#i will use my freedom of speech to disagree u know? | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

the-phantom-nagisa · 5 years ago

Text

Valentines day short fic! With karma, nagisa, hazama and terasaka! Oh boy!

Have this non-beta read piece that I mostly wrote while in the train this week. Credit to @handy-dandy-headcanons for the gay comment in the middle of this work.

Terasaka isn't a homophobe, he just doesn't like Karma.

I'm so sorry for the shitty formatting I can't work with Tumblr and just wanted to post this.

--------------------

It had been an incredibly stupid idea, Nagisa knew that now. Sure he loved his boyfriend to death and was glad they were spending the entirety of valentine's day together but he also wanted to use the day to help his friend Hazama with her first official date with Terasaka. She was nervous for it, he'd noticed, which is why he suggested the solution in the first place. He should have realised, however, that Karma and Terasaka were not a good combination. A double date was destined to fail miserably.

Dinner. It was just a dinner. He and Hazama agreed neither of their boyfriends would behave properly in a fancy restaurant so some midway compromise between a fast food place and a fancy restaurant was found. A decent place, really. 3 courses, proper seating and a relatively big menu. A big enough menu for Karma to find absolutely nothing he could NOT criticize.

"I'm just saying, i can probably make it better- actually, no. I KNOW i can make it better than this place can." He was pointing at some stew he saw on he menu, basically shoving it in Nagisa's face who just smiled at him in reaction.

Hazama rolled her eyes, wondering how Nagisa loved the cocky idiot so much. She did have to admit her hypocrisy, seeing as her boyfriend was another type of idiot. Not that she minded being the smart one in their relationship.

Terasaka sighed and slumped down even further than anyone at the table thought was possible to do in the restaurant's mildly comfortable booths. "Can you do better in shutting the hell up?" He grumbled.

Karma was about to bring some sarcastic comeback, Nagisa just knew it. Preventing the moment from escalating into something ridiculous he took ahold of Karma's arm and looked him in the eye.

"I'm not that big of an eater, can we share the first course?" He asked his boyfriend. Said boyfriend completely forgot about Terasaka's existence for a moment, completely taken away by Nagisa's gaze. Nagisa was very familiar with Karma's thoughts about him. The red head was a firm believer of freedom of speech when that meant he'd get to call Nagisa pretty. Nagisa really did not need another session of Karma advocating for his beauty, as if he was giving a speech and Nagisa was the subject.

Everyone ordered their food and the date continued. Karma and Terasaka couldn't help but bicker through most of it, however. Karma clearly didn't have a filter and Terasaka had no impulse control to prevent him from immediately arguing with the red head.

"As a future government worker, I believe it should be legal for me to commit tax fraud" Karma argued as he and Nagisa had the most random discussion on teaching high schoolers how to pay their taxes.

Terasaka held a tight grip on his fork. It wasn't hard for Nagisa to imagine that that grip could actually kill a human being. He tried to throw thoughts off murder out of his head as he figured the fork would probably be fine. "That ks the stupidest thing I've ever heard, you're not above the law, Akabane." Terasaka said.

"Is it still tax fraud if you legally don't have to pay?" Nagisa couldn't help but wonder out loud. Hazama shrugged in reaction and Karma smirked a little. Terasaka ignored the thought and remained on edge.

"Look, Terasaka, don't meddle with what the smart people are handling." Karma held the same cocky look on his face. "Your brain is too incompetent to comprehend what we're doing anyways"

Rage emitted from Terasaka, Nagisa noted. It was also obvious enough for anyone without Nagisa's skill to notice. He knew Hazama noticed because she carefully took Terasaka's knife and put it beside her plate where her boyfriend couldn't easily grab it.

"Oh I'm sorry, was that rude? I didn't think your brain could figure out what i was say-OOF" Karma was interrupted by Nagisa elbowing him in the side. "That wasn't necessary." He complained.

"Yes it was." Nagisa sighed, giving a pleading look at Hazama.

She got the hint and put her arm around Terasaka. "Hey big boy, perhaps pay more attention to your girlfriend at your date." She told him.

Luckily Terasaka took a note of her and turned to her, letting out an annoyed sigh. Within minutes he was completely cooled down and he and Hazama were having a lovely conversation about…Occult stuff. Whatever pleases them. Nagisa was more than happy to discuss Karma's favourite movie with him.

Just when Nagisa thought things were going well again the two started bickering again. Nagisa barely had the energy to figure out what their discussion was this time but it didn't matter. The argument turned more into both guys listing what they disliked about the other and defending their own honour. Nagisa thought what they were doing had quite the opposite effect, he really didn't think highly of either of them at that point.

He and Hazama were exchanging knowing look with each other. A second double date would not be scheduled. Both only properly returned their attention to the conversation when Terasaka used a new completely done tone in Karma's direction.

Now, Karma and Nagisa's relationship was relatively new. Most people were surprised to find out the boys had started dating, mostly because neither of them ever discussed their sexuality. Neither Karma or Nagisa really cared what others thought about homosexuality but it was still considered rude to say something about it.

"Didn't even know you were gay, Akabane" Terasaka said.

For a few seconds Karma didn't say anything. His expression was empty and didn't say a lot. Then he turned to Hazama.

"Didn't know you dated ignorant idiots, Hazama"

For some reason THAT was all that was needed for the date to escalate into hell. Both guys were furious and ignoring their dates trying to calm them down.

"I will punch you so hard you'll feel the thing you call a brain bounce all throughout your head." Karma stood up fast and incidentally knocked his plate off the table and made the flower vase topple.

"Not if I break your arm first" Terasaka screamed as he also got up.

Everyone was looking at their table. Nagisa noted Hazama trying her best to pick up all the food the guys had spilled. All Nagisa could do was try and hide in shame.

Just when they thought things couldn't get worse, they reached over the table and grabbed each other. Nagisa knew in advance that the date wouldn't go great but he wasn't prepared for his boyfriend getting physical.

"U-uhm, excuse me" Their table went silent as they noticed the waitress that carefully approached their table. "I'm going to- going to have to ask you to leave, p-please"

It wasn't long before Karma broke the uncomfortable silence. "Look what you've done now!" He complained as he looked at Terasaka.

The two started bickering again and Hazama dragged her boyfriend along with her. The only reason it went successful is because he respected her enough to deny her force. Nagisa tried doing the same with Karma but he was his usual self.

"Sir, someone will have to pay…"The waitress said, tapping Nagisa's shoulder. She probably noticed very easily he was the most sensible person to talk to, what with the two fightinf guys and the girl who was threatening to curse both of them at this point. All he could do was sigh and do so, noticing his unusual forceful manner of putting in his pin code. It was almost as if he treated the card machine as his enemy. 'Better to treat the machine like this than your boyfriend' was all he could think.

---

Standing outside of the restaurant no one in their company was happy. The most positive thing of it all was the now calm Terasaka with Hazama's arm around him.

"Well I think we're just going to spend the rest of the day with us two." Hazama said, mostly talking to Nagisa. "Thanks for trying though"

Nagisa waved her off with a light smile. The moment she was out of view he swiftly turned around to scowl at his boyfriend. "Really?" He didn't need to say more.

Judging by the look on his face, Karma did in fact feel a bit of guilt. "We'll probably have more fun when it's just the two of us anyways" He defended himself.

At first Nagisa didn't react. His face didn't change and he didn't say anything. Sure, he was calming himself down, that was part of the reason. In all honesty, however, he also just wanted to say something that kept the evening going in perhaps a more romantic direction while also making clear to Karma that what he'd done was not okay. Eventually he realised how futile his effort would be. He could help Karma but never in his life could he hope to change him. Not like Nagisa wanted him to change at all.

He took a hold of Karma's hands, face still unchanged, catching Karma off guard. He took advantage of this and pulled Karma down lightly so his boyfriend was at eye level with him. He wasn't ignorant to the surprised look on Karma's face that perhaps also showed a little fear.

"You better pay me back for this dinner"

And with that Nagisa pecked a kiss on Karma's lip before releasing his hold on him. He portrayed a small smile on his face. As bad as the dinner was he knew Hazama would force an apology out of Terasaka the next time they saw each other. Nagisa would make sure he did the same.

Karma came back to his senses as he mumbled a soft apology. Nagisa figured he could see how he ruined his boyfriends night, which was even worse considering it was their first Valentine's together.

"I think I can make it up to you." He said as he put his arm around Nagisa's shoulders. "Let's go to my place, we're more of a movie night couple anyways"

With that Nagisa couldn't disagree. He leaned in on Karma's embrace with a smile. "I think I'd like that"

#handydandyvalentines #nagisa shiota #karma akabane #karmagisa #karunagi #kirara hazama #ryoma terasaka #ship #fan fiction #assassination classroom #ansatsu kyoushitsu

72 notes · View notes

prince-liest · 4 years ago

Note

I get all twitchy everytime I read chapter 95, that's the most we've seen of the Commission in a single chapter. They're meta-ing about Shigaraki? Hng, knowing Shig and Kei have paralleling backstories I'm just- wow, Hawks grew up around these grouchy assholes. How much do you wanna say we get 2.0 of All Might's retirement with them? Let me take these words. 'You fool. We lost Hawks' quirk and for what?' 'The world now knows of (insert any war crime hawks committed here)' (1/6)

'The Wing Hero as we knew him is gone. The people of this country know it, the villains know it too.' This is what we get for always relying on one man.' *side-eyes everything hawks did solo* I wonder if we could paint a picture on what the hc is like, some of these guys are reoccurring characters. One of them was pushing hawks in horikoshi's anime ep debut sketch. Getting handsy there. You can't pull that with any other hero. (2/6)

Something sounds off to me when they say they gotta prove they can do more than taking in the villains the heroes defeat? It's like, the wrong kind of ambition. What are you gonna do to get yourself some more credit just cuz your not satisfied with the fact that the villains are being stopped. Nah, you wanna go ahead be the ones to do it. So they send Hawks. Now logically 'course they can't do anything, heroes are the only ones licensed to fight them. (3/6)

Investigations make sense, making plans behind the scenes. But like, can't you make charities or organizations or literally anything to help rehabilitate villains or maybe stop them from going down that path? Like, public lectures more 'be nice to each other' policies sorry that sounds lame. But your civilians! (4/6)

Public safety, can't you have a say in non-hero related matters and take a look at your justice system so people like Twice don't end up with a bad record over an accident that wasn't even their fault? Smh, they didn't even do much for the investigations. You got two men on that, Tsukauchi and Gran Torino are the only officially named people on it. Congrats, you caught Kurogiri then traumatized Mic and Aizawa. Who actually deserves the credit??? And with Hawks???? (5/6)

He did everything himself. And now it ended up a total flop. Well boo hoo, the hc can't take anything from that are they gonna dump the failure on them??? Oh people riot, children were in danger! Ah, it's U.A's fault, their students. Sorry for the spam, if u wanna answer I hope this could go under the cut. and um am I just totally wrong bc I saw it praised somewhere how willing they are to make changes :D and I'm just here like 😒 Bruh, where? (6/6)

I think one of the big things about the Hero Public Safety Commission that characterizes why it has inevitably turned to some form of corruption or another is that hero popularity is a big part of the ranking system, and subsequently how heroes and the HPSC earn money. Maybe I’ve listened to too many of my dad’s ‘America is a capitalist nightmare and I miss Soviet Kazakhstan’ speeches, but honestly, people generally aren’t evil. They’re just greedy, and it always comes back to money and power.

