#i know the US government probably has one

[lesamis]

If you're up for it could you explain what is making the Germany government stuff so funny? I can find news articles about it (a coalition is dissolving? There's been tension for a while?) but they're all fairly serious. Thx!

ohhh, sure thing! i'll do my best!

i'll say upfront: this is a pretty serious thing to happen. our chancellor fired our minister of finance, Lindner, which definitively breaks up the governing coalition. germany will likely have snap elections at a moment in which far-right parties are polling extremely well. if news coverage about it seems like people are Worried, that's because, well, they are.

however. the reason it's funny is because our minister of finance was fired. ministers aren't really... ever fired. like, it's not a done thing. i'll fully admit i didn't even know it was an option until yesterday. and our minister of finance wasn't just anyone, he was one of the most mocked and hated figures in politics to germans who vote anywhere left of center.

the coalition that governed until yesterday was made up of the green party, the social democrats, and the neoliberal party (FDP). the FDP is infamous (and i mean, my parents already raised me to hate them for that) for playing kingmaker in coalition governments: they never get all that many votes, but they get just enough that whoever they agree to form a government with will probably succeed. they then tend to force extreme concessions from their coalition partners, because hey, if we walk off, you can't govern at all! so you better play along!

for the past three years, this behaviour has been extremely frustrating for germans who voted for greens or social democrats, because policy from their faction was constantly being blocked by the FDP and often by Lindner personally. the FDP received 11,5% of votes in 2021, but to many of us, it felt as if they were the only party who really had any say in the governing coalition. it made the green and social democratic coalition partners look spineless and passive.

and now, i invite you to imagine how on the day of the US election results, the day the whole world rolled their eyes at the sheer fucking stupidity and pointlessness of it all, at NINE IN THE EVENING, just as germans are getting ready to settle in to bed to dream of nightmare global politics -

the news suddenly breaks that our notoriously invisible chancellor just decided to fire Lindner for that exact behaviour. this chancellor comes out and says, on camera, to the entire sleepy nation, that acting the way Lindner did - blocking necessary policies, refusing to approve budgets unless his party's interests were met - was childish, selfish, irresponsible, and unfit for government, so, whoops, he had to go. shame. coalition over, i guess.

so, politically, that was a long-needed but never-expected moment of triumph for those of us who think the FDP is a clown show made up of human TESLA shares, and it came at a hysterically funny moment.

on a personal level, i can barely explain how uniquely hateable Lindner has always been. he's what would happen if a stock index graph came to life. he hates poor people with a relish; he mocks welfare recipients and would ax minimum wages in a second. he's everyone's business major roommate who shows up in boat shoes fresh off a yacht to discuss NFTs with you. throughout the entire time that he's used his rich boy policy blackmail strategy, he's been smug about it, and he was never taken to task for it, and millions of germans have been longing to throw rotten fruit in his face since 2017. and now we finally get to do it. via memes. on the day of trump's election win.

so that's why it's funny.

[sterpernie]

Probably no one will read this, but I hope someone will. To my fellow Americans, it is absolutely fair to cut people off for beliefs you disagree with and may one day lead to you suffering harm, but if you have someone you love with these beliefs that you are thinking about cutting out of your life, please consider a few things first.

1. We are living in echo chambers, repeating our beliefs back at us. If we don't interact with people who believe differently, how are they ever going to hear a different perspective that is not completely twisted by the media they consume?

2. They often don't understand what they are asking for. There is a sizeable minority (1/3 of Americans per the NYT) that do not know Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are the same thing. They want to repeal Obamacare but keep the ACA. People want tariffs not realizing that they aren't the same as sanctions. They don't realize that China is not going to be paying the tariffs, they will. China is not going to eat the costs of the taxes (tariffs) levied against them for exporting to the US, China will just raise the prices of their goods and probably levy tariffs against US exports to China in retaliation like they did during Trump's last term, resulting in everything getting more expensive. It it pretty striking to look at the education demographics of who voted what party.

3. They don't get the whole story. There was an immigration bill that would give the Republicans basically everything they wanted in regard to the border. Trump killed it because he wanted immigration to remain an issue for him to run on. My dad, who listens exclusively to right wing media, heard nothing about it. He was shocked it didn't pass when he was told. When he hears about Palestinians, he only hears about them referred to as terrorists and Hamas, attacking Israel unprovoked. He has never heard about the Nakbas or about how terrible the conditions were in Gaza even prior to October 7th.

4. A scary amount of Americans have no damn clue how the US government works. They think, abortion protections were repealed under democrats, so it's their fault despite the extensive groundwork laid by Republicans ever since Roe v Wade was initially decided in the 1970s culminating in a Republican supermajority on the Supreme court that actually overturned the ruling. They think, why am I paying taxes to forgive someone else's student debt when I didn't go to college/payed off my college loans/worked my butt off for scholarships/made sacrifices so I could afford college/etc, not realizing that the debt forgiveness is really just making sure the programs that were already in place are actually implemented instead of allowing the loan servicers to continue milking these people for cash long after their debt should have been forgiven. They think the economy and how good/bad it's doing is solely up to the President despite the fact that the purse strings are held by Congress and the Federal Reserve, which controls interest rates, is an independent body not controlled by the President.

