#ideologically too. but again maybe i'm just too serious about it.

[moe-broey]

Going to the mall as I am now (kinda punky/extremely autistic) is kinda funny like. That's a nice shirt. However, it's not one of my thousand beloved black graphic t shirts and it is such a texture and kind of a weird shape to it and honestly I don't really wanna buy any sort of fast fashion type shit or brand shit. Don't care. Oh they have patches. Kinda cute but straight up I can just make those. In fact, I would prefer to. Don't care. Also I'm not buying that.

[rei-ismyname]

X-Men #6 FROM THE ASHES

Last issue is starting to make a lot more sense - I think Jed McKay might have strong feelings about the Morrison era. Spoilers, obviously.

Hi Xorn! Hi Magneto! Good to have you join us. It's nice to see Magneto is progressive, polite and welcoming. It's still an ideological regression from where he was at in X-Men Red/RoM/Uncanny X-Men #700, but I guess he's mostly scenery in this comic sadly. As a fellow disabled burden on society I empathize with him, but I'd like to see him still be a character of focus. Otherwise, why put him in the book? It's a shame his moment makes Xorn look like a fool - is that really his first question? Dude is a fucking monk and these people are right there.

He's wearing his Morrison/Quitely uniform too, which is not a great comparison to be drawing imo. He was last seen hanging out with his brother and Legion in Way of X, but I suppose this is as good a place as any for him to be now. Hopefully we see more of him.

Look how much Quentin has grown since Riot at Xavier's. Or maybe he's depressed. Either way he's definitely looking sharp. Idie notices one of the protesters throwing up the M.

People want Beast to solve their problems but he doesn't have the same experience and knowledge as old Beast, not that X-FORCE Beast did any of that. It's a character beat, but one we've seen before. Maybe he'll learn magic again! Magik is still very defeatist it seems, and perhaps her determination is waning. Can't say I blame her.

Quiche is dope but jokes about it aren't. Not this millennium. The Glob/Quentin dynamic is another Morrison callback. Don't worry, there's plenty more this issue 🙄. One pitfall with light-hearted quippy nostalgia is it undermines serious events happening next to it and gives mood whiplash. Somehow Idie knows Ilyana is communicating secretly with her brother. It doesn't come up again. Based on how McKay has been seeding beats we'll find out in issue #10.

Okay, so we know Magik is smart and now Idie does too. It'd be nice if more of this team started acting like friends - maybe this is the start of something beautiful. I can't say I buy Magik undermining Cyclops on a whim but she lays out the dilemma then puts Idie in charge.

They walk into the trap by putting Cobb Sr to sleep. Idie's secret is pretty cute and an effective 'cost of magic' shorthand. I am wary that it refers to nostalgia about a time that was already hyper nostalgia, but I'm getting used to it. We get to see the Cobb family dynamic, utterly predictable.

I enjoy everything on this page.

- Cyclops and Psylocke sparring

- Expanding on Hank and Mags' budding relationship with reference to their history.

- Building on Beast's fear of becoming a monster again.

- Magneto being emotionally supportive.

No new information here, though I love a jab at Fabian Cortez. This is more of a reference than anything else, though it's good to see some self awareness from Max. Although, Cortez showed a lot of growth on Krakoa.

This is a nice moment too. This version of Hank was a massive horn dog. Not saying that's where it's going but he's gregarious and it does make sense to have him be welcoming to another non-passing mutant. Glob too, though he comes off as massive dork. We still don't know much about Jen or Ben which makes it hard to get invested. If they do stick around they'd be inflating a cast that's already being covered unevenly.

Okay, Piper is here and Scott isn't pleased. Idie would have a point but it would have taken 2 minutes to talk about it. Yeah she asked for help and came willingly but as Scott says she's a minor. Her home life looks miserable and tracks closely enough to many queer experiences, but society unfortunately says children are property. It sucks, but she needs support. Nobody wins when her mother calls the cops. Is this about Piper or Idie here? I would love to see Idie being the moral core of the team but this just makes her look naive and impulsive - which is at odds with her 15+ years of characterisation. She was in jail last year!

Piper reveals that the 'Wild Sentinel' was after her and the Iron Night was her 'fault.' It's left on a cliffhanger but let's hope this doesn't torch the X-Men's relationship with Merle, Alaska.

The Morrison thing - Psychic rescue, Quentin and Glob, scientists making mutants, Cassandra Nova, Xorn is still in his uniform from the time, wild sentinel mention (which is super bizarre and out of place.) It's a lot and I'm probably missing stuff. My question is who this is for? New readers will just be confused. Morrison super fans are more likely to roll their eyes, judging by responses to last issue.

Overall this issue was pretty good. It progressed the plot, gave us time with the 3 characters who'd been ghosts, introduced new information and setup conflict with the town for next issue. I really wish the creative team would get their batting average a little higher in terms of solid issues. 33.3% is low enough in the abstract to make me drop the book - and this is one of the better ones. I know we can do better than this and it disappoints me how aggressively mid the X-books are right now.

I'm starting to recognise the formula they're working off, with information dribbling out at a snail's pace to the point that any issue becomes skippable then ending on a cliffhanger that's rarely paid off quickly. Uncanny has the same issue, which makes me think it's an editorial problem. Hell, solicits usually give more information than issues do. I'm not talking about tropes, I'm talking about the narrative tricks that allow them to publish issues that move at a glacial pace and use nostalgia to disguise the characters not being developed. One can hope :)

[ritchiepage2001newaccount]

WHY UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE JUST AS UNLIKELY AS EVER, UNFORTUNATELY

I'm a leftist (Libertarian-Socialist), who votes progressive, because I live under an "elected" government, and I had thought I had purged the MSNBC/CNN Nation from my friends list, but apparently not, as my timeline is just chock-full of media-driven hysteria over current events, so here's a primer:

"Liberals" who think their arguments are clever or relevant to the Second Amendment are exhausting.

They are not the left; they are just one half of the good cop/bad cop act of the corporate owned fire-hose of bullshit that is the corporate media, and corporate America's governing criminal cartel/duopoly.

Both cults "I like simple and ineffectual 'solutions', because they make me feel like I'm doing something, and I'm just stinky with fear."

There are over a hundred million legal gun owners, who some want to punish for somebody else's crime.

Well, there are some things to consider.

We've been a heavily armed country since 1621, and yet the epidemic of daily mass-shootings didn't begin until 20 April 1999 (Columbine), at a time when gun ownership was at an all-time low, and five years after Clinton's assault-weapons ban, so maybe guns aren't the variable.

Worth noting: One of the first things the "Pilgrims" did when they betrayed the Native Americans, was disarm "King Phillip" and his men.

Maybe, just maybe, dead school-children are the price of the neoliberalism practiced under the "Washington Consensus" of BOTH right-wing authoritarian parties since the 1980's? When your country offers you no prospects, and you become terrified of the future, what then? Fear can make unstable people do desperate things. Add to that a culture of celebrity, and what could possibly go wrong?

Another factor that goes completely unexamined, is the way Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill emptied our state hospitals onto our streets, and onto families ill-equipped to deal with the sometimes violent mentally ill.

