#iron man wasn't mainstream

[thestrangestthing89]

There are thankfully only a handful of people who swear this is a conservative, Christian show but it's interesting to me considering how negatively the show depicts religion.

S1 - There aren't any direct references to religion but subtle hints. It's implied Hawkins is a typical middle class suburban neighborhood. It's 1983, Reagan was president, and there are hints of the towns Christianity through the bullies. When Will goes missing there are several comments that make it clear that the people in this town aren't surprised. The middle school bully makes a comment that he got "killed by some other queer" and says his father was talking about it. Parents in the town talk about Will being gay. We see Steve's friends - the high school bullies - also making homophobic comments about Jonathan and his brother. The bad guys are homophobic. They also all lose fights this season. The show takes an anti-bullying stance and you are supposed to feel for Will and his friends here. He's a child that's gone missing and the people in the town don't seem to care much or act surprised by it.

There are a few exceptions to this - Joyce mentions to Hopper that Lonnie called Will gay slurs because she is also worried he got killed because he's gay. Hopper takes this seriously during a time when absolutely no one would have criticized him for ignoring this situation. Plenty of people were ignoring gay people dying during this time. No one would have batted an eye at a cop acting like this didn't matter. But Hopper pays attention and puts together a search team. So there are a few people in town who do care - Scott Clarke being one of them. And obviously the rest of our main cast doesn't care what people say about Will because they help to look for him all season. The good guys aren't homophobic. The good guys care about Will. And this includes all of our main characters - the people the audience are supposed to root for go against homophobia and bullying.

(Edit: I forgot to include a conversation between Joyce and Lonnie. When Will's fake body is found Lonnie wants Joyce to see a pastor and Joyce says no. Lonnie is trying to convince her she is crazy. He's the bad guy, and the first thing he wants to do to "fix" the situation is to get Joyce to talk to a pastor. It's another negative association with religion. Joyce is right here. She isn't crazy. And Lonnie isn't being comforting when he says this. He's being controlling and dismissing her feelings. It's clear from what we see of Lonnie that he's an asshole. He abused Will and Jonathan (and likely Joyce as well), he tried to turn Jonathan against his mother when Will went missing, he exploited an opportunity for money. He's not a person we are supposed to be rooting for.)

S2 - This season has a more direct reference to Christianity and it's the Reagan signs on some of the front lawns in Hawkins. This isn't surprising considering again, it's a middle class suburb. Reagan was a popular president at the time and got elected by popular vote twice despite his mishandling of the AIDS crisis and a number of other issues. His name is synonymous with the Christian right. During his time in office, the pro-life movement started to take hold, and he cut back on welfare reform and disability rights to name a few of the problematic things he did. Basically, anyone who wasn't an able-bodied, straight, white, middle class Christian male was struggling and yet he won twice. These days, his name is often compared to Trumps - they openly hated the same groups of people.

This sets the stage in a subtle way for what's going on with the main characters. Because our characters are all outcasts - gay, black, disabled, poor, etc - they are struggling to fit in to mainstream society (which makes it so ironic this show is mainstream). Even Hopper who is your typical straight, white, leading man struggles to fit in - his daughter died and he is coping with depression and substance abuse issues. Things no one discussed openly at the time and were viewed as shameful.

So we have the Reagan sign on the Wheelers front lawn. This tells me that at least Ted is a Reagan supporter which makes sense given this is an upper middle class white family. I am skeptical of Karen (or anyone else in this family) being conservative but I will get to that in S3. Dustins house has a Mondale sign so they are democrats which makes sense - Dustin has a disability and his mother is a single parent. Reagans policies would have hurt them. We don't see the politics of the other boys families but I think it's a safe bet to assume they are democrats. Will's family is poor and his mother is also a single mother. Not to mention that there are hints both Joyce and Jonathan suspect he is gay and they love Will so much, there is no way they would have ever voted for someone like Reagan. And even though the Sinclair's are also an upper middle class family they are black and while no group of people votes in the exact same way, Reagans policies were incredibly racist. Lucas mentions struggles to fit into Hawkins because he's black in the book Lucas on the Line. His family wouldn't have fit into this town even though they are financially well off. It's a mostly white town and that would have absolutely resulted in them being on the receiving end of racism on a regular basis. So even though their family technically conforms, people would not have accepted them.