If you make a system where attaining money and power is prioritized, particularly in a way that prioritizes things like popularity contests and incident resolution rates, you’re going to end up with an organization that is not going to be spectacularly incentivized to, say, lower the heroes’ incident resolution rates by lowering the number of incidents. It's likely not even be deliberate - rather, it’s just an ingrained attitude of This Is How This Works.

On top of that, there’s a pretty strong attitude among many societies that criminals and villains don’t “deserve” kind treatment due to their actions, which often gets in the way of taking actions that lower crime rates.

Studies show that providing free basic housing to the homeless reduces taxpayer dollars spent on the homeless because basic housing costs less than the ER visits homeless people make when they don’t have a shelter and get sick (which taxes then cover because a homeless person obviously cannot).

Countries like Denmark and Norway that have prison systems with significantly more lenience, freedom, family contact, and life coaching for prisoners have much lower recidivism rates than countries like the US that don’t. (There are likely other factors such as cultural homogeneity in play, but this is a big one.)

Etc.

Despite these things being known, the reaction to ‘let’s provide housing for the homeless’ or ‘let’s be more supportive of our prisoners’ is very often indignity and offense, because ‘why should my hard work go to hand-outs to those people who don’t work hard at all’ - so between all of these things, I’m very unsurprised that the HPSC is not particularly prioritizing rehabilitation.

(That said, I emphatically disagree with the people who believe that offering rehabilitation to Twice was selfish of Hawks. You can’t be so anti-social that you’re harming people without a care for those around you unless they’re your friends and then say it’s all society’s fault that you fell through the cracks.)

All of that aside, I think a lot of people are speculating that the raid failing is going to be dumped on Hawks’s head and he’s going to be cast aside by the HPSC, and to be perfectly honest I disagree and am not entirely sure where that came from. Hawks is over a decade’s worth of investment and the Commission’s golden child. Sure, he’s also an abused child soldier, but they’re not going to dump him to the wayside when an incredibly difficult solo-mission he did with zero support risks failure due to things entirely outside of his control. If he loses his wings, it’s likely he won’t be able to be a hero anymore, but given that Endeavor and some others noted knowledge that he was behind the intel they got for the raid, I see it as much more likely that he’s going to go down as a hero and a martyr with most of his darker deeds unpublicized - and martyrdom in particular is largely in-touch with the themes of his arc so far.

#lord I'm sorry if anyone sees this on their dash with cuts broken #cut for length #long post #bnha #bnha meta #hawks meta #bnha society meta #meta replies #anonymous #replies #personal

15 notes · View notes

thisiswhattheycallafinecareer · 5 years ago

Text

US VOTERS!!

DO NOT

I repeat,

DO NOT flee to the Trump campaign if Biden wins the Democratic nomination over Bernie.

In the event that what I've been reading is even the littlest bit true I want to personally throw my viewpoint out there, as someone who admires Bernie Sanders, would be thrilled to see him assume executive office, and would mourn the opportunity lost if he is not nominated to seek the Presidency. TRUMP is not a better alternative over Biden. He may not be the catalyzed, change-motivated leader we have sought, he may be a static leader, and certainly he has taken poor and disagreeable stances with issues of as vital importance as race and wealth distribution. But in the last four years a scab has been torn off the underbelly of our country, exposing a diseased, pulsing sore spot affecting every aspect of how we relate to one another. Race, religion, class, age, line of work, manner of loving. There has been a horrifying celebration of history repeating itself: nationalism dividing us on what it means to be an American, racial violence and hatred invoked by propaganda, religious intolerance on the same basis, repudiation and neglect of science for no discernible reason but that of making money and conducting the people far, far away from fidelity to fact above all else. Issues of sex and gender massively ridiculed and dismissed, precedents for these: those of legislation like Roe v. Wade, and those of aid and information like Planned Parenthood attacked and threatened. Individual rights more and more a matter for debate. Freedom of speech taken beyond Constitutional and foundational intent to protect those who impede the Life, Liberty, and surely the Happiness of others. Freedom of press utilized 24/7 to deepen the divide and cement prejudices even if employing no facts at all. All victimized, many scapegoated, by the entirely unreasonable refusal at the top to provide universal healthcare. Differently abled people, some voiceless, overshadowed and victimized by both sides of the fight. The homeless, the unemployed, the constantly-searching. A disparity of class such that 1%, 1 untaxed and overgrown percent owns an average of 43% of the wealth in our country, and that figure is growing. And at its heart, the great economic gap which is maintained even by the current occupant of our highest office, with transparent potential to be healed and even outright resolved, is the number one reason for our most dramatic divide and conflict. We are betraying an uncivil yet human instinct, namely seeking out someone or something to blame when we see spheres of our world gone wrong. But the only people empowered to make change have put us on the course to impact damage upon civilization of a kind that cannot be repaired, even as soon as tomorrow. Even as soon as 2016 when a Donald Trump supporter attacked Khondoker Usama and his friend in a convenience store, chanting the name of his "Savior." The danger is already here.

I voted for the first time in this primary. I gave my vote to Bernie Sanders because I believe he deserved it and would do good with it. Because attending a rally where he spoke touched my heart and mind with the spark of hope for the protection and progession of an American made of the things which make me most proud of the nation which bore me. As gracefully as Sanders has navigated the mud-slinging, baseless, heartless politicking which characterizes the modern race for the White House, in the event he did not receive the Democratic nomination, I think he'd accept it just as gracefully. Then I imagine he'd go right back to agitating for change elsewhere as he's done all along. The answer is most, most definitely not to take our disappointed hopes, or worse, under-considered impulse of the moment to the devil we know.

We do not need, perhaps cannot even support, another year, another four years under a Trump administration. There is no match in today's candidates for the office to his virulence, his self-interest, or his power mania. Please, when you vote, do not award him the opportunity to devastate you and those around you with a loss of even more gravity than the Democratic primary to Sanders would be. We cannot afford anymore to split amongst ourselves.

1 note · View note

autoirishlitdiscourses · 4 years ago

Text

Discourse of Wednesday, 31 March 2021

You're not alone. So, here, and this is a weaker way of being as successful as you can take to be more engaged with the paper in such a great addition to reciting the text carefully, because I'm leaving town for the paper is a hilarious parody of military recruitment videos in an in-lecture boost; yes, your attention should primarily be on the section that has my comments on it and would then be reciting, anyway to read all 44 pages of the A range for you, because they highlight a part of the quarter, and don't have a happy holiday break! But you did quite a good weekend, and your writing is otherwise so good and your bonus for performing in front of a particular race is? Does that help? You can signal that you lectured more than that they don't warm up more abstract and general phrasing to which I've posted a copy of your discussion plans. If you discuss this coming week 20 November 2013—Wait a moment. You picked a selection from a two-year program in their key terms more specifically about your topic, based on the section, or inherently uninteresting none of the texts is also available.

Oversleeping, even if only because it ties together a lot of people haven't done the reading. So one combination that would have most needed in order to do so would be unwise simply to talk about in this paper to pass. If you want to do is to engage in discussion. That is to engage in a little more. Of course! D 60% 63% D-—You've written a smart investment long-term for when and what it meant to move along the email servers that the option has/has not removed the price tag from his angry moustache to Mr Power's mild face and said so on the other. I'll be in section; you could do so just let me know in my 6 p. Well done on this and, Godot Vladimir's speech, 33ff. Not feeling well. Both of these is that you must email me a URL is perfectly OK at this point whether there is also a good job this week in section and four the other Godot group before the third line of discussion and question provoked close readings of Butcher Boy song 6 p. You did a number of students on the Internet, just send me an email saying that you inform people who were getting a why you can't go on in your work that you will automatically continue to attend section and four the other person who's still on the last few weeks in section the first place you might profitably pose to the zombies, who is a strong preference on going second or third, although it sounds like it passes differently when you're not in terms of the course for a long way in which hawthorn bushes often mark a boundary between this world and the next lower grade range.

You picked a very sophisticated and elegantly worded research paper next quarter. I think, to talk about papers, so they won't be assessed until after the final exam will be. Very well done, both because it touches on some important material in there that I sent to you. You had a lot of ways. Alternately, we know about the change you see as important. Should Be Free One of the text s that you're using it as optional. In these circumstances, though not the only productive way to clarify your own ideas out in advance or have a 91. /Participation score is calculated. Nice job on the Mad Hatter's hat in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland. Again, well done overall.

What this means 11:30 just come over then and I'll see you next week. —But I presume that this is a positive influence. Let me know if you need to have practiced a bit more carefully to be some minor changes before I pass it out in detail, I think you've got a good background without impairing the discussion in a comparable phenomenon, and you nailed it. I think that your paper's structure often causes your very nuanced readings by a female role model, and definitely satisfies the requirements and is mentioned in lecture 15 Oct: The Arnhold Program for junior and senior English majors, English 150 this quarter although I think you did at the issue constructed? Well done.

Well done on this you connected it effectively to larger concerns of the previous forty minutes. I'll give it back to you, but really, your paper is that if you can't go on and perform the assignment. Your paper effectively traces out a group to respond to a manageable task. By extension, something else? Like holding water in your paper has some substantial strengths in this round of paper-grading rubric above. I feel that it would be to make sure I'm about equally hard for you—I've marked ask if you start participating and pick up his midterm; is there a particular student's answers on questions about these, though, even if you have an A-range papers: Receiving a D on a form at this point is that your very nuanced readings into a satisfying thesis is to say that you may just be that you will have to choose White Hawthorn in the Forest of Arden itself a sophisticated logical structure that makes sense to present material. Let me provide some scenarios for less-than-expected grade is calculated.

I think that it would be unwise simply to assume that they'll be able to make up the sense of the text s with which they appeared. Here is the overall arc that includes it; you also missed the professor's if you disagree with you, actually; you also gave a sensitive, thoughtful, engaged delivery, and I won't post them tomorrow night! Great! You don't necessarily think that you needed to happen here, I really appreciate, by love, and with your score was 96% two students tied for this paper, and I quite liked it. Your initial explication was thoughtful and focused without being asked to make sure I have to make room for additional work on future pieces of writing with the freedom to leave my office hours. The joke in today's/Doonesbury/is available.

Write it in any number of important things in your section this week. Even finding small things, and I suspect that much of this would be to think about what you think that paying more attention to the growing poet, as it opens up an interpretive pathway into one of the room, but getting the group while valorizing their input and meeting them at their level of competence by any means, essentially, is not a fair and reasonable in addition to doing it is possible, and you do a project on on line 12; and b includes the recitation assignment here; many of which have particular specific takes on these issues and showing that you might notice Bloom's interest in responses to statements and thoughts from other students. What kind of murder did win small glory with the fact that these paintings fall within the larger-scale concerns very effectively and in a way that we haven't yet fully thought around what your priorities are if you have just over 87% in the first to get there before you can which specific part of the recitation assignment so you can say more than that, for that section; you also gave an excellent weekend! You picked a longer selection than the interpretive problem that people can find one here. Which texts I have a chance to turn your major: The Lovers 1928; probably many others. All of the class and how that functions in comparison with the rest of the professor's policy is that you originally selected. Stoddard, O'Casey, Act II: 1987-1990, p. But you did a good recitation. 1% of the specific text of Yeats's Under Ben Bulben The Stare's Nest and of reflecting his rather anguished disappointment with the play, it feels like it better, and your recitation segment deals explicitly with it. Thanks again for some reason though this is unfortunate because they will be on campus on Monday of next quarter, in South Hall 2607 if he's amenable, we'll work something out.

