware enough to have a worthwhile perspective, and that three more articles and two more lectures and one more book will do the trick. Unfortunately, democracy doesn't work that way - we, the citizens of any democracy, cannot possibly be experts on every aspect of the policies of our governments, and yet if we do not constantly weigh in an make our voices heard, the entire experiment falls apart. Not only do people constantly doubt themselves and the things they can see with their own two eyes, but old shortcuts for political action can fall apart as well: This specific issue exists along a raw, charged and unique faultline in American Politics. Nobody I grew up with has ever challenged me on my support for abortion rights, LGBT rights, Black Lives Matter, anti-capitalism, anti-fascism, none of it. The people in my country who would despise me for those positions are, for all intents and purposes, strangers to me. But there are people who I've broken bread with and shared honest affection with who will see the words I've written here and incorrectly conclude that I do not wish for the security, dignity and happiness of them and their loved ones, and that breaks my fucking heart. Full-throatedly condemning the actions of the Israeli government while battling rampant anti-semitism at home is an urgent moral necessity, and doing so is made unnecessarily challenging for the average person to navigate by the pointed obfuscations of cynical opportunists, bigots, and demagogues on all sides of the political spectrum who see some advantage in sowing that incredibly dangerous confusion.

So, I'm calling my representatives. I'm having hard conversations with friends and family. I'm here, talking to you. I should have done it sooner. If you're Israeli and hurt by this statement, know that I want freedom, dignity, security and peace for you, and that every ounce of my political awareness believes whole-heartedly that the actions of your government are not only destroying innocent lives, but doing so to the detriment of you and your loved ones' safety. If you're American and feel lost and confused - I understand and empathize. This, the whole country, only works when we get involved. I am constantly haunted by the specter that maybe I missed some crucial piece of information on this, or any, important world event. I'll just have to make my peace with that self-doubt and trust my gut by going with Jewish Voice for Peace, Amnesty International, the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations, etc. And if you're Palestinian and reading this: I unreservedly support your right to life, to freedom, to happiness and human flourishing, to full enfranchisement and equal rights, to opportunity, prosperity and abundance, to the restoration of stolen property and land, and to a Free Palestine." End ID ]

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

hi mx witch, I’ve been debating whether to send this in for a bit but I am curious what you think. I’ve been going back and forth on the ongoing “can you read at least one singular book by a Black woman” discussion bc there is a thing where especially white readers (I am also white, non american but also somewhere with significant Black diaspora) hold up Black authors as somehow being the pinnacle of diversity and ending the conversation there. I don’t think you are doing this btw but this is the reading comprehension site. I just worry it doesn’t prompt people to think about more general issues of diversity in publishing when E/SE/S Asian authors also get screwed over in the industry (especially Asian women who don’t want to write about being Oppressed by their Traditional Culture) and there are just shamefully few published Indigenous authors from any continent.

HOWEVER. then I see some of the more tar pit responses to your book posts and to the rap discourse (oh my god the rap discourse) and I am like. hmmm maybe we should stay focussed on prompting people to challenge their anti-blackness for a bit when so many people are clearly incapable of the baby step of reading more widely. Much to consider.

📚

ps if you post this and anyone reads it and goes “oh wow this is so right, I guess I don’t need to read books by Black women”: no

pps SORRY for spam if this is a second anon, I asked this morning with dodgy signal and have no idea if it went through or if you are just swamped/don’t want to reply. no pressure.

hi anon,

I think it's a really good and thoughtful question, and I appreciate the good faith engagement with this question a lot! your concern reminds me a lot of something Yaa Gyasi (an author who's come up a lot in discussion about Black women writers!) said in this interview a few years ago:

Representation isn’t enough. It’s not enough to see people as representatives, and not actually engage with what they���re trying to say. I guess I’ve been feeling dispirited about the way that my work gets read, as it allows people to pat themselves on the back and feel like they’ve done something. Is literature enough? That’s frankly the question I’ve been asking this past year. I used to be the kind of person who would say this is making us more empathetic. But I’m not sure anymore if that’s what’s happening. Are you reading, or are you reading? 

and I definitely agree with her, and think that a lot of people have a tendency to reduce authors who aren't white, heterosexual men to tokens whose work they're morally obligated to read to be Good Allies, rather than because the work genuinely speaks to them, entertains them, moves them, challenges them, or does anything else that literature is capable of. it doesn't help that the publishing industry itself has an awful tendency of tokenzing authors, as you alluded to.

this is one of the reasons why I never include spaces pertaining to an author's personal identity on the reading bingo sheets that I design. I know that prompts like "read a book by a Native author" or "read a book by a trans author" and so on are quite popular in many book bingo spaces, but to me they run the risk of tokenizing those authors and make it seem as if it's fine if, for instance, no Native or trans authors are found anywhere else on the sheet, since they have a designated space. which isn't a perfect solution, to be sure - without a specific prompt, it's just as likely that there will be zero authors who are Native or trans or whatever other marginalized identity one can come up with on the bingo sheet. I'll be honest: as much as I love seeing the bingo sheets my followers are filling out, I'm a little stunned and disheartened to see how starkly white many of them are!

in this conversation, where people are being challenged to name even a single author who's a Black woman and coming up short, I think many people, especially hobby readers, are maybe realizing for the first time that they way they read doesn't quite live up to the ideas of equity that they personally hold and they're interested in changing that now. I've received a lot of feedback that does boil down to people excitedly reporting that they're now deliberately rushing to the library to seek out books by Black woman, and I can easily see how, pessimistically, that could be seen as further tokenizing those authors.

as much as I've rolled my eyes at the people who loudly insist that they couldn't possibly know what gender, race, ethnicity, etc, any author is because they only care about the story (with the implication being that knowing anything about the author would somehow cheapen the story - lmao), I do somewhat understand where they're coming from. while colorblindness is certainly not the solution, it would be ideal if nobody had to think much about hitting any kind of quota in regards to their reading habits. and I'm certainly not advocating for anything that strictly structured! but if so many people can't name a single Black woman who's written a book, then we need to acknowledge that there's a reason for that, and that not all authors are being read equally, and that it takes an active effort to course correct something like that.

my hope is that, with time, readers broadening their horizons enough that they don't have to actively seek out Black women authors (or Black authors in general, or Asian authors, or Latine authors, or trans or Muslim or disabled or Jewish authors, or authors translated into English, and so on) because those authors and their works will become a natural part of their literary diet that no single author is a sole representative of any group or perspective and can be appreciated solely on the basis of their craft.

but maybe the first baby step, as you said, has to be googling "Black woman authors." and maybe that's a little tokenizing! but when we're beginning from the rock bottom position of people struggling to name a single Black woman author at all, you have to start somewhere. I'm really glad to see people actually getting excited to do the work, and I hope they don't stop at reading one (1) book by Yaa Gyasi or Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie because a tumblr post made them feel uncomfortable.

I hope that makes sense and is a satisfying answer!

[mulderscully]

Momentarily breaking my hiatus to further discuss the issue with the new collector edition of RWRB and why Casey's response (or lack therof) is disappointing.

Here is a link to the post I made detailing what is going on. Please read if if you are unaware.

Now, a direct quote from RWRB,

"And I'm not white like she is, can't even pass for it. People are always gonna come down harder on me."

Casey wrote these lines in the book so if they ever made a film/tv show they did not cast a white passing person to play Alex. This statement is in the annotated version of RWRB that you can look up online.

I want to discuss what being white passing means. I am a white passing latina. I have direct family members who are not white passing. My DNA just worked in a way where you see my Spanish ancestry more than my African or Native, but I have all three. Because of this, I benefit from white privilege.

However, it is important to keep in mind that passing as white now sometimes does not mean what it did historically. White passing means you can pass as white so that racist white people will not deny you certain opportunities based on your ethnicity or race. It was and sometimes still is something POC choose to do. For example, Oscar Isaac uses a passing stage name. Choose to pass. It is a denial of part of who you are to further your endeavors in a world built of oppression. Now it also means someone may look at you simply assume you are white, but that is NOT all that it means.