So we know that our main characters don't fit in and we know Reagan represents all things Christianity and conformity. One of the main themes of the show is "forced conformity is killing the kids" a line directly stated by Eddie in S3 so more on this in a bit.

Something else happens this season that isn't a direct reference to religion but an adjacent theme and it's the conversation Nancy and Jonathan have with Murray. They are trying to figure out how to take down Hawkins lab and get people to believe them. Nancy doesn't understand at first why presenting the evidence they have won't work. And Murray says - people don't want to see whats behind the curtain. It's comforting. They like the curtain. - So they water down the story so the town will understand it in a way that they won't resist. This, I believe, is essentially what the writers are doing with this show. They are watering down that this has been a show that is anti-conformity from the beginning and there are signs of it in S1. But they know if they come right out and say that a main storyline is a queer coming-of-age story, a lot of their mainstream audience isn't going to watch. So up until now anyway, they have been subtle about it. But the audience is starting to notice something is off, especially with Mike in S4 because things aren't adding up.

S3 - It is now the summer of '85 and while there aren't direct references to Christianity, we still get some hints of conservatism. The only reference to religion is a passing comment that Dustin's new girlfriend Suzie is a Mormon. There is also a passing comment made by Max in S2 that there were Mormons at the door when Billy questions her. It was Lucas and she is trying to hide him from her racist brother, so she lies and says she was talking to Mormons. These comments are pretty neutral even though Dustin mentions Suzie's father wouldn't approve of him because he isn't Mormon himself. At the time we are seeing this moment, it's hard to tell if Dustin is telling the truth (everyone thinks he's making up his girlfriend this season.) But we see more of this in S4.

And then there is the comment by Karen Wheeler about Margaret Thatcher. She's on the phone with someone and says "I don't know Cath, maybe if I was Margaret Thatcher that'd be an another story." (this is in episode 5 by the way). A lot of people take this comment to mean Karen is conservative but I feel like it's so vague. We have absolutely no idea what the context of this conversation is or even who she is talking to (presumably one of the mothers from the pool). It's unclear if she was saying something positive or negative. We don't know what she is talking about, all we hear is her say Thatcher's name. So I feel like it's a leap to assume it was a conservative statement she was making.

I have a hard time believing that Karen is conservative (or at least not ultra conservative like a lot of Reagan supporters) for a few reasons. One of which is the contempt she has for Ted. She is frequently rolling her eyes at him or annoyed in some way and we know in canon he is the guy who represents conformity. However, Karen doesn't. This season especially she is shown to not be happy with her life. She is supposed to be a conservative housewife, but she almost has an affair and makes a few interesting comments. One of which was during her conversation with Nancy about her job. Nancy is discussing her misogynistic bosses and Karen gives her helpful and supportive advice about not fitting in. It seems personal, and from what we know about her, this sticks out. Because she seems like she is a typical housewife. I always felt like there was more to her backstory, but she seems to relate personally to Nancy's story of being an outcast at her job.

There is also her relationship with Mike. In S1, we see her trying to connect with him emotionally and get him to talk about his feelings about Will going missing. Karen is clearly someone who her kids can talk to, even if they resist sometimes. And her kids don't exactly fit in or represent conformity. She has been shown to be worried about her their safety repeatedly, Mike in particular, and we never see her trying to force them to conform in any way. And this is a thing that someone in her position would have absolutely been teaching her kids - conservative, Christian values. But we don't see anything like this or any hint of this. So I don't buy the 'she's conservative' theory. I don't think we've seen enough evidence of that. And while the Wheelers are probably a family that goes to church on Sundays, I don't get the impression this is a major influence in their lives. There is no religious paraphernalia around the house and this would have been a very common thing for a family that was pro-Reagan to do. I feel like they are passively conservative. It's the popular, normal choice and Karen and Ted are the epitome of doing things because they think they are supposed to. But this hardly makes them die hard believers.