Thank God, the "solution" is so simple…

Also, 84% of NRA members support universal background checks. The problem is, every time a bill comes up for a vote, Democrats add poison pill amendments guaranteeing defeat in the legislature (and the courts), and then they proceed to tell the TV cameras that "once again the GOP and the gun lobby have voted down background checks and defied the will of the people", or some such nonsense.

If you want to watch Dems sabotage universal background checks (while Republicans roll their eyes and face-palm) in real time, go here:

P.S. You can probably guess which one of these three groups I belong to (Hint: It's the one that's growing and actually decides elections):

LaborPartyNow!!!

P S The line, "You don't need 30 rounds to shoot a deer!" is not clever.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting tools, toys for hobbyists (target shooting), or even weapons for self-defense.

It's about ARMS!!!

It's about the individual citizen's right to arms, so they'll be prepared to join a militia, not the other way around. ‘Well regulated’ at that time, simply meant, ‘efficient.’ In other words, in order for a muster to be efficient, civilians needed to be already armed.

So the "collective rights" argument has a couple of problems that make it quite unhinged from history and reality.

1) As I've mentioned above, Americans have always been relatively heavily armed. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?

2) Contrary to what you were probably taught in school, by the time of the Confederate artillery barrage on Fort Sumter, the war over slavery had already been going on for over six years, and was fought entirely by independent volunteer militia's. Fort Sumter was just the beginning of official involvement by government troops. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?

3) In what universe do government forces need to have their right to arms protected?

4) Since when do National Guard members keep National Guard arms (Hint: they're kept at the armory, and have been since colonial times)?

5) Obviously, "Liberals" are stupid.

Again: #LaborPartyNow!!!

P P S That was ENTIRELY the point of the first fruits of dissent, the 10 Amendments we've come to call the BILL OF RIGHTS (which have become a beacon to aspiring democrats all over the world), to protect INDIVIDUALS from the government they had just created. #TrueStory

[puppypeter]

RAAAHHHHHH your most recent bottom!Roy post is just *chefs kiss* PERFECTION!!!

I am endlessly fascinated by super masculine Alpha male type characters getting to bottom, and while slutty!Roy is a stroke of genius, I also LOVVVVEEE first time bottoming!Roy, because maybe its something hes always been peripherally interested in but because of his public persona/sports politics/internalised homophobia/internalised sexism, no one ever really ASKED, and he probably wouldnt have felt safe enough to try with a casual hookup even if they had.

ENTER JAMIE TARTT, PEOPLE PLEASER AND PRAISE SEEKER!

I do believe in my soul that Roy is a Dom, but I do think the intimacy and vulnerability of bottoming with Jamie would be something Roy would definitely be willing to explore. I think it would probably be super emotional and cathartic for Roy (and probably Jamie too, because could you imagine how overwhelming that kind of trust would be?), but both Roy and Jamie would really have to work up to it, because internalised homophobia is a complicated beast, and you can think you're not super effected by any ingrained ideologies until all of a sudden you're having a panic attack mid-Coitus.

There WILL be crying for both of them when they do finally work up to it though, that I know for absolute certain.

I still think Roy bottoming would probably be very rare though, even just purely because of how emotionally fraught the whole ordeal is, but I do think it would really be the kind of thing that just reaffirms how serious RoyJamie are about each other. Romantic sex that simultaneously unpacks our individual internalised issues, my absolute beloved ❤️

yay someone in my inbox screaming about bottom roy kent is what dreams are made of! 🥰🥰🥰

I agree with everything, there's many different ways it could be explored. Either as him becoming more and more stuck in his ways about sex too, like no I can't go back to that or even sadder, having a bad experience with someone, maybe a casual or not so casual partner making some comments that hurt deeper than they think and which make him swear to never trust someone that much again.

I also do love them being together, snuggling all warm and flushed and talking about the more vulnerable stuff and he (a little pouty and playing with his hands in a nervous manner in a similar fashion to jam tartt) wonders why would jamie assume he'd top though :( and he expect maybe jamie to laugh in a mocking way (like cmon have you seen yourself) but jamie just giggles and admits that he was just eager to selfishly have roy in him but he'd of course love to die a different death too

Also, while technically nobody's business, I can see the locker room talk around the topic and everyone straight up assuming Jamie bottoms cause I mean have you seen him (and the cake on him lol) so they're all a bit surprised when they somehow find out otherwise

I think my obsession comes with mostly Roy looking absolutely delicious when he's all flushed and he gets those rosy cheeks (Jamie 100% jokingly lovingly calls him doll), the thought of beefy baby Jamie looking after him in s.3 like he's so eager to court him and make sure he's got what he needs (sticks his hoodie on him, brings him tea, ice pack, hugs him from behind and kisses his shoulder like he did at the gala with keeley 😭). Ok this is not a post about roy kent bottoming anymore, it's about roy kent having equal rights to be looked after and treated like a prince by his boyfriend (whose mum and stepdad have made sure knows how to) and Roy being absolutely gobsmacked at the treatment because what the fuck is going on this is so nice I'm not used to this oh flowers? for me? but I am cooking you dinner Jamie shut up, you remembered the washing powder that doesn't irritate my skin? you bought me something because it reminded you of me?

(ok I'm self projecting on roy again and healing my inner child via him but as someone that also sees roy as a the post child for childhood emotional neglect i can see him being both overly touched but also thrown off by someone taking care of him and puttint his needs first, there's so much i want to say about that it would take a million words)

[christmasintheloonybin]

I want to talk about why I am so upset with Agnes but it is because of stupid decisions she makes which I feel reflect poorly on me by association. I really do feel responsible for her. I feel like I am her brother and boyfriend and dad and also like her caretaker or something, like she has some serious developmental disability. because when I am not around to tell her to act right she behaves as if she does. and this is the complicated part - she has a boyfriend sort of and he's really pathetic, I like the guy for her because he's harmless but he really has no backbone at all. and when she ruins her life and has nowhere to turn she knows that if I am upset with her I will turn her away but this guy always takes her back. she's cheated on him multiple times, she's kind of a bad person. he's the guy who didn't like me because I used to be racist or whatever. but I feel bad particularly for this guy, because it's going to affect him more than it does anyone. when she makes bad choices and ruins her life he will sort it out for her and then she'll be off to ruin her life again if I'm not there to stop her. again, she is a bad person.

I like Agnes very much we are very good friends but she is like a lot of young women in that she just kind of drifts around and chameleons to whatever environment she in. you know what I mean? a lot of young women don't really have a WILL that they want to impose upon the world. they just sort of match whatever situation they find themselves in. men too I guess but especially young women. I don't mean this in a misogynist way its just an observation I've made, I don't really care either way and I don't think it's good or bad. to have excessive will is very antisocial. anyways, when she's around me it's good, around other people it's bad. I have only good intentions in my heart. as I said I feel totally responsible for her. she is seriously like my daughter and I feel so fucking annoyed and irritated when she doesn't listen to me and makes stupid choices.

if I had an actual daughter though I feel like she would turn out right, I mean she would have good self esteem and a backbone. I haven't known Agnes that long and she was an adult with a developed brain (she's older than me!) so while maybe I could have some ideological influence I guess at the end of the day it doesn't stick if your brain is already wired to be non-ideological and, again, to make stupid fucking decisions.