5. For the immigrants, they don't realize that all immigrants are persona non grata, not just people who came to the US illegally. My immigrant mother told me she votes for Trump because he's "gonna stop all the immigrants who are coming to take our jobs", not realizing that despite her naturalized citizenship, she will always be seen as one of those immigrants she talks about. She doesn't realize when he talks about chain migration, he's talking about the system she took advantage of to bring multiple members of her family to the US and allowed them much better quality of life than the relatives still in her home country. She thinks, because she lives in a large urban coastal area, that all parts of the US are just as accepting.

If you have a loved one with whom your only problem is politics (not abuse of any kind, but someone you love and care for), please consider staying in their lives. I am not saying make friends with people to try and change their beliefs, I am saying give your loved one a face to put to the "radical libs".

when people are like “oh so you’re just gonna judge someone for their political beliefs?” yes actually. I think someone’s values and opinions is a pretty reasonable thing to judge them for.

[persistentplums]

No matter what you think about Brock and Rusty one thing is true they raised those boys together. And anyone will tell you kids pick up qualities of their guardians/parents which influences how they go about things.

The influence of Brock on Hank is simple, it’s the one the show starts off with and we see easily throughout the show. I wish they could’ve done more with Dean and Brock, unfortunately they don’t overlap enough to do something with but when they have overlapped the small moments, you stretch it you can see the impact Brock has on Dean.

“He believes in this stuff, not like Hank.”

“I have watched you pull a man eye from his head, made him dance like marionette with his own optic nerves.” “At least I didn’t break his heart.”

Heart is Brock entire thing. He is punished for his act of heart going against OSI and getting Billy and Pete together, him racing back in PROM, his attachment to the Ventures, and funny enough his lack of any real love life is because Brock does things true to his heart even when he’s not supposed to (“you’re a tool for the government.”)

That’s super easy to see in Hank, he follows his guns, jumps in, doesn’t second guess if he’s wrong. For Dean it comes out in belief of there being Good Guys. Something Brock shares. For a man who has no real issue with murder the idea of “Good guys” is a thing he sticks with very seriously. Dean copies this to a Dorky level coming off naive but it’s literally the same packaged differently.

Hank knows though everyone is just some guy, a bad guy or a good guy you are just some guy. A lot like his dad in that respect, when you understand this is all a game you can’t really bother with genuinely thinking of sides just how you interact within it. (Hank not really put off about dating Sirena even if her dad is his dad arch. That’s more of an obstacle that they are put into arch and protag categories so he can’t date her normally bc it’s not an actual *thing* for him)

Dean however is under the firm belief there are sides, they can work together sometimes bc he’s seen it, but like Brock, he believes in sides and gets riled up by it.

Speaking of riled up, Dean has Brock temper. I didn’t think much about it to be honest, it shows itself twice physically (Rusty Camp, radiant of the baboon) but when I hop around episodes now I see it in newer episodes. Dean temper is similar to Brock when he is really pushed off the need to protect or save another quality that is picked up by Brock.

Brock aggression is something Dean who is used to seeing it come out when he, hank and doc need protecting, saving, or an affective tactic. Another thing is Brock was and probably still is both boys example of classic masculinity in contrast to their dad (I’ll get back to this on another post.) I think Dean unintentionally mimics it, and I kinda believe we would’ve seen more of it if Dean was put into more situations where he was worried for someone else since the Rusty camp one was for Triana and the movie was for Hank. (Both against Dermontt which shouldn’t count but I am which I will get to in a different post about jealousy in VB)

Brock is the stereotypical “man” he protects the home, he kills to protect, his basics are that man spiel I don’t need to say we know it. Brock masculinity is never questioned really, it oozes out of him and is loudly punctuated. When it comes to sex it’s the same thing, to a problem. I think Dean inherited that, im not saying the one time Dean did a shitty sex related thing makes him like Brock but I actually think it’s more of a Brock move than Rusty weirdly enough. Probably because Brock has hooked up with people wives/gf but that’s not the reason why I say it.

Dean reason with hooking up with Sirena wasn’t really solid, because I don’t think there was a solid reason he did it just because it was happening. That’s why I think it’s more of a Brock move. Rusty we’ve seen talked himself out of being with women who even like him, yes he hooked up with a fan bc she was a fan. She wasn’t someone who can end up seeing his flaws, end up maybe loving back because love is frightening for Rusty because he wants it. If there was a room and a woman who was slightly interested in Rusty, Rusty would magically get out of the room then COMPLAIN he is out the room. We see it repeatedly he will make up reasons really get in his head to jump ship only to stick to people who don’t love him. Or like him.