S4 - This is where religion becomes more direct. Eddie is reading a Newsweek article about the dangers of D&D. During this time Satanic Panic was spreading. People feared for the moral values of the US during a time of extreme conservatism. Eddie clearly thinks this article is a joke. He's mocking anyone who conforms and it's clear Dustin and Mike agree. They are outcasts and they know D&D isn't dangerous. Eddie makes them feel like being different is ok.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have Jason. He's your typical straight, white, christian male and fits in perfectly. He's the star of the basketball team and has the perfect cheerleader girlfriend (at least on the surface). He's the opposite of Eddie. And he is the villain in this story. THE GUY WHO CONFORMS PERFECTLY IS THE VILLAIN. He gets progressively more insane as the season progresses. He's charismatic and he quotes the Bible to rile the town up to hunt Eddie and Hellfire club down. They are all in a panic about the murders that are happening and the cops aren't doing a great job containing things (they also don't have all the information to be fair). But by the end of the season, Jason is completely unhinged and holds Lucas up at gunpoint. He's also part of the reason why Max ended up dying. It's Satanic Panic that drives this attitude forward. People are panicking over the loss of morals and blaming that for the reason why bad things are happening. Which I think will make for an interesting lead-in next season with regard to a more openly gay storyline.

On top of this display of religious fundamentalism, we see Suzie and her family. They are Mormons and we know her father is strict with regard to religion. However the family we see is chaotic. Suzie's sister Eden mocks Suzie for basically being a goody two shoes. Eden also has no hesitation about getting high and clearly is not abiding by Mormon values. Suzie doesn't always either. If there is a cause she believes in - like helping Dustin - she only has a little bit of guilt about going against her father and her religion. Her father is pretty much a joke. He's a fumbling idiot the kids need to outsmart in order to get the information they need. It's not exactly a positive representation of religion. Suzie shows that even though her religion is important to her, she is capable of thinking for herself. She hacks Dustins school computer and a government computer (although she doesn't know all the info about what she is doing here) with little hesitation. Her religious morals aren't exactly stopping her from doing something illegal or unethical. She's a hacker above all else.

At the end of the season we see Ted - the dude who represents all things common - reacting negatively to the news about what's going on in Hawkins. The guy who represents conformity is questioning the "propaganda" the news is coming out with to describe the situation in Hawkins. He is questioning the status quo. This is meant to show how even Ted is noticing something isn't adding up about the "normal" explanation of things. Something, at this point, that the audience should be questioning especially with regard to Mike. Because if even Ted can see something is going on here, then surely the audience can too.

The series has gotten progressively more direct about its anti-conformity theme which is why it makes no sense for them to suddenly forget this in S5. This show has always been about and for outcasts. The Wheeler family is a cautionary tale that Nancy said in season 1 was so depressing. She wants the opposite of this, which is why her and Steve and their 6 kids is never going to work (there are a lot of reasons why this is never going to work). And it's also why Mike and El aren't going to be endgame. Those relationships are there to represent conformity and none of the characters in those relationships are happy. They are the expected, normal relationships. If they wanted the audience to like these relationships they would have been written more positively.

So it's funny to me when people say the show is never going to go against the status quo because they have literally been doing this from the start. It's what the entire show is about. All of the characters are outcasts. All of them. So if people are claiming to like and support them, then they need to get behind the anti-conformity theme. And if they can't do that - this show is simply not for those people and it never was.