[please-attend-carefully]

My girlfriend and I have been listening to the podcast (as part of my mission to fully induct her into Who, ~muahaha~), and we were having thoughts about the whole concept of the Inventor!Master after the most recent ep. And I feel like where I've come down is that-- I get the idea. It makes sense if you're trying to, like, do some back-formation and figure out where a character with the Master's psychology starts. Like, yes, I absolutely buy powerful scientific curiosity, the desire to know things (especially forbidden things), to *create* things, a thoughtlessly superior attitude towards the 'lesser species', even a level of self-serious pride that means he doesn't have much of a sense of humour. All of that works.

But the fundamental problem, I think-- and you sort of touched on this in talking about how sort of no-nonsense and humourless he is-- is that in order for the Master to work as a character, I sort of feel like... *they* don't necessarily have to be having fun (god knows there are plenty of appearances wherein the Master is Having A Bad Time), but *we* the audience have to be having fun watching them.

Villains like the Master are appealing because there's something magnetic, fascinating, *fun* about their presence in the narrative. There's an edge of perversity (in the original sense, not the horny sense :P) to even the most self-serious Masters that makes them just so enjoyable, and I sort of feel like if you haven't got that... then it's not really a successful take on the character. It sounds like they maybe kind of figured that out by Blood of the Time Lords? But welp, too late, apparently!

Hello, to you and your girlfriend, thanks so much for listening!

Yes, definitely all of this. There is a reason we love the Master, and it's because despite his evil nature, he's still fun! Right back in Delgado's first appearance his evil plan involves: a terrible clay puppet, an inflatable man-eating couch, sentient telephone cord, and plastic daffodils. They are all absurdly comedic methods for an evil plan, and when you add in Roger Delgado's charisma on top of that, you are left with a lovable villain. For the Inventor!Master, they take away the comedy and absurdity, and instead just have a villain doing a very methodical and scientific approach towards his evil, with an actor playing it very dryly. They don't really give you anything to love, he's just evil.

This moves on to another point we've touched on, and that's when the Master commits "real world" evil. For example, Saxon Master. In The Sound of Drums, he's cheeky, charismatic and fun. You laugh at him killing the cabinet ministers because it comes with a joke and a smile, it's absurd and not overly "real". Compared to The Last of the Timelords where it's suddenly revealed that Lucy has bruises on her face, a bit of "real world" evil creeps in. Overall we still like him as a villain but RTD has put in an unspoken piece of visual storytelling to show that he is a monster and we should remember that.

I'm rambling, but stay with me. The Inventor!Master in the Destination Wars is cultivating a war between two races, and fostering fascist ideologies within them. Again, this time there are no dance sequences and the actor has no where near the charisma of Simm. He's not even moustache twirling, cardboard cut out evil, he's real evil, the not nice kind of evil that we recognise in our real lives and want to reject. Not a daffodil or couch in sight. RTD gave the simm!master a subtle mix of that, but largely we still accept the character because on balance he is fictional evil.

Even in audio stories with Jacobi!Master where he is unimpeded by the Doctor and commit atrocities, we still love him because Jacobi has a wonderful presence and sense of the character. Our fun comes from hearing how he gets away with it, and how much joy that gives him. He's evil, but still has the inner core of loveability like The Master's that came before him.

I'm glad we never have to hear the Inventor!Master again because he's all the worst parts of the character. An experiment that just missed the mark and didn't pay off in any kind of entertaining way.

Phew okay, sorry for long response. Thanks again for listening, we love you!

[robinsnest2111]

I wanted to let you know I'm perfectly okay with you posting your response to my other ask - and this one - publicly.

Also, the German Guilt™ is bullshit and needs to go. I feel so bad for everyone over there; y'all rarely show much national pride anymore unless it's for a sporting event. Germans have just as much right to feel proud of their heritage as anybody else. (Heaven knows we Americans show plenty of it😂) I'd venture to say the majority of people understand the regime was one of those things that takes special circumstances to even happen. One of those 'the planets have to align just so' type events. It was a different era; a different political climate altogether. Those who still throw slurs are uneducated idiots. Ignore 'em, call 'em a dummkopf...whatever floats your boat.😄 Same applies to any other Germans who might be reading this.

But yeah, the war ended 78 years ago, our countries have been close allies for decades, etc. It's time to let the past go. Remembering it in order to prevent atrocities from happening again is fine. Continuously feeling guilty over the actions of people who are long dead, however, is not. If y'all could survive the absolute chaos that was the Weimar Republic, you guys can handle this too.🇺🇲💜🇩🇪

(I would have sent all of this to you in a message, but you only allow messages from Tumblrs you follow.)

thank you for your kind and encouraging words

idk about my fellow Germans, but for me national pride is a very difficult subject. the war may be long over and the regime smashed, but if you look closely, its ghost is still present in many parts of daily life, society, and power structures here. Still so much to change and improve.

The ones yelling the loudest for a comeback of traditions, culture and national pride are very obviously aligned with far right conservative ideology, purity of the German people and other such harmful nonsense and paint a very narrow-minded and hate-filled picture of what they consider German culture, traditions and values. All while stealing and misusing other cultures' symbols and traditions for their goals.

Personally, I've never been shown or taught much of anything about regional (and national) history, traditions and culture apart from the shameful role we played in the 30s and 40s. There's not much to be proud of from my current point of view.

[All of this makes enjoying or being interested in any media that involves this era, no matter if the nazis are painted as fools and losers in a comedic light or as evil Bad Guys in a more serious way, even objective deep dive documentaries, feel dangerous and forbidden. Other Germans don't shy away from occasionally making fun of Hitler and the Nazis, idk why it is so difficult for me. Maybe because the lines between humour, education and glorification are so damn blurry, can turn into a slippery slope so fast, you cannot look into other people's brains and know the true motivations behind their actions, and I've never been good at navigating all this.]

Anyway, maybe I need to dig deep into local archives and do some research myself. Find some pieces of light (local folklore, everyday history, smaller lesser known traditions, etc.) underneath the dark heavy blanket of Germany's national past. Try to differentiate and balance it out in my brain. Find nuance. To quiet the part of my mind that keeps shouting "IT'S ALL CONNECTED AAAHHHH!" whenever I think about German history and culture, cause and effect, etc.

As always, this is only how I personally feel and think about this in this moment, I'm obviously NOT speaking for all of the German people!

[ritchiepage2001newaccount]

WHY UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE JUST AS UNLIKELY AS EVER, UNFORTUNATELY

I'm a leftist (Libertarian-Socialist), who votes progressive, because I live under an "elected" government, and I had thought I had purged the MSNBC/CNN Nation from my friends list, but apparently not, as my timeline is just chock-full of media-driven hysteria over current events, so here's a primer:

"Liberals" who think their arguments are clever or relevant to the Second Amendment are exhausting.