Hank is the same line but opposite, he is open to love! Yes like Brock his attention to who is quick and focused but Hank is committed because he wants to be loved. Hank is scared of not being loved, he worries although less obviously or loudly about it, and leans hard into it. Action man called him on it, that he resembles Rusty in being downright too attached.

I’ll be honest here it’s so unlikely to actually see it but once you see the Rusty in Hank you’ll end up seeing the Brock in Dean. I remember a YouTube comment saying “Dean is all the negatives [of other people] it’s why I don’t like him.”

I don’t hate Dean, I don’t love Dean but I get Dean so while I don’t 100% agree with that comment I do get it. Dean picks up sometimes the worst traits because he’s so easy to imprint on. He’s funny like that, weirdly easy to leave an impression on but unaware how he repeats things of people he doesn’t want to. Brock being promiscuous, Rusty nostalgic past, the idea of what is important to a man etc Dean mimics it unknowingly. I don’t think that was the root of hooking up with Sirena, (bc the reason is bs yall) I’m just thinking of domino effect of parenting.

There’s a lot of Rusty in Dean literally everything Dean has is Rusty. But where they don’t match up are the core, Dean now understands his dad and they are the same brand of Venture boy but I really think Brock influence on both boys is there for good and bad it just harder to find in Dean. But I think it comes out when Dean stops letting his mind run too much, when he trusts himself, when he’s standing up for something, when he lets his body drive.

But I’m just spitballing! I just don’t believe Dean is all Doc, just like Hank isn’t all Brock. We just didn’t get a lot of time with the boys switched around

[notahorseindisguise]

this feels like a really really cool idea to me! to those who dont understand, what this politician is suggesting is state owned servos. like he said in the caption, these would increase competition, hopefully getting rid of some of the price gouging on petrol, and also since theyre state owned, they would probably like . have a government body deciding what the max prices would be. meaning they cant inflate too high. also in the description those proposed changes sound SO GOOD!!! publishing fuel prices a day in advance ??? so you can know if itll be cheaper or more expensive tomorrow ???????? no more than one price change a day????????????? ONLY INCREASE BY 5 CENTS A DAY ???!?!?!?!??!?????? this shit is making me cream just thinking about it. and then guess what the comments are like

because of course they are . people throwing around words they dont understand for some fucking reason . first off this is more socialism than communism afaik but i bet nobody in that comment section has any clue what the difference is. secondly having some competition owned by the government is NOT communism in any sense of the word !!! because there are still privately owned service stations !!!! theyre just competing with publicly owned ones now !!!!! its still fucking capitalism you dumb ass fucking cunts. making us look like fucking yanks when you throw around that word like a slur for anything you feel is too helpful. anyway. this seems like a really good idea on paper and i dont know much about qld politics but i hope it goes into action

[fostertheory]

I agree with the general philosophy of being prepared. I will quibble with the fourth bullet, though.

The Clean Air Act would not get stripped of its power through deregulating the EPA (and I think what the OP means by that is the EPA would given different direction under a new administration, possibly classifying a bunch of people under Schedule F, firing them, and replacing them with loyalists). The Clean Air Act would get stripped of its power by amending it.

To do that, both chambers of Congress would have to pass the bill. Leave aside the fact that control of the House has not yet been determined and assume for this discussion that the R's control it next year (as of now, 03:00 UTC on 10 November 2024, the Associated Press has declared the Democratic candidate the winner in 202 races, the Republican candidate in 212 races, and 21 races too close to call. No official results have been posted anywhere). The R's will at best have 54 Senate seat (Arizona has not yet been called; the Democrat is leading). That's not a filibuster-proof majority. Conceivably, the R's could eliminate the filibuster. But it's unlikely they will do that, at least for the Clean Air Act.

Another possible angle is that Congress provides zero dollars for EPA. Again, filibuster. But note that the Clean Air Act mandates the Administrator of the EPA to use the best available technology. So if The Orange One directs the agency to just neglect their duties, the US Government could be sued for failing to follow the law.

I was listening to political analyses today, and one of the commentators supposed the Trump Administration will do a lot of that: ignore their responsibilities and dare people to sue them.

Another thing they could do is go through rule-making to reverse the current rule. That will take a while, and then advocacy groups would sue. I don't know on what exact grounds, but I imagine it would be along the lines of not conforming to what the Clean Air Act requires. This brings us to another inadvertent protection: SCOTUS famously overturned the Chevron Deference last term, in which the courts defer to the agency to have the expertise to know how to implement the law if the law is ambiguous on some point or another. The fact that that precedent is no longer there means that a Trump Administration that has directed the agency to issue a new rule that says, "You know what? Never mind about all that" cannot rely on the precedent of the Chevron Deference when they have to defend the new rule in court. (To quote Nelson from the Simpsons, "Ha-ha!")