And even I, with my pale skin, sometimes say "I know I'm white passing." and immediately have (usually white) people say something like "No, you're not. I immediately knew you were latina when I saw you."

Now, I take people recognizing me as latine as a positive. It makes me happy because I am proud of my identity. But there is the other aspect of me not being as passing as I think I am, even though my skin tone is really light. A racist "real" white person would still descrimate against me because my blood is not "pure."

I'm mentioning this because I have seen multiple people say that the art inside this edition is fine, because Taylor Zakhar Perez is white passing.

Taylor is not white passing.

He has talked multiple times his difficultly in getting roles, the moment in the movie where he discusses prejudice against latinos is from personal experience between him and Matthew. I want you to understand that it is not only about Taylor being brown or not brown enough to play Alex, it's about his name, it's about his facial feature — his warm skin tone, but also the shape of his beautiful nose amongst other things — that make it clear that he is a man of color. Looking at Taylor, it is clear that he is a latino man with middle eastern and mediterranean ancestry as well.

But this isn't even about Taylor because we are talking about the book.

In the political world a character like Alex would never ever be mistaken for white. Alex probably never is unaware that he isn't fully white. That is what "can't even pass for it." means. It means since his mother became president, everyone knows her kid is Mexican, is brown, is not what is considered "white." by US American standards.

Remember, latino is not a race. Colorism is rampant. And since Alex is half white he is probably lighter than other latinos, esp afrolatinos, as we see on the original pink cover of RWRB. He's clearly darker than Henry there, though!

In the two arts Casey approved and endorsed not only is his skin tone various shades lighter than TZP's in the one that used his likeness, but he is given european features in the other as well. They chose to sell a book — for $80 — where Alex is drawn as white/white passing when the entire reason they wrote that line was to avoid something like this happening.

For over a week now fans (mainly latinos) have been imploring Casey to say something about this, because it's very unlike them to do this — but they haven't. This is upsetting because Casey is not latine. Not white latine either. Not latine AT ALL. If you are writing a character that is part of a community you are not a part of you have to show up for that community to the best of your ability.

At a time like this, Casey's behavior is really disappointing and the only person to blame is Casey for that. Not Taylor's casting. Casey for approving this edition and promoting it on their Instagram.

I think it was probably a fuck up, and now they're frozen and unsure how to handle it. I like Casey, I LOVE their books and think they seem like a good person. But this has opened some discussions that I think are being mishandled in various ways.

I'm logging off again for a bit, but I wanted to share my feelings on this a week out. Take care everyone 🩷

[literaryvein-reblogs]

How do I write mean insults that's in character for a character to say? I'm personally poor at coming up with insults that don't sound generic or would actually cut deep, being mean in general. I want to write a snarky character with a dry sense of humour when it calls for it but don't know how to go about it.

He's also recovering from a superiority and inferiority complex.

As the writer, you know your character best, and what insults would make sense for them to say (also considering the bigger context of the scene). So, I'll just provide you with a compilation of prompts and notes from different sources, and you can choose which ones are most appropriate to incorporate in your story.

Writing Notes: Insults & Dry Humor

A List of "Sophisticated" Insults

Craven - having or showing a complete lack of courage; very cowardly

Fatuous - silly or stupid; complacently or inanely foolish. From Latin infatuate, which once meant "to make foolish," but which now usually means "to inspire with foolish love or admiration."

Insipid - not interesting or exciting; dull or boring

Obstreperous - difficult to control and often noisy

Obtuse - stupid or unintelligent; not able to think clearly or to understand what is obvious or simple

Pusillanimous - weak and afraid of danger. It's been used by such notables as Ralph Waldo Emerson ("It is a pusillanimous desertion of our work to gaze after our neighbours"), and the disgraced Vice-President Spiro Agnew, who called journalists "pusillanimous pussyfooters."

Sanctimonious - pretending to be morally better than other people. It once meant "possessing sanctity; holy, sacred." The genuinely holy aspect faded, and William Shakespeare is credited with first using sanctimonious to mean "hypocritically pious or devout."

Twee - sweet or cute in a way that is silly or sentimental. Just as buddy is believed to be a baby talk alteration of "brother", twee is a baby talk alteration of "sweet". Although twee is still considered a chiefly British term, it's increasingly popular in American English.

Unctuous - revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, and false earnestness or spirituality. Unction can mean "anointment" or it can name something used to anoint, such as a soothing or lubricating oil. That idea of oiliness led to unctuous, which can describe the slickness of false sincerity.

Vacuous - having or showing a lack of intelligence or serious thought; lacking meaning, importance, or substance

The insult would also depend on which other character it is directed at. Here is a list of "funny" insults for adults from Reader's Digest:

My days of not taking you seriously have come to a middle.

You are the human equivalent of a participation trophy.

If you were a spice, you’d be flour.

You may have a sparsely attended funeral.

I smell something burning. Are you trying to think again?

You’re like a lighthouse in a desert: bright but not very useful.

Don’t worry—the first 30 years of childhood are always the hardest.

May your life be as pleasant as you are.

You’re as useless as the “ueue” in “queue.”

Your face is just fine. It’s your personality that’s the issue.

...and for your character's significant other:

I like you. People say I have no taste, but I like you.

You continue to meet my expectations.

I’ll never forget the first time we met. But I’ll keep trying.

If genius skips a generation, our kids will be brilliant.

We were happily married for a month. Too bad it’s our 10-year anniversary.

I admire the way you try so hard.

You’re entitled to your incorrect opinion.

Have you tried doing it the way I told you to the first time?

The best part of watching a show with you is when you fall asleep because then I can watch my show.

Don’t call me crazy—you’re the one who married me!

You can always alter these to better suit your character. You can read the full list here, which also includes some insults for kids, best friends, and family.

Tips for Better Humor Writing

Humor writing isn’t all about landing a good joke (except for when it is). In creative writing, the effect is usually a bit more nuanced. Here’s a few writing techniques to get you started:

Subvert expectations. Try to undermine the audience’s expectations or reform them with structural elements.

Save the best for last. Humor is often a release of tension, so the sentence builds that tension, and the pay-off—the punchline—happens most naturally at the end. This is also sometimes referred to as the “rule of three,” where two thoughts act as a build-up to the final humorous closer.

Use contrast. Are your characters in a terrifying situation? Add something light, like a man obsessing about his briefcase instead of the T-Rex looming behind him.

Use good wordplay. Sometimes words themselves are funny, and just as often, their placement in a sentence can make a difference. Some words are just funnier than others, so make a list of those that amuse you the most.

Take advantage of cliché. While clichés are something most writers try to avoid, it’s important to recognize them,so you can use them to your advantage. Humor relies in part on twisting a cliché—transforming or undermining it. You do this by setting up an expectation based on the cliché and then providing a surprise outcome. In humor writing, this process is called reforming.

Use humor as a counterbalance. If you just pile on one terrible thing after another, it starts to become ridiculous, and people won’t buy it. Using humor is a great way to achieve the proper balance between fantasy and real life. Remember, if a roller coaster only did twists and turns the whole time, it wouldn’t be as fun to ride.

Level of Intensity

There are people who shrug off an insult (“That’s just the way she is”) and people who commit murder over an insult (“I’m avenging my honor!”). Plus, of course, everything in between. Which is your character?

To be believable, consider the following:

Personality. How hard does your character take events in general? Does s/he get really excited over good fortune and really depressed over setbacks? Then we’ll find it believable that s/he gets really angry and reacts accordingly.

The second cause of an intense reaction is the nature of the specific fight that you’re creating on the page. Lily Owens lets most of her father’s insults go by (“the art of survival”). But when he starts in about her mother, the topic is too important to Lily to gloss over. Lily’s reaction is intense. She runs away. Another type of character might merely have seethed silently. Still another might have fought T. Ray more intensively, setting fire to the house with him inside.