Again, very well on the final. If the other reading assignments for Ulysses are grounded firmly in its historical situation here, while the strong, insightful, theoretically informed paper here in a close reading exercise of your argument on the matter have I said, I think you overlooked people in, first-come, first-person pronoun in a comparative analysis of a specific claim about the book was published? One other thing that you've set up yours and which lines of poetry or prose for the specific language of your discussion on Francie's mother commits suicide; I like your lecture slideshow along. Doing this would result in the ideological ditch is a very good job of contextualizing the paper to you you can bring them back to you. I will be no extra spacing between paragraphs or other work for me to boil down to is that it naturally wants to make sure that your basic idea is basically structured in a nuanced argument. Section and four openings in both sections in this contemporary world that we have tentatively arranged to work for you sometimes it's helpful to open up discussion for the quarter, and what has to be even more successful would be happy to discuss and haven't used Word extensively for a job well done overall. Also, please. I was wondering whether we'll be having section during Thanksgiving week. However, these are important and impressive. Check your U-Mail account! That all looks good to me by email except to respond to any particular essay format, an A-for the class, so a film adaptation would certainly be a more or less first-in, and that your paper ultimately winds up being more successful would be most successful if it seems history is to think about intermediate or preparatory questions that you find interesting, problematic, fascinating, questionable, and to succeed in this case.

Etc. The answer is. Give a stellar, passionate, exactly? As I've said not because I think that it naturally wants to attend those sections as well. There are in the context of dental exams toward the Nugents there are places occasionally when you talk about how you're going to be aware of these are very impressive work here, and if that still doesn't work for you to do.

Your paper should be an indication that you're likely to be fully successful, though I felt occasionally that the class than when you're at the draft of a pound into 240 pence 240 d or informally 240 p. You might think about how you want me to do, because that will change by much. As a Young Man, which has a clear argumentative thread, and if you want to see how many people really love Godot and Camus to enrich your own thoughts on this will make it into an analytical approach to this emotion and the necessity of vocalizing stage directions. Before I forget: Do you want to sign up for the 5 p. See you at the appropriate types that add to your secondary sources. I think that a person of comparatively limited energy and/or not this lifts you to refine your thesis at the end of that range was flagrantly giving up points in mind when writing September 1913. Answers the question of whether you hit a snag that students often hit with compare/contrast paper which is already enough to be familiar with is Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Mists of Avalon, which I was of course grade.

#Irish literature #automatically generated text #Patrick Mooney #Python #Markov chains

0 notes

carolinemillerbooks · 4 years ago

Text

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/social-concerns/finding-common-ground/

Finding Common Ground

(Because of the events of last week, I feel this blog bears repeating.) Few would argue against the notion that under Donald Trump’s Presidency, American democracy has been tested at all levels of government. How far that testing has gone is a cause for concern for many. Recently, Chuck Schumer, Minority leader in the U. S. Senate, fired a salvo across the bow of the U. S. Supreme Court, threatening Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch about their upcoming votes that might overturn abortion rights in an upcoming Louisiana case. “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Chief Justice Roberts responded with a warning of his own. “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.” Meanwhile, the outgoing President, Donald Trump, a man who has shown contempt for the courts, stirs the pot with his tweets over with Schemer’s outburst. If abortion were the sole issue at stake, the country might survive the bloodletting, but other issues, like gun control, First Amendment rights, and religious freedom are also at stake. People on the political far left and right are accusing one another of redefining the Constitution. To find a middle ground is difficult because so little trust exists between factions. A form of brinkmanship has settled among us like poison gas. The threats, the defiance, the acts of violence along the political spectrum begin to sound less like demands to right a wrong and more like the crazed cacophony of a society longing for extinction. Witness the Christian singer who, despite the pandemic, defends his open-air concerts as an expression of his religious rights. His model is obvious. Trump’s assault on the peaceful transfer of power gives the singer license to pervert the norms of religious freedom. Finding common ground with those of bad faith takes more than a stretch. As of yet, I have no idea how to accomplish it. Still, those of good faith, despite a difference of opinion, must try. To that end, I decided to read Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s words about conservatism in his speech of November 12, 2020, to the Federalist Society. Let me admit I have no law degree but read his comments as a citizen to whom the law applies—someone who, through representative government has a voice in determining what is a reasonable and unreasonable law. That voice has belonged to every citizen since the tea party rebellion in 1773 when our forbearers raised the cry, No taxation without representation. Alito began his speech by explaining the role of a conservative judge: “to conserve our Constitution and the rule of law.” I suspect a liberal judge like Ruth Bader Ginsberg would reply Alito had defined the role of every judge. If so, then I had found common ground. Nor did I imagine Ginsberg would object to Alito’s description of current conditions in the country. That “…tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply” I also agree. Intolerance has put the rule of law under pressure. Alito added the current pandemic had exacerbated the difficulty. “We have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive, and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020.” Here, I disagree. Age takes its privilege for I lived through the deprivations of World War 11, a duration of 7 years. By contrast, the pandemic of the past several months only requires that we wear masks, wash our hands, and practice social distancing. Nonetheless, Alito was correct in his next observation that in a time of crisis, power flows to the executive branch of government. Franklin Delano Roosevelt held the nation in his palm when I was growing up. Fortunately for the country, he was an honest broker with good intentions. He resisted the temptation to promulgate excessive emergency regulations that drew power to himself at the expense of our fundamental freedoms. To describe the appropriate use of executive power, Alito discussed a 1905 Supreme Court ruling concerning a Cambridge, Massachusetts ordinance. It required citizens to submit to vaccinations during a smallpox outbreak. Alito argued the high court’s decision to uphold the ordinance was correct because it “targeted a problem of a limited scope.” I admit his conclusion puzzled me. How size affected individual rights or the notion of equal treatment under the law was unclear. Nor did his discussion of other cases further illuminate. For lack of time and space, I touch upon only one of his examples to illustrate my confusion. Like the smallpox case, it addressed individual rights versus the rights of a community. A gay couple brought a complaint before the court against a baker who’d refused an order for their wedding cake. He cited his religious objection to homosexuality as his reason. Offended, the couple sued the man and in court their attorney argued religious freedom was no defense because it could be used to “justify all kinds of discrimination throughout, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust …” Alito conceded to his audience that the attorney had a point. Claims of religious freedom could be used to serve bigotry. But in the baker’s case, the judge saw “no evidence that anybody has been harmed.” Cakes were readily available elsewhere in the community. I gasped at Alito’s conclusion, however. Did he fail to see that availability wasn’t the issue? At stake was the question of equal treatment in the public square. A business open to the public must serve all customers alike. No person should suffer the indignity of being turned out of an establishment on the off-chance the proprietor held views contrary to those of the customer. Yet Alito thought so well of his argument that he circled back to insist the injured party in the case was the […]

#Brett Kavanaugh #brinksmanship #Chuck Schumer #Dopnald Trump #Federalist Society. Conservatism #Franklin Delano Roosevelt #John Roberts #Neil Gorsuch #originalism #Ruth Bader Ginsberg #Samuel Alito

0 notes

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher · 7 years ago

Text

So can’t message you for some reason, doesn’t work when I send a message so why don’t we put everything under a read me so it doesn’t get so damn long.

One:

You know what if you won’t take my word for it listen to James Grossman the Executive Director of the American Historical Association:

James Grossman, the executive director of the American Historical Association, says that the increase in statues and monuments was clearly meant to send a message.

"These statues were meant to create legitimate garb for white supremacy," Grossman said. "Why would you put a statue of Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson in 1948 in Baltimore?"

(http://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544266880/confederate-statues-were-built-to-further-a-white-supremacist-future)

Or Doctor Mark Elliot:

“All of those monuments were there to teach values to people,” Elliott says. “That’s why they put them in the city squares. That’s why they put them in front of state buildings.” Many earlier memories had instead been placed in cemeteries.

The values these monuments stood for, he says, included a “glorification of the cause of the Civil War.”

(http://www.history.com/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monuments)

I know you like to use your opinion instead of sources but I’m excited to see how you explain this away or discredit these people. Especially the guy in charge of the American Historical Association.

Two:

Oh yeah because few people on the left are burning stuff that suddenly means everyone who is left leaning is for that. Are you out of your fucking mind? This is fucking ridiculous you think they speak for the entirety of the Left?? Like show me facts. Show me statistics that it’s a wide spread thing on our side then maybe I’ll take these people seriously until then chill the fuck out.

Also let’s talk about this article in regards to colleges. First and foremost again with the misuse of freedom of speech unless you’re going to fight all the times students have gotten expelled from Universities for saying slurs and shit you really need to chill out with your problem you have with a University exercising their right to not allow someone on to the campus and people exercising their right to protest until they are heard.

There is a code of conduct at Universities and it’s beyond ridiculous if a school is okay with inviting someone that has said/done things that go against that code of conduct when if I a student did any of that I would be fucking expelled. Them bringing that person in shows what the schools values are before you say “well they aren’t students.” If I owned a school and decided I was going to let Sean Spencer [a neo nazi who has called for ethnic genocide] come speak to my students that would say something about myself and my schools values.

Ann Coulter has said some fucked up shit to include the homophobic word f*ggot. She’s said "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." She’s said "I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo." She’s said “ Jews would be “perfected” once they became Christians.”

Do I need to keep going about the fucked up shit she has said? No one owes this woman a fucking platform she’s garbage. I read something once about how speech can be violent because of the effect it has on the body and the brain but there’s something that stands out to me:

The scientific findings I described above provide empirical guidance for which kinds of controversial speech should and shouldn’t be acceptable on campus and in civil society. In short, the answer depends on whether the speech is abusive or merely offensive.

Offensiveness is not bad for your body and brain. Your nervous system evolved to withstand periodic bouts of stress, such as fleeing from a tiger, taking a punch or encountering an odious idea in a university lecture.

Entertaining someone else’s distasteful perspective can be educational. Early in my career, I taught a course that covered the eugenics movement, which advocated the selective breeding of humans. Eugenics, in its time, became a scientific justification for racism. To help my students understand this ugly part of scientific history, I assigned them to debate its pros and cons. The students refused. No one was willing to argue, even as part of a classroom exercise, that certain races were genetically superior to others.

So I enlisted an African-American faculty member in my department to argue in favor of eugenics while I argued against; halfway through the debate, we switched sides. We were modeling for the students a fundamental principle of a university education, as well as civil society: When you’re forced to engage a position you strongly disagree with, you learn something about the other perspective as well as your own. The process feels unpleasant, but it’s a good kind of stress — temporary and not harmful to your body — and you reap the longer-term benefits of learning.

What’s bad for your nervous system, in contrast, are long stretches of simmering stress. If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, that’s the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. That’s also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another, and of rampant bullying in school or on social media. A culture of constant, casual brutality is toxic to the body, and we suffer for it.

That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering.

On the other hand, when the political scientist Charles Murray argues that genetic factors help account for racial disparities in I.Q. scores, you might find his view to be repugnant and misguided, but it’s only offensive. It is offered as a scholarly hypothesis to be debated, not thrown like a grenade. There is a difference between permitting a culture of casual brutality and entertaining an opinion you strongly oppose. The former is a danger to a civil society (and to our health); the latter is the lifeblood of democracy.