[music-interpretation-review]

Wednesday Music Review Poll

Wikipedia: Bluegrass music is a genre of American roots music that developed in the 1940s in the Appalachian region of the United States. The genre derives its name from the band Bill Monroe and the Blue Grass Boys. Like mainstream country music, it largely developed out of old-time music, though in contrast to country, it is traditionally played exclusively on acoustic instruments and also kept its roots in traditional English, Scottish and Irish ballads and dance tunes, as well as incorporating blues and jazz. It was further developed by musicians who played with Monroe, including 5-string banjo player Earl Scruggs and guitarist Lester Flatt. Bill Monroe once described bluegrass music as, "It's a part of Methodist, Holiness and Baptist traditions. It's blues and jazz, and it has a high lonesome sound."

Voters are encouraged to make suggestions for repeat polls featuring this genre in the future. Know of a good cover that wasn't an entry in this poll? Drop it in the replies!

(Please keep it to the replies of this post and do not send an ask. This is to keep the suggestions organized in one place.)

Contestant videos under the cut:

[blushydrangea]

im here to ask u ur thoughts in the... pj controversy ehhekekfke i wanna say smthn abt but like i feel as if i dont grasp the whole thing yet so i chose to shut up rn

hi love! under the cut so the people who are tired of discussing this topic can avoid it.

it's a long one!

i know everyone here has likely come across the tweets pj made, but as an archiver at heart i feel the need to break everything down. screenshots aren't mine.

on the 18th, pj made a tweet about fellow drag queen and artist chappell roan, questioning the authenticity of her love for drag. most people (me included!) thought she was trolling, which unfortunately didn't happen to be the case. plane appeared to be under the impression that chappell was mean or cold towards drag queens she invited to her shows, something she allegedly heard about in boston and, according to some people on reddit so take this with a grain of salt, was debunked. she followed her tweet with another, ironically saying "i love chappell roan". the first tweet was then deleted.

after several people accused plane jane of trying to gatekeep drag from women & having an unfair opinion deeply rooted in misogyny, pj released a notes app screenshot on the 19th. however, going against the purpose of most notes screenshots, hers wasn't an apology. instead, she chose to call out the hypocrisy of people attacking her because they were calling her a man (it's important to note that pj hasn't directly told us what her ood pronouns are afaik).

she made some more shady tweets after that and argued with stans on social media but i don't feel like including these, so the last update we have was this apology pj made for her fandom.

before i speak my mind on this, i just wanna say that i am willing to discuss this as long as people are polite, any aggressive messages i might receive will be promptly deleted.

to be honest, i didn't like what she said. being a person with a platform and, let's be real, several crazy stan accounts who follow her word like gospel, it was wrong in my opinion to call a growing lesbian artist (one of the very few we have, at that) performative for her love of drag. someone who also engages in the *checks notes* performative art of drag. there isn't much of a "bag" to be secured by pretending you love drag, as it's not that mainstream, and i can't help but wonder if pj would have the same criticism were chappell a gay man instead of a lesbian woman.

misogyny is real and it's present in all of us, we were all raised to see women as less than. pj is white and male-presenting with her makeup off, she isn't incapable of misogyny because she is gay or a drag queen. therefore, it rubbed me in the wrong way to see her voice out the same beliefs i've heard from other gay men before – that women deserve to be questioned whenever they exist in drag spaces. i don't agree with the sentiment that pj meant women shouldn't do drag, as she never said that. though she honestly reminded me of those men who ask me very specific and tricky questions about the tree of gondor or whatever when i tell them i love the lord of the rings. are you a true fan?

her notes app statement was what pissed me off. she was really immature imo, ofc she's only 26 so there's room for growth, but twisting a situation you inserted yourself in to seem like the victim based on... people calling you a cis man? come on. it was a self-centered statement made by someone who seemed to refuse to take any criticism on this subject matter. i was very disappointed she chose the "but you are wrong too!" route instead of apologizing to the people she hurt.

her apology to her fandom was... fine, i guess. it served to show me that she seems to be comfortable living in her bubble.

do i think she's a bad person? no, i don't. but i do think she had a misogynistic take and doubled down on it because she refuses to admit she was wrong. i'm staying away from her for the time being, i'll probably get over it eventually but rn i don't wanna see her face all that much. no judgement whatsoever to people who forgave her and are still posting about her, it's your blog, do what you want <3

[ratsbanes]

Iron Man l: Review from a Non Marvel Fan

I'm getting into marvel finally (don't worry, I'm using illegal websites fuck Disney). Obviously, this will have spoilers, I will be brutally honest, and I have only watched this movie. So, let's go ahead!