Finally, the strength of fights is culturally determined. Where public or even private scenes are disapproved of (upper-class London, old-money Boston, “well-behaved” families), arguments may be muted, even when the subject matters a great deal. In other cultures, volatility is not frowned on, and people may feel free to scream at each other in public. In extreme cases, murder may even be considered a duty, as in avenging a sister’s sexual assault.

Where is your story taking place? Are your arguers in tune with local or family culture? Maybe not. You can create interesting effects by portraying the rebels against the local mores: the meek child born into a battling family, the furious feminist in polite 19th-century English society.

On Dry Humor

Dry humor - is all about the subtle irony of the facts being stated plainly; it is the contrast between sentiment and reality that makes the situation funny.

The technique is known for its simple, often matter-of-fact declarations that will make the audience laugh or be perplexed (humor is subjective, after all).

With dry humor, delivery and intention create a sort of comedic cognitive dissonance or contrast. Sometimes it is as simple as using a bit of sarcasm, but it can also be more than that.

Dry humor lives and dies on the back of doing less.

Less facial expressions, less props, less setup—less is often more when it comes to landing the joke. You aren’t using a big, dramatic setup or a grandiose vocabulary to make your point.

Essentially, these jokes are derived from saying the opposite of what is meant or delivering them in a way that purposefully counteracts the supposed meaning of what is being said.

Dry Humor in Writing

The function of dry humor has often been to highlight the absurd.

It is effectively executed in moments where satirization of the circumstances at play require little more than noting the facts aloud.

When writing this sort of humor, quick, cutting accuracy is key to making the jokes land.

Simplicity is king, and an honest statement of the facts will always lead the way to finding the funny.

Sources: 1 2 3 4 5 ⚜ More: References ⚜ Humour ⚜ Laughter & Humour

Hope this helps with your writing!

[batboyblog]

Bless you for combatting misinformation about Harris!!!! I saw all this exact same copy-pasted garbage about her during the last primary, and I’m so glad people are pushing back so much harder this time on all the lies and out of context nonsense.

Yeah I mean clearly there's a lot of bad faith shit going around, I just....

When a race is between the "we do believe in Democracy" party and the "We don't believe in Democracy" party, people aren't being helpful to "examine the record" or "hold accountable" the pro-democracy side, they're adding nuance to a conversation that isn't nuanced. It just depresses voters by leaving low-info voters with the impression that the side that isn't the fascists is somehow bad or equally an issue.

People on the left of American politics should be very thankful that the pro-democracy party in our current horrible situation is a center-left, left party interested in Progressive change and not a center-right Conservative Party facing off with the far right (see French Presidential election 2002)

any ways on Harris one thing I've seen a few times is this idea that she's particularly against sex work or cracked down on them. This is untrue, in fact she drew the wrath of the SFPD when she was San Fran's DA for refusing to prosecute prostitutes

Her office de fact decriminalized prostitution in San Fran

in 2019 getting ready to run for President Harris called for the decriminalization of sex work

lets stop and set back and think about that for a moment, it is UNIMAGINABLE! not possible to think of President Obama for example having said that at any point in his 8 years in office, it 8 years ago was not imaginable for a real candidate for President to support that. So I'm sure people will pop in and get big mad and say "decriminalization isn't legalization!" okay but you get no one else before this point was willing to even go this far? and we have a real chance here to get a President who (Still) supports a major change in how this country deals with sex work.

people are using out of context and bad faith attacks, because their world view depends on change not really being possible, but it is, and its happening.

[moonlit-bunny]

honestly, I can't think of a single reason to enjoy or tolerate k@t/ang - everything about it gives me the biggest ick. usually I'm not that frustrated by ships, but this one really nags at my "this feels unjust" part of my brain. what likable quality is there?? even before I had any real opinion, I knew it was eugh... the way their interactions were written and shown always made me uncomfortable. "the younger boy has a crush on the babysitter" canonically being the creators' intent for their dynamic is not cute, wholesome or appealing to me whatsoever - particulary when that dynamic never changes throughout the entirety of the storyline, and their fundamental disagreements and conflicts are left unaddressed (to the BOY'S benefit).

the worst part is that the shippers try to make it seem like they're more cognizant of social justice, genocide, interracial relations (especially against zk fans) and a girl's needs. but the thing is, their arguments fall flat because the main character is so clearly the white creators' self insert whose romantic portrayal undeniably gives major "Nice Guy" red flags and treads incel territory: he doesn't need to earn her love - no, he is entitled to it. this is actually anti-feminist messaging and we never saw our girl's needs met in that dynamic. instead, it was him who was one-way benefitting from her mothering (which he wasn't bothered by), and his actions kept pulling her back into that role. in TSR, we see it even more - assuming the worst, lecturing and imposing his beliefs based on his idea of how she should be, not trying to listen or be present when he very well could have due to shared experiences of colonial violence. not to mention the grace, presence and non-judgmental comfort she'd offered him when he lost his bison and lost his temper.

at this point I am reminded that this series was made by white americans, so while the other characters can push the boundaries a little, the main character must be an enlightened boy with a supposedly higher moral conscience (in contrast to the angry, irrational brown girl) palatable to an audience residing in an imperial core (in which the majority of us do not regularly encounter or fight off the horrors of an active genocide). in other words, he unfortunately plays the role of a white man's mouthpiece for lukewarm takes - telling us essentially doing nothing is the correct answer to your loved one learning that an imperial soldier who murdered her family has made no amends and is out there walking free - no haunting, no memory, no consequence.

how does all of this not make one raise an eyebrow? by season 3 I really felt like someone had just thrown a tantrum in the writer's room and that's how we ended up here.

in some ways we got to see a fuller development and journey for zuko: we find zuko confronting his father become a better parallel to her confronting her mom's killer (that he considerately does not bring up on her journey), with both of them overcoming a generational trauma that share the same root cause. maybe we are drawn to this, maybe this feels more gut-wrenching, maybe this makes for a richer character arc because he is not a wide-eyed baby-faced self-insert, journeyed alone, and therefore was not shielded from having to make tough choices (like the main character's s2/s3 final dilemma). to think - his story more closely mirrors Buddha's own origin story! the irony.

it really is mindboggling because there are so many beautiful ways to write a friends -> lovers story, and it doesn't even need to be complicated. (if anyone's read fma, just look at ed/winry - heartwarming, reciprocated, felt natural and earned.)

this one's an unfortunate, utter mess, and season 3 plus the comics and LoK seemed to rub salt on the wound instead of making any meaningful attempts at clarifying previous issues and improving their relations. I just feel like seeing this pair as overall wholesome or something is ignoring certain key moments in the storyline, especially those concerning our girl. you'd really need to AU-ify their dynamic to get to a point where a romantic relationship between them (that is actually mutual) feels right or compatible.

[warblogs17282]

Going over and analyzing every scene where Vassago does something.

Because I cannot call myself a 'certified Vassago stan' without doing this.

On the first time we see Vassago in this show, the first thing he does is instantly notice when something is quite wrong with the trial, and he also chooses to speak out what he finds wrong with the trial as well, that being the fact that Stolas isn't present in a trial he is very much involved in, as Andrealphus literally just accused Blitz of 'forcing himself onto Stolas', so this scene alone already shows us that Vassago wants a fair trial for everyone, and clearly is a bit passionate about it as well considering he calls out Stolas not being present at the trial so quickly.

So Vassago already has some really positive characteristics that appear to be lacking in most of the other Goetia members present, and this is something that remains consistent throughout all the other times we see him on-screen as well.

Vassago also speaks Spanish quite frequently as well, which makes sense as Vassago's VA is Mexican-American, but I do wonder if this implies that being able to speak multiple languages is a common thing with Goetia members or not.

Andrealphus states that Stolas hasn't been informed of the trial, to which Vassago instantly takes issue with, and then immediately suggests to summon Stolas at once, because again, Vassago does believe in giving everyone a fair trial, and not summoning Stolas to him undermines that characteristic he has, and this also shows that Vassago is definitely willing to point these things out, make them into an issue and make an attempt to get them fixed, so that the person can have a 'fair trial' to him.