They are not the left; they are just one half of the good cop/bad cop act of the corporate owned fire-hose of bullshit that is the corporate media, and corporate America's governing criminal cartel/duopoly.

Both cults "I like simple and ineffectual 'solutions', because they make me feel like I'm doing something, and I'm just stinky with fear."

There are over a hundred million legal gun owners, who some want to punish for somebody else's crime.

Well, there are some things to consider.

We've been a heavily armed country since 1621, and yet the epidemic of daily mass-shootings didn't begin until 20 April 1999 (Columbine), at a time when gun ownership was at an all-time low, and five years after Clinton's assault-weapons ban, so maybe guns aren't the variable.

Worth noting: One of the first things the "Pilgrims" did when they betrayed the Native Americans, was disarm "King Phillip" and his men.

Maybe, just maybe, dead school-children are the price of the neoliberalism practiced under the "Washington Consensus" of BOTH right-wing authoritarian parties since the 1980's? When your country offers you no prospects, and you become terrified of the future, what then? Fear can make unstable people do desperate things. Add to that a culture of celebrity, and what could possibly go wrong?

Another factor that goes completely unexamined, is the way Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill emptied our state hospitals onto our streets, and onto families ill-equipped to deal with the sometimes violent mentally ill.

Thank God, the "solution" is so simple…

Also, 84% of NRA members support universal background checks. The problem is, every time a bill comes up for a vote, Democrats add poison pill amendments guaranteeing defeat in the legislature (and the courts), and then they proceed to tell the TV cameras that "once again the GOP and the gun lobby have voted down background checks and defied the will of the people", or some such nonsense.

If you want to watch Dems sabotage universal background checks (while Republicans roll their eyes and face-palm) in real time, go here:

P.S. You can probably guess which one of these three groups I belong to (Hint: It's the one that's growing and actually decides elections):

POST.NEWS MODERATORS FORBID LINKS TO GALLUP.COM BECAUSE THEY ARE TERRIFIED OF REALITY

LaborPartyNow!!!

P S The line, "You don't need 30 rounds to shoot a deer!" is not clever.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting tools, toys for hobbyists (target shooting), or even weapons for self-defense.

It's about ARMS!!!

It's about the individual citizen's right to arms, so they'll be prepared to join a militia, not the other way around. ‘Well regulated’ at that time, simply meant, ‘efficient.’ In other words, in order for a muster to be efficient, civilians needed to be already armed.

So the "collective rights" argument has a couple of problems that make it quite unhinged from history and reality.

1) As I've mentioned above, Americans have always been relatively heavily armed. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?

2) Contrary to what you were probably taught in school, by the time of the Confederate artillery barrage on Fort Sumter, the war over slavery had already been going on for over six years, and was fought entirely by independent volunteer militia's. Fort Sumter was just the beginning of official involvement by government troops. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?

3) In what universe do government forces need to have their right to arms protected?

4) Since when do National Guard members keep National Guard arms (Hint: they're kept at the armory, and have been since colonial times)?

5) Obviously, "Liberals" are stupid.

Again: #LaborPartyNow!!!

P P S That was ENTIRELY the point of the first fruits of dissent, the 10 Amendments we've come to call the BILL OF RIGHTS (which have become a beacon to aspiring democrats all over the world), to protect INDIVIDUALS from the government they had just created. #TrueStory

"Facts are stubborn things, so fuck your feelings." -John Adams

Something I want people to take away from the assassination attempt of Donald Trump is that it was also a mass shooting. There’s a total of 4 victims, which qualifies as a mass shooting, and since July 1st there has been 39 mass shootings in America. We are only 15 days into July and people still argue about gun violence while the number of shootings keeps going up.

[rei-ismyname]

Ororo, how did you get here?

I wonder if we'll get a solid, in character explanation for why Storm would become a cop (Avenger) again. I'm writing an analysis on From The Ashes (so far) and while I'm clear-eyed about where most characters and books are at, I really need to know if they're even going to bother explaining why Storm would leave Arakko (oh yeah, there's still a million mutants on the red planet) and if they do to what degree. Sure she can just bail off screen but it'd be deeply out of character. She's a member of the Great Ring (or at least she was, occupying Magneto's empty Seat of Loss after she yielded the Regency to Lodus Logos.) She's the most impactful political and cultural figure in a generation. She was the leader of the winning faction in the Genesis War. She had a lover, who was caring for two orphans. I think they were living together. She was happy. I can't recall any ties to Atlanta, but it doesn't really matter. Without serious explanation she's going to look fickle, like she's shirking her duty. A duty she chose, too. Fought multiple wars over. She's getting a solo book, there's totally room to do it properly.

The other big ting for me is Magneto. The First Krakoan age put him through the ringer - his character arc was objectively given the most attention and subjectively the most satisfying. Even without Uncanny X-Men #700 he was poised to shake up the status quo but when you include his chat with Charles that's a promise. A promise that needs to be paid off. Not just any old promise either - it's an ideological breakthrough five decades in the making! He's been kept in the background so far and I haven't really been able to judge whether that promise is being kept or not. I hope so but my expectations are low. It would be such tonal whiplash I can't even think of an analogy.

Interestingly both Max and Ororo were Of Arakko last time we got a close look. Magneto died defending Arakko, he has friends there. He is literally one of the society's heroes for slaying Tarn the Uncaring and The Hour Of Magneto/Judgement Day.

Yeah, that's right. *AIR HORN* *PUMPS FIST* He cares about the Arakki and they care about him. He'd want to pay his respects to the Fisher King and generally see how it's going. He lost his place on the Great Ring when he died and Vulcan blew up his house, but neither are especially important. Both planet and culture are dear to him. After X of Swords, in that brief period when the Arakki were on Earth, it was Magneto meeting with Isca about teething problems. 'Twas Magneto who spearheaded the Terraforming Operation, handling the communication/logistics and harvesting enough iron to bring the planet to life from the Khyber Belt. While he was doing that, Ororo was fighting Nameless to the death for the Noontide Seat.

I could honestly go on, but my point is these two especially are invested. (Roberto Da Costa too, but it seems the New Mutants are represented by Magik alone and Cypher looking like an idiot.) If that continuity is disregarded I'm going to have a problem with it. Honestly, if Arakko is there and not being used in any stories I'll be scratching my head. How do you go from terraforming planets to hated and feared on Earth as anything other than a regression? The geopolitical implications of it being there pretty much break the world they're selling us. They're telling us it's so dangerous for mutants that they're developing secret hand signals and Underground Railroad'ing. At least some mutants would move to fucking Mars. All countries would be at Defcon 1. Did the entire galactic council just forget Sol exists?

I'll stop there, save some for the actual essay instead of the rant lol. If you're enjoying it I couldn't be happier for you. I am struggling to, though, and I'm very wary of heartbreak. Maybe that's on me for how I manage my expectations. We shall see.

[ritchiepage2001newaccount]

WHY UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE JUST AS UNLIKELY AS EVER, UNFORTUNATELY

I'm a leftist (Libertarian-Socialist), who votes progressive, because I live under an "elected" government, and I had thought I had purged the MSNBC/CNN Nation from my friends list, but apparently not, as my timeline is just chock-full of media-driven hysteria over current events, so here's a primer:

"Liberals" who think their arguments are clever or relevant to the Second Amendment are exhausting.

