#bernie hypocrites

[thefaultinourchickennuggets]

here's how Bernie can still win...

[nando161mando]

Why is Kamala Harris campaigning with unpopular neocons like Liz Cheney instead of popular progressives like Bernie Sanders?

[klysanderelias]

My favorite argument I've seen libs use against Biden stepping down is when they say 'who else could run? There's not a good other candidate that could take his place'

And I think that's debatable, between the previous Democratic candidates from 2020 and rising stars in the party (like Obama was), but i think it's a good argument (although i think Warren or Harris are the clear obvious options)

EXCEPT these are the motherfuckers screaming 'vote blue no matter who', 'Trump is worse so you have to vote against him even if you don't like the candidate'

Real 'for thee but not for me' energy as soon as there's a possibility that they might actually have to live up to 'no matter who'

[nuttybluerice]

I do not care how many progressives try to make this a centrist issue, I am NEVER going to compare how the Dems handled 2016 and how the Reps handled 2020 and put them on an equal playing field. The left pissed and shit for a year then moved on. The right spent the past 4 years demonizing every group that Biden won while looking like the biggest fucking hypocritical bitches I have ever seen. It's one thing for the left to say that Bernie won 2016 and make my Hillary vote look bad, but it's another for the right to say Trump won and spend the next 4 years mewling over it and trying their damn hardest to convince me that my vote was fraudulent. Do you have any idea how many friends I've had to cut out of my life after the 2020 election? They tell me that the left needs to grow up after 2016, and then have the biggest meltdown after their dear leader losses. It's the most pathetic shit! I do not need that in my life. The political right doesn't deserve anything. They only deserve loss after loss after loss.

[phaeton-flier]

Some of you need—NEED—to understand that "the other side" is not one homogeneous mass of all the same ideas. They're just as varied and ideologically diverse and full of in-fighting and arguments as your side is.

More to the point, if you see someone apparently taking a position that runs contrary to some other thing the other side believes, it's probably because that particular person didn't believe in that particular position. The people hyping up Neuralink human trials are different than the people who screamed for years about satanists putting chips in our brains; Muskovites are different from End-Times Fundamentalist Christians, even if they sometimes say similar things about "Woke Ideology" or the federal deficit.

The larger point is that you shouldn't study politics as a two-sides thing, but as a big pile of questions that you can have any combination positions on. Sometimes you can see correlations, sometimes you can draw lines are groupings. "Left-Wing" can cover Bernie Sanders, Lavrentiy Beria, and Peter Kropotkin; It would be weird if they didn't have a ton of disagreements.

Most of the time, if you accuse someone of being hypocritical it's either because you're confusing one part of a group for another.

[icedsodapop]

Look, I have been critical of Kamala Harris and her presidential campaign for the past few months. My biggest gripes with her are her support for Israel and her appealing to conservative and rightwing voters, among many other issues typical of liberal and centrist Democrats.

However, declining to appear on Joe Rogan's show is not a bad thing. In fact, I'd say this is one of few things I have to give Harris credit for. There is a subgroup of reactionary White leftists like the OP of the video that I get so frustrated by. This subgroup of reactionary White leftists love Joe Rogan, even tho he has literally hosted White supremacists, MAGA assholes and Zionists like Gavin McInnes and Bari Weiss, allowed his guests to tout islamophobia and transphobia on this podcast, and then there's the antiblackness.

I'm sick and tired of these White leftists thinking that Joe Rogan can be used as a useful idiot for the Left, becos the man is literally complicit in providing assholes a platform to market their products and spread misinformation about minorities. The enemy of our enemy is not our fucking friend, marginalized pple should not have to be thrown under buses just to appeal to reactionaries and criticizing this strategy is not "purity politics".

Refs about Joe Rogan bullshit:

[thepioden]

Okay it’s maybe a little late to ask but I’m going back over the Nebraska election options and I know our politics are like aligned but I feel like our senator options are bad either way like Dan Osborn republicans saying hes republican and he Sides with trump (🤢) but deb fischer republicans saying he’s fake republican and lying and besties with Bernie and idk I think I would just like to hear other people’s thoughts

Dan Osborn is a pretty centrist, Labor-first populist candidate. The Democrats are pretty much ghosting him, because a Dem does not have a shot at sniping Fischer's seat, but an Independent apparently does. He's really trying pull over conservatives right now, because Trump and McConnell are backing Fischer hard. He's got some platform things I'm into, some I don't care for, and a general pro-Union, pro-Labor, anti-Corporatist position that generally aligns with the thrust of my values. I wish he was as cool as the Fischer-funded attack ads make him sound.