Andrealphus and Vassago get into a bit of a heated confrontation over this point, and in the background, you can see Vassago walk back over to his spot in the balcony, but making what is basically rolling his eyes except it's his entire face while doing so, starting to walk back off right after Andrealphus says the word 'trauma', with this scene showing us that he likely hates Andrealphus, and what I believe is our first sign that Vassago is not buying into Andrealphus' bullshit at all, but Vassago doesn't have any evidence or testimony to disprove what Andrealphus is saying.

Considering in the lesser key of solomon, it is stated that Vassago is of 'good-nature', something which Andrealphus is not, putting them at odds almost immediately, and has the power to tell of future events, which could be related to this scene a little, but it's unlikely.

The next thing that happens is Andrealphus dropping the bombshell accusation that Blitz 'plotted to have Stolas assassinated', Vassago has a quite noticeable reaction to this, while I'm not entirely sure who that 'motherfucker' was aimed to, I believe that it was aimed towards Andrealphus, considering it's pretty likely that Vassago isn't buying into Andrealphus' bullshit, as I just explained when I covered the scene before this, not to mention at this point, Andrealphus has presented zero evidence to back up his accusations at this point in time.

Vassago has definitely been caught majorly off-guard with Striker's false testimony and Blitz's sudden outburst, which is very clear just looking at Vassago's face in this scene, Vassago is definitely still processing that with what looks like some rather conflicting feelings written all over his face in this scene. The conflicting feelings of thinking Andrealphus is bullshitting while likely hating him at the same time, and the feelings that come with processing Blitz's outburst.

While I will admit, all the lights on the Goetia side of the court appear to be voting for executing Blitz prematurely, considering what I've said about Vassago thinking Andrealphus is bullshitting and him being that type of person to always want a fair trial, I'm going to assume that Vassago also voted against executing Blitz here, although that is unknown at this point in time.

Something I want to point out here is that if you go frame by frame in this scene right at the camera focuses on Vassago again, right after Striker flashes us the a clearly villain-looking facial expression, you can see Vassago move his arms and body backwards a little, just like Vassago was looking downwards for some reason, and if he was looking down, I highly suspect that he was looking at Striker.

When the shot shows us Vassago's face, you can see uncertainty written all over it, which I believe is because he suspects that Andrealphus and Striker is lying, but doesn't have any evidence or testimony to actually prove it's a lie, causing him to enter a state of uncertainty, again, completely written all over his face during this scene, as he thinks about all the conflicting thoughts he's having right now, which are probably just being very much amplified due to Satan literally announcing that he found Blitz guilty of the crimes while he thinks about it all, with him looking at Striker suggesting that is what he's going through right at that point in time.

Okay so other than Vassago being cute as hell in this scene and making me really want him, Stolas and Moxxie to all be theatre buddies together, we can see that Vassago is extremely supportive of Stolas right now, while almost everyone else near Vassago appear to be looking with indifference or a little bit of shock, but still, it shows that Vassago is quite supportive to the people he gets positive impressions from right out of the gate, with that generally being another positive characteristic that most of the Goetia don't seem to have as well, making Vassago a little bit unique inside the Goetia family as a result.

This scene during Satan's part of the song, the main thing of note during this scene is the fact that literally everyone else is harmonizing with Satan here, but Vassago is the only one who didn't at all.

He starts in this scene looking around rapidly with a face that has shock and disbelief of the situation that's happening written all over it, with the next face he makes being a face of what appears to be a mix of disbelief and a bit of disgust at the situation, as he is still processing everything that is happening at that point in time, finally, as showcased in the picture below, we can see Vassago now has a face of what looks like a mix between reluctant acceptance of what the situation has turned into, and showing quite a bit of disdain of the situation as well.

Getting back to the first thing I mentioned about this scene, what Vassago not harmonizing with Satan, which every other demon royalty did for at minimum a little bit, shows that Vassago is refusing to stand behind the clearly corrupt and unfair court system, instead opting to do what I think is called a silent protest, choosing to stick to his own morals instead of following the crowd and harmonizing with Satan, which further shows the general sense of justice Vassago appears to have, and that this also shows that Vassago is firmly on Stolas' side here, that Vassago is further choosing to support Stolas.

Finally, at the end of the song, when the chains and such start to appear around Stolas, while Satan goes on about Stolas 'paying the price', Vassago looks so scared for Stolas in this scene, which I'm guessing is because well, Stolas' punishment is literally going to be right around the corner, so it's only natural that Vassago is scared for Stolas, because, as I've shown before, Vassago has been firmly on Stolas' side the whole time, with this shot showcasing that even further.

In conclusion: In the brief time we got to see Vassago in his debut, I believe I have firmly established some positive characteristics in Vassago, with those being a general sense of justice and being supportive of the people he gets positive impressions from, with the main example being Stolas, with all of this showing that he definitely lives up to being the 'good boy' that Vivzie said he was.

While a lot about his character could change as we get to see him more and more, as of right now these are my findings.

[ktcznsky]

So let me undertand this; you guys seem more normal to romanticize a relationship with a huge power differential where one is the victim of the other and completely ignore all the crimes an agent of an organization that has been kidnapping, killing and torturing since the beginning of the Cold War did just because you find him hot? Have you guys ever remotely read about cold war history or the MK Ultra declassified files? Did you guys even know what the CIA been doing? Because you guys seems to not undertand the big issue in that.

Like ok, you can like a character who's evil, but don't idolatrize him. He's not good, he did not did good things, he's either evil, but that doesn't mean you can ignore all his bad actions. THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. Adler "good intentions" always were protecting his country. That's a noble thing I can understand, but coming to tell me that his actions were right or trying to justify them upsets me in an immeasurable way. If you have read any document of any CIA operation you will understand why. As I said, the end does not justify the means. You can have good intentions, but that doesn't justify what you do to achieving it. People forget that the game is based on a real history time.

I'm not saying the Soviets were better than the Americans in the cold war because they did things that weren't the best (despite compared to the United States, the Soviets were better in many ways that I will not touch on in this post), but have you remotely thought that the game is basically American propaganda and that you have consciously or unconsciously decided ignore the fact that in the game the CIA tortured a person for information? And on top of that, all you know about the Soviets are West propaganda and the reason most of you doesn't know what the CIA did is because they don't teach you that in school so they can be the "heroes" in the history?

And you guys for some reason don't find it bad and some of you even find it hot? Are we literally loss our minds? You guys NEED to read the MK Ultra declassified files urgently because that's insane. Bell is not just a character in a game, they represents all the people who have been subjected to this type of project against their will. Do you really not see anything wrong with that? Breaking someone identity and treating them in a subhuman way just for information?

Like yes, in the game Perseus as an organization wanted to nuke the west, but Perseus was an organization that worked in secret and without the authorization of any secretary of state. They didn't represent the will of all the people, just the ones who were dissatisfied with Gorbachev and Brezhnev. Why do you think people would join such an organization if it weren't for dissatisfaction with something that's going on inside the country? In real life, they tried to make a coup d'état against Gorbachev, which did not work, but the Soviet Union still fell.

And in the game, the CIA wanted to stop Perseus, not because they wanted to save Europe, they did it because they didn't wanted to be blamed for that. They only care about their reputation and their "freedom". The "free world" they built only benefits them and their reputation.

At this point I'm tired because almost no one really cared about those things. When I try to share my point of view thinking about all my knowledge about cold war, some mf comes and tells me "b-b-b-but Adler's hot". I KNOW MF I KNOW, HE'S A INTERESTING CHARACTER BUT BEING HOT DOESN'T JUSTIFIES HIS ACTIONS. Can we please think clearly and logically?

And then the person who thinks torturing and brainwashing Bell is hot comes along to tell me that I'm the one who's morally wrong. What's your point? We all have our views on every situation, but don't come and tell me what I have to say or do when you keep contradicting yourself and saying any kind of outrageous thing to get acceptance from a couple of people online.

