#dude you suck

[psalm22-6]

Source: The Catholic Northwest Progress, 22 October 1920

Written by Rev. Albert Muntsch, S. J., for the Press Bulletin Service of the C. B. of the C. V. Catholic teachers are so often asked why the Church forbids the reading of Hugo’s “Notre Dame de Paris” (The Hunchback of Notre Dame), and of “Les Miserables” that it seems worth while to set forth briefly the reasons of this condemnation. Both works are explicitly condemned, the former in a decree of July 28, 1834, the latter in one of June 20, 1864. Popular opinion ranks both books among the outstanding productions of world-literature. Those who share this view are frequently unable to give any reasonable ground for their admiration. They have heard others speak in glowing terms of the romances and have never formed an opinion based on close reading. Unfortunately, many books which have no literary or artistic value whatever thus achieve a wide reputation which all the opposition of sound criticism cannot restrict to sober limits. [. . .] "Les Miserables," a social romance, begun in 1848, was finished in 1862, and is an indictment against the existing order of society. The work glorifies opposition to the established social order, and though some of the characters are inspired by high ideals, the tendency of the work, as a whole, is revolutionary and unsound. It may be called a great Socialistic epic. There are of course eloquent pages in the book, and the social evils so mercilessly exposed, unfortunately weigh heavily upon large sections of every community. But this does not justify the tenor of the development of the tale. There is not only no need to spread a sentimental halo around an unfortunate mother like Fantine, from whom the first part of the story is named, but it is ethically wrong to do so. A moral transgression is always deserving of censure, and the writer who uses his literary art to ennoble wrongdoing is an enemy to society. His book ought to be branded as evil. As an illustration of the method employed by Hugo to belittle, and even to calumniate, as much as lay in his power, a sacred institution of the Church, we mention the strange and shockingly grotesque picture of religious orders in Part 11, Book 7, of “Les Miserables.” We read: “From the point of view of history, of reason. and of truth, monachism (the religious life), is condemned. . . . Monasteries . . . are detestable in the nineteenth century." In the same paragraph it is said that Italy and Spain are beginning to recover from the curse of monasticism, “thanks to the sane and vigorous hygiene of 1789 (the French Revolution).” The long eulogy of the bishop in the opening chapters of the book make this distorted and calumnious sketch all the more abominable. For unthinking persons may be led to believe that Hugo writes as a loyal son of the Church. No matter how one regards “the Index of Forbidden Books” drawn up by the Church, an unbiased mind will recognize the wisdom of the precautionary measures taken by her to safeguard the spiritual interests of her children. That promiscuous reading of pernicious literature has caused untold harm, no one can deny. A large amount of the irreligiousness of the modern world and the general looseness of morals may be attributed to the vicious productions of the press. Just now the works of Blasco Ibanez are widely advertised “with a great noise of tomtoms and circus paradings,” as one critic has well expressed it. But works like “The Shadow of the Cathedral” sow the seeds of anarchy and discontent among unthinking classes. To banish them from our people, or at least to restrict the sphere of their civil influence, is not an offense against art, but a high form of social service.

[edlucavalden]

Learning to eat with your hands.

[roninkairi]

You can only reblog this today.*

*PLEASE READ THE TAGS

[padmestrilogy]

best scene in the prequels is when anakin and padme have just landed on naboo & padme goes “hmm being a childqueen might’ve fucked me up a bit” and anakin, former 9yo slave separated from his mom, confronted for perhaps the first time with the idea that childhood trauma effects you later in life, goes “nuh uh”

[giritina]

This 2chan board i found is making me fucking crazy. If you were curious if chan board users were universally pathetic

[carpbait]

hey guys. runs into a wall

[bigcatbulges]

Source - chung0u0

(Artist's Patreon Fanbox and FurAffinity)

[lordartsy]

have you guys seen the leaks

[inuyaoisha]

i ran out of steam of this. its dan turn to baste the turkey but hes having a rough time of it :((((((((((

[inkskinned]

it just sucks because nothing is ever fucking made for you, and if it is made for you like 75% of the time it gets chopped into little pieces by every person alive because this is the one thing you have, so it has to prove itself to you.

like, a thing can't just be for women. men need to assign it to women. women have to experience "must" or "should" before their hobbies and passions - women are allowed to do silly, passive things like tuck our ankles and titter behind a fan, or something. women are allowed to, they are welcomed to. like the world is a house and we are supposed to be in the kitchen and now we are being given the divine right to enter the living room if we bring chips

because when it becomes for you, or about you, that is when the thing is vile. you should/must wear makeup so you can appear beautiful to men. once you wear makeup for yourself, or because you yourself enjoy putting it on, then you are no longer doing the right thing. there is a reason men hate certain fashion trends. there is a reason men hate things like the pumpkin spice latte - because it's not about them. you are buying it because it is good for you. they degrade your passions and interests. there is a reason women-led fields are largely seen as being "not a real" profession. when you are a good cook, that is because you can provide for him. close your eyes. you're not going to be a chef, be honest. that is a man making food for himself.

bras are made so breasts will be appealing to men. they are rarely about comfort or support. you have given up entirely on the idea of pockets. young girls have to worry about a shorter inseam on their shorts. a girl on instagram gets her septum pierced, and men in the comments are rabid about it - i just want to rip it out of her face. she'd be beautiful without it.

and fucking everything is for them. even the media that is "for you" is for them, eventually. remember "my little pony"? remember how hard it is to convince any executive to believe that little girls are worth selling to? in the media that is for you, you see little ways that you still need to make it accessible for them - the man is always powerful, smart, masculine. he is a man's man. the media usually forgives him. it usually says okay, some men are awful, but hey! gotta love 'em. because if you don't hold their hands and say "this is literally just a story about my lived reality", they shit their pants about it. they demand you put them into the media that's for you.