The movie: 6/10

Firstly, the plot points were so easy to see. Stale, the second I saw a bald guy with a beard and cigar, I went "he's evil". His turn around was a little too much for next and the way he's evil is a little too much of a caricature. Otherwise he's an alright villain.

Second, TONY STARK IS DISABLED AND THEY MISSED SO MANY OPPORTUNITIES. You cannot have a heart device that needs constant maintenance and not being disabled, I'm sorry. I know a lot of people with heart conditions can't drink, that would've been a great bit of character growth for Tony!

Speaking of his character growth, I kinda hate him. I have a thing against billionaires, even ones trying to help people. So many people probably lost their jobs because of this man. I hope to see more growth from him down the line.

Yinsen and Pepper are great characters that I wish were used better. Yinsen dies a very stereotypical death and Pepper is so far kinda reduced to love interest with a backbone. I need her to girlboss™ harder.

Some of the humour wasn't my taste (pretty sure there was a transphobic/homophobic joke in there? :/) But all of the CGI was great, everyone's acting was great, and the message of the movie, while it could've been deeper, for a mainstream movie is pretty good. If only Disney could realise they are STARK Industries

(Really though, it felt way too real for what's happening right now, and it's downright horrific that they don't follow their own movies morals. Don't forget to do what you can to support Palestine people!)

Overall, I hope it gets better. I do like the sci fi tho

[princesandromeda]

finally got around to reading the Gigantomachia bc of Reasons and it's been… a wild trip tbh. My impressions so far (beware cringe):

The concept of Shun going to a Greek play is funny. The concept of Shun going to a Greek play and watching someone die… is still funny. Ironically.

idk if i'm too paranoid or whatever, but Altar Nicole being unable to help during the Greek theater fiasco is a little suspicious.

I love Mei's concept! He's got that big brother (heh) energy. And the fact that he didn't graduate bc his master (Deathmask) died is so funny to me. I'm sorry my sense of humor is so skewed, I blame Argentinian parodies.

Should I make a counter for every time Shun has been compared to a girl/called maiden? idr him being feminized as much in the manga. and the times where he would be "feminized" were… pretty tame tbh.

There's this part abt the history of Sicily which includes THE WHOLE Italy independency History and I'm like. Am I reading a Saint Seiya light novel or a Hetalia fanfiction? like???

Mei: What's the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Sicily? Seiya: The mafia. Mei: It's because of The Godfather, isn't it?

I KNOW IT'S A NOD TO THE FACT KURUMADA LOVES THOSE MOVIES, NO I WILL NOT STOP TALKING ABT IT.

It's also curious though that Mei mentions mafia being sort of a taboo topic within Italy (it is, I was actually surprised they'd done this much research into it), and also the mention that economically Sicily is better off than mainland. That kind of thing (satellite[?] islands being better off than mainland) seems to be a pattern????

idk if it was the translation or smth but Saori got called a whore???? my jaw was literally on the floor, what the heck.

My honest to god reaction to reading Hyoga jumping in to save Shun: UN LOBO SIEMPRE PROTEGE A SU LOBA, AUUUUUU

like ofc the maiden in distress trope w Shun used to bother me sosososo much a couple of years ago, especially bc of the damage it did to the mainstream audience's perception of Shun's character, but at this point i learned to accept it as it is: fanservice. Man the anime team used to feed us three-course meals everytime Shun and Hyoga appeared together on camera, huh?

Hyoga: Are you ok, Shun? Thaos: He's about to die, actually. Hyoga: I wasn't talking to you.