Things I like:

Immigration: He supports a path to citizenship and his concerns about undocumented immigrants are mostly labor-based.

Healthcare: removing private equity in senior care, improving protections for elders in care facilities. Full abortion access and reversing trans healthcare restrictions.

Labor: improving overtime take home pay, tighten 'independent contractor' loopholes, mandatory paid bereavement and sick leave. He's also a very Union guy.

Right to Repair: this is just good practice, and he's coming at it from a Small Farmers' perspective in particular which is good for Nebraska agriculture and family farmers who aren't owned by Bill Gates.

Things I don't care for:

Blue Lives Matter: Support/funding for law enforcement. He includes first responders in this, but I'm... not thrilled about it. Also pro-military-funding, but at least it's funding for vets and soldiers' wages rather than Chuck More Money In The Pentagon Black Hole of Cash.

Second amendment rights/pro 2A. He supports education but not restriction, which. Well. Better than nothing :\

Immigration: he's real gung-ho about border security and the "build the wall" stuff.

The "sides with Trump" bits. From what I can tell, this is lip service to sway conservatives, because the Trump things he's siding with are some of Trump's big hypocrite talking points like "draining the swamp." Feels icky, though.

Ultimately, Nebraska is not running a Democrat and certainly not a true leftist, but it feels like this Centrist independent could deny the Republicans a hitherto safe seat. I will be voting Osborn, because he has "Things I like" points, where Fischer has... paid FMLA, and some pretty okay ag bills. Meanwhile, Fischer has much more damning "Things I don't care for" points, like abortion restriction, aid to Israel, denying aid to anyone who recognizes Palestine as a sovereign state, harsher legal penalties for assaulting cops (vs. assaulting non-cops), and choking out the EPA's operating budget, as well as endorsements from Trump, Pillen, Ricketts, AIPAC, and the Omaha Police Union.

Also, don't forget that Pricketts is up to try and hold his quid pro quo seat! Does Preston Love Jr. have a snowball's chance in hell? Probably not, but you can still vote for him.

[saintescuderia]

The cult side of F1.

Silly season is one thing. Spreading misinformation is another.

When I started writing about F1, I thought to do a segment where I would recap all the news from the past week. It was called F1 Flash and it lasted a month. Why? I had run out of interesting things to write about. I think I wrote about Toto Wolff’s updates on Hamilton’s Mercedes renewal about three times with the barely there news updates about it.

Funny that, now.

However, the truth of the matter was, there wasn’t that much news for a weekly update. Or, should I say, any news was already old news by the time the race had come around.

Never mind how big the story was; the race always overshadowed it and F1’s PR team always did such a good job of directing your attention where they wanted it. They know how to tread the fine line of controversy generating buzz and causing genuine hurt to an image. It’s a line the likes of the Kardashians perfected their walk through - and that Kanye missteps through.

And it’s something that F1, more than any other sport, dances around.

And it’s because F1, more than any other sport, is a cult.

Formula 1 started off as a rich man’s only sport that the likes of Liberty media helped popularise - but the fact remains the same. You only need to look at the Monaco race to understand just the level of lavish wealth that is the culture of Formula 1 racing. Hence, it’s unsurprising that it’s no easy industry to crack into and every single person in the paddock will tell you that cash is king. F1 has done well to disguise itself over the past few years and seem more accessible, more mainstream. Yet even though it increases in popularity, there is still the fact that it’s a cult, a rich man’s club. For example, just last year a woman reported paying 800 euros for a ticket for Monaco practice - only to arrive and realise her ‘seat’ was a patch of grass.

So how does this relate to the news? Well, the news for the masses and as it’s clear that this sport is not for the masses, the news doesn’t really matter. The story doesn’t matter. All the story is for is to keep generating the buzz which will ensure the masses still pay attention and pay the 800 euro for a patch of grass so they feel included in something they never will.