Various agencies have been very busy indeed these last four years getting rules in place. Many of them were put into place long enough ago that they are no longer subject to the Congressional Review Act (a gift of the Contract on with America, part of the Republican Revolution of 1994, in which bomb-thrower Newt Gingrich became speaker [so many sweet summer children here who probably don't know this history]). The Congressional Review Act allows a joint resolution of Congress to overrule newly issued regulations if the president signs or a 2/3rds majority in both chambers overrules the president's veto.

TL;DR: There's not a quick path to negate the Clean Air Act. It will take a while to unwind, turning it into a contest of wills.

If by some miracle sweet potato Hitler doesn't win come the end of the week, this won't be necessary, but should he win here are some of the first things to be aware of or do.

If you know a trans person, no you don't. Respect them as best you can in private but you know nothing in public.

Be aware that TikTok will likely be banned, find new platforms to spread information. Fuck Twitter and what ever tiktok replacement he's working on.

Learn to Garden, even in winter so you can feed yourself should prices skyrocket

Get an air purifier. The Clean Air Act is likely to be stripped of its power with the EPA deregulated, air quality is going to suffer

Should you have kids, try to supplement history/social studies education. That's the first place they will attack, if you need help ask, history teacher will help

Try and do what you can to be aware of your health before January.

Help one another. That's the best way we can move forward and make change in the future.

[shizucheese]

So about that Dropout Tweet...

There's a common trend in influencer/ content creator apologies, where the person doing the apology will say they are sorry for the harm that they did, claim they are taking ownership of it and using the whole situation to become a better person, etc. etc. Usually in a way that makes it sound suspiciously like it was written by ChatGPT.

And then they'll go on to say something along the lines of "But we've been getting a lot of death threats guys, and that's bad!" As if the fact that they're getting death threats somehow absolves them of at least some of the guilt of whatever it is that made the apology necessary in the first place. As if it means they're the real victims here.

Apparently Dropout decided to just skip the "ChatGPT apology" part and jump straight to the "We're getting physcal and legal threats" part. Followed up with them once again saying they support Palestiniens and ending it with "We reject antisemitism, Islamophobia, and all forms of bigotry, and welcome all to our platform who treat others with respect, empathy, and human dignity."

And they did it on Twitter, and only Twitter. You know, the website that's notoriously overrun by Nazis. Nothing on Tumblr or Instagram, where the original statement that sparked all of this (which has since been taken down) were posted.

@dropoutdottv, @samreich, this is not listening to the Jewish members of your community who are speaking out about antisemitism. This is reinforcing the antisemitism that those Jewish members of the community are speaking out about. Because what this Tweet does is paint everyone who spoke out against the antisemitism in your original post with the same brush as the people who were sending you threats.

Which, let me be clear, they should not have been doing and I wholeheartedly condemn.

But the actions of the people sending you threats of violence and threats of legal action do not invalidate the things being said by the people who haven't threatened you with anything worse than a boycott. I have literally seen people say "the fact that they got threats just proves they were right." Is that the outcome you were trying to achieve with this?

People who did bad things get death threats all the time; refer back to the beginning of this post. Does that make their critics wrong then, too? Or is it only now, when the accusation being made is that a nerdy comedy network beloved by people on the left did an antisemitism?

I honestly can't tell if you have no publicist helping you out with one, a bad publicist that needs to give you your money back, or an evil genius publicist that knew that if you made a post like this one, it would distract from the fact that you're being accused of antisemitism, maybe even act as a dog whistle to to paint anyone who accuses you of being antisemitic of being "Zionists" (meant in the derogatory way, where people claim they're only talking about people who uncritically support the Israeli government and their actions in Gaza, but then in practice will use it against anyone who believes Israel has the right to exist, including those who want a two state solution, whose hearts break for the people in Palestine, and call Netanyahu a fascist and probably want him gone more than even the people calling them "zionists" do). Maybe even make up for all of the subscriptions you're losing over this and even gain a few by catering to the antisemitic leftist crowd.

Is that really the kind of culture you want to cultivate? If not, then do better. Acknowledge the Jewish voices that are speaking out. Listen to them. And do it in a way that doesn't bring up any other marginalized group. Because like...fuck, man, I reject Islamophobia, and all forms of bigotry too. And I'm sorry you guys are receiving threats; that truly does suck and I hope everyone that works for you guys are staying safe.

But you're specifically being accused of antisemitism. Can you really not reject it all on its own without including other forms of bigotry in the same statement?

And do it on a platform that *isn't* run by an infamous antisemitic, and overrun by more antisemitics? (You can turn off comments and reblogs on Tumblr and comments on instagram, in the same way you disabled replies on your Tweet, you know.)