these are people who are so used to glutting themselves on the world. they are used to having every corner and every dollar and every place of leadership. so you say can i please have one slice of cake, just for myself, please, holy shit. and they fucking weep about it. they say you're being unfair, because some of their one-thousand-slices aren't beautiful, and your singular cake slice doesn't have their name on it. and aren't you being rude by not offering to share?

and honestly. fucking - yeah, man. you were kind of surprised, because the cake is a little basic (you bake at home, you're way past this stuff). but holy shit, it was nice just to be offered cake in the first place. you're used to having to starve. you're used to getting nothing, but going to the party anyway, because you're expected (professionally) to show up. you liked that it is a simple cake, and that it is warm, and mostly: you like that there is, for once, a cake-for-you.

in the real world, outside of metaphor, it feels like fucking being slapped. barbie didn't even say anything particularly unusual; it literally just made factually evident points. there are less women in leadership than men. we can look at that fact objectively. that is a real thing that is happening. and the movie is aware that it has to defend itself! that it has to spend like half an hour just turning to the camera and saying: i know this is hard for you to understand, but this is a real thing that women experience.

it's just - this is that one kid on the playground who thinks its allowed to hog all the toys. he builds this hoard that nobody else is allowed to even look at, or he'll get aggressive. everyone's a little scared of him, so they let it slide, because his daddy gave him the golden touch. he hates when people cry and thinks bullying is cool. he writes boys only! on a big sign and makes all his friends take "alpha male" classes.

and then girls pick up barbies, because there was nothing left for them. and in the void they've been given, with their scraps: they make long, spiraling narratives about how barbie is actually descended from snakes and has given her righteous followers magical (if concerning) powers and can speak 32 languages (2 of which are animal related) and has big plans for infrastructure (beginning with the local interstate). and the boy comes over, and he has a huge fit about how the girls aren't "including" him. he wants to know why the girls aren't making the story about ken.

"we didn't like your story." the girls blink at him. they point to his war stories and the gi joes and the millions of male-led narratives and how still in the modern day men get two-thirds of the speaking roles in movies and they point to men making mediocre shows that don't get lambasted and they point to men encouraging toxic masculinity and they point to men everywhere, men and men and men. and they say: "how is this our fault? you had ken."

"no!" he is already back to screaming and stomping his feet and tearing at his hair and intentionally reminding them that men are holding back thinly concealed violence and he says: "if it's not for me, it's actually sexism."

[nocompassnosign]

it honestly makes me most upset when people use “your integrity makes me feel small” against Taylor to support A MAN!!! like do some people hear themselves

[waterghostype]

shit postings

[umblrspectrum]

like half of a frame redraw

[themostdesperatehoney]

Hey y’all…… some fucking asshole reported me and got my blog terminated. Trying to get back all my moots but I have a shit memory. So if you remember desperatehoney pleaaaase follow that’s me. Feel free to spread the word about this blog:( I want y’all back

Sorry for the crime of being a horny trans person I guess. But I refuse to let this keep me down. You Cannot Kill Me In A Way That Matters.

[liaragaming]

The problem with Solas' view of Mythal

Listen, this has been bugging me for a while, and I finally found a way to articulate it...

In Trespasser, Solas sounds completely devoted to her. And he's so bitter discussing her murder. It's almost like he didn't rebel to free the slaves but to avenge her. (He says he wrote that story "in desperation," so I'm not sure.)

In the Inquisition post credits, he takes Mythal's power, and in his mural he paints it as a betrayal. But it also seems like she gave him permission? She knows he needs her power, and there's no doubt in my mind she could stop him from taking it if she wanted. And we saw her put a soul through the eluvian. She's planned and prepared for this. And he's so wrapped up in his own grief that he doesn't see it.

And she tells him she's "sorry as well." And I don't think she's commiserating with him. It's almost like she's apologizing for something she's done that he doesn't realize? Solas thinks he's done something terrible, but I think he did exactly what she wanted him to do.

Like, I'm sure Solas believes Lavellan loves an idealized version of him that isn't true. But I'm thinking maybe he needs to look into a mirror about Mythal?

We've known Flemeth for three games. She always has a plan. She was waiting for you to come kill her in Origins. Just because she was curious about what you and Morrigan would do. You didn't just happen to be the only Grey Wardens she could save. She hand-picked you. Just like she did Hawke.

And Solas comes to this woman at the end of Inquisition thinking he stabbed her in the back??? Honey, sweetie, do you know this woman at all???

I have so many alarm bells going off in the back of my head.

[baejax-the-great]

Veilguard does the important work of reminding us that people's religiousity is generally rooted entirely in rationalism, logic, and goodwill toward everyone in the world and not just specific ingroups.

When the Elvhen pantheon, who in many ways take after the Greek pantheon from our world, are revealed to be flawed individuals, something that the Dalish are already aware of because their myths convey some of those flaws all these years later, logically, the Dalish then abandon their gods instantly and without any sort of emotional response and turn toward the rational goal of killing those gods.

After all, during the Trojan war when Apollo felt slighted and decided to send a plague to wipe out the Achaeans (and their dogs for some reason), didn't the Trojans all look at each other and go, "Actually, that was a kind of fucked up thing for Apollo to do. And scary. There's nothing to stop him from using that ability against us. Maybe we should just go kill Apollo"?

No? They didn't do that? Because that would be absurd and entirely out of keeping with how people understand and express faith throughout all of history?

Weird. Well, I'm sure there's an example out there somewhere that jives with Veilguard's quality writing.