Edit: As an addition, I don't think a person is bad or has to be canceled as if it were a witch hunt for liking this ship. My intention here is to give my opinion and to publicize multiple factors that make this ship controversial. I don't have a problem with people who ship them and decide to make stories as long as they are focusing on the fact that their relationship is extremely toxic and that Bell is a victim of the situation, nor I try to justify that Bell has been planning with Perseus to destroy Europe and incriminate the United States, but one thing does not take away from the other. Bell is still the victim of a project that destroyed everything that they was. My problem here is people who romanticize the fact that Bell is helpless after the brainwashing and Adler can take advantage of that. Adler did not treat or see Bell as a person, but as a tool. I'm not trying to embarrass or disparage anyone, but there's a thin layer between a shipper and a pro-shipper. Pro-shipper is not only about ships with minors, but encompasses any relationship with a power differential between the two people, which can be abusive and toxic.

[anamericangirl]

I'm hearing a pro-abortion argument that fetuses 'don't count' as being alive because their lungs don't yet work outside the womb abd they're reliant on outside intervention. Apparently 'functional lungs' are part of yhe definition of a living being.

Ignoring yhe raw absurdity of that statement, I'm in renal failure. My kidneys mo longer function and I have to perform routine dialysis treatments. Withou this artificial intervention, I - and the other half a million Americans with renal failure - will die.

So do we mo longer count as alive? Is it of no moral consequence to kill us?

I'm still pretty young. I've seen people in their teens and twenties in the same position. We have our lives ahead of us. But we can't live without mechanical assistance.

So could someone decide, well, having to deal with your medical bullshit-- that's inconvenient, I don't want to deal with you anymore. Well, you're a permanent patient, you clearly have no quality of life, I'm just trying to prevent your suffering. Your vital organs don't work so you aren't really a living human being anyway.

What about those with pacemakers, or who need supplemental oxygen? They don't count because they can't survive independently?

I know it's just justification to kill a child without having to deal with the moral repercussions. They never think beyond justifying their actions. But what a sick idea.

I'm sorry for the situation you're in and I will be keeping you in my prayers.

Your message demonstrates yet another fatal flaw of the pro-abortion mindset. Any argument they made for killing children in the womb can be used to justify killing a person outside and even if they don't realize it and will deny it when it's pointed out, when they argue that an unborn baby isn't a person because their lungs aren't fully functional, they aren't conscious, etc. they are arguing those arbitrary points are what makes someone a person and if it justifies killing an unborn child then it in turn would also justify killing a person who has already been born.

But of course once you point that out they quickly make up a reason why it doesn't apply anymore once the person is born. But that in itself is just them debunking their own argument because if a fetus doesn't count as being alive because that same line of reasoning doesn't apply to someone who is outside the womb then lung, kidney, or other organ functionality is not the real argument and this new issue they brought up is.

They are hard to debate sometimes because every time you back them into corner they suddenly change their argument.

Pro-aborts do not think about the implications of their preposterous claims at all and they need to understand that when they create those arbitrary standards that they made up, they are revoking personhood from more than just the unborn and justifying murder of anyone who doesn't meet the perimeters they set - whether that person has already been born or not.

[aidentitycrysis]

On the left is an official document issued to the Chinese government by the American Embassy, shared on xiaohongshu and apparently believed by normal Chinese folk, that is filled with so many lies it makes me want to rage puke- and I'm not even American. On the right is the translation of this document into English. Here's a little tl;dr-

- According to the American Embassy, the average American household income is $1.2 MILLION. This is clearly a manipulated statistic, but the method of manipulation is interesting- because for this number to make sense as an average, it would mean the wealthiest people in America could make every household millionaires and still be millionaires themselves. I don't doubt that this is, indeed, the mathematical average of American income, which is disgusting considering the income of the average American.

-According to the American Embassy, social security provides adequate healthcare, childcare, social services and pensions to a majority of Americans. They are literally saying you guys get FREE HEALTHCARE. At this point, everybody in the Western world knows this is patently untrue, no matter which way you approach the matter.

-According to the American Embassy, recent surveys have shown that Americans don't even consider 'millionaires' to be rich anymore. I don't even know what to say about this one, I'm lost for words! Every American I know would consider themselves, at the very least, profoundly fortunate if they were a millionaire.

- According to the American Embassy, food costs account for roughly 10% of household income, and a 1.3% rise in the price of groceries recently is in line with recent wage increases and therefore effectively unchanged. Is this your experience of recent increases in the cost of food? Pretty confident the answer is "LMAO no, wtf?!".

Look, I know I'm not American, but I care about several American people personally, and I care about human beings generally. I've spent time in LA and seen the homeless camps. It breaks my fucking heart to know that many of the people in those camps have done nothing to deserve it except be unfortunate enough to require a medical procedure.

Much like an abusive partner, the American government- under BOTH Republican and Democratic rule- have maintained a long running campaign of information control and disinformation that has thrived on the inability of most American people to communicate with Chinese people. Think about it- the right wing hate China because of the so-called evils of communism, and the left wing distrusts China for a slew of alleged human rights violations, few of which have been substantiated by anyone actually inside of China since the 90s. I'm forced to wonder how much truth there is to many of the things I've learned from sources that I've now found out are happy to manipulate statistics and outright lie in official government documents.

Look, I'm British, my government is evil as hell, all day every day, it doesn't matter who we vote for, they stay evil. Not only am I sick to my stomach about what an insult to humanity these documents are, it makes me wonder what lies my own government has hidden in foreign languages, away from the eyes of my working class.

Luigi said "This is an insult to the intelligence of the American people". He's right. They are insulting you. They are insulting all of humanity with this bullshit. I'm not saying put aside all your differences with people on the other side of the fence to you, but I am saying that they keep us from working together the same way they kept this document a secret- by making it unlikely that we will come together to have a rational conversation, rather than a debate, and compare notes. It's the same way they are stopping us from making any kind of meaningful change for the better as a society.

Every normal person in the West is struggling right now. We are all FUCKED, and we are only getting more fucked as time goes on. But the rich are still getting richer. The businesses we owe our paychecks to in order to survive have experienced record profits as they tell us they can't afford to pay us decently or offer a fair and affordable price for their services. This isn't just inept and indifferent- it's fucking sadistic. We need to put aside the political arguments we've been taught to have and start having conversations across the divide so that we have a chance to scare these fuckers straight at some point in our lifetime.

[the-world-annealing]

If Etienne Lux did not exist, who would find it necessary to invent him?

Ever noticed how in the Power Fantasy, whenever the Superpowers meet up to talk business, Etienne's not there?

Not physically, I mean - look at the little shards, that's a projection. And that makes sense when you think about it for half a second - Valentina zips around the world in minutes, Heavy can fly, Magus has random magitech, the Major had... something - Etienne gets half an issue dedicated to a plane trip. How's he getting to space?

(and at first I was convinced that Etienne's projections look visibly 'fake', but looking at the orbital meeting I'm not so sure - the giveaway triangles are notably absent until Etienne starts to actively use other powers)

So why is he out there so much? Why do we see Etienne having pizza on a street corner, or reading the paper in a cafe, or doing anything anywhere that's not a luxury penthouse, or a volcano lair, or a bunker under the Eiffel Tower?

There's a throwaway line in issue 1, where Etienne explains that Heavy's provocations are 'why he is in New York'. To an unfamiliar audience, the implication is that there's a range on his powers - that he can reach across a city but not across a country - but that's of course nonsense, this man can reach across the world with no clear loss of capability.

What Etienne actually meant becomes clear in issue 2: he wants to deliver a message to millions, which means physically appearing on camera, which means giving away his location, which means he has to be somewhere that can't just get nuked (a major city - a major American city if we're being cynical). New York makes sense.

Except that's of course also bunk. Etienne can interact with everyone on earth simultaneously - could he really not find some non-obtrusive way to deliver his message to millions? Clearly 'mass perception modification' is not unethical to him, because he does it every time he walks down the street. Is he trying to hide capabilities? That might be a concern of his (I think that's the only reading for his presence at the police station that makes sense), but it doesn't seem relevant on this particular count - Lux's omnipath status is public knowledge.