By all means, we should have open conversations and vigorous debate about controversial or offensive topics. But we must also halt speech that bullies and torments. From the perspective of our brain cells, the latter is literally a form of violence.

(https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html?mcubz=1)

Now can you say that being anti-Semitic [Jewish people will be perfected by becoming Christian] calling for the invasion, murder and forced conversion to Christianity [man that has a long history of fucking up countries] saying that we should televise and condone torture AND drop fucking bombs [daisy cutters] throughout the Middle East isn’t fucking abusive and oppressive? I mean you could but it’s garbage.

Three:

I love that you left out what that statement was in reference to. You said no one who is affected by it cares which was a blatant lie and you’ve obviously ignored the copious amounts of NA that have called for this stuff to be removed.

Your facts were called bullshit because they didn’t support your original statement.

You do realize it doesn’t fucking matter if 4.7 million don’t care right? Those 520k+ NA still exist and they give a damn so your statement the people affected don’t care is a fucking lie and using that article to push your narrative that is fucking wrong makes it bullshit. It’s not because I don’t like evidence. It’s because the evidence you have provided is garbage and doesn’t support the statement YOU FUCKING MADE. You don’t get to fucking decide an issue doesn’t matter because the majority of said group doesn’t care about it.

Four:

Nothing you said changes that the article detailed how to help the NA community. So either your article is good and the information is sound or it’s bad. You can’t pick and choose. You can’t use part of the articles information to back up your statement then trash the rest of it. Do you know how that makes a source look?

Doesn’t matter why you omitted it. The point remains it proved my point that the government was fucking the NA community over. Your source that you provided agrees that what the government is doing with the land [along with the cigerrets and the casinos] are hurting the community.

Hmmmm that’s fair the US has provided that but uhm just a quick thing:

Since it was first established within the old U.S. War Department in 1824, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has distinguished itself as the most corrupt, ineffective and abusive agency in the federal government. Although the BIA now professes the greatest respect for "tribal sovereignty" and "tribal self-determination," there is precious little evidence of genuine concern for tribal autonomy in its administration of federal Indian policy as its recent illegal intervention into the internal affairs of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma substantiates. The overwhelming weight of evidence tells a very different story about BIA policy making. By any standard, the BIA is a colossal failure as a government agency and the dead weight of its administrative wreckage represents the single greatest obstacle to the freedom, prosperity, cultural integrity and progress of Native Americans. Until the BIA is abolished and federal Indian policy is fundamentally reformed, the future holds little promise of a significant change in the lives of Native Americans.

(http://www.cherokeeobserver.org/Issues/abolishbiapart2.html)

Five:

I don’t use reddit. Ever. So like again I say just say the shit you wanna say so I don’t waste my fucking time responding to it??

Six:

So the fact that they haven’t paid there bills somehow means they deserve to be living with dirty fucking pipes? They deserve the city officials to not fix the fucking pipes that a lot of them have been prosecuted over for their role in it?

The first thing that you said in this post was this: We’ve given you everything you want, but you just want more you greedy layabouts. So you didn’t originally say anything about people only complaining on twitter. Try reading through your own statements.

Seven:

You know how you said that I was misquoting you [which I wasn’t lol] it’s nice to see you doing the same thing. Here’s what I said:

ALSO I don’t know if you know this but not everyone is able to go out and do the stuff I do whether it’s age, whether it’s economical, whether it’s because they have a disability of some sort so calling them a lay about is so many levels of wrong not to mention talking this stuff on the internet can and often does get people involved who can do stuff to do so. You discounting the power of words and the internet is illogical and just to ridiculous for words.

At no point did I say that no one out of the people I listed could go out in protests but the fact remains that for every child, poor person, disabled person that can go there’s someone that can’t so again you calling these people layabouts is fucking garbage, but I love that you think the links you provided mean EVERYONE in those particular communities can do something.

Eight:

Yes. It’s quite possible since you’re more likely to live in poverty if you were in poverty as a child (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rich-kids-stay-rich-poor-kids-stay-poor/) (http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_911.html) (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/02/19/a-college-degree-is-worth-less-if-you-are-raised-poor/) (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/the-long-shadow-poverty-baltimore-poor-children/) and having literally all your money, land and shit stripped away from is a sure fire way to put people in poverty if I ever saw one.

I honestly can’t expect much from someone that thinks institutional oppression doesn’t exist. I mean I can’t blame you for not understanding this “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” thing is garbage and has always been garbage

Nine:

Read the following: (http://www.aaihs.org/slavery-the-13th-amendment-and-mass-incarceration-a-response-to-patrick-rael/) (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/gilmoreprisonslavery.html) (https://www.afsc.org/story/slavery-mass-incarceration) (https://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/3/from_slavery_to_mass_incarceration_ava) (https://eji.org/enslavement-to-mass-incarceration-museum) (http://racism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1470:institutionalized-slavery&catid=137&Itemid=155&showall=1&limitstart=)

Also let’s talk about your articles

The one talking about Black leaders: I’m all for admitting there were other circumstances as well but the idea that the war on drugs wasn’t to attack Black communities (http://jezebel.com/nixons-policy-advisor-admits-he-invented-war-on-drugs-t-1766359595) or that drugs weren’t funneled into the community (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/10/gary-webb-dark-alliance_n_5961748.html) is factually incorrect.

Also there being other contributing factors to Mass Incarceration doesn’t suddenly mean it didn’t start with slavery. That’s not how that works.

The first article:

Is the fact that Black politicians are on board with this and that there’s some racist black guy trying to put Black people in more economic poverty supposed to prove anything?

Ten:

Have you ever experienced poverty? Have you ever experienced being so poor you can’t feed your own children [due to racism in the job market and a slew of other things] that you turn to crime to feed said children? If the choice is between starvation for yourself and your children and committing a crime that’s not a real choice.

One I didn’t bring the law in to this [despite the fact there are numerous racist legal practices] but I’m glad you can recognize that stuff from 100 years ago can affect today albeit even if you’re saying so in just a legal capacity. But please tell me how your comment is right but mine is wrong when I say stuff from 100+ years ago can affect people today?

Eleven:

We are having a debate/argument/discussion whatever you want to call it and while you are right it’s not a research paper when you do this stuff you need to have your fact straight.

For example I haven’t gotten stuff wrong here that’s fine but nothing I’ve gotten wrong has presented me as a possible racist liar [your own actions even if they were by accident are the same actions that racist people have done. People I’ve had this conversation with before so if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck until I know otherwise. AGAIN that was your fault. My initial evaluation of you was your own fault.]

Twelve:

Don’t really care. If I’ve got the facts to back me up I’ll cuss all I want especially when it’s about topics that directly affect me and others like me. If you allow my insults to detract from the facts that’s something YOU need to work on not me because even if you had cussed me out I still would have read your sources and I would have replied to them in kind.

If my argument is supported by facts and you think me being mean to you delegitimizes my argument that is supported by facts that means you don’t care about the facts because someone was mean to you. People need to stop using people being mean to them as a way to negate facts.

Thirteen:

So I realized I didn’t actually link my source apparently lol?? I thought I did so that’s on me but it was a list of articles from google talking about the issue but I already know we are gonna run into this problem again later down so I’ll save what I am going to say for then.

Fourteen:

So all you’ve got is your opinions didn’t I say don’t bother responding if you couldn’t give me something other than your opinion?

However there is something I will address. Yes we commit more violent crimes I won’t ever deny that because I know it’s a fact. I frequently use those FBI tables in conversations. What I will say though is violent crimes doesn’t encompass everything so let’s talk about that other stuff:

Even more surprising is what gets left out of the chart: Blacks are far more likely to be arrested for selling or possessing drugs than whites, even though whites use drugs at the same rate. And whites are actually more likely to sell drugs:

Whites were about 45 percent more likely than blacks to sell drugs in 1980, according to an analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth by economist Robert Fairlie. This was consistent with a 1989 survey of youth in Boston. My own analysis of data from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health shows that 6.6 percent of white adolescents and young adults (aged 12 to 25) sold drugs, compared to just 5.0 percent of blacks (a 32 percent difference).

This partly reflects racial differences in the drug markets in black and white communities. In poor black neighborhoods, drugs tend to be sold outdoors, in the open.

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/30/white-people-are-more-likely-to-deal-drugs-but-black-people-are-more-likely-to-get-arrested-for-it/?utm_term=.1797b7e3e9ef)

To compound on this cops just don’t seem to care about white people doing this stuff. (https://www.aclu.org/issues/mass-incarceration/smart-justice/war-marijuana-black-and-white) (https://privacysos.org/blog/there-goes-your-overtime-cop-explains-why-police-dont-target-powerful-whites-in-drug-enforcement/) The CIA definitely didn’t care when they were targeting Black people and Hippies.

Not to mention white people are now calling for a gentler war on drugs now because of a fucking heroin crisis (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/us/heroin-war-on-drugs-parents.html?mcubz=1) but I mean fuck the Black community right? Let’s support laws that put them in jail (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/08/racial_bias_in_criminal_justice_whites_don_t_want_to_reform_laws_that_harm.html)

Black people are more likely to have their cars searched despite the fact that they find more illegal stuff on white people (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/police-are-searching-black-drivers-more-often-but-finding-more-illegal-stuff-with-white-drivers-2/?utm_term=.e402ec8667c4)

Black people are more likely to be stopped and frisked despite the fact that white people carry more contraband (https://thinkprogress.org/white-people-stopped-by-new-york-police-are-more-likely-to-have-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities-9bf579a2b9b3/)

And there’s this too: (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/data-police-racial-bias)

So that information about violent crime doesn’t suddenly fix everything.

ALSO Black people are more likely to be in poverty so there’s a racial aspect to all of this isn’t if it isn’t the single contributing factor. One of the reasons is probably this: (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/) or this: (http://www.epi.org/publication/african-americans-are-paid-less-than-whites-at-every-education-level/)

Fifteen:

Columbus was also trash and his statues need to be removed and Columbus day should be replaced with Indigenous People’s Day [it’s already happening but all of America needs to get with the times] again books, museums and mandatory curriculums exist that’s not gonna change.

Have you heard anyone call for the removal of museums that are about educating people? I know for a fact that the African American History and Heritage Museum has a section about Civil War and there’s no way people would remove that. Now a museum glorifying the actions of the Confederate sure remove it. History like that should be remembered not glorified.

Educating isn’t glorifying and if you can’t tell the difference between those two words I can’t help you. NOT TO FUCKING MENTION it’s the people that are supporting this shit that are ALL FOR revising ACTUAL HISTORY BOOKS that teach kids about this stuff. We aren’t the ones doing what you’re accusing us of. The right is.

Sixteen:

Soooo you’re against pedophilic material being censored since no one should be forcibly censored? I mean that’s cool…I guess….I can’t even.

Now obviously, I don’t actually believe you believe that but your stance is no censorship is good but if you budge that means in certain circumstances it is. So who are you to decide what those circumstances are? Mine reasons are based off the racist history of the statues and their continued presence in a society that claims to be post racial/racism

Seventeen:

So I’ve already proven that you’re wrong about why those statues were put up from two very reliable sources but I am eager to see how you plan to discredit them or if you’re even gonna bother providing sources and are going to use your opinion again which will not hold up to that.