Here, I'll even write the statement for you: "Earlier this week, we made a statement regarding accusations that Dropout was platforming zionists. At the time, we made a statement focusing on our support of the Palestinian people. We stand by this statement. However, we have received feedback from several members of our community that some of the things that we said were inappropriate insensitive to the Jewish people. "Zionist" and "Zionism" mean different things to different people, ranging from "people who support the Israeli government's actions in Gaza" to "people who believe that Israel has a right to exist and the Jewish people have the right to self-determination." We had meant it in the context of the former definition, but we understand that many Jewish people identify with the later, including many people who are disgusted by the Israeli government's actions in Gaza, and we should have been more sensitive to this fact. Additionally, we would like to reiterate that, to our knowledge, nobody who has appeared on Dropout has openly stated support for the Israelie's actions in Gaza, and several of those accused have voiced their support for a free Palestine. We would like to take this moment to remind everyone that just because a person is Jewish, and may have ties to Israel, does not inherently mean they condone the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza, and to suggest otherwise is antisemitic. We at Dropout reject all forms of antisemitism and are committed to providing a safe space to everyone regardless of religion or ethnic background. We apologize if we made the Jewish members of our community feel like that was not the case."

See how easy that was? I feel something like this is the bear minimum, and if you had said the things in the last three paragraphs from the start, you could have avoided having to say everything in the first two paragraphs and the apology at the end.

That's...pretty much everything I have to say on the matter. To anyone reading this: Do not use other Jewish people to silence Jewish voices.

Do not use people of other marginalized groups to silence Jewish voices.

Just...maybe just listen to what we have to say without twisting our words and putting words in our mouths? Maybe?

Thanks for reading.

I'm so tired.

[raconteur-wanpi]

One Piece 1131

It's finally here after the 2 week break!

I'm glad we begin right where we left off, with Luffy and Loki finally having a proper interaction! This instantly made me laugh, Luffy is a certified yapper. His true power really is responding to the most serious and broody of intimidating figures with his silly guy ADHD and making fools out of these try-hards by annoying them. He really is a walking cartoon! I just knew in my heart, turning the page, Loki would cut him off by telling him to shut-up already. This is a classic bit and I live for it.

This also instantly kinda makes Loki more fun of a character to me lmao. Being presented with a scary guy only to immediately kinda make fun of him is Oda's expertise. Nobody is immune to being laughed at a bit, and it does instantly make Loki more charming.

He soon confirms what fans have been theorizing since Water 7; that the Yggdrasil-style-tree that encompasses Elbaf is the Treasure Tree Adam! Nice to finally know for sure, it'll be interesting for the Sunny in a sense to have returned to its "birthplace".

Also interesting how he introduces himself as the "pride of Elbaf's strength" when in the last chapter we learn of him as the "shame of Elbaf". Is it his own ego? Trying to twist the way his people see him? Is this him being a liar similar to Usopp, exaggerating who he is? Or is it his own delusions? It's an interesting contrast, I wonder what the language used here is in the original Japanese.

Loki is also, well... extremely Luffy-like in some ways actually. Being introduced as a "sun god", getting new people's names wrong, and as we'll see later, befriending wild beastly animals... This is an extremely interesting parallel. It seems to me they're already sides of the same coin, and I am soooo intrigued by it going forward.

It seems Loki has really met his match, and I doubt he expected someone like that to show up. Luffy responds to the beasts with nostalgia instead of fear, I wonder how that make the "accursed prince" feel...

Interestingly enough, Loki seems to have a sort of cult or following of human-sized people dedicated to him! They call him master and listen to his commands... maybe they're people who really see him as the Sun God?

Luffy immediately tames the beasts, like he did back during the timeskip! Of course, once he hears Loki insulting Shanks, his good mood seems to go away.

Loki also pulls a "I'm just joking bro, I'm just a silly guy c'moooon, you wouldn't punch a guy tied to a tree would ya? A birthday boy?" when he realized Luffy is actually pretty powerful. Good 'ol Schrodinger's douchebag. He does showcase a lot of duality, acting all mighty and smug towards "puny humans", but then his facade breaks a few times, he twists his reputation and claims he's just joking etc, it does fit the idea of a "trickster" a lot, considering his mythological basis. I'm still struggling to grasp his true personality and goals, and while he does speak the way you'd a expect a villain would... he kind of doesn't feel like he's going to be the main obstacle of the arc to me, and I can't truly explain why.

He also, interestingly, seems to have a negative bounty!? If I read that right, at least. Perhaps the government's way of saying "we don't want him, if you bring him in YOU'LL have to pay us to deal with him" or something??? We'll see if it's indeed a minus or not, it is described as a "special bounty".

Back to the Strawhats on the bridge, Gerd, Goldberg and Rodo seem to be rushing out with the Sunny as fast as possible. I'm assuming they're trying to get to where Harjudin is and explain the situation to him, considering that the ship belongs to their crew's grand fleet commanders. These two are probably mad as hell at Rodo lol. I can't tell if they're chasing him angrily here or what, haha.