Case in point: the Christian Horner scandal generating all these rumours of Red Bull’s star driver leaving, Helmut Marko and the other Verstappen whinging, and Bernie Ecclestone got in to add his comments. Instead of taking the matter seriously and protecting the identity of a woman who was an alleged victim of abuse, the story is focusing on whether Max Verstappen will take Lewis Hamilton’s seat.

This may sound quite scratching and hyper-critical for the hypocrite who has their whole life revolving around the sport, who is literally dedicating time writing about the news of F1… but that’s the point. If I’m on the receiving end of your story, please don’t feed me bullshit. Don’t lie. Silly season is one thing and then there’s thinking we’re stupid enough to fall for it.

And oftentimes we are. Because they can. Because, really, it’s all a bit cultish.

[super-hero-confessions]

Interesting that the people who hate or criticize Captain America do so because they think he's the classic American white boi like Homelander without realizing he is a more direct and nonsatirical criticism against what makes a Homelander or the Homelander mentality.

Cap's meant to represent what Americans should strive for while harshly critisizing the worst of what America is and has done. True patriotism is recognizing the problems at hand and doing your best to work on and improve them, especially when you have the power to do so. And 616 Cap has. When he's wrong he admits it and tries to do better. Having consideration and compassion for others. This would be why he has lost faith in the flag many times, wore that gaudy awful Nomad suit and literally fights against the U.S. government when he knows what they're doing is wrong.

Also why he has multiple enemies that are actual white supremacists or pro-America propaganda white bois. And why those in universe assuming he is an authoritarian propagandist who works solely for government interests are portrayed as obviously wrong or being proven wrong. Almost all of his enemies are Nazis which is more than can be said about 99.9% of Golden or other Age comics trash.

Being the "1940s white man" and a "disabled Irish kid no one looked twice at" as Steve Rogers who disagrees with everything his time period supports helps drive the point home that it shouldn't matter what you are or where you come from, you should always try to do what's right. Hammered in further by the Cap mantle being taken on by others of different backgrounds and experiences following the same philosophy and trying to spread that same beautiful and essential message.

"Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world -- "No, you move.""

"We must all live in the real world… and sometimes that world can be pretty grim. But it is the Dream… the hope… that makes the reality worth living. In the early 1940s, I made a personal pledge to uphold the Dream… And as long as the Dream remains even partially unfulfilled, I cannot abandon it!"

But basically and ironically, who he is and that the Cap mantle's been passed around is ignored. He's hated for all the wrong reasons of what he literally isn't and it makes them massive hypocrites who refuse to see past their own prejudice and bias, just like the racists who 'love' him for the same wrong reasons.

Fascinating and a bit hilarious. But also deeply tragic.

Think it may be time for them follow Cap's example and start learning to do better instead of just being bitter.

Oh, and Cap and Co. would definitely vote for Bernie. He even dated a Bernie!

[militantinremission]

Jamaal Bowman: The Cost of being 'Off Code'

Jamaal Bowman IS the Canary in the Coal Mine for the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). His Primary defeat to [Race Baiter] George Latimer sends a CLEAR MESSAGE to the rest of the CBC, that they need to pay more attention to Black Specific Issues. For decades, they rode into Office on Black Votes; only to ignore their Constituents & champion White Liberal Causes. The CBC's 'Mission Statement' is a slap in the face of Black America. While the Asian & Latinx Caucus single out their intent to represent their Ethnic Group, The CBC focuses on 'People of Color' & 'The Disadvantaged' (Marginalized). Black Americans are Socially Liberal, so We didn't clap back at this commitment to 'Coalitions'. The Problem, is The CBC's commitment to these Coalitions OVER Black Specific Issues.

Jamaal Bowman stands out. He's a Member of those Progressive Democrats, known as 'The Squad'. They collectively hold a Narrow Majority in Congress, but This group has been exposed as being toothless on hot button Progressive Issues like: 'Medicare for All', Raising the National Minimum Wage, Supporting Railroad Workers, & a 'Human Infrastructure Bill'. Bowman has been a strong voice in this Group. Like ALL Black Progressives, Bowman towed the Democratic Line over the legitimate needs of Black Americans. LGBTQ..., Asian, Ashkenazi, & Latinx American concerns take precedence over their Own Constituents. This has been The Case for decades. It's not just a Progressive issue, Many of these Black Members of Congress choose other groups over the Blackfolk that put them in Office.