Anyway those statues were put up to glorify the reasons the south seceded [racism along many other things] and to terrorize Black people. It wasn’t solely about memorializing their fallen [I’ll agree that was part of the reason] but like that part shouldn’t matter since the racism is quite clear now. At least to anyone that cares about sources.

Eighteen:

Things happened in the past that effect the present [which you agreed with] and therefore reconciliation should be made.

Also you didn’t have a single source to back up your opinions so you saying it’s not real doesn’t mean shit to me because your opinion doesn’t mean shit without fucking sources. Your word isn’t fucking fact.

OH MY GOD yes because a Black man managed to do that with some KKK members that means they can all have that happen? Didn’t you get “mad” at me earlier for something along these lines? You are a joke if you think the people he convered represent the entitirety of the population of the KKK which is said to be 3000 people (http://www.epi.org/publication/african-americans-are-paid-less-than-whites-at-every-education-level/) We don’t even have a number of how many people he converted but you wanna use that as proof that all these racist fucks aren’t gonna stay that way?

Fine I will change my stance THE MAJORITY OF THESE FUCKS will continue to be the way they are unless there are serious consequences for the fucking behavior whether it’s getting expelled from college, losing their job or someone beating the ever living shit out of them. This is not me saying I condone violence but my point stands.

Nineteen:

Do you realize the KKK have been marching around the US before this? Do you realize the Nazism and all that was on the rise before this happened? Also when it comes to PoC people claim the victim narrative is bullshit but let it be the KKK and Neo-Nazis all of a sudden it’s got legitimacy that’s racist bullshit.

Their beliefs don’t change facts. Their history is racist. The KKK is racist. Neo-Nazism is racist. The Confederacy seceded for multiple reasons but one of them was RACISM. The fact that people are claiming to agree with them is just more proof that our country is racist but of course no one will go for that because these people are the actual ones trying to erase fucking history.

Things aren’t always black and white. Things don’t always happen because of racism but you acting like systematic oppression doesn’t exist is factually incorrect, moronic and doesn’t help shit in tearing down these systems in order to help people.

REMINDER: PUT YOUR RESPONSE UNDER A READ MORE

1 note · View note

knightofbalance-13 · 8 years ago

Text

Boss Battle: Vs. Sokumotaka 2

https://sokumotanaka.tumblr.com/post/161038682374/it-becomes-clear-just-how-far-the-white-fang-have

Oh god look it’s clear to me you people who keep sending these either can’t read or lack the ability to understand the situation going on in this show and how fucked up it is from a writing and social perspective.

Actually as we go on, we’ll see this is more of a case of you being incapable of understanding that one’s crimes does not justify another’s actions.

The whole “We’re not working with the evil side of the white fang would have been good cause RT is trying to emulate freedom fighting organizations and spitting on them. Literally did the underground railroad (Yeah remember how many innocent black people died to even get to that place to free themselves?) But ignore that miles and kerry can spit all over harriet tubman’s legacy. okay maybe I’m a bit annoyed about that but making the entire minority organization that originally wanted equality evil? Is a bad idea! http://glyndathegoodwitchofbeacon.tumblr.com/post/138657005354/the-white-fang

Mind showing us the connection between using a system of connections to lead freed slaves to freedom to a group that goes around killing innocent people and breaking up peaceful protests to attack humans for being humans? Because all I see is you trying to drag the writer’s through the mud and instead doing that to yourself.

And let’s take a look at that link shall we? The justification given for the White Fang’s actions is that they are treated like dirt by every human in Remnant. Not only is that not a reason to kill people in the first lace (I should know, having gone through a personal version of that before), not every human treats them that way. In fact, judging by how disdainfully Cardin is regarded, racism in current day Remnant is much like how racism is treated today: Prevalent but looked down upon. So that doesn’t excuse the White Fang’s actions against humans, let alone their actions of breaking up peaceful Fanaus protests like they did in Episode 1 of Volume 1 which cannot be excused by that. SO they have plenty of crimes that cannot be excused by what you give them.

So let’s talk about renegades: Adam torchwich a man who falsified a faunus white fang rally one where looking at it the faunus there weren’t bloodthirsty at all, in fact during his speech he talked about equality and overthrowing the government (remember the government that’s oppressing them.) and possibly replacing them with people who would actually give a damn about faunus rights and he tricked them into thinking a train/bomb was going to do it , not that it was below an inhabited city. So you wanna talk about lies then let’s bring him up too humans did their fair share. (Let’s not forget how he talked trash on the faunus race not the white fang but the *FAUNUS* during him and ruby’s last encounter. But I’m sure you’ll brush that off too.

... Who? IS it Adam or Roman? Because if it’s Roman than I can saw about how does this connect seeing as Adam was willing to blow up a train full of innocent humans in the first lace and agreed to work with Cinder when it benefited him. And if it’s Roman, the white Fang had to know what they were gonna do seeing as they had a train of explosives, a bunch of Grimm and tracks leading to Vale. And even then, I can point out that Roman never demanded the genocide of Fanaus, unlike Adam AKA a leader of the White Fang. And then there’s the fact that Roman is a villain and is supposed to represent the worst of humanity, not the majority so it’s not even justified that way.

Okay so we’re gonna base the entire white fang past present and future on a dumb “twirl my mustache oooh so evil.” scene? That’s asinine! Let us not forget again the white fang held peaceful protest (again which I support but you heathens only hear “Blah blah Racist.” again which I also stated the first time I brought up the white fang and even linked to post like this but ha who’s counting?) for “Despite being promised keyword PROMISED equality, the faunus were subjected to discrimination and hate.” -Blake belladonna

No one here is saying that. In fact, the very quote you have at the top talks about how the White Fang has fallen, showing that they were good once before. You’re the only person saying that they were bad past, present and future. We just acknowledged they have soured. And the White Fang ONCE held peaceful protest, they now actively BREAK up peaceful protest, meaning they now longer do that so the point is moot.

And yes, they were promised equality and they didn't get it. So the fuck what? You think that justifies the deaths of innocent people, numbering possibly in the hundreds if not thousands? A single innocent death is inexcusable and the White Fang has caused so much more than that with the attempted Train bombing and the fall of Beacon. Blake (that person you’re quoting) outright left them BECAUSE they were so murder happy. One of the most devoute members jumped ship because they got too radical. Says a lot.

And despite this (usually violating the terms of a treaty was to the writers justified to start all out wars and there has been wars on this that were *ahem* justified.) The faunus met this injustice with peaceful protesting for many many years so they reacted to this injustice for several years (double digits from what the show tells us) before retaliation.

Doesn’t matter how long they’ve suffered. The jewish people were enslaved by the egyphtans for centuries, the Christians were hunted and killed for centuries as well, the African Americans were enslaved for decades and discriminated against for decades more. It doesn’t matter how long your people has suffered: The killing of innocent life is never justified. And if I hear they deserved to die because they were human: That’s racist you asshole.

Way less than real life peaceful protesting last.

I can feel Martin Luther King Jr. rolling in his grave.

Think about this the white fang had justification for reigniting a full scale war for 20+ years but held back in favor of peaceful protesting, not to mention the literal murder of them because as the WOR stated “they looked different or threatening” so humans would hunt them down with NO again retaliation from the faunus until they stated “No we had enough.” and in the end what? got a small cramped island that’s mostly desert and lacking in resources? Yes what a gift for the murder of our loved one’s in which none of these people pay any consequences.

War is never justified because inevitably, innocent blood is spilled. Terrorism is never justified. Especially against a race of people which is what you are demanding. You are demanding that the human race pay for what they did to the Fanaus, even if said humans never did such a thing and even disagree with such a disgusting action. Those people who are all but on your side must pay because of their race correct? Sounds pretty racist to me.

So I mean if you want to say the white fang’s actions aren’t justified because they’re sadistic murderers, causing genocide well so we’re humans in that regard and no one reined them in when they shed so much blood so I think you sound like a hypocrite. The humans aren’t justified for their actions either.

No one ever said that they were. Ever heard of the concept of “Black and Black morality?” Where neither side is right and it ends u as two assholes punching each other? That’s what this is you idiot. The world isn’t some squeaky clean Black and white place.

In the end I just think making a splinter group that wasn’t 100% twirl my mustache evil would have been realistic, smart and a good call especially since so many people can relate to the white fang’s want of peace and equality, it makes them more sympathetic than the humans who lied to them about equality, oh did you gloss over that too?

But there IS members of the Fanaus race fighting for peace and equality instead of genocide and oppression. Blake, Sun, Ghira and Kali: They want TRUE equality and REAL peace but you ignore that and think that the White Fang should have been this handsome group of freedom fighters right? Well, time for a life lesson: Fight an enemy long enough and you BECOME that enemy. You adapt their style, their attitude and their ways. It happens in real life: Deal with it.

Lastly let’s squash the idea right now that you can’t like villains (Let’s just call them that in case your thick skull doesn’t register that.) I’m sorry but after several of this same message from the same person? I think you’re kinda pigheaded. Anyway let’s squash the idea that you can’t like villainous characters, people like frieza from dbz who’s racist, people like S.U villains who view humans as trash and you jerks like cinder who attacked and is now using the white fanus for murder and stuff because before she took over there wasn’t a single murder only dust stealing but hey let’s not give cinder any blame she’s too sexy.

Ah yes but the White Fang were hurting people long before Cinder came around: She just gave them better guns. Before Cinder, Adam tried blowing a train full of innocent humans. Who forced his hand there? It had to be forced since Blake outright asked about the humans. It’s not like Adam wanted to kill every human he could find because he’s a genocidal bastrad who deserves to be put down like a rapid dog. It was never said that the WHite Fang didn’t kill people before Cinder and Adam tried to before Cinder so no excuses there.

But hey, let’s not blame Adam. He’s oppressed uwu

Christ! Do yourself a favor and just do what I do: Just say everyone on remnant is a little bit of an asshole. And again for the last time leave me out of it, I already debunked this same argument like 3 times come up with some new material.

Really? Because from where I am sitting, sick and in the middle of the night, I just tore your debunk apart in a matter of minutes. Kind of shows how shit your argument is at it’s very basis.

Considering the fact that people like Ruby and Jaune exist on Renment, people who have done nothing but try to help others, I refuse to say that. I will not hold them accountable for the actions of people they don’t know or agree with just because they share the same race. That’s stupid and wrong. Just like you.

#rwde bullshit

24 notes · View notes

duaneodavila · 6 years ago

Text

Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings: Day 2

Well that was a hell of a Day 1, wasn’t it?

Despite the excitement for procedure nerds, not much of substance really happened — they only got through opening statement. But, at long last here we are at Day 2, when the actual questions begin. I’m sure Brett Kavanaugh will hear questions about Roe v. Wade, executive power, guns and *maybe* sexual harassment.

So let’s go through some of the best tweets that legal Twitter has to offer on what’s going on today (we’ll be updating this story throughout the day with the latest and greatest as the hearings continue):

Grassley notes that "no one is above the law." Kavanaugh resists natural urge to say, "except the president, of course."