Despite Usopp's insistence (and him being correct as always) the group still decides to run away from these giants. Oh Usopp, if only they listened to you, this debacle would be over much quicker. As per usual.

Speaking of Harjudin (and the one missing member of his crew, Stansen), here they are! They're in the same area actually, going for a hunt so they can prepare a feast for the Strawhats! That's kinda sweet, I wonder how the reunion of all separated groups so far will happen.

I wonder if it'll end up going to disaster because of Luffy accidentally freeing Loki or something. Loki did try to convince Luffy to find the key to his seastone chains earlier, but Luffy seemed to kinda ignore him. I wonder if Luffy will end up actually being manipulated, especially after Loki insulted Shanks and pissed him off. Then again, Luffy not only forgives easily, but he is also convinced easily, so who knows!

Back to the giants' ship...... oooooh my god. I think I almost cried. My heart expanded in size seeing this alone, you have no idea how happy I am. She's back. Our girl cut her hair so Saul will recognize her....shut up. Shut UP. That's so sweet, I think I am going to explode. Welcome back bangs Robin I missed you so much. This better be permanent!!!

In which Franky is literally me. I knew it before they confirmed it, it really is about meeting Saul........ I'm going to explode.

But uuuh, bad news. Saul might.... not be in good health? Did he get injured? What does this mean. I swear to god, if something happens to him before Robin gets to see him......... Please god tell me this is going to just be a bit or something, oh god. Ending the chapter here, huh? Straight up evil!!!!

Anyway, I am soooo looking forward the next chapter. I am still... on the fence about Loki being the main Bad Guy. He clearly thinks of himself as a grand destructive force, yes, and looks down upon "puny humans" and the such, sure, and even contemplates about killing Luffy after he is freed if need be, but... I'm just so suspicious of the way he's introduced. Maybe he'll be more of a morally gray anti-hero, or a temporary antagonist. Maybe I'm wrong and he'll indeed be the next pure-evil Doflamingo type threat. But maybe he could even be a "redeemable" Bellamy type character instead. I have no clue, it's way too early to tell. But just seeing the way Luffy just kinda chills with him in some of the panels in this chapter.... I'm kinda hoping it's the latter, they have a charming dynamic. They're already so similar, surely there's more to Loki's story.

After all, this is the guy that was infatuated with a lovable character we know dearly as the audience, Lola, to the point of denying to marry her identical sister. That tells me there's more to this guy than meets the eye. Am I reading too much into it? I could be completely off the mark, but we'll see!

[annepi-blog]

Okay, I know I rarely write personal things here, but after this week I'm really not feeling well.

The outcome of the US election is just unbelievable, and even though I don't live in the US myself, it affects so much of the world and it scares me.

Then the government in my country practically dissolved on the same day, so there will probably be new elections in late winter/early spring. And the way the local elections went this year, it will be a win for the far right party.

Globally it doesn't matter to many, but personally I also have some feelings from the media I follow/consume.

I'm still mourning the cancellation of Dead Boy Detectives, which for me was one of the best queer shows in a long time. I hate that it was canceled for no real good reason. And it's just the tip of the iceberg of queer shows being canceled after 1-2 seasons, especially on Netflix but also on other streamers, even if they're well-received by the audience (if you're more interested, there's a GLAAD report on this).

Then the BuckTommy breakup. I'm not even deeply into the 911 fandom, but I thought it was so nice how this couple was built up, it felt like good queer representation. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with couples I like not being endgame if the story makes sense. But in this case, so much pointed to a deeper storyline, especially after the Halloween episode. The writers and actors hinted that it would be a big story. And then they ruin it all in 2 minutes with bad writing?! Makes no sense to me. (If you are one of those people who hated against this couple, please do not interact with this post).

It doesn't help that I just finished reading "They Both Die at the End" the weekend before, a beautiful book, but also with a sad ending.

For me this week was just a lot, it just felt like queer rights and queer media are losing.

I even had a big success at work and I couldn't be happy about it, it was just... the world sucks anyway...

I hope I'll feel better after I get it all out here, even if everything seems bad right now.

Maybe one of you has a tip for fluffy and positive queer content, like Red White and Royal Blue or Heartstopper? I could use some cheering up.

[karanseraph]

Allegedly, when my dad was young, my paternal grandmother told him "all men have a dark side." I think she meant well. She was born in the early 20th century, she came over frome Ireland on boat as a child. She had a stepfather who was from another immigrant community. Families were large. There was a lot of poverty and alcohol. They were Catholic, so they also took "original sin" as a concept seriously.

I think this did my dad harm. He actually is a person who struggles with empathy. Now, it's apparent he's neurodivergent from multiple traits he has and that this probably runs in the family, but no one we knew was diagnosed back then. He views criticism as personal attacks. It's difficult for him to see difference between people (like his difference) as positive of a challenge to accept and accommodate and instead thinks (in his darkest moments) that he's broken. Or that I also am someone who needs to be fixed.