They are not the left; they are just one half of the good cop/bad cop act of the corporate owned fire-hose of bullshit that is the corporate media, and corporate America's governing criminal cartel/duopoly.

Both cults "I like simple and ineffectual 'solutions', because they make me feel like I'm doing something, and I'm just stinky with fear."

There are over a hundred million legal gun owners, who some want to punish for somebody else's crime.

Well, there are some things to consider.

We've been a heavily armed country since 1621, and yet the epidemic of daily mass-shootings didn't begin until 20 April 1999 (Columbine), at a time when gun ownership was at an all-time low, and five years after Clinton's assault-weapons ban, so maybe guns aren't the variable.

Maybe, just maybe, dead school-children are the price of the neoliberalism practiced under the "Washington Consensus" of BOTH right-wing authoritarian parties since the 1980's? When your country offers you no prospects, and you become terrified of the future, what then? Fear can make unstable people do desperate things. Add to that a culture of celebrity, and what could possibly go wrong?

Another factor that goes completely unexamined, is the way Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill emptied our state hospitals onto our streets, and onto families ill-equipped to deal with the sometimes violent mentally ill.

Thank God, the "solution" is so simple…

Also, 84% of NRA members support universal background checks. The problem is, every time a bill comes up for a vote, Democrats add poison pill amendments guaranteeing defeat in the legislature (and the courts), and then they proceed to tell the TV cameras that "once again the GOP and the gun lobby have voted down background checks and defied the will of the people", or some such nonsense.

If you want to watch Dems sabotage universal background checks (while Republicans roll their eyes and face-palm) in real time, go here:

P.S. You can probably guess which one of these three groups I belong to (Hint: It's the one that's growing and actually decides elections):

LaborPartyNow!!!

P S The line, "You don't need 30 rounds to shoot a deer!" is not clever.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting tools, toys for hobbyists (target shooting), or even weapons for self-defense.

It's about ARMS!!!

It's about the individual citizen's right to arms, so they'll be prepared to join a militia, not the other way around. ‘Well regulated’ at that time, simply meant, ‘efficient.’ In other words, in order for a muster to be efficient, civilians needed to be already armed.

So the "collective rights" argument has a couple of problems that make it quite unhinged from history and reality.

1) As I've mentioned above, Americans have always been relatively heavily armed. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?

2) Contrary to what you were probably taught in school, by the time of the Confederate artillery barrage on Fort Sumter, the war over slavery had already been going on for over six years, and was fought entirely by independent volunteer militia's. Fort Sumter was just the beginning of official involvement by government troops. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?

3) In what universe do government forces need to have their right to arms protected?

4) Since when do National Guard members keep National Guard arms (Hint: they're kept at the armory, and have been since colonial times)?

5) Obviously, "Liberals" are stupid.

Again: #LaborPartyNow!!!

P P S That was ENTIRELY the point of the first fruits of dissent, the 10 Amendments we've come to call the BILL OF RIGHTS (which have become a beacon to aspiring democrats all over the world), to protect INDIVIDUALS from the government they had just created. #TrueStory

[alynicoleee]

Beginning of Forever: Chapter Sixteen

Title: Beginning of Forever (Chapter 16) Pairing: Tim Lincecum / OFC POV: 3rd Person - OFC Rating: PG-13

Alyssa didn't know why she responded. She should have left the text go unanswered like he had, but she couldn't, so she responded.

"Hi".

She didn't know what else to say. She wanted to say a lot - wanted to know what happened. But she also didn't want to attack him right away. That would have been rude.

"Can we meet up to talk? Grab a coffee if you're not busy?"

Alyssa thought about it for only a few minutes. Whatever he wanted to say he wanted to do in person. That could be a good thing, but it also gave her a sinking feeling in the pit of her stomach. She agreed to meet him at a Starbucks location that was the halfway point between them in an hour.

When she arrived Tim was already there - her coffee order in his hands.

"Thanks", she replied.

He motioned towards a corner table and they sat in silence for a few minutes before Tim finally spoke.

"I'm sorry. I owe you an explanation."

Alyssa shook her head, "You don't owe me anything".

"Okay, you deserve an explanation. You deserve an apology. You didn't deserve me ghosting you."

Alyssa looked up at him and tried to hide the sadness in her eyes, but it was apparent he could see it. His green eyes were dark, a sense of melancholy displayed in them.

"I panicked. It's what I do. Things were going good. And everything seemed so easy with you that I convinced myself it couldn't be true. Good things weren't supposed to come so easily. At least they never have before. I got scared. I'm telling myself that I'm ready to move on and continue with my life - but I'm terrified to get hurt. I don't know how much more pain I can take."

Alyssa sat there holding her breath as he spoke. But the more he spoke the more she slowly let out the breath she was holding and began to breathe again.

"I don't know what to say Tim. We kinda just jumped in. We talked, but not about anything deep - I guess not about the important stuff in our lives. Maybe we should do that before we figure out where we stand."

Tim agreed and for the next two hours they sat in their little corner table and talked. They talked about the past - Alyssa had been hurt countless times and Tim had lost love. They talked about their experiences - neither had a plethora of history, but while Alyssa was mostly inexperienced - Tim had been tied with serious relationships for most of his adult life. They talked about their ideologies around love - Alyssa still believed in fairy tales and happily ever afters and Tim had doubts if anything lasted forever. They talked about what they were looking for - Tim wasn't sure what he was looking for but he knew he wasn't looking to have kids, he mentioned it slowly as if it was almost a deal breaker. Alyssa was looking to feel and give love, to be happy with someone and she wasn't sure if kids were part of her future, it could go either way. They talked about their love language - Alyssa craved connection with someone and Tim realized that he did too.

They agreed they would continue to talk, see each other, and see what transpired.

Alyssa made it home that evening feeling as if a weight had been lifted off her shoulder. Somehow she felt freer than she had in a long time. A lot of things she said aloud today had been weighing her down, even if she hadn't realized it.

[ritchiepage2001newaccount]

WHY UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE JUST AS UNLIKELY AS EVER, UNFORTUNATELY

I'm a leftist (Libertarian-Socialist), who votes progressive, because I live under an "elected" government, and I had thought I had purged the MSNBC/CNN Nation from my friends list, but apparently not, as my timeline is just chock-full of media-driven hysteria over current events, so here's a primer:

"Liberals" who think their arguments are clever or relevant to the Second Amendment are exhausting.

They are not the left; they are just one half of the good cop/bad cop act of the corporate owned fire-hose of bullshit that is the corporate media, and corporate America's governing criminal cartel/duopoly.

Both cults "I like simple and ineffectual 'solutions', because they make me feel like I'm doing something, and I'm just stinky with fear."

There are over a hundred million legal gun owners, who some want to punish for somebody else's crime.

Well, there are some things to consider.

We've been a heavily armed country since 1621, and yet the epidemic of daily mass-shootings didn't begin until 20 April 1999 (Columbine), at a time when gun ownership was at an all-time low, and five years after Clinton's assault-weapons ban, so maybe guns aren't the variable.