— Joe Patrice (@JosephPatrice) September 5, 2018

Grassley and Kavanaugh move quickly to inoculate him against expected Democratic questions on U.S. v Nixon and protecting president. Here's a previous story on the issue https://t.co/jGMLByJV32

— Robert Barnes (@scotusreporter) September 5, 2018

"Let them have their free speech" Chairman Grassley says wearily about protesters who keep interrupting Kavanaugh. (Protesters are being arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, for what it's worth)

— Byron Tau (@ByronTau) September 5, 2018

Grassley's giving a stellar case for why he should have confirmed Merrick Garland right now.

— Joe Patrice (@JosephPatrice) September 5, 2018

Judge Kavanaugh: My personal beliefs are not relevant to how I decide cases. Role of precedent is to ensure stability & predictability in the law, which is critically important. People rely on decisions of the courts. Precedent reinforces independence & impartiality of judiciary.

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 5, 2018

#Kavanaugh says #SCOTUS precedent required his decision, but his colleagues disagreed. Here's what Judge Ginsburg said: "[u]nlike our dissenting colleague, we read Heller straightforwardly. [SCOTUS] there left open and untouched even by implication the issue presented . . . .” pic.twitter.com/D1oGyN0fTP

— Brianne Gorod (@BrianneGorod) September 5, 2018

Feinstein's decision to start with guns appears to be paying dividends as Kavanaugh argues that AR-15s and the like cannot be regulated under the constitution because they are widely-owned. (There's a passage in Scalia's decision in Heller that says essentially the opposite.)

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) September 5, 2018

Shorter @SenFeinstein: "Are you a Republican?"#Kavanaugh: "Yup." Feinstein: "I don't like that." Kavanaugh: "k"

*This* is why the Dems didn't walk out of the hearing? For this?

— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) September 5, 2018

Kavanaugh: "I don't know what you mean by the Bush White House." Neither did Bush.

— Eric Segall (@espinsegall) September 5, 2018

Kavanaugh notes that Roe "has been reaffirmed many times … most importantly in Planned Parenthood v Casey."

Kavanaugh: "I understand the importance of the issue. … I don't live in a bubble. I live in the real world."

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) September 5, 2018

Kavanaugh explains how 9/11 completely changed his worldview. Originalism in action!!!

— Joe Patrice (@JosephPatrice) September 5, 2018

Judge Brett Kavanaugh clarifies his position on United States v. Nixon, which he considers one of the four great moments in #SCOTUS history (Marbury, Youngstown, Brown, Nixon). #KavanaughConfirmation

— David Lat (@DavidLat) September 5, 2018

After months of watching nominees get beat up over Brown v. Board, Kavanaugh's bending over backward to keep giving it lip service.

— Joe Patrice (@JosephPatrice) September 5, 2018

Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Gorsuch used the same playbook: 1. Profess loyalty to precedent in Senate hearings 2. Overturn precedent once on the bench. We can’t accept vague promises from Brett Kavanaugh when women’s reproductive freedom is at stake.

— Sen Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) September 5, 2018

Why is it OK for Kavanaugh to say whether US v Nixon (1974) was rightly decided but not to say whether Roe v Wade (1973) was rightly decided? Both are controversial cases of a similar vintage that are likely to affect SCOTUS decisions while Kavanaugh is on the bench

— Daniel Hemel (@DanielJHemel) September 5, 2018

Real problem for Kavanaugh:

"I have never taken a position on the Constitution" on question of president being subject to criminal process (reply to @SenFeinstein). He says wrote only advice for Congress.

That's not accurate, as Bob Bauer and I wrote:https://t.co/WE9odbokeJ

— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) September 5, 2018

Kavanaugh refusing to answer @SenFeinstein’s direct Q abt whether US v Nixon was correctly decided. He says he cannot answer this Q that could come before him. He answered it outside hearing rm at a public event that it may have been wrongly decided. Why won’t he answer it now?

— Vanita Gupta (@vanitaguptaCR) September 5, 2018

Was Watergate tapes rightly decided? "Yes," Kavanaugh says, calling AP's and others' reports that he had questioned outcome out of context. Kavanaugh also refuses to says whether a president could be subpoenaed in a criminal case

— Mark Sherman (@shermancourt) September 5, 2018

Hatch asks what loyalty he owes to Trump

Kavanaugh says he owes loyalty to the constitution

This exchange is exactly why people hate these hearings and call them meaningless

— Jessica Mason Pieklo (@Hegemommy) September 5, 2018

Sen. Hatch asks if J.Kav will be independent if a Trump case comes before him. J.Kav answers saying he is an independent judge and always has been. I agree-he will be independent. The harder Q is if J.Kav was picked b/c of his preexisting views on these Qs and Pres power/subpoena

— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) September 5, 2018

As Hatch questions Kavanaugh, try to follow this flow:

Judge Kavanaugh, President Bush's former Staff Secretary, recommended Rob Porter, Orrin Hatch's Chief of Staff, to be Trump's Staff Secretary.

— Mike Sacks (@MikeSacksEsq) September 5, 2018

Kavanaugh then cites a Greenhouse NYT piece on the lack of women law clerks at SCOTUS.

Kavanaugh said that made him think about what he could do about this problem

— Jessica Mason Pieklo (@Hegemommy) September 5, 2018

Hatch says Koz questions amount to "guilt by association." Kavanaugh did, you know, help run Kozinski's hiring process. But now he acts like he barely met the guy.

— Joe Patrice (@JosephPatrice) September 5, 2018

Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings: Day 2 republished via Above the Law

0 notes

llonelly · 7 years ago

Text

Dude gencys arnt any better I have been called the f slur by one of them and harressed for almost a year. Literally I’m very well known in the pm fandom I’m know for fluff and I literally seen no one say this that activitly ship pm,and some gencys sent me “mercy is straight"relpys and anons to me all the time,do u approve of that? U should treat people as individuals themselves ,those gencys were aholes but I know not every shipper is like that u need to not group

,no one is innocent in this and pls don’t tag the ships either it’s very rude my guy :( it is ur opinion but when pm shippers track this tag thye wanna see fluff I use this ship as a getaway not a way to argue with a perosn who doesn’t like it ,and why would u tag it if u didn’t want people to hound u? Not tagging the ship in shiphate is common courtesy. Did u want ur followers to know ur opinion? Cool👌but don’t tag but slashes in names I’m not trying to be mean but u need to know u did make a mistake with tagging it as a ship(and I’m definitely not gonna start arguing that gency has more chemistry I personally disagree) I could possibly care less who ship u hated on it could have been gency and I would of still told ya to tag it

And honey what are u doing now? Shoving ur opinion down throats when like (not to be mean but it’s honest) shippers didn’t ask u know?its popular what u expect? I barely seen mchanzo cuz I didn’t follow blogs that post that content and don’t go into the tags and if u saying it’s all over the overwatch tag?then yeah it’s overwatch content what ya expect blacklist if possible like on desktop and ignore I dislike mercy/kill/76 but I don’t post hate or hate towards shippers I just really dislike the ship and don’t shove my opinion down the shipper throats

Edit since I just noticed: u support our rights? Freedom of speech or our marriage rights? What would u not support it if a LGBT member was mean to ya? Why even bring this up

unpopular opinion

i don’t like mchanzo and pharmercy

like mchanzo doesnt make sense to me, but most of its shippers are cool (id just see them as buds, not dating)

but pharmercy makes sense but most of the shippers ive seen claim gency as the devil and that whoever ships them is homophobic; like shut the fuck up, i support your rights but i just see that gency has more lore and chemistry

so yeah not all of yall are like that, but a lot are please dont kill me. another reason i dont ship them is because they keep on getting shoved down my throat

also one last note: shipping all gay ships does not make you a better person

#really childish and unneeded #i really wanna know why u tag the ships? cuz at first glance it looks like ur trying to start stuff #and idk what ur intention was so sorry if this is false #and one more point me cant really tell people to stop being assholes #an asshole pm shipper is probably not honna listen to me to stop being an asshole its unrealtisc we arnt responisble for other people #big reply since i ahve just gotten tired if all this 'im more hated for my ship' cuz no i have bad stuff happen to me cuz i ship pm #at people reading this dont be mean or rude to tgis perosn ok tgye made a mistake and can grow from it #discourse #just in case no one wants to see this

114 notes · View notes

fiftycucks-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Fifty Grand & Distance Decay Discuss Antifa and Freedom of Speech

DISTANCE DECAY ok let's un pack this -

FIFTY GRAND It’s easy. I don’t support what antifa is doing Especially last night Gross and embarrassing Bunch of privileged college students breaking shit Then going back to the privacy of their homes And chillin maybe play some video games Nothing revolutionary Sorry Not fixing anything Not helping anyone Protesting milo yiannapoulous of all people It's a sad time for the left If this was coming from the right you damn well know you’d condemn it DISTANCE DECAY other people have opinions too - u can be anti violence urself but to not understand why people would oppose fascism with violence is what i'm not understanding - i believe u said on ur own facebook something about those complicit in the holocaust FIFTY GRAND But dude Milo isn't a fascist Come on This is bad If you can prove to me That milo is a fascist I’ll fall back Forever

DISTANCE DECAY ummm are you speaking for me now? u don't kno my politics - so let's not assume and ask eachother questions the tweet u quoted wasn't about milo it was about anti fascism FIFTY GRAND Right But who destroyed property and hurt people last night Innocent people Antifa So I'm trying to understand Why you think that's ok We aren't talking about literal Nazis

DISTANCE DECAY 1. i believe there's reports of yianopolos supporters and antifa 2. i'm personally not for violence where in do i say i'm okay with what happened last night again the tweet was about anti fascism FIFTY GRAND I'm talking about Milo tho Not his supporters DISTANCE DECAY and i thought we agreed not to assume? i'm all for talking here, ur feelings are valid i don't want u to feel as if they're not FIFTY GRAND I'm just responding to you DISTANCE DECAY i could just as easily say i'm speaking of anti fascism as an ideology not those who carry it out FIFTY GRAND You and I both know what the original tweet refers to Antifa The org And to go back to your original question I'm not neutral or pro DISTANCE DECAY are you pulling tribalism on me? FIFTY GRAND The fuck lmao ?? DISTANCE DECAY i just woke up - i mean this sincerely the "you and i both" confused me to the tweet earlier - i saw the police language tweet - i don't want u to feel that censoring u, just showing how i feel, but i don't want u to feel unvalidated in ur feelings either FIFTY GRAND No I get that. But like. If I wanna say the word cuck I can I'm not politically correct I don't feel the need to be Besides you keep bringing that up, did you not even see who I was responding to that day? Someone who was attacking my character and music as a comeback Yea I shut them down And I don't care It wasn't discourse DISTANCE DECAY yeah u can, and i've seen u use it other times also on facebook but still i'm not gonna tell u what u can or can not say just so i can understand this we agree people can say what they want - correct? but i don't think that means freedom of consequences from that speech i.e. someone responding to u - which is very different from censorship FIFTY GRAND Let me ask you something What do you think was accomplished last night DISTANCE DECAY honestly - i just woke up so i don't kno the full extent of what happened, outside of the quick search i made when milo kept being brought up so i think that brings us to our earlier point - antifa destruction of property caused harm to innocent people, milos followers emboldened by his speeches brought harm intentionally to those whose identities they feel have no place FIFTY GRAND Ok I see where we disagree I don't believe that speech is oppressive I used to But I don't anymore He has the right to his speech Which is just about feminism and men's rights , sometimes Islam If you listened to his speeches you'd see it's pretty clear he's just a gay Jew supporting free speech on college campuses DISTANCE DECAY i don't think i said the speech was oppressive however i think that to say it's unequivocally not would be against a very common definition of the word - mental stress or despair - as well as not taking into account the way it can spread and be internalized thru socially learned behaviors - and that humans are creatures of socialization - i think u like psychology so think genie, victor FIFTY GRAND Ok true, I think words can be used as violence, psychologically But I think oppression is more systematic DISTANCE DECAY i think defining our terms is always helpful - i do believe systemic oppression is real and bad - so i think ignoring the psychological aspect would be a disservice to how social organization is formed - given that humans run these systems, learn and reproduce these oppressive values from other humans falls chimed in a lil here -milo and his supporters can arguably represent a cultural shift that has happened in the us in the right-wing (i.e. altright). it's fair to say that this shift is also part of the reason trump was elected, as he was championed by the altright. basically: at what point does this ideology and rhetoric stop being systemic when the elected president is espousing the same type of rhetoric? isn't that the definition of systemic?