It's ironic that The Congressional Black Caucus has collectively lent their Support to Israel FOR YEARS, but are now being 'Primaried' by AIPAC for demanding a Cease Fire in Gaza. Jamaal Bowman is not alone, Many CBC Members face an AIPAC Backed Challenger this Year. Like his Congressional Peers, Bowman ignored the Grassroots in his District throughout his Tenure, claiming that 'he's alone in Congress & doesn't have The Power'; but somehow expected them to rally behind him, in an effort to defeat the Big Bad AIPAC Boogeyman. His Bronx Rally w/ Bernie Sanders & Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC), was an embarrassing Event that exposed the decline of the Progressive Party. The Writing was On the Wall for all 3 Politicians. Bernie was cliche & hypocritical, AOC was overactive & loud, Jamaal was plastic & ineffective. The Turnout was Unbelievably Low.

AIPAC is known for having Deep Pockets, so their investment of roughly $25 Million to defeat Jamaal Bowman is not surprising. It's clear that his critique of Israel's Actions in Gaza motivated AIPAC to 'Primary' him. Aside from AOC, I didn't see much support coming from the rest of The Squad. It's Nina Turner all over again. I question the solidarity of Black Progressives, but The CBC didn't back Bowman either. Jim Clyburn, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee & Hakeem Jeffries were silent; then again, ALL are beholden to AIPAC for Campaign Funds. WHAT is The CBC's Agenda? Their lack of solidarity & support for each other, is as scary as their support of The Democratic Agenda. They have THE SAME 'Shark Tank Mentality' as their White Congressional Peers

Bowman's defeat can be attributed to AIPAC, but the lack of Black Voter Turnout stands out. Mainstream Media may downplay it, but The Democratic Party has to be concerned; Black Democrats in Office should be WORRIED! Before the Vote, Jamaal Bowman was given a Fighter's Chance, despite Redistricting- due to his 'Ethnic Demographic Advantage'. The Fact that he lost by Double Digits speaks volumes. I have said more than once, that Black Politicians need to Draft & Present a Black Agenda to their Constituents. Their disregard for Black Voters is Coming Home to Roost. Bowman, like many other Black Members of Congress have been curt & disrespectful towards their Constituents when critiqued. Blackfolk are talking about Reparations, & NOT taking No for an Answer... I think The CBC better get to work before it's too late.

-Just Sayin'

[warsofasoiaf]

I have always felt the Left’s vitriol towards Kissinger was overblown, but that he was perhaps less masterful as many of his defenders claim. He accomplished some important diplomatic wins, and was also part of a terrible escalation in war. Is Kissinger really the specter many claim, or the master the others do or is he just a master at self-promotion who happened to live a long time?

Kissinger had some fairly prominent wins and the criticism that he receives is usually on conduct that is itself quite worthy of criticism.

Kissinger's biggest foreign policy successes were his shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East with regards to Israel, Egypt, and Syria and his pursuit of detente with the Soviet Union, cooling tensions between the US and USSR. However, it's not like Henry Kissinger was the lone voice in promoting detente - that was a wing of foreign policy thought that often found itself in the minority in the era of the containment doctrine. Detente was as much a creation of the trends of forces of history as much as it was the brainchild of any one department of state official. To attribute detente to Kissinger is bad Great Man history.

Much of the criticism of Henry Kissinger - support for Argentina during the Dirty War, the bombing of Cambodia, and support for Pakistan despite the genocide are very accurate. The damage and devastation wrought by these policies, and American support for them, lingers today. Moreover, not all of these policies were only seen to be devastating in hindsight or post-facto, these were entered into with knowledge of what was going on, especially in Pakistan or Operation Condor in the Southern Cone. If someone castigates Kissinger for the devastation his policies caused, there is a great deal of truth to it.