Worth noting: One of the first things the "Pilgrims" did when they betrayed the Native Americans, was disarm "King Phillip" and his men.

Maybe, just maybe, dead school-children are the price of the neoliberalism practiced under the "Washington Consensus" of BOTH right-wing authoritarian parties since the 1980's? When your country offers you no prospects, and you become terrified of the future, what then? Fear can make unstable people do desperate things. Add to that a culture of celebrity, and what could possibly go wrong?

Another factor that goes completely unexamined, is the way Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill emptied our state hospitals onto our streets, and onto families ill-equipped to deal with the sometimes violent mentally ill.

Thank God, the "solution" is so simple…

Also, 84% of NRA members support universal background checks. The problem is, every time a bill comes up for a vote, Democrats add poison pill amendments guaranteeing defeat in the legislature (and the courts), and then they proceed to tell the TV cameras that "once again the GOP and the gun lobby have voted down background checks and defied the will of the people", or some such nonsense.

If you want to watch Dems sabotage universal background checks (while Republicans roll their eyes and face-palm) in real time, go here:

P.S. You can probably guess which one of these three groups I belong to (Hint: It's the one that's growing and actually decides elections):

POST.NEWS MODERATORS FORBID LINKS TO GALLUP.COM BECAUSE THEY ARE TERRIFIED OF REALITY

LaborPartyNow!!!

P S The line, "You don't need 30 rounds to shoot a deer!" is not clever.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting tools, toys for hobbyists (target shooting), or even weapons for self-defense.

It's about ARMS!!!

It's about the individual citizen's right to arms, so they'll be prepared to join a militia, not the other way around. ‘Well regulated’ at that time, simply meant, ‘efficient.’ In other words, in order for a muster to be efficient, civilians needed to be already armed.

So the "collective rights" argument has a couple of problems that make it quite unhinged from history and reality.

1) As I've mentioned above, Americans have always been relatively heavily armed. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?

2) Contrary to what you were probably taught in school, by the time of the Confederate artillery barrage on Fort Sumter, the war over slavery had already been going on for over six years, and was fought entirely by independent volunteer militia's. Fort Sumter was just the beginning of official involvement by government troops. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?

3) In what universe do government forces need to have their right to arms protected?

4) Since when do National Guard members keep National Guard arms (Hint: they're kept at the armory, and have been since colonial times)?

5) Obviously, "Liberals" are stupid.

Again: #LaborPartyNow!!!

P P S That was ENTIRELY the point of the first fruits of dissent, the 10 Amendments we've come to call the BILL OF RIGHTS (which have become a beacon to aspiring democrats all over the world), to protect INDIVIDUALS from the government they had just created. #TrueStory

The republican party’s record is so awful many people don’t believe it until they see it with their own eyes. Take a look

[cutest-bunny-writings]

hi, i just wanted to say that i’ve been following you for some time and really appreciate the work you’ve put in being inclusive in your writing. you’ve also opened me up to seeing the lived experiences of others. so i hope that i can impart some knowledge to you.

i was very disturbed by the fact that you’d want to bring your poc partner around your racist family as a “got you” moment.

that's honestly very insidious. poc are not pets nor pawns in your ploy to distance yourself from your family and their racism. why would you want to bring them there just so they can feel the disdain of someone not liking them for something they cant change?

it also brings in the question of do you actually love them if you’re willing to subject them to emotional and potential physical harm?

you find it funny to do that? you want to be able to snicker at the looks on your family's faces when right beside you your partner may be looking at you and your family as one in the same?

the question is why would you even be fooling with them if you know they are racist? if you’re really serious about your partner you would make peace with the fact that you may have to cut your family off entirely. never see them again until they do the very real work to become anti-racist. what next you gonna have mixed kids and bring them around those people too?

no self-respecting poc would let you do that to them and in turn their children. the fact that you don't see racism as violence no matter the form it takes is concerning.

it doesn't matter if your family’s racism is explicit or not, that's violence. their ideologies is what makes the status quo complacent in keeping racist systems. your grandma may not say outright she hates us but she shows it in the way she votes or the way she talks about us to her friends behind closed doors which only reaffirms their racism. that spreading hate.

so if you’re not going to do the work to make them anti-racist and instead let them hold those ideologies and determine how society should see us, the least you can do is make sure your partner never actually steps face to face with them. harm reduction is key, especially a choice as easily doable as that. systems take time to dismantle but that individual act is helpful too.

nobody should ever be put in that situation. i'm very disappointed as a reader. and i can’t imagine how the people you call friends on here who are poc happen to feel when you’ve been actively creating community with them. are you gonna use them next to say you can’t be racist?

whether a joke or not, your mindset has had very real ramifications for people's lives. people have lost their lives.

it looks like you still have some anti-racism work to do because this is a very elementary concept to understand. this is so confusing, especially after reading your work unless i’m missing something? maybe you understand those marginalizations better because you live them or had more exposure? but this hurt. i’d be weary to date or even marry someone like you as a poc. you don’t seem to have us in your best interest and need us to serve some ego boost. that's not allyship.

you’re not better than your family, if you continue like this. you’re worse because at least they stand ten toes down about their bigotry but you’re hiding behind yours in this weird facade of progressivism. this isn't progressive or leftist thinking. this is liberalism at its core. what liberation is being made here? besides this weak attempt to liberate yourself from being lumped in as racist? because again it doesn't seem you look to liberate your partner if you're planning to bring them towards danger.

hell the goal is to not be better by rubbing it in your family’s face. it’d break my heart to know my love was being used to anger someone. to anger someone who is not even in the relationship. thats already unhealthy.

the goal it to be better for yourself and the person you claim to want to love.

please don't let this happen again. and don’t run from addressing this or even trying to make excuses for why you thought it was okay to say this.

i’m just really disappointed now. like you think people understand but i guess they don’t. i’m learning to not expect much from white allies anymore. but i try to hold hope. i don’t wanna believe you’re the type to block me and never address this. that you’re okay with not digging through some uncomfortable truths. i’ve never written this much for someone. i care too much. please.

i want to see you grow into the person who’s consistent in the ideologies you claim to uphold. i really enjoy your work as an autistic and poc reader. i want to believe i’m still welcome here.

thank you for listening to me, if you did💖

Dear Anon,

I took down the post, which was originally supposed to be a light-hearted joke and I'm sorry.

I'm not trying to use anyone as a pet or pawn. I live in an area where the white men scream the n-word and call people Jewish as insults (there's other slurs that I don't know how to abbreviate), so I would never want to do that.

As racist as my grandparents are, they would never attempt physical harm, but that doesn't excuse their racism and I can tell you they aren't willing to change because I've tried. (I can explain if you want.)

I also don't want kids in general, but I see your point. If I did have kids, they wouldn't know those grandparents existed because they don't need those backhanded comments about being "too dark" and their hair being "wrong."

I'm also sorry you're disappointed, and I'm not going to use my friends to say I'm not racist because that's not how friends work. Just because you say you're friends with a POC doesn't make you not racist.