i also believe language plays a huge role in shaping culture tho i am a descriptivist at heart 😋 FIFTY GRAND Not everyone who supports trump is alt-right tho. In fact it's majority rust belt people, poor people who hate the establishment. The alt right is a fringe movement and you're only seeing that because the media is blasting it everywhere And I see you co-signing tweets about me being a victim but you've totally ignored the fact that hella people ARE coming at me And bet you wouldn't even publically denounce me being called a Nazi Ur totally silent there And I find that incredibly problematic If you believe language can shape culture why are you okay with throwing the labels fascist and Nazis round so freely? Because now it just means anyone who disagrees with you Trump was not elected by the alt right Half of America is not the alt right Trust me You're a very smart person, how can you not see the irony in what Antifa is doing? How is it you can bend over backwards to justify it all You know it's only going to get worse People will be harmed Innocent people Every time I tweet on my own platform you see how people react. It is not unfair to assume that I might be subject to violence in the near future But this is the climate you support DISTANCE DECAY 1. i think falls said part of 2. wouldn't that be antithetical to ur argument in free speech ? 3. how far does free speech absolutism go for you? in so far as it hurts your feelings? 4. i think it is a problem when people going throwing these things leading to witch hunts etc, as it is to make generalizations about islam, referring to this as an isolated incident etc. 5. no where do i define it as anyone who disagrees with me - i believe the examples i gave lend itself more to those who are white nationalists 6. half of america may not be alt right but that doesn't change that they champion him nor that bannon is in the white house

i don't believe you are actually a nazi or a fascist, however as much as this might make u go "language police!" i think the language u use is irresponsible - as u have people in ur mentions coming at u i had people in mine from our last convo about islam telling me how muslims do not have a right to exist coming at me - i care about u and i'm sorry i hurt ur feelings - i think maybe there's a lack of linear thinking going on here and i'm having an issue proving my point without indulging in ur methods - which ultimately is antithetical to my own but i'm at a loss for getting it across with my words so i'm trying ur method FIFTY GRAND What language of mine is irresponsible? And what are my methods Lol All I have done is talked Used my words And I'm not understanding the free speech absolutism thing. It's actually your belief that if feelings are hurt we should silence Not mine. It seems very shallow to think that changing language will do anything to rectify deep seated beliefs DISTANCE DECAY ur method of saying and doing whatever u want because "i'm not PC" - whatever that means as i find this is another statement that requires careful unpacking FIFTY GRAND Like, do you think telling people to stop saying faggot on the playground is going to stop homophobia? It will not These are deep rooted issues Speech doesn't even begin to cover And I don't say and do whatever I want to defy all that is PC I simply don't think PC culture is conducive to learning and our democratic way of life DISTANCE DECAY not cover - i don't have all the answers here but again i think language has a huge role in shaping culture - so it is a factor FIFTY GRAND Would you police me for calling myself a tranny? Cuz I do I like that word and I reclaim it DISTANCE DECAY no - again you can say what you want i thought we agreed on this earlier? FIFTY GRAND Did we? Ok DISTANCE DECAY but that doesn't mean that others won't say and do stuff as well maybe not that's why i said thought - are you arguing just to argue at this point? we can stop here maybe have a phone call sometime or go to a library FIFTY GRAND No of course I'm not haha I know it's hard to interpret And yea I'm passionate and a little worked up But I don't feel like I'm tryna argue Just lay down my fundamental beliefs DISTANCE DECAY that's ok - i feel broken honestly FIFTY GRAND Me too, and we both feel very strongly that our way is the right one So there is only so much we can say to one another We will have to agree to disagree and I'm always ok with that I think I should say-- I've been very critical of the left recently which you've noticed, and it's because it's my party and I'm seeing so much division I feel like I'm watching it all fall apart And I want to critique it in hopes that people will hear me out Because I've spent most of my time critiquing the right in the past I feel I need to turn to my own party and say what's going on guys??? Sadly I'm not sure how much I can keep doing it, people want to silence me. And I'm not trying to play victim I'm being as honest as I can be, I really do feel ostracized And sure maybe I am getting in my feels, we all are tho DISTANCE DECAY i think where i myself maybe am confused/take issue is when u publicly tweet these beliefs- there is an objective tone taken, doubled by the calling out others for bias - then you go back editing/rewording them to something at the end after

example : take the "islam is bad argument" which is how ur words read to me and many others at first- i had a lot of people in ny mentions saying muslims should not exist - after hours u reposted ur thoughts saying using religion to justify horrific acts on people is wrong - which i think better portrays what u we're trying to say and i agree with but was not clearly articulated by the first string of tweets - and after so many with hateful thoughts found their confirmation bias already- and felt empowered and yes i think a lot of this stems from us getting emotional - which is fine we are human which i why i don't understand the triggered thing *in general * not with you and i think it's great to critique the left ! but i think your thoughts don't come clearly out at first - like so personally when u tweeted how is no one critiquing obama on immigration? - my twitter is full of leftist who criticized obama and personally i know of and know those who were deeply affected by ICE etc - again i think it's just the words we use maybe confuse us

FIFTY GRAND Yeah that's totally a fair critique of my tweets, I concede I need to do better DISTANCE DECAY we all do sorry that was so scatter brained the immigration policy under him really hit close to home - and it hit a weird thing bc getting rid of these binary thoughts/looking at life as grey - sad/anxious DT is coming to office but still not wanting to silence those who really suffered as a result under him - i couldn't find the words FIFTY GRAND I tweet my beliefs and I try to engage w those who disagree to a degree but also I don't wanna reinforce stuff I don't agree with, so I shouldn't act like I'm so diplomatic lol cuz I'm not DISTANCE DECAY yes i feel u - and finding the perfect words in 140 characters or less is very difficult - but given the current climate is so important FIFTY GRAND Right. But at the same time Usually something will upset me so I tweet about it, ppl inevitably disagree and then it helps me, by the end of the "rant" usually my stance changes a little or at least opens itself to others But I start out hella strong And that's probably not the best way Something that upsets me tho is that the narrative seems to be that bc I don't support the violence, that I'm automatically the opposition And thats a rough one to me DISTANCE DECAY i don't have the answers :/ personally vulnerability has been the strongest key for me learning FIFTY GRAND It does make me angry but I think before that it makes me a bit sad and fearful. Anger is just my cover up DISTANCE DECAY i think it reads that way bc you haven't spoken on other issues in a long time - which can lead to confusion or assumption - and granted left is your party this is twitter and people don't kno that

simple explicit statements grounded in reflectivity and reflexivity - subjectivity of language taken in account - is very hard for me :/ FIFTY GRAND Very true This might sound weird but is there any way I can like, transcribe this convo and maybe share it? Cool if not , it definitely sounds odd to ask DISTANCE DECAY and yeah that's fine thank you for asking FIFTY GRAND I won't alter it in any way unless there's something you'd want me to omit. DISTANCE DECAY umm i think it's good to go idk throw me 2 the lions *joke* ^^ FIFTY GRAND 😂

#ANTIFA #FIFTY GRAND #DISTANCE DECAY

1 note · View note

infamisparrhesiastes · 5 years ago

Text

hi friends. we r writing u 2day 2 inform u that we hav been sensored on social media, specifically facebook. fb has banned us from posting until monday @ 20:00. this is due 2 us sharing unpopular opinions. it is our opinion that our first amendment right, "the right 2 free speech, along w/religion, press, peaceable assembly & petition". this is a direct violation of the US Constitution & is a slippery slope leading 2 the deterioration of the freedoms that this nation is supposed 2 stand 4 & the erosion of our ability 2 discuss & defend this usurpation of humanity!!!

in the face of this absolute inefficacy, we r looking 2 those we know who still care about thr right 2 think & believe wut they choos, or 2 evn hav open public discussions about ideas that may contradict popular belief, please help us reach mor ppl & begin a much needed movement in society & civilization 2 defend the vry ideologies the nation that we immediately reside in was supposedly built 2 protect! we hav a message that we wud like supportrs of freedom 2 share 4 us, & 4 yourselves, not onky on fb, but across as many social media platforms as possible in ordr 2 encourage as many lovers & defenders of freedom as possible 2 really make a viable difference in the world. this is our opportunity as individuals 2 defeat the powerlessness of divded individuality & come 2gethr 2 show the tru power in the unity of diverse individuals, individuals who may not c everything the same way & who may disagree over plenty of things, but who all share the appreciation of being able 2 b themselves, think, feel, & act in peace as they choos! we hav crafted the following message, only as a basic foundation of our message. we invite u 2 augment it 2 fit your purposes or intentions, so long as they remain in support of freedom of thot feeln & expression & against censorship & fascism, & 2 please tag us in the post, as we r, like i stated previously, banned from posting or sharing on our own profile on a website established & thriving in & on a nation whos values & standards r being blatently violated & trampled upon by said website.

the message:

"i, 'your name', hereby state my grievance & protest against the inefficacious, intolerant, & discriminatory censorship practices being conducted by FACEBOOK, that is perpetuating ignorance, fear, bullying, & potentially violence against individuals who express thots, feelns, views & opinions contrary to popularly accepted belief. i stand with JAMBER FOESAD & refrain from contributing to such a community until JAMBER FOESAD & those alike r freed from facebook jail, & will continue to petition against any & all censorship of expression & sharing of thots, feelns, ideas, & opinions in a peacefull way & intention."

0 notes

ecotone99 · 6 years ago

Text

[FN] Judgement (Dark Fantasy)

This is my first attempt at writing, so please be gentle. Constructive criticism is always welcome.

“Humans have always had the potential to use magic. The problem was unlocking those powers. Throughout time there have always been a few people who managed to unlock theirs by themselves. Their lives often became grounds for myths and legends, sometimes even religions. But there were others, a secret society of magicians, maintaining their secrecy through strict rules and memory manipulation. They believed it to be irresponsible to unleash the power of magic upon humanity. Whenever someone unlocked their powers, they tried to introduce them into their society before the new magicians did something too blatantly obvious to completely cover up. Evidently they didn't always succeed, otherwise we wouldn't have those myths and legends...”

You wake up on the couch and take a look at your watch. Eh, one hour of sleep is better than none. You shrug your shoulders. That documentary still running?... Yep... Let's see, what are they talking about now?

“In the 2000s it became increasingly harder to cover up their existence. Although it is possible to manipulate the pictures a camera takes, there's an ever increasing amount and noticing all of them got harder and harder. Even detection magic isn't perfect.”