But, somehow, I'm sure from conversations most of my siblings including my brothers voted blue and genuinely are able to care about others and will try to help.

And, to clarify, my dad has done volunteer work a d actually helped some people a lot. He is in no way evil. He's human. He is a product of his time. He was indoctrinated, arguably, by nuns, and Jesuits, and the Knights of Columbus, by bullies, and every bit of 1950's US government propaganda about scary different people and the importance of conforming and being "American". He says he didn't know that he was poor as a child because everyone was like that around him. He had a moment in the late 80s where he was arguably upper middle class. But he's also one of those older people now who don't really have wealth in the oldest sense but have pension/retirement tied up in stocks market scrap and keep mortgaging their house when they need cash.

Anyway, this is long.

But what I'm trying to say is people are flawed and human and make mistakes, but they aren't born or made evil or good. I think it's more harmful to say to kids that they have darkness or sin inside them from the start than to focus on choices going forward and the possibility that when one does make a mistake they can also make amends.

So, we should try to tell kids that.

Model good behavior and choices for kids as much as we can. Communicate that humans of all ages can make mistakes. Get rid of the concept of authoritarianism and infallibility in any individual or organization. Embrace differences. Talk about our feelings when we feel hurt by another's choices or actions so we can understand or compromise.

Just do our best and be excellent to each other.

And, specifically, for those boys some are worried about - I know lack of funds can impede this - but give them lots of room to play, give them books about all different people and experiences, take them on trips to see how real people do their work, let them engage with all the dramatic play props and costumes and clothes and dolls. Let them have building toys and action figures they choose. Let them use telescopes and microscopes to shift their perspective. Let them draw and paint and write. Let them compete and measure, without focusing on the win itself.

And let all kids do those things (but above posts were about boys).

And if there's a financial struggle to provide all this, try libraries or a device that can stream old episodes of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, or Reading Rainbow, or Sesame Street, etc.

Because, going back to my dad, he wasn't really able to model the most typical social-emotional behaviours or interactions for me, but I could see Optimus Prime or Fred Rogers interact with others.

And my brothers turned out pretty OK possibly because our dad was able to provide many books but also because he decided with my mom early on that girls could play with cars and boys could play with dolls.

And how/why he decided that when he was such a product of past generations and watches a certain news channel three or four times a day now I can't explain. But he did.

So, we know, I think, how to help kids. I worked in early childcare education for a time myself. People know how to help kids. But...there's also a struggle for any service to be profitable which means the teacher-student ratios can get stretched and that teachers can get stuck with so many assessments and standardized testing requirements that they aren't just spending time with the kids.

But we know.

And, unfortunately, there are some in the world who have differing goals. Right? Like do you want healthy men who can work together with diverse groups of people in cooperating to better the world? Or do you want obedient workers? Soldiers? Slaves?

Men themselves are not the problem. Boys aren't a problem.

It's young people growing up with divisivness and poverty and war and demand of conformity and obedience, etc.

So, probably the best we can do foe young men is to try to understand that they aren't evil by nature. Probably Patriarchy hurt them. But because of that, they don't want to admit it to themselves, because that would be weakness.

We need to keep showing them that there are places for men (again, all people need attention, but above posts were about boys and men) in the society we want.

We can say it to men we know. We can say that we really liked when they did math homework with us, or played Lego with us, or played us music we liked, or organized a tabletop game, or built us a bookcase, or cooked chicken the way we like, or taught us how to draw our eyeliner, or even expressed a desire to defend us against another man. (These are just some examples from my life, yours are likely different.)

It would be nice if we didn't also have those negative influences in the world, but we do and we can't stop them overnight or by ourselves.

So, we do our best to model and encourage the behaviours we want and to protect institutions that help like our public libraries, and to ask for policies that will (actually) improve schools.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[tobiasdrake]

A lot of people aren't going to want to hear this. I don't want to be saying it. But I think one thing we need to take away from the Trump successes is that branding matters.

Part of the problem the Left has with politics is that XKCD comic about average familiarity.

"The average person probably only follows Senate roll-call votes and judicial appointments." "And White House press releases, of course." "Of course."

The Left has a bad habit of assuming that the work they do will speak for itself. We'll get into office, we'll make everyone's lives better, and people will see how much better their lives are and support us.

This is a mistake. In part because government moves slowly and in part because the Right is very good at filling the gap. Republicans proudly go on their propaganda platforms to take credit for things they voted against.

Sure, yesterday they were in the Senate voting against giving Kentucky healthcare. But today they can go to Kentucky and go, "While I was in the Senate, WE BROUGHT YOU HEALTHCARE. Isn't that the kind of leadership you want to re-elect?"

Republicans are masters of branding shit with their names and faces. And that works against the Democrats so much. People actually think Trump was better at pandemic relief. Why? Because they don't remember what the government was doing. They don't remember Congressional hearings and feverish debates about PPE. They don't remember endless arguments about vaccination.