Going a step back, why is there even an Etienne Lux? Imagine you're him. The year is 1966, Magus' tech and Heavy's singularities are not even on the radar yet, as far as you know you can make anyone see anything with no qualifications. You might feel pressured to reveal a positive example of Atomic-kind: but why reveal yourself? Why not craft a mental construct and trick everyone into thinking it's real? Why not scour the world for an agreeable proxy who can pretend to have (a vastly reduced subset of) your powers? Forget the volcano lair, why isn't Etienne Lux doing everything he does from a rustic farmhouse in the French countryside?

Well, one reason:

In a world where Etienne Lux was the sole Superpower, history would have been upended before he even got out of that children's home. Only the presence of Valentina - first as an unknown to be understood, and then as an explicit check on his power - gave him pause. Even then, he tries to loop her in on world domination within a decade, and when he fails, how does he back down? Conditionally. It's not even subtext: if Valentina leaves the picture, world domination is back on.

The above is still true in 1999. So what if a handful of individuals are immune to Etienne? What are they going to do against someone they can't find? Why would they stop him as he reshapes 99.999999% of humanity into utopia?

Heavy can't kill Etienne without destroying the planet itself. Magus is actively afraid of him. Masumi... well, Etienne was in favor of killing her post-Tokyo, which suggests he believes her monstrous form won't be apocalyptic. Eliza's an unknown, but there's no reason to assume she can track Etienne down.

Last digression: consider the New Mexico massacre, and keep the timeline in mind. Nixon existed before Magus' shields did, and an omnipath has every reason to periodically check on what the US president is thinking, so why didn't Etienne say anything? He does not pointlessly waste lives, so letting the assassination attempt go through must've been useful to him. Why?

Because he figured it might kill Valentina.

Every single thing about Etienne Lux, from his presentation to his actions to his last name - it all should be understood as a response to a world with Valentina in it, as a compromise with her, a conscious step away from god-kinghood. If she ever goes, who knows what'll happen?

[chanaleah]

at this point, it is clear to me that this is a person whose sole mission is to harass Jews (so I have blocked and reported). I got all three of these asks last night, but was tired so decided to deal with them in the morning.

So let's go through them shall we.

"it's giving JAP vibes and my diaspora/convert Yehudi friends cringe at people like you"

okay so first of all this person is not jewish. and JAP is really only something that should be said intracommunity if even at all. and clearly this person misunderstands the definition because circumcision has nothing to do with being a JAP (which for anyone who doesn't know stands for Jewish American Princess-- it is not in this context a slur for Japanese)

and secondly I'm also diaspora. and I've never met your diaspora/convert (which btw are not interchangeable terms???) friends, so I actually don't care what they think.

2. nothing particularly wrong with the second ask in nature, except it's obviously not in good faith and also

I don't actually feel particularly strongly about circumcision! I'm not circumcised and I don't have any kids of my own. My original objection to this person was coming into a post I made refuting vile antisemitism and talking about circumcision. Which is another discussion I personally feel should be intracommunity.

3. "You can be Jewish AND anti-Zionist/Israel. I genuinely don't see the issue and why people are so willing to suck Netanyahu's dick."

I'd like to correct this statement. One can be Jewish and anti-Zionist/Israel.

But I cannot. Because I really care about the meanings of the holidays and services. For me, Judaism is so incredibly intertwined with e"y that to get rid of that would be to strip down the prayers and holidays until you've got nothing left but a weird capitalistic Hanukkah bush.

And fuck Netanyahu. He is a criminal and I hope Israeli leftists someday get to throw him into a prison cell like they want to.

But to anyone on Jumblr: do yourselves a favor and block this person.

[mirrorofliterature]

the jedi order is effectively an executive branch of the republic, and that's problematic

the problem: the jedi order presents itself as a neutal, independent peacekeeping force

the issue: in reality, by the prequel trilogy, they were acting like an executive branch of the government

my thesis: this is problematic

and this time I brought receipts. from the prequel trilogy. because I'm tired of people refuting my claim by... further proving my claim because they don't understand what an executive branch of government is (I fear for the american civic education system, truly).

this sentence from mace windu at the start of AOTC encapsulates the problem - the jedi order has uncritically adopted the view that helping, protecting and supporting the republic is equivalent to keeping peace: 'you must realise that there aren't enough Jedi to protect the Republic. We are keepers of the peace, not soldiers.'

a few weeks later: shit why are we soldiers??? jedi rolled a critical fail there, I'm afraid (it's called foreshadowing, a little known literary technique). being a government's military = you are definitely part of the executive branch (thanks US congress [a source]).

why is that problematic? I'll explain this through illustrative example: the republic maintains diplomatic ties with the hutts, who own slaves. the jedi unquestionably support that because that's the republic's position! fuck the slaves. peace for whom, exactly? the rich and powerful? yeah, I don't fuck with that.

first of all, what is an executive branch of government?

according to the state library of NSW: 'The executive is the branch of government that puts government laws and programs into effect. It is made up of the public service and government ministers.'

in this context, when I call the jedi an effective executive branch, I mean that they act like the republic's public servants by exclusively enforcing republic policy in the galaxy... not acting like independent peacekeepers, and later on are even more explicitly so as members of their military.

or, if you only trust american sources: 'The Cabinet and independent federal agencies are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws. These departments and agencies have missions and responsibilities as widely divergent as those of the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Including members of the armed forces, the Executive Branch employs more than 4 million Americans.'

how do the jedi present themselves?

from the opening credits of AOTC: 'This separatist movement has made it difficult for the limited number of Jedi knights to maintain peace and order in the galaxy.' Mace Windu also calls them 'peacekeepers, not soldiers'.

Peackeepers = maintainers of peace and order in the galaxy.

What peacekeepers are not = enforcers of a particular government, like the republic's, will.

why are they effectively an executive branch of the republic?

this meta draws pretty heavily on AOTC.

firstly, I say 'effectively' because they're not OFFICIALLY an executive branch, but they act like one

so. start of AOTC. four members of the jedi council are meeting with palpatine, discussing the role the jedi will play in the separatist conflict, clearly on behalf of the republic. yoda says: 'do their duty [for the republic, it is implied] the jedi will'.

they accept the republic's position as unquestionably righteous, they don't consider the legitimacy of the separatists' concerns, and fall into the 'us' vs 'them' trap

should a peacekeeping force explicitly pick one side over the other? no, they should be neutral (I know a thing or two about neutral humanitarian organisations; I'm using the red cross as my baseline).

getting back to AOTC, palpatine, the head of the republic, the chancellor, the person in charge of the executive, 'suggests' that padme be put under the jedi's protection, and bail questions whether that is a 'wise use of manpower', implying that it is regular practice for palpatine, the chancellor, and other members of the senate, to direct jedi action*

later in the movie, obi-wan has ANOTHER meeting with palpatine, some senators, and members of the council, again demonstrating how intertwined the republic and the jedi are

*that's not very independent girlboss of them now is it?

and here, we have anakin telling queen jamilla, that 'the jedi have not been allowed to investigate [into whether or not the trade federation actually followed through and reduced their armies, as ordered to do so in a court after the naboo invasion]. it would be too dangerous for the economy, we were told'. this does not suggest independence - it suggests that jedi have a leash around their neck from the senate, curtailed in what they can do to what the senate thinks is okay (even if queen jamilla probably would have appreciated it).

later on, palpatine: 'we must rely on the jedi. Master Yoda, how many are available to go to Geonosis?' hm the head of the republic ordering the jedi to do something. almost like... the head of the executive branch ordering other executive members lower down to do something! mace later says: 'we have the authority to do something' [and so we shall go to geonosis].

it's almost like. they've become agents of the republic and enforce their laws and policies on their behalf. and require republic approval before doing anything. like an executive branch of government does.

why is this problematic?

you cannot be an independent peacekeeping force if you exclusively act on behalf of the whims of a particular government, here the republic. the jedi only act under the senate's authority, which means that they will make the same priorities that the senate does, which tend to prioritise core worlds and fuck over slaves in the unconquered outer rim territories because the hutts are good trading partners, for them..

the jedi should have never have become servants of the republic. allies, sure.

uncritically carrying out their will? nah, fuck that. the senate is not the people.