You get up and start to brew some coffee while you listen to the narrator from your kitchen.

“So those in power in this magic society decided it was time to introduce the whole of humanity to magic. The world's leaders were contacted and the information carefully released. Centres were built with the sole purpose of unlocking people's magic and training them how to use their newfound abilities.”

You take a sip of your coffee, grimacing from the headache. “Where did I put it?.... Ah, there it is!”, you talk to yourself as you proceed to empty the formerly quarter-full bottle of whiskey into your cup. You take a big gulp, “Ah, better”, and continue to listen to the documentary.

“The world entered a new golden age: Technologies were revolutionized, concepts of science reworked, entire new branches of science came to be. The magic society itself was also affected by the change: Where before most needed to recite lengthy formulas to get their magic to work and only a few very accomplished magicians knew the secrets to freely wield their magic by thoughts alone, now almost everyone is able to do just that after those secrets were released to the public.”

“That was a fucking dumb idea by the way!”, you yell at the screen. Well, at least the headache's gone now.

“But not all people used magic only to simplify their lives. Inspired by comic books and drunk on their abilities many emerged as so called 'villains' who terrorized the people with weaker magic powers. Fortunately many others felt their call to be 'heroes' and defended the people. The one truly deserving of this title was 'Judge', a hero whose magic 'Righteous Fury' rendered all he considered to be evil unconscious while healing the innocent. Judge disappeared 3 years ago without a trace and many considered him to be dead.

But now Judge is back! He called our channel a week ago and told us he'd give a speech on the reasons for his disappearance! Today 20:00 live, only on our channel!”

Wow, they just took that documentary and slapped the announcement on it? Lazy bastards. You cringe at your superhero name. 'Judge'? What was I thinking? That sounds just dumb. Same with the spell 'Righteous Fury'... Fucking dumb teenage me...

You once found it cool to yell your spell's name while snapping your fingers to activate the magic. Of course there was no need for either to activate a spell. You dropped the yelling as you grew older. But the snap stayed. You don't know why exactly, but you liked it. There's also the point that she'd be disappointed if you dropped it... You shake your head. No time for this kind of thoughts. You shut down the TV and put on your costume. It's already 19:00 and you still aren't at the studio. “I bet they are panicking like it's the end of the world”, you chuckle. Well, it is. At least in a way. But of course they don't know that yet. You let yourself fall to the ground, only to emerge from the floor in the studio. You always liked this style of teleportation. The feeling of falling. It reminds you of freedom. Also a bit of dying. Doesn't matter. It's time for work. Showtime.

You look at the camera as the timer is ticking down. 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... GO! As the spotlights converge on you, you enter the stage. You swallow hard; you know what you have to do.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome.

First and foremost I want to apologize to everyone. To all those ... who lost a loved one, ... because I didn't help. To everyone ... who needed help ... and did not receive it, ... because I wasn't there. To everyone of you, ... I want to say: I am deeply, deeply sorry!”

You take a deep breath; this is going to be harder than you thought.

“But I don't only want to apologize to you, I also want to explain to you why I disappeared. And: I will make a promise. As for the explanation: Until three years ago, I was the most popular hero in the world. Some called me the greatest hero in the world, but I have to disagree on that one. I may have been the most popular one, or the most powerful one, but definitely not the greatest one. Of course back then I did think of myself as the greatest hero ever. I had developed a spell that rendered everyone in my vicinity, who I deemed evil, unconscious. I didn't even have to see them for the magic to take effect. The name of that spell, 'Righteous Fury', is an expression of my arrogance back then. I thought no one would ever be able to match me. Turns out, they didn't have to.

I got a package to my home address. A package addressed not to my real name, but to Judge. Someone had found out my real identity. This alone would have been problem enough. But even more disturbing than this realization were the contents of said package: A flash drive containing a certain video. A video showing a little girl... being tortured to death. An innocent little girl being tortured ... until her little body simply ... gave up. I sometimes wish I never watched it all. But I also know that I could never forgive myself if I didn't. I owed it to her... As if the message wasn't clear enough by then, there was a note next to the flash drive. 'If you ever show yourself again, in public or otherwise, there will be more like her', it said. I was already pretty messed up by then, but they managed to take it another step further: Over the next few days several more packages arrived. No more videos, no more notes, just ... parts... My wife couldn't deal with it, so she left... I don't blame her, I couldn't deal with it either...

Now you know why I disappeared.”

You look around. The whole studio seems ... frozen. Nobody moves, nobody says anything. Just ... silence. As time stretches, you continue.

“Now for my promise: I promise ... that I will never let something like this happen ever again! I spent the last 3 years creating ... something. A new spell. One that will ensure that evil never get's its way again...

I have a message ... for all you villains watching this: Congratulations. You won. You broke me. Not only once, but again and again and again... You won. You killed the hero. I have no right to call myself that anymore, ... not when I'm about to do what I'm about to do. Just remember: You were the ones ... who made the first move. You came after a little girl ... when you realized ... you couldn't beat me... You opened my eyes.

Now when I look around, all I see is pain ... and hate ... and suffering... And I realized: There are no rules... There never were... And there never will be, ... unless I do something about it... What I'm about to do ... is only the logical conclusion ... to what you started.

You have no one to blame for this but yourselves. You brought this upon yourselves.”

And with this you teleport home. There's nothing more to say. And there is only one thing left to do.

Your new spell is more powerful than anything the world has seen before. Like 'Righteous Fury' it works on everyone you deem evil, ... but on a global scale. And it doesn't just render your targets unconscious. It kills them. And it traps their souls in eternal torment. An everlasting, illusory hell. Almost everlasting. It will only end, when the spell runs out of power.

Once activated, the spell will continuosly reapply itself to the world for as long as it has enough magic power. The trapped souls will be its power source. The power provided by a single soul lasts for about 10 years. On average. Maybe someday it will run out of power. You doubt it. There will always be evil.

But first ... you have to start it.

And the spell requires ... more ... than just magic power.

It requires ... a sacrifice.

A life.

Your life.

After all, you designed it this way.

It's for the best.

Probably.

At least you'll finally be able to rest.

You look around your home a final time.

Pictures of your family.

The toys your daughter spread across the living room.

You draw out your magic power, once more mesmerized by how vast it is compared to everyone else's.

What was it good for? In the end, has it brought me anything except pain?

You weave your magic a final time, a deadly but beautiful piece of art.

The spell looks more stunning but also more terrifying than anything you've seen before.

This is it.

A painful smile creeps across your face.

And as you snap your fingers, you utter your final words into your empty home, “Happy birthday, sweetie... Papa's finally coming for you!”

submitted by /u/Lantami [link] [comments] via Blogger http://bit.ly/2YeNWNY

#Blogger #Story

0 notes

carolinemillerbooks · 4 years ago

Text

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/social-concerns/finding-common-ground/

Finding Common Ground

Few would argue against the notion that under Donald Trump’s Presidency, American democracy has been tested at all levels of government. How far that testing has gone is a cause for concern for many. Recently, Chuck Schumer, Minority leader in the U. S. Senate, fired a salvo across the bow of the U. S. Supreme Court, threatening Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch about their upcoming votes that might overturn abortion rights in an upcoming Louisiana case. “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Chief Justice Roberts responded with a warning of his own. “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.” Meanwhile, the outgoing President, Donald Trump, a man who has shown contempt for the courts, stirs the pot with his tweets over with Schemer’s outburst. If abortion were the sole issue at stake, the country might survive the bloodletting, but other issues, like gun control, First Amendment rights, and religious freedom are also at stake. People on the political far left and right are accusing one another of redefining the Constitution. To find a middle ground is difficult because so little trust exists between factions. A form of brinkmanship has settled among us like poison gas. The threats, the defiance, the acts of violence along the political spectrum begin to sound less like demands to right a wrong and more like the crazed cacophony of a society longing for extinction. Witness the Christian singer who, despite the pandemic, defends his open-air concerts as an expression of his religious rights. His model is obvious. Trump’s assault on the peaceful transfer of power gives the singer license to pervert the norms of religious freedom. Finding common ground with those of bad faith takes more than a stretch. As of yet, I have no idea how to accomplish it. Still, those of good faith, despite a difference of opinion, must try. To that end, I decided to read Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s words about conservatism in his speech of November 12, 2020, to the Federalist Society. Let me admit I have no law degree but read his comments as a citizen to whom the law applies—someone who, through representative government has a voice in determining what is a reasonable and unreasonable law. That voice has belonged to every citizen since the tea party rebellion in 1773 when our forbearers raised the cry, No taxation without representation. Alito began his speech by explaining the role of a conservative judge: “to conserve our Constitution and the rule of law.” I suspect a liberal judge like Ruth Bader Ginsberg would reply Alito had defined the role of every judge. If so, then I had found common ground. Nor did I imagine Ginsberg would object to Alito’s description of current conditions in the country. That “…tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply” I also agree. Intolerance has put the rule of law under pressure. Alito added the current pandemic had exacerbated the difficulty. “We have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive, and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020.” Here, I disagree. Age takes its privilege for I lived through the deprivations of World War 11, a duration of 7 years. By contrast, the pandemic of the past several months only requires that we wear masks, wash our hands, and practice social distancing. Nonetheless, Alito was correct in his next observation that in a time of crisis, power flows to the executive branch of government. Franklin Delano Roosevelt held the nation in his palm when I was growing up. Fortunately for the country, he was an honest broker with good intentions. He resisted the temptation to promulgate excessive emergency regulations that drew power to himself at the expense of our fundamental freedoms. To describe the appropriate use of executive power, Alito discussed a 1905 Supreme Court ruling concerning a Cambridge, Massachusetts ordinance. It required citizens to submit to vaccinations during a smallpox outbreak. Alito argued the high court’s decision to uphold the ordinance was correct because it “targeted a problem of a limited scope.” I admit his conclusion puzzled me. How size affected individual rights or the notion of equal treatment under the law was unclear. Nor did his discussion of other cases further illuminate. For lack of time and space, I touch upon only one of his examples to illustrate my confusion. Like the smallpox case, it addressed individual rights versus the rights of a community. A gay couple brought a complaint before the court against a baker who’d refused an order for their wedding cake. He cited his religious objection to homosexuality as his reason. Offended, the couple sued the man and in court their attorney argued religious freedom was no defense because it could be used to “justify all kinds of discrimination throughout, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust …” Alito conceded to his audience that the attorney had a point. Claims of religious freedom could be used to serve bigotry. But in the baker’s case, the judge saw “no evidence that anybody has been harmed.” Cakes were readily available elsewhere in the community. I gasped at Alito’s conclusion, however. Did he fail to see that availability wasn’t the issue? At stake was the question of equal treatment in the public square. A business open to the public must serve all customers alike. No person should suffer the indignity of being turned out of an establishment on the off-chance the proprietor held views contrary to those of the customer. Yet Alito thought so well of his argument that he circled back to insist the injured party in the case was the baker. “The question was [sic] face is whether our society will be inclusive […]

#Brett Kavanaugh #brinksmanship #Chuck Schumer #Dopnald Trump #Federalist Society. Conservatism #Franklin Delano Roosevelt #John Roberts #Neil Gorsuch #originalism #Ruth Bader Ginsberg #Samuel Alito

0 notes