What they remember is that one day, they got a check in the mail that had Donald Trump's signature on it.

That's all they remember. They think Trump personally sent them money to get through the pandemic. And no president has ever personally sent them money before. There were no checks with Biden's signature.

(There were checks. But not Biden checks.)

There were no Biden Booster shots or Biden-branded vaccinations or Bidencare medical clinics. But there were Trump Checks. People remember the Trump Checks.

We live in a society where people are so disengaged from politics that Google results for "Did Biden drop out!?" spiked on November 5th. Kamala Harris was running for election by a voting public that thought Biden was still on the ballot right up to election day.

And I know. I know we don't want our government to turn into the political equivalent of "This hurricane relief was brought to you by NordVPN. Are you worried about your internet safety?" But that's exactly what the Right has been doing. And folks. It's working.

So if we want people to like, subscribe, and hit that bell for notifications of Democratic successes... We might need to start branding and engagement soliciting too. That might just be what the modern political environment in the Information Age has become.

[chiffer178]

The feminine urge to pilot a war mech

[lovelyisadora]

Only just woke up, somehow made it down the stairs, and got hit with the ‘everyone has aches and pains suck it up’ talk. Sorry but if everyone had aches and pains the way I did, they’d have my exact diagnosis. Getting really sick of the way my family forgets I’m disabled. And when I point this out to them I’m told ‘there’s no reason to get aggressive’ okay.

[aeons-domain]

Now I'm curious about something 🤔 Reblog this and put in the tags or comments what ideas or concepts did you scrap for your OC's lore/backstory.

I know an OC's background isn't always going to be consistent or concrete and that's fine! But do you ever have ideas that you either A) didn't have time to work on, B) found too complex to incorporate into their lore, or C) feel like it just didn't fit in based on the standards of whatever universe (canon or original) your OC is in? Or perhaps a secret fourth option, I dunno!

[rigels-nigels]

Girl help I've acquired possibly yet another expensive hobby

[liskantope]

I mean, most "if Trump wins I'm moving to [X country]" and "guess I have to move to [X country] now" are performative and so visibly so that they seem self-aware, deliberate, and not pretending to be otherwise than performative. And while I hate performative proclamations that pretend not to be performative, I have some amount of forgiveness for performative proclamations that seem to know (and expect the audience to know) that they're just ritualistically reciting a cutesy way to express how horrified they are by who is going to be in power.

I don't love this, mind you, especially because enough "gotta move to [X country] now" comments in public probably do help persuade other Americans that they can't stay here and (in the case of progressives being the ones upset by an election and saying this) help perpetuate the idea that America sucks in some unique way and other countries are so much better. I have a friend who mentioned when the election was called that she already had plans to visit Cancun soon and now might as well stay there. I know this person -- it's obviously performative and her remark isn't pretending to be anything other than an expression of disgust at Trump winning and an understandable feeling of "I'm ashamed to be an American at the moment and don't want to be anywhere around this". At the same time, this person is prone to the progressive rhetorical undercurrent of "America is uniquely horrible and other countries are nicer or at least kinder" and... is there a part of her that imagines that Mexico is such a compassionately governed country or pleasant place to live compared to a US under Trump? I don't know, but too many comments like that within progressive bubbles might certainly perpetuate the idea.

Another way to address your point is that I think it's generally understood, without too much self-contradiction, that for a vulnerable person in a marginalized group, it's not unwarranted or being "part of the problem" to want to flee the country instead of staying to help. I have a transgender acquaintance who has made a (seemingly serious and not performative) announcement that she's going to make plans to leave the country because it's "not safe for people like [her]". Assuming the comment about being not safe is a valid assessment and that there's actually some other country in mind that's safer, I think this is fair and that progressives saying our general obligation is to stick around and be activists would support her without being contradictory. (Now I happen to disagree with her assessment of the increased danger level for a 40-ish trans woman in a blue state under a Trump presidency, but leaving that aside, I'm quite curious whether she has a particular country in mind. Maybe Canada? I'm under-informed on the status of trans rights and the political situation in Canada right now but think I've heard things about an oncoming right-wing wave there. Apart from Canada, what country is better for trans people to live in? I'll point out that the typically lauded "nice to live in comparable to the US and maybe more fiscally left-wing" countries are a few in Europe, which, as I understand it, have become much more restrictive than the US in banning transgender medicine for minors. But anyway, I digress.)

Prize for the worst post-election take on my social media goes to the following:

the american dream lives on for white cis males but for everyone else it died today

It's quite impressive to encapsulate so much of what's wrong with the common progressive framing of the political battleground for the last decade, and just how counterproductive it is, in such an elegant single sentence.

[rubberbandballqueen]

it is becoming Increasingly Clear to me that i can no longer be taken out into public because i will start doing to fonts what jirt would do to the rocks and plants whilst on little walks