[l-in-the-light]

Trafalgar Law and animals

It seems he is quite kind to animals, or at least he seems a little fond of them...

Evidence number 1: napping with a new (quickly tamed) friend on his wandering excursion to nowhere in particular (or so I envision this happening).

Evidence number 2: feeding random parrots just because they wanna try the onigiri. I bet he would feed random ducks at ponds as well lol.

Evidence number 3: after taking away the den den mushis he just released the snails into the wild (or took them inside the lab later, we will never know, lol). He's so bad to animals, right? He could have just crushed them when he was holding them in his palm, but nah, not his style. Snails are cool and didn't do anything wrong after all.

Evidence number 4: Chopper and Bepo. Bepo is self-understandable, but Chopper?? Law told him to shut up like twice. Yeah, but also he talked with him the most about his own issues with the plan (he can't defeat Caesar on his own for some reason he can't tell), and just few moments after meeting him. That's a huge step in the "trust" territory right there. Other Strawhats didn't hear anything about Law's own reasons of why he wants the alliance after all.

Evidence number 5: Komainu in Wano. He wasn't tamed by Tama's dango so he didn't have to listen to their orders or anything like that. It would be understandable if Luffy was the one riding in front, because Komainu spent some time with Luffy already. Law literally saw the Komainu for the first time here, just a moment ago. He already tamed it enough to ride in front and to lead the way to Oden's castle.

Okay, I think that's enough evidence (it's not like I have more anyway lol). Now let's take a look at this again:

I'm starting to think we're misunderstanding this scene. It's not Law being morbid (well, maybe a little), as in: he doesn't love dissecting dead frogs so much that he brought one into the picture. If you want to dissect frogs then you just dissect them, you know? Not carry a dead animal around with you anywhere you go.

Look, forever ago I watched enough American teen shows focused on school life to know that for some kids dissecting animals in anatomy class is a Huge Deal and they just Can't Do It, and they fuss over it for a whole episode. Believe me, if Law wanted to dissect this frog, it wouldn't be here in the picture with him, but it would be lying down dissected on the table, already forgotten. Meanwhile, it doesn't even have any mark that it was cut or anything.

Here's my headcanon about it: I think Law as a kid felt sorry for the frog. Either made it his friend (so what that it's dead? wow so judgemental smh I'm joking) or decided frogs shouldn't be dissected and wanted to give it a proper burial later on. My bet's on a friend though, because why else would he include the frog in the class photo? :D It's a photo with his school friends, it would be rude to exclude his new little friend as well! (the boy on his right clearly loves the idea btw lol. I bet he was good friends with Law)

We assume he wants to dissect it because 1. he comes from family of doctors and is a surgeon, 2. because of this picture:

Which kinda suggests the possible outcome from the encounter of scalpel+frog. But I think we might have to consider the opposite of what we thought he likes to do in his free time as a child (dissecting little animals like a psycho future surgeon in training). He just seems to be nice to animals, that's why. He would be nice to that poor frog as well, no matter if it's dead or not.

And then we have centaurs and I always ask The Question: what happened to the rest of the animal bodies?? (my guess is: they ate them).

I mean... Luffy is also nice to animals. He would still eat some of them, you know, to survive. But not his friends. Possibly also not Chopper.

And then there's this ongoing theme of people of the D. and their special relationship with animals. I mean, Luffy can tame almost any animal (Surume <3), Law has Bepo (though he's a mink, I guess), and Vivi has Carue, right? Three people already create a pattern... we also see a child Garp (in SBS) that tamed some wild beast as well!

[mekkyz-dubz]

Sparklecare Hospital Reboot Review

I've never posted my critique about Sparklecare Hospital, because I was too lazy to analyze the plot or I would get harassed. It's been 20 days since the doc came out and I left the Sparklecare fandom for a long time. I've made a review of the preboot where it was pretty okay by today's standards, although I never reviewed the reboot one. Just for a retrospective, I'm going to review the current comic, and I'm going to try to distract myself from Sparklecare and focus on other interests once it's fully resolved. Although I'm not good at making critiques, I will try my best. Note that this is just my personal opinion so feel free to disagree if you have something to point out.

Before we begin, I have to admit that I had a bad impression of the crit community because I thought they were harassing the creator. I defended her when the trend blew up, but once I learned about KC's suspicion for a long time, I became neutral and lurked around some crit blogs, it turns out they were right. Some of the crits were minors and people began jumping on the trend to spout something that isn't "Too many sex jokes and innuendos to focus on the comic". In addition, I do not support Kittycorn or condone any actions she has done. This review was purely made for my opinions.

Now enough talking about them, here is the list of each volume titles available in the Everything Sucks series:

Vol 1: ...And Nobody's Talking About It

Vol 2: This and That Too

Vol 3: When Nobody's Looking

Vol 4: Especially You

Vol 5: Curing The Infection

Generally speaking, the reboot fixes almost every issue in the comic to make it more realistic to portray average healthcare, but that won't be the case when volume 4 started, so let's jump into the first volume.

Volume 1 starts with Barry reading a pamphlet, and an old character named Charles Wells warns him not to go into the "slaughterhouse" known as Sparklecare Hospital. Barry eventually farewells to him by saying "Things get better" before going on a checkup, but Charles answers otherwise. For the plot of this volume, I'd say it's a good start for a "satirical" comic about American Healthcare which was based on the creator's horrible hospital experience so she tried to make it relatable for anyone who is experiencing the said thing like Kittycorn does, and we were glad to see the four characters being met, mainly Uni Cornelius, Caroline Coughs, Jay Fortune and Hemera Philly. Plus, the ending helps to tell the truth about American Healthcare. There are a few retcons in this comic to make it a bit more sense for old and new fans alike to keep up with people who love to ship. As for her art style, her 2018-2021 era was my favorite because it makes each character look pop thanks to line variations. Sadly, when volume 3 came out, her art style was starting to degrade to save time for her crew members have more room for multiple comic pages, either that or her wrist injury, albeit I can't blame for that. There are a few changes after the site revamp which I'm not a fan of.

Volume 1 Changes:

On page 30, Uni's bloody tears have been removed, and one panel has been changed to indicate that Caroline and Uni are not dating, implying that Carruni is canon. I don't find this necessary because it ties directly to Uni being closeted, and Uni and Caroline's relationships remain private. Cuddles' assumption has also been dumbed down.

This applies to page 80 where the line was changed to imply multiple ships.

On page 76, Doom clearly states that he needs to work in a hospital to protect her sister. In my opinion, this edit may potentially spoil unaware readers about the reasoning of working in a hospital. At least Doom's mouth has been fixed.

On page 48, the staff's ID cards have added more info that I find cluttered because there is a lack of personality before they put their own answers to their card. Two examples are Funfetti and Doom's favorites being added despite they were supposed to keep their favorites to themselves.

Doom's borderline misogynism and bad relationship with Uni have been removed on page 108 and 109. We'll talk further in the volume 2 so moving on.

Volume 2 takes place after the patients get sent back to the hospital. Barry has never met these people since the beginning, so he tries to greet them nicely aside from his impressions of Hemera. Since it's a cleanup day, Doom has confiscated the patients' belongings to the trash, but the former didn't want their favorite things thrown away. Caroline has an idea of getting their belongings back by sending her friends but Hemera into the dumpster, but they are stopped by former patients in a city dump until the end.

Other than sex jokes more often in some volumes, this plot has pretty good moments to keep us waiting for the lore and foreshadowing, and it sends a message of toxic masculinity that happened to Uni in terms of her identity. However, there are a few retcons and edits to try to fit in.