I often roll my eyes at left-wing critics of Henry Kissinger, not because their criticism is invalid, but because I find it remarkably hypocritical, even ignoring cranks and bigots like Noam Chomsky. The Democratic Socialists of America, for example, has been running headlines on the death of Kissinger, but they support Putin's war in Ukraine, support Uyghur camps, and are currently in support of Maduro's latest colonial escalation over Essequibo. Bernie Sanders is correct in criticizing Kissinger's actions in supporting authoritarian regimes in Latin America, including the use of death squads, but Sanders himself supported death squads in Nicaragua (even fundraising for Ortega knowing that he was doing it) and compared opposition efforts to expose Ortega's shootings and bombings of indigenous populations to Nazism (yes, really). So I largely find those critics to be pearl-clutching; they're quite happy to commit the same (or worse) and cheerlead for the same, provided that *they're* the ones doing it.

Thanks for the question, Cle-Guy.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[nando161mando]

Bernie Sanders says he "applauds" Cheneys for backing Kamala Harris, "defending democracy"

[fantasyinvader]

I think there’s something really poignant about Silver Snow and how it’s treated as the game’s central route. There’s just this level of weight to the whole thing, and I think that’s part of why it’s not a more popular route.

This is a minor thing, but preordered copies Houses came with a Byleth Cipher card in Japan, saying “Three Realms. Three Houses. Your Story.” This supports the idea the devs talked about in the Nintendo Dream interview: that the world was built around supporting Silver Snow, a story where you are betrayed by your lord character. This, to them, should make it the hardest route in the game for players to complete, yet it’s essentially the default option. The cursor rests of the Black Eagles House, loading screens are adorned with their pictures, and Byleth will automatically reject Edelgard unless the player develops a sufficient bond with her and puts her request above the rest of the class. It’s Byleth’s story, the choices that unlock Flower are framed as changing it, and their flag, the route’s save icon, is identified as the game’s Fire Emblem by the developers. We even get Byleth’s origins in it.

And when I think about the class associated with it, it makes a bit more sense. Edelgard is accented with red despite her class being the Black Eagles. In this franchise, red is a color associated with enemy units. The devs themselves have said that Edelgard and the Empire were assigned the roles of villains in this game, meaning the Black Eagles were on their way to becoming villain generals unless Byleth leads them away from Edelgard.

A Ferdinand who fights for Edelgard believes it’s his duty to make her plans work. A Ferdinand who fights against Edelgard believes it’s his duty to stop her when she runs amok.

Bernie leaves her room to fight for Edelgard because she’s afraid of being killed in her room and believes in killing others before they can do so, whereas a Bernie who rejects Edelgard leaves her room for five years to wander Fodlan before the reunion.

Dorothea hates the nobility of the Empire, but Hopes points out that she’s not like other commoners and accepted by the corrupt nobility. Rather than simply looking out for herself, a Church-aligned Dorothea travels Fodlan helping people instead.

Caspar is someone who follows his gut, doing what he believes is right. In White Clouds, he’s depicted as being opposed to what the Flame Emperor and her allies are doing, leading to him fighting against Edelgard during the timeskip if he doesn’t join her. If he does join her, he loses that empathy and is depicted in giving into his bloodlust, later on marching on other countries with a smile on his face as leader of the Imperial army.

Linhardt is someone who is opposed to bloodshed and learns throughout White Clouds that there are some lines you don’t cross with research. He forgets this if he joins Edelgard.

Petra either fights for her countries oppressors, even putting them above Brigid, to earn their freedom by forcing two separate nations to bow down to Edelgard or fights her oppressor.

While they’re each teachers, Manuela and Hanneman even go through this themselves as they are from the Empire and are shown fighting for Edelgard if unrecruited. Manuela gives up being a healer to become an assassin, hypocritically calling out Byleth for fighting former students, while Hanneman gave up his title because of the moral decline of the Empire that resulted in the death of his sister. Despite all he talks about living up to the original ideals behind the nobility, the ideals of valuing knowledge and protecting his people, he instead supports the decline fighting for someone values strength and sacrifices her people.

They become the villains if the player doesn’t do anything. But what about the Lions, the blue team? By not choosing the traditional heroic color, they end up having worse outcomes than they would have if Byleth had picked their class.

Dedue is the lone survivor of Gronder, determined to avenge Dimitri. He doesn’t join Byleth, can be killed trying to take down Edelgard, and simply disappears if he survives.