Shun about to faint!!!! Hyoga: You've lost a lot of blood. You shouldn't move like that, rest up a little. Shun: I'm fine. Hyoga, smiling: If you say so. But that doesn't mean much coming from you.

[thirdworldrockout]

Compact Memories Best Albums 1999-2002

System of a Down (1st album). Gave me the idea that there is more music out there than what's presented in front of you, you know the super mainstream "burger-fries-cola" combo, think out of the box.

Nirvana- In Utero. This was their masterpiece. Sure, Nevermind had the hits and Bleach had the buzzsaw guitar punk-rock sound but this was what Nirvana was supposed to sound like, melancholy, full of angst art-rock.

Black Sabbath- Paranoid. It's all about hearing Iron Man for the first time and thinking the world's going to end soon. Teenage years... Sheesh!

Pantera- Vulgar Display of Power. Cooler than anything Metallica put out in the 90's.

Nine Inch Nails- The Fragile. Double album with lush sounds and trippy songs. It's a concept album about walking towards the edge of the world and thinking it might be better to completely disappear.

Deftones- White Pony. Be cool. Listen.

A Perfect Circle- Mer de Noms. Perfect album to rock to and have some artsy thoughts linger right after.

Danzig (1st album). Metal + Danzig = Great.

Faith No More- Angel Dust. They had their own sound and vibe. Fascinating how much music landscape they covered. Being like a reverse RHCP band was a huge plus for me.

Entombed- Wolverine Blues. Entombed's most mainstream thing was the Wolverine in Wolverine Blues. It wasn't a thing. What made Entombed cool was they didn't have to, they just were, from death metal to death n' roll, that's the band.

Down- NOLA. A rare gem from a supergroup. Swampy southern/stoner metal.

Slayer- Reign in Blood. This was on every list of must-have records for metal heads. I think to this day, whenever I discover metal bands I haven't heard of, this album is what I compare them to.

[plantsjustwannahavefun]

I don't really remember when exactly my interaction with the OFMD fandom became so limited to the Izzy Enjoyer Corner of it... It's not like I'm not rooting for Stede and Ed too, I absolutely am, and they're the reason I fell in love with this show at first. I didn't get into Izzy's character until my third or fourth rewatch, but I never would have, had it been for all those amazing, insightful meta posts that helped me see beyond the surface and discover all those details I'd missed, all those hidden layers and multitudes... And it turned out that Izzy contained so many of those, he ended up becoming the most fascinating character in the show for me. I just wanted to learn more. I understood exactly, viscerally, what all those people saying "I want to shake him in a jar and study him under a microscope like a bug" meant.

But eventually it became more than that. For some reason I kept finding so much compassion and acceptable in that weird little corner that seemed to encompass the essence of what drew me to OFMD in the first place. It certainly seemed ironic at first that many of the nicest, kindest, funniest, most accepting people in the fandom clustered around this angry pathetic gremlin man, and that fascinated me as much as the character himself. At the time I wasn't aware of this whole rift between the "mainstream" part of the fandom and the "Izzy Enjoyer" part, but something about the latter just made me naturally gravitate towards it before I learned that apparently the "mainstream" part can be more of a minefield...

But then I realised something. I've always been drawn to characters like Izzy, in every fandom. It's just that none of those other characters went on to inspire a "sub-fandom" of their own. In every other fandom, characters like Izzy are only ever treated either as comic relief or as flat antagonists, and most of the fans see them that way too. But this fandom somehow had enough people who saw deeper into this character and created their own corner where liking him was validated. I can actually engage in discourse about my favourite character with other people and not get ridiculed for taking an interest in a "minor" character who's technically an antagonist, but not one of those cool suave mastermind ones that are socially acceptable to like because they're competent and conventionally sexy, but just a regular middle-aged guy with very realistic reactions that aren't always palatable but feel so, so very human and painfully relatable. In other fandoms characters like him don't get thousands of fan fics where they get to have sex and real relationships and character growth because people found them compelling enough to take them seriously as a character, even if the process does involve peeling him to the core like an onion to reconstruct him again, and cackling when he gets mad about it.