Volume 2 Changes:

On page 36 to page 40, his belittlement of Uni over "girlish" things has been removed to push the shipping narrative for new readers. I'm not a fan of Doom being "woobified" into saying sorry for confiscating her teddy bear because that's the point of making a morally grey character, so when you're making a character who is a douche, make sure to add flaws to make them unique.

On page 56 and 57, removing Caroline's verbal ableism is a bad change. Caroline is insensitive towards Barry and Jay at her first impression due to her misunderstanding. Same goes to Uni who doubled down Barry's schizophrenia.

One thing I can agree with is WcDonald's being replaced with 7-Twelve on page 134 due to Kittycorn finding out about McDonald's complicit genocide, though the lighting and the character design pattern on this page are heavily downgraded.

Now, the ending marks the cliffhanger for the last outsider, we would expect to have the same quality as previous volumes, but not all volumes are created equal. So that's why I'm moving on to the next volume. Enter "When Nobody's Looking".

In volume 3, we see Doom drawing a flower, and her sister Mood shows up at the wrong time. He tries to hide it out of embarrassment but shows it to her anyway, and Mood compliments his drawing afterward. The plot introduces side patients in the cafeteria such as Orange U. Glad, Cyn Dher, Polaris Klepsky, and Finnegan Fevers, so we can see their character development in this comic, at the same time, it introduces outsiders such as social workers in the comic which can report the abuse inside a premise, although that's not the case anymore at the end of the volume. In my opinion, I'm pretty impressed by this introduction where Polly is introduced to Uni's jealousy, and we can finally see the reason for Uni's eyes going missing due to her suicide attempt, which is shocking, and the ending shows the truth of a social worker taking a side of Sparklecare Hospital. As far as her art style is concerned, this takes a downgrade approach including the comic panel format, character designs, and inking. Now onto the volume 4, and it's going to be a hot mess for long-term Sparklecare readers.

The volume 4 is mainly a filler for Barruni fanservice. The concept of sentient puppets controlled by Uni's magic to represent her self-loathing and insecurity, and her self-loving sounds pretty cool on paper, but the way Kittycorn implemented it is poorly executed. The plot of this volume is okay like we get it. We have Uni's own story for the audience, but neither everyone is a Barruni shipper nor is okay with many sex jokes to fill it in, especially the "canon" ending where Barry has a dream in a very suggestive manner rather than Uni creating multiple puppets as an apology to those who were affected by a puppet version of herself named Kneevil. Honestly, I'm already concerned about this volume when looking back. There are many sex jokes in this plot which turn people away from it, considering the comic was used to be marked as 16+ before increasing to 18+ back in August 2024. What's more concerning is that one crew member named Jeremy was somehow credited on page 24 of volume 5 before they even turned 18, mostly due to Patreon posts being submitted early. Moving on to the volume 5.

The final volume starts with Uni having a nightmare over something that will affect her life. She goes to a doctor named Dr. Dolly to confess her nightmare and receives her stuffed toy which foreshadows the overarching antagonist whose body parts are fused together in a far future volume, especially the "Perfect Patient" part in volume 3. This volume has its ups and downs. We may see an intern of a social worker named Brigh T. Howtlook exploring an abandoned hospital building on his own with multiple outsiders making theories about the truth of Sparklecare Hospital. This could have been the potential to see more foreshadowing on each lore. Unfortunately, this volume won't be finished due to the comic being put on hiatus after the creator got called out for multiple controversies that can be read here (I don't recommend reading this doc if you're not comfortable with disturbing themes). Not to mention, this volume's art style and comic format have been downgraded as well.

I do not have anything to review aside from leaked series and things that can be read here, but if I'm being honest about the comic and her project, it's going to suck due to plot holes willing to be added, and this discourages future readers to move on to something else as the Sparklecare project will become bland if Kittycorn had continued it from her recovery, and I'm afraid, she will take the Floraverse route but I doubt it will happen for the time being.

All these controversies surrounding Kittycorn such as incest, befriending predators off sight, and silencing victims, make me glad that there are better alternatives that are worth reading. I've read one of her responses on Tumblr before it gets taken down, presumably due to her abuser finding out, and one thing I can kind of agree with is to not make a comic about your trauma if you're unsure about yourself and the popularity, but I think it depends on how you want to vent out your problems if done right. This however doesn't excuse Kittycorn from making multiple incest projects and inserting exhibitionism into a public AU blog called Ask Cometcare. It doesn't help that there were minors who were working on an incest project while leaving them unaware, and saying it's her coping mechanism is very unhealthy, and she needs to seek help from professionals and cut every predator off her life. Considering she had done multiple things to lie to her audience including ones from the preboot, this project should've never been created from the start of 2016 for safety reasons.

Rating: 7/10

I won't be linking all volumes here for now, although you can look up yourself through Wayback Machine if you want to. I do not recommend giving any support to Kittycorn for all things mentioned. Instead, support victims who were affected by Sparklecare and predators:

Commission Jeremy

Donate to Chaosblast/Nick

Donate to toynbeck

Donate to aobasgirlfriend

[coochiequeens]

"I have two little girls, I don't want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I'm supposed to be afraid to say that,". And that's one of the reasons conservatives won so many races.

BOSTON - Rep. Seth Moulton is defending controversial remarks that he made about transgender athletes in the wake of the presidential election.

President-elect Donald Trump's campaign spent millions on anti-trans political ads this fall. The Massachusetts Congressman told The New York Times after Trump's win that "Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone" and called for a new approach from the party on the transgender issues.

"I have two little girls, I don't want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I'm supposed to be afraid to say that," Moulton told The Times.

The Boston Globe reported that a top aide to Moulton resigned after his comments appeared in The Times, and there were protests outside his Salem office. 

Seth Moulton defends comments on trans athletes

Moulton appeared on CNN Sunday and did not back down from his statement.

"Look, I was just speaking authentically as a parent about one of many issues where Democrats are just out of touch with the majority of Americans," he said. "And I stand by my position, even though I may not have used exactly the right words."

Moulton said that despite the public backlash, the vast majority of feedback he's received has been "incredibly supportive."

He said fellow Democrats and Congressional colleagues have told him, "You're exactly right Seth, this is our problem. We try to cancel people rather than actually having debates about issues that Americans care about."

"We're losing on issues like this"

Congressman Seth Moulton doubled down on the comments after a Veterans Day event in Marblehead on Monday.

"I stand by them because importantly, I'm just trying to raise the debate. I'm not saying I have all the answers on this. It's not my area of expertise. But this is an example of a contentious issue that we have to be willing to take on as a Democratic Party," Moulton told WBZ. "One, we got to start winning elections and we're losing on issues like this. And two, if we don't actually define the terms of the debate then Trump and the extremist Republicans will define it for all the rest of us." 

Backlash to Seth Moulton's statement on trans athletes

On Monday, a handful of trans activists and anti-war protesters gathered outside Moulton's Veterans Day event. One of them was Kyle Davis, a Salem city councilor who is now calling for Moulton to resign.

"If the Congressman's theory of change is that we need to sell out and scapegoat every marginalized community in order to win, I don't really know what we're winning at that point," Davis said.

Moulton told WBZ that the outrage about his comments proves his point. "It's a whole variety of issues where Democrats are clearly just out of touch with most of America. And I think that's because we do too much preaching and not enough listening," Moulton said. 

LGBTQ+ advocacy group MassEquality called Moulton's comments "both harmful and factually inaccurate." 

"Our community is deeply hurt by these remarks, which reinforce harmful stereotypes and undermine the dignity of transgender athletes," Executive Director Tanya Neslusan said in a statement. "We hope that by engaging with the Congressman, we can work toward a more inclusive and informed understanding of transgender issues in sports."

Massachusetts Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley did not mention Moulton by name in a social media post Sunday, but wrote that the transgender community has been "scapegoated and dehumanized."

"I will always stand with trans people and the entire LGBTQ+ community," Pressley said. "This Congresswoman sees you and loves you."