Ashe ends up fighting for the Empire, the same people who manipulated Lonato. Unless he was recruited in White Clouds, he can’t be recruited and will die.

Annette will never be able to reconcile with her father.

Ingrid won’t be able to follow her dreams of becoming a knight.

Mercedes can’t get the scene giving her closure with Emile, with the alternative being joining him in Flower but that means she abandons her faith while Edelgard starts a new church preaching a message Mercedes doesn’t support.

Felix guilt over the death of Dimitri and inability to patch things up with his father, the belief he could have done something to help them, leads him down a very dark road.

Sylvain has lost a childhood friend (Dimitri), sees another unable to follow her dreams (Ingrid) and has another potentially disappear only to die in some unknown battle (Felix)

The Deer die at Gronder following Claude, bar any recruited Deer and Lorenz. Lorenz will either die protecting the Bridge or need to be rerecruited.

And remember, the Alliance prides itself on not bowing to any king or emperor. They end up doing so in every route, though in Wind they do end up being the center of a new Kingdom of Fodlan.

Kinda… sad, isn’t it? You didn’t pick the class with the traditional heroic color, instead picking those with the villain color and prevented them from becoming Edelgard’s generals. You saved the souls of the Eagles without trouble, but the Lions suffered as a result of it. And this is the main route of the game, the one where Emblem Byleth’s trial theme gets it’s musical cues from. This is Byleth’s story, not Dimitri’s, not Edelgard’s and not Claude’s. Byleth’s.

And owing to the themes and the Buddhist symbolism, Byleth’s going down this route because their didn’t let their attachment to Edelgard stop them from doing the right thing. That after all the suffering and manipulations we see in White Clouds by the Empire and the Agarthans, Byleth rejects walking down Edelgard’s path of thorns. They reject Safflower, no matter how attractive it’s made out to be. It’s showing Byleth being virtuous, but at the same time it’s showing the faults of each of the three lords.

Edelgard’s attachment to her father leads to her being unwilling to question what he told her, ending up doing the bidding of the Agarthans. This results in her starting a continental war of conquest, and there’s nothing you can do to make her see the light. Her path is the animal path, acting on instinct and impulse rather than logic and reason, a path that is the antithesis of what Byleth’s path of enlightenment is supposed to be. You can’t make her better, but she can make you worse.

Claude’s hatred of the Church, blaming it for his outsider status, prevents him from allying with Byleth. He’ll manipulate the Church of Seiros into retaking the Great Bridge for him, letting them suffer the casualties of doing so while his forces stay fresh to march on the Empire afterwards, but when he got his ass kicked and fled back home, he left the Alliance to rot rather than handing it over to the Church. He just got his former classmates killed, bar recruited Deer and Lorenz, and he just abandons the country after trying to hard to prevent Edelgard from taking it. He’ll hand over it to Dimitri, alongside his relic, but not the Church. Fittingly he’s associated with yellow, the color of a third enemy faction, but that changes to green, the color of allies, in Wind when he aligns with the Church and brings in Almyra for support.

And because the Church needs time to recover after retaking the Bridge, Byleth is unable to help Dimitri when asked. Even if Byleth wants to, they can’t because they lack the manpower and Dimitri won’t wait. His belief in living for the dead and punishing those responsible for hurting others, even becoming suicidal due to his understanding of the suffering he’s causing people fueling self-loathing, pushes him to rush headfirst into the fight resulting in not just his death but the deaths of all Lions that follow him bar Dedue.

We know that Dimitri and Claude’s issues can be fixed, but we’re unable to do so in Snow. But this route doesn’t  focus on their issues as it’s Byleth’s story, it’s a story about the danger attachment can bring if you let it control you. Tellingly, Rhea dies despite trying to save her the entire route unless she gets her A support in White Clouds, where she accepts Byleth is their own person and not an amnesiac version of Sothis. She lets Sothis go in this, and as a result lives. But the player has to go out of their way to support her, they have to reach out for her pretty much more than anyone. And if they don’t, the route ends with her death or her going to live in isolation if we don’t reach out with the S support.