I still hope that S2 will somehow close this rift and unite the fandom by satisfying "both sides". In the meantime I'm probably going to keep chilling in this corner for a while.

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

So I understand that I have a tendency to politics and rage post quite a bit and while I'm scrolling through my feed I like to go through and kind of mix things up with cute videos of animals and just wholesome things.

But the reason things have been picking up with me posting in general is because I have a bit too much free time recently and my work is a delivery job currently. Now as to what I'm about to talk about it is going to be me bitching. And it's because there is a demographic in the country that I can't tell whether or not they are just stupid, ignorant, or malicious. Though there is a possibility that it's a Venn diagram and that there's overlap or potentially a perfect circle.

Now the video that I'm about to share before I get into this topic is going to feature a person that I am aware that a lot of people don't like for a variety of different reasons. Having said that however I find man on the street videos pretty optimal for testing the general climate of people in general. Having said that here is the video.

Now if you decide to not watch the full video that's completely fine because my response is mainly only to the first and third person that are interviewed. And this is a broader conversation about Democrat voters in general. So I am going to put a read more tag under this because it will probably be long but if you end up giving it a read I appreciate it.

I don't know if it's because of mainstream Media or pundits or talking heads but Democrat voters in the United States seem to be heavily uninformed to a point of sheer ignorance or just general stupidity. And if you are honestly asking me I can't tell if it's again, ignorance, stupidity or maliciousness. But the first guy in this interview basically literally talked about forming a totalitarian government even if he's not implicit about it that's what he wants. Because he very much said that he didn't want to stack the supreme Court and then said that yes he actually wants to have full power of the house the Senate and the presidency so that they could stack the court and then prevent Republicans from ever getting that kind of majority so that they could keep power.

Because even if all of that wasn't explicit he very much made that clear in what he implied. And between him and the third guy who both claimed that people are misinformed the irony is palpable.

As to the third guy I don't think that he's malicious I think that he's ignorant and bordering on stupid and I don't say that to be crude. I actually say that because I believe it to be the case in this instance because of how he talks. This seems like a guy who un-ironically watches CNN and MSNBC religiously. And then literally only repeats the things that he hears. Because he talks about a stalemate when it came to the border bill. A border bill in which didn't actually do much of anything. The bill itself allows 4000 illegal immigrants in throughout the day and after the 4,000 mark they are supposed to halt illegals from coming in. Part of the bill was also an aid package to Ukraine. Now if you look at it from both of those angles it sounds pretty clear to me that it really doesn't do anything about the border. Actually if anything it codifies illegal immigration into our country.

Then there is the supposedly banned books. The actual definition of a book being banned is an instance in which societally and often governmentally a book is removed from circulation from all means. In other words society and the government say you can't publish this book anymore owning this book is literally forbidden and we will imprison you or file charges against you if it is found in your possession or if you are found to be distributing it. That is the actual definition of what banning a book looks like. Meanwhile what was actually taking place in a lot of instances where that a number of books were being looked over for their potentially inappropriate content in regards to children. And they were not being banned. They were being removed from elementary and intermediate schools and an instances some high schools. Why? Because a number of them have explicit sexual content in them. And the only reason that they were functionally allowed was because the only sexual content that Neo progressives want in schools is LGBT sexual content. If you asked quite a number of them if they thought that Playboy or any other number of publications that do dirty smut stories featuring straight people they would freak out at the prospect in some cases.