I'm not trying to use anyone as an ego boost either because that would be really weird.

I'm also not trying to hide behind a facade of progressivism. I genuinely want to exist at peace with everyone and would ideally like to prove it to small minds (a.k.a. my grandparents).

As for the uncomfortable truths, I know they're there and I do see them; ignoring them is not helpful and only creates more issues.

You are still welcome here.

I am genuinely sorry, please let me know if I forgot to address something.🙏

[ritchiepage2001newaccount]

WHY UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE JUST AS UNLIKELY AS EVER, UNFORTUNATELY

I'm a leftist (Libertarian-Socialist), who votes progressive, because I live under an "elected" government, and I had thought I had purged the MSNBC/CNN Nation from my friends list, but apparently not, as my timeline is just chock-full of media-driven hysteria over current events, so here's a primer:

"Liberals" who think their arguments are clever or relevant to the Second Amendment are exhausting.

They are not the left; they are just one half of the good cop/bad cop act of the corporate owned fire-hose of bullshit that is the corporate media, and corporate America's governing criminal cartel/duopoly.

Both cults "I like simple and ineffectual 'solutions', because they make me feel like I'm doing something, and I'm just stinky with fear."

There are over a hundred million legal gun owners, who some want to punish for somebody else's crime.

Well, there are some things to consider.

We've been a heavily armed country since 1621, and yet the epidemic of daily mass-shootings didn't begin until 20 April 1999 (Columbine), at a time when gun ownership was at an all-time low, and five years after Clinton's assault-weapons ban, so maybe guns aren't the variable.

Maybe, just maybe, dead school-children are the price of the neoliberalism practiced under the "Washington Consensus" of BOTH right-wing authoritarian parties since the 1980's? When your country offers you no prospects, and you become terrified of the future, what then? Fear can make unstable people do desperate things. Add to that a culture of celebrity, and what could possibly go wrong?

Another factor that goes completely unexamined, is the way Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill emptied our state hospitals onto our streets, and onto families ill-equipped to deal with the sometimes violent mentally ill.

Thank God, the "solution" is so simple…

Also, 84% of NRA members support universal background checks. The problem is, every time a bill comes up for a vote, Democrats add poison pill amendments guaranteeing defeat in the legislature (and the courts), and then they proceed to tell the TV cameras that "once again the GOP and the gun lobby have voted down background checks and defied the will of the people", or some such nonsense.

If you want to watch Dems sabotage universal background checks (while Republicans roll their eyes and face-palm) in real time, go here:

P.S. You can probably guess which one of these three groups I belong to (Hint: It's the one that's growing and actually decides elections):

LaborPartyNow!!!

P S The line, "You don't need 30 rounds to shoot a deer!" is not clever.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting tools, toys for hobbyists (target shooting), or even weapons for self-defense.

It's about ARMS!!!

It's about the individual citizen's right to arms, so they'll be prepared to join a militia, not the other way around. ‘Well regulated’ at that time, simply meant, ‘efficient.’ In other words, in order for a muster to be efficient, civilians needed to be already armed.

So the "collective rights" argument has a couple of problems that make it quite unhinged from history and reality.

1) As I've mentioned above, Americans have always been relatively heavily armed. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?

2) Contrary to what you were probably taught in school, by the time of the Confederate artillery barrage on Fort Sumter, the war over slavery had already been going on for over six years, and was fought entirely by independent volunteer militia's. Fort Sumter was just the beginning of official involvement by government troops. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?

3) In what universe do government forces need to have their right to arms protected?

4) Since when do National Guard members keep National Guard arms (Hint: they're kept at the armory, and have been since colonial times)?

5) Obviously, "Liberals" are stupid.

Again: #LaborPartyNow!!!

P P S That was ENTIRELY the point of the first fruits of dissent, the 10 Amendments we've come to call the BILL OF RIGHTS (which have become a beacon to aspiring democrats all over the world), to protect INDIVIDUALS from the government they had just created. #TrueStory

[blackberry-gingham]

For mental health reasons, I'm going back to my roots and doing imagines again, but this time with my new fixation: the xmen (doesn't mean I won't do fics btw, just that it's not my main content anymore).

Here's X-men with a human s/o

Cyclops

Very chill about it, as with most things

He's one of the biggest believers of "humans and mutants are equal", so he really doesn't even think about the difference between you two

Well, ok, he does in times of danger and crisis tho

He's the type to try and explain that he doesn't think you're weak, per say...

It's just that there are some things and people out here that you simply can't defend yourself against

Scott is naturally protective, but he's just a little more alert for trouble when he's with you

Gambit

Actually, sometimes I feel like he doesn't really consciously identify as a "mutant" tbh

By that I mean, he considers himself to be just like anyone else, rather then being a Mutant First(tm), human second type

He's a "Can't we all get along" type, until someone starts causing trouble for mutants

....Which happens rather often, it seems

He doesn't hate humans, but he's a little suspicious at times

He'll flirt with you easy, but when things start getting serious he may start to lay off a little

It's not personal, you just need to earn his trust a little first

Thankfully, he's a good judge of character and will come around in his own time

Jean

You guys get along so well!

Unsurprisingly, Jean has the same mindset as Scott as far as human and mutant relations

It's a little easier for her to blend into human society then it is for Scott however

That, and her lighter personality make it so that you wouldn't even know she's with the X-men at all

She's nothing if not transparent tho, and as long as she trusts you, will be pretty forthcoming about it all

Jean does feel a bit of responsibility in keeping you safe from harm, but she's not as inadvertently condescending about it as Scott can sometimes be

But don't be fooled, just because she's a little more tactful about it doesn't mean she's going to let you anywhere near danger tho

Nightcrawler

Interestingly, Kurt also holds the mutants and humans are equals ideology too, even with all he's been through at the hands of humans

The two are both created equally after all, and the sins of the few do not mean the sins of all as far as he's concerned

He is, however, very aware of his appearance meaning it's quite impossible for him to go the gambit route and act as though he too is "just like everyone else", despite how he feels

He's probably just more surprised that you actually want to be with him then anything specifically about you being a human or something tbh

I could see him trying to use an image inducer around you a lot, at least for the first little while

Don't worry tho, after a while and with some reassurance, he'll get used to going about in his natural form

Kurt's power is extremely passive rather then aggressive, just like his personality, so while I defiantly see him being protective of you...

He's more likely to just teleport you both away and stay out of dodge rather then fight for your honor or anything lol

Rogue

If you think being with Jean is a cool time, just go ahead and crank that up to 11 with Rogue

She honestly doesn't give a shit about whether you're a fellow mutant or not, and once she knows, she doesn't think about it

Well, sometimes in a moment of insecurity she might... But never does she think about you in a bad way

She's probably the most relatable in a sense, because as a mutant who looks fully human, she also wants nothing more then to be human too

Maybe you two can work out a way to get in quick moments of contact without it being to dangerous for you

She'll protest this, of course, but who knows? Maybe it's possible to build a little resistance

Because if such a thing is possible...