I know we complain about how Houses is afraid of making the player feel bad, but just look at this. We supported the students of the Black Eagles class, preventing them from becoming villains yet we’re unable to get through to Edelgard and Hubert. Our lord character betrayed us, tried to manipulate us, and despite how much we wish we could make her see the light she dies trying to garner sympathy, activating her weapon in the process, while accepting no responsibility. The Lions either die or have less fulfilling stories because we didn’t support Dimitri. Claude leaves the Alliance in shambles. The three nations of Fodlan are failing because of how destructive this war was, requiring unification in order to stop the suffering caused by the failings of all three lords. Rhea can die despite the attempt to rescue her, and if she lives she can end up living alone in the ruins of her former home. You can save the characters from other Houses through supports, but you are still forced to cut ties with two of your students.

This is the main route of the game. Emblem Corrin came from Revelations, the route where she united the peoples of Nohr and Hoshido against Anankos, in comparison with only Scarlet and Izana dying due to plot related reasons. A golden ending that was held up above the other two routes, something people complained about as it invalidated our experiences with them, whereas Houses was designed not to have a golden ending. Each route has it’s bitter moments, with only Flower being held as the bad ending because, you know, you supported tyranny despite how attractive it made itself out to be.

Silver Snow is the darkest route in the game, to the point you could argue it’s off-putting, but doesn’t that make it the best example as to why Fodlan needs the light of Byleth’s guidance? It’s not as simple as just supporting your lord character and helping them grow as persons, it’s about doing the right thing even though it’s not always painless. It’s about the importance of reaching out to support others, but also not letting them manipulate you and knowing when to just walk away. The importance of understanding the world around you rather than simply following what others say. Even Edelgard’s belief in merit ultimately isn’t seen as wrong, as Byleth is depicted as being the one worthy of leading Fodlan, just she had the wrong definition of what merit actually was and, while misguided, ultimately unwilling to budge from her toxic ideals.

I just think we need more stories like Silver Snow. The fact it's ended up being a hook for learning about Buddhism for me is a bonus.

[randomnameless]

Is the whole "Matthias sacrificed himself to save his friends and family because Faerghus' toxic culture of chivalry brainwashed him and that was a bad, stupid and pitiable thing for him to do, but when someone on our or Adrestia's side does the exact same thing it's a good, brave and praise-worthy thing to do" fiasco the most flagrant example of hypocrisy in the Fódlan games?

That's one of the main issues I have with those games, are they so badly written, or are they written in a way that showcases the protags (Adrestia/Leicester) as hypocrites?

Is this on purpose, or not?

Imo the biggest offender would be the Rhea BaD scene where, after a trial (but uwu no fair trial because Rhea doesn't respect article 6 or the ECHR :'( ), the game has the nerve to give you students/people reacting strongly to an execution, of people who tried to kill them (and killed other no name no face students).

But during Map 2.1 or 2.2., or hell, even in every FE game, you kill red units who are trying to kill you.

And even out of the battlefield, when Supreme Leader behead a defeated and on his knees Dimitri, Bernie isn't wondering if she does something "bad" Supreme Leader might execute her! Hell, Ingrid who seemed to have doubts about the "punishment" the peeps from the Western Church got, isn't saying a thing when Billy beheads Randolph or when Flèche is terminated after trying to kill Dimitri and successfully killing Rodrigue.

Raphael thinks those "guys who got caught" got the axe and it was brutal, but I don't remember him saying anything similar when the army bissects Supreme Leader after defeating her.

Tl;Dr : Rhea BaD > Church BaD > Kingdom BaD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ionius was a weak ruler

[dbunicorn]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2016/07/28/the-flawed-feminist-case-against-hillary-clinton/

I swear liberal/Marxist so called feminists are as mental as their maga counter parts.

You have the ugliest shittiest fucking lives.

Certain women just hate women. The more disempoweed the more aggressive. Win at all costs. Fuck you, I'd happily opt out of your asshole hamster wheel.

I hate stupid women.youre so irritating. Such a burden.

Imbeciles have no script, no life, no strategy.

Addict, power hungry mental patient. Compulsive liar, hypocrites. 🖕🖕

The Marxist, KKK union of pedophiles.

All sides of the border. Idiots are so universal.

Hillary Clinton, Bernie sanders or Trump. Might as well choose Satan 2016. Retrospection is a bitch no????