Gosh, you better get ready, because she'd never leave your side after all you've done to try and get closer to her

Sabretooth

Ok ok, I know that like basically ever since the 80s or so Sabretooth has been portrayed as little more then a bloodthirsty, human hating, killing machine...

But in his earlier debuts, at least once he's expressed a genuine sense of loneliness and desire to acquire a partner for himself

Sure to get there he basically kidnapped a human woman and held her hostage down in the tunnels where he was living, but you wouldn't be reading this if you didn't want to know how this could possibly work out would you?

I'll also have you know that in that very same comic, he's described by said woman as having been surprisingly nice to her and showing no signs of aggression, so there's that

Personally I kind of... don't like "smart sabretooth", if you will, but in a world where he can speak in complete sentences and use technology without smashing it in a fit of frustrated rage:

He will never let you forget that you are an itty bitty human and will tease you for it a lot

Don't take this as him not caring about you though, he's easily the most protective mf-er on this list and would, quite literally, both kill and die for you

No one gets to touch his frail

Storm

Another one for the humans and mutants are equal lot

She does, however, acknowledge that there are more often then not, notable differences between the two tho

Storm admires human resilience as well as their capacity for good, despite what some of the masses may get up to

As a result, she tends to see that trait in you and appreciates your support for mutant rights and freedoms

She can be a little intense and seem stern at times, but that's really only when she's been on missions

It can be difficult for her to relax because of how her emotions tie into her powers, but she says that simply being able to enjoy your company helps

If you two really get to know each other, you might catch her growing a little more playful with her powers around you

A gust of wind to tussle your hair, a splash of rain to cool you off, stuff like that

Times like these are rare admittedly, but knowing she's this comfortable around you is a reward all in it's own

Toad

Sabretooth is a special case, so he's excluded here, but Toad definably has the hardest time of all the others here getting on with a human s/o

It may have something to do with his feral nature, but while Vic still expresses the desire to "find a mate", be them human or mutant, despite what he too went through at the hands of humans as a kid...

Toad has no such designs, neither to go with his mutation nor to simply help him push past his childhood hatred for humans

Kurt may think he knows how it feels to be mocked, feared, and shunned, but even he eventually found some peace in his little monastery

Mort has had no such luck. Even his fellow mutants belittle him

Any advance from a human, even just friendly ones, will be instantly rejected

...However. He won't go so far as to completely keep distance from you

He may hate humans, but... Well... Maybe there is a little piece of him that's still holding on for acceptance

He's EXTREMELY slow to trust you, but once it's earned, you'll find he's actually very sweet and caring

Unfortunately tho, I don't really see him being able to drop the inferiority complex he's had ingrained into him anytime soon

Wolverine

Are you kidding? This guy has had so many human relationships, it's almost a joke

He never really talks about it, but there have been a few rare times where wolverine, like Rogue, has also expressed a desire to just be human instead of a mutant

Unlike Rogue, he will never discuss this with you however and assuming you don't somehow know he's a mutant before hand, he will most likely do his best to make sure things stay that way

Especially if he reeeeeally likes you

He more so hates what was done to him rather then his actual powers tbh, so while he's not particularly ashamed of being a mutant or anything like that...

He'd just rather you didn't know unless if you have to

Regardless of if you know or not, he's a close second to Sabre for most over protective mf-er on this list lol

In fact, this trait of his is most likely how you end up finding out he's a mutant

Damn it Logan. just can't keep those claws sheathed, huh?

[ritchiepage2001newaccount]

WHY UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE JUST AS UNLIKELY AS EVER, UNFORTUNATELY

I'm a leftist (Libertarian-Socialist), who votes progressive, because I live under an "elected" government, and I had thought I had purged the MSNBC/CNN Nation from my friends list, but apparently not, as my timeline is just chock-full of media-driven hysteria over current events, so here's a primer:

"Liberals" who think their arguments are clever or relevant to the Second Amendment are exhausting.

They are not the left; they are just one half of the good cop/bad cop act of the corporate owned fire-hose of bullshit that is the corporate media, and corporate America's governing criminal cartel/duopoly.

Both cults "I like simple and ineffectual 'solutions', because they make me feel like I'm doing something, and I'm just stinky with fear."

There are over a hundred million legal gun owners, who some want to punish for somebody else's crime.

Well, there are some things to consider.

We've been a heavily armed country since 1621, and yet the epidemic of daily mass-shootings didn't begin until 20 April 1999 (Columbine), at a time when gun ownership was at an all-time low, and five years after Clinton's assault-weapons ban, so maybe guns aren't the variable.

Worth noting: One of the first things the "Pilgrims" did when they betrayed the Native Americans, was disarm "King Phillip" and his men.

Maybe, just maybe, dead school-children are the price of the neoliberalism practiced under the "Washington Consensus" of BOTH right-wing authoritarian parties since the 1980's? When your country offers you no prospects, and you become terrified of the future, what then? Fear can make unstable people do desperate things. Add to that a culture of celebrity, and what could possibly go wrong?

Another factor that goes completely unexamined, is the way Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill emptied our state hospitals onto our streets, and onto families ill-equipped to deal with the sometimes violent mentally ill.

Thank God, the "solution" is so simple…

Also, 84% of NRA members support universal background checks. The problem is, every time a bill comes up for a vote, Democrats add poison pill amendments guaranteeing defeat in the legislature (and the courts), and then they proceed to tell the TV cameras that "once again the GOP and the gun lobby have voted down background checks and defied the will of the people", or some such nonsense.

If you want to watch Dems sabotage universal background checks (while Republicans roll their eyes and face-palm) in real time, go here:

P.S. You can probably guess which one of these three groups I belong to (Hint: It's the one that's growing and actually decides elections):

POST.NEWS MODERATORS FORBID LINKS TO GALLUP.COM BECAUSE THEY ARE TERRIFIED OF REALITY

LaborPartyNow!!!

P S The line, "You don't need 30 rounds to shoot a deer!" is not clever.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting tools, toys for hobbyists (target shooting), or even weapons for self-defense.

It's about ARMS!!!

It's about the individual citizen's right to arms, so they'll be prepared to join a militia, not the other way around. ‘Well regulated’ at that time, simply meant, ‘efficient.’ In other words, in order for a muster to be efficient, civilians needed to be already armed.

So the "collective rights" argument has a couple of problems that make it quite unhinged from history and reality.

1) As I've mentioned above, Americans have always been relatively heavily armed. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?

2) Contrary to what you were probably taught in school, by the time of the Confederate artillery barrage on Fort Sumter, the war over slavery had already been going on for over six years, and was fought entirely by independent volunteer militia's. Fort Sumter was just the beginning of official involvement by government troops. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?

3) In what universe do government forces need to have their right to arms protected?

4) Since when do National Guard members keep National Guard arms (Hint: they're kept at the armory, and have been since colonial times)?

5) Obviously, "Liberals" are stupid.

Again: #LaborPartyNow!!!

P P S That was ENTIRELY the point of the first fruits of dissent, the 10 Amendments we've come to call the BILL OF RIGHTS (which have become a beacon to aspiring democrats all over the world), to protect INDIVIDUALS from the government they had just created. #TrueStory

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