[womenareonline]

Woke, Art, leftist dirtbag

This is in response to the discussion of Matty Healy on The Adam Friedland Show and about leftist dirtbags.

A few months ago I went on a date with a guy and my first text to my friend once I was home was: he is too woke. My friend and I have an ongoing joke where we talk about people going on TikTok and explaining why we shouldn't study Picasso a man who has been dead for over 40 years. Yet a few days ago I saw Chris Brown was the headliner for a festival. Do you see the issue here? I think a lot of people are talking about the over wokeness and canceled culture and how it does not work. I agree. Canceled culture is dumb and there are still a lot of people doing far worst things than Matty Healy.

What the leftist dirtbag loves to do is make fun of gen-z woke culture. Because they turn around and vote for Bernie Sanders, and that's great. We love Bernie. But voting for more leftist politicians does not give you a free pass to be racist and sexist. I get it, you are making a joke out of woke culture or of “locker room talk”. Here is my question to you: What do you gain from this? What exactly do you gain from spending an hour talking about the most bizarre and random stuff, mocking accents, and objectifying women? If you are so mad about gen-z not taking issues seriously but instead focusing on the language they use, isn't it a bit hypocritical if you sit down and make fun of them instead of helping? Great you voted for Bernie, but you are still going online and making degrading jokes about minorities. I get it, I really do. I don’t think you are racist or sexist, but I also don’t think this is the way to stay woke or to help the ongoing issue in society.

I always believed there is a balanced to everything. You can be woke and you can still focus on the important issue. I personally believe that standing up for women's rights so we don’t get murdered on our way home is far more useful than spending 10 minutes talking about Ice Spice dms. But that's just me. I’ve been online for probably the same amount of time than these guys, so I understand there is a lot on the internet and I grew up into the internet and not on the internet. I have also developed critical thinking to understand when to draw the line when joking and when to be “woke”.

Here is the thing about these jokes: POC and women have spoken up and said this isn’t funny. We do not enjoy this kind of humor. Why aren’t you listening to them? I understand your jokes and satire, but if someone is telling you it's making them uneasy, should you stop? What's the point of satire if it offends people? Why are you telling people to “take a joke” when you are joking about their own culture? We heard enough about this when it's not a joke and outside of art, and we are telling you: we are very tired. We are tired of white men telling us how to feel. We are tired of men telling us “it's a joke”. I know you are joking, I get that. But tomorrow I’ll wake up and a man would catcall me for wearing a skirt. I am tired even when you are joking.

About the whole concept of this being art. I get art, I really do. I adore art and would always try to understand the most bizarre and random art. I don’t judge it for what it is. I like to believe I try different forms and genres of art because I don’t believe in listening to criticism or mouth-to-mouth (I even listened to the podcast I swear). They are saying art is supposed to challenge us and this is for you to think and to step outside. I love that concept of art. I really enjoy watching something new and experiencing new music (like The 1975!!). But I don’t understand what is so challenging for white men to sit for an hour to talk about other races and women. Isn’t that what we see every day? Is that literally what politics is like? Men telling women what to do with their bodies? I think it is more challenging when men stand up for women because we don’t see that every day. I think it's braver when we talk about the killing of POC and transgender people. Why isn’t art about that? I think that's a challenge because the status quo is men speaking for women. Are white people telling other groups how to feel or who to be? I think the challenge in the art should be to those in power. Let's make fun of those who are in power and who marginalized others. I believed Matty Healy did an amazing job portraying this in Consumption on his last tour and I loved that. He was a white man, calling out men. I am tired as a Latina woman to see men talk about us but not about themselves. There is more value in a man telling another man they are wrong. Two of my favorite writers are Isabel Allende (Chilean) and Gabriel García Marquez (Colombian) they both write about the issues in Latin America. They both explain what is wrong in our culture. That's more valuable and challenging than men talking about other races and genders.

I’m closing this by saying I had and maybe still do a great admiration for Matty Healy as an artist. I think he is brilliant: his music is amazing, he is a great songwriter, the shows are all created by him, an amazing frontman (i saw them live back in 2019), and has an amazing meme curation. But i don’t get why he blur the line into I don’t want people to see me as too woke. I think it might be a “trauma” response to being canceled so much. I get it. But I don’t think that's where we need to direct the conversation.