And so I'm sorry to tell you Mr number three but yes if you have literally no issue with LGBT sexually explicit content in schools just say it. But in all likelihood he doesn't know. He just heard some talking head at the New York times or MSNBC or CNN telling them that the stories were just about LGBT people and did not actually feature anything bad. Despite the fact that one of said books actually features essentially a how-to on giving a blowjob and it's depicted in a picture, and another of the books teaches you how to use Grindr but it is not locked behind a hint hint, wink wink, of if you are under the age of 18 don't read this next part. Yes because a person who buys a book is not going to read everything in it if they bought it with the intention to read it regardless of their age. What's more there are a lot of people who will still argue to this day that drag queens are not explicitly sexual. To which I respond with 99% of all forms of drag performance have historically been sexual in nature in some way shape or form. But it asks a broader question of why is it only that drag queens want to read in front of children and literally no other groups? You never hear about drag queen story hour for old people you never hear about drag queen story hour for you know community viewing. It's always intentionally aimed at children often small children. So I would say yes there is very much an agenda there. And the agenda is to normalize sexual depictions of people in explicitness as well as degeneracy.

Now understand something. Functionally speaking most of the people I know are filthy degenerates. But most of them know where to draw the line. Societally speaking most people do not. And that's part of the issue. Because most instances of drag queens are explicitly sexual and drag shows themselves are often if not always explicitly sexual. You would not be stripping at a drag show and dancing in a sexually provocative way if it wasn't meant to be sexual. Performative or not it is meant to be sexual. And for a lot of drag queens it is a sexual fetish. Because they get sexual gratification from it.

Which leads me interestingly to a point that I did not think I was going to talk about but seeing as this is kind of a rant I'm going off script. People need to understand that kinks and fetishes are fundamentally sexual in nature. And the reason that I say that is because you don't call your likes of something a kink or a fetish unless the implication is that it is for sexual gratification. And there is a very specific reason why. I do not call my love of seafood a kink or a fetish. I don't call my love of anime a kink or a fetish. I don't call the fact that I enjoy going on Long scenic drives a kink or a fetish. And the reason is because they aren't. I've had a lot of people recently try to draw this weird distinction between sex and sexual stuff and also can kink and fetishes. And most of you seem to be ill informed so as somebody who has experience with those specific communities let me weigh in with age old wisdom. If you like something then it is a like if you like something and it gives you sexual gratification it is a kink or a fetish. And it is probably about time that we stop pretending those things aren't related to sexual gratification.

Having moved that out of the way however, I can kind of get back to what I was saying having made that statement. When you see amen on the back of a truck strapped to a sex cross being flogged in public while nearly completely naked that is a form of actual degeneracy. And the specific reason as to why is because it is intentional public showing of things of an explicit sexual nature. Mind you I don't know if this was last year or the year before but that very instance was featured at a pride parade.

But back to the video because it is important the third man interviewed seems to be wildly actually misinformed when it comes to what is going on in the world. No the economy is not good. Any look at prices of restaurant food or store-bought food would very much showcase that is fact. Gas prices would actually be almost $4 if not north of $4 even in places like Texas if not for the fact that Biden is literally emptying out our reserves right now to artificially lower costs. And then you have groups and communities who are very much upset with the current state of illegal immigration into our country because it is very much taking its toll on not just our economy but also culturally.

It's weird because when you talk to Democrats, and yes this goes both ways but it's not nearly as bad, they have this stereotype in their head of what someone on the right or who is Republican is. Which is a dumb redneck who sits on his ass does nothing but watch sports drink beer while literally plugging his brain into Fox News and then going dig ditches or something. While making Facebook posts about how he wants to bring the KKK back and how he wants to hunt down all the gays.

99.99% of people who would vote Republican do not even remotely embody that stereotype. Then again extremes on every side in every culture in every faith in every political party will always exist. Because extreme people will always exist. But when it comes to voters who are Democrats I am unable to truly process how there are so many things that they don't know. It literally makes no sense to me. And what's more interesting is the fact that black voters are starting to actually realize that the Democrats don't actually give a damn about them. Which I'm excited to see. Because it was funny watching Texas and Florida and other states, send illegals to New York Illinois New Jersey and other places. Because prior to now a lot of those people had never truly understood what border states deal with on The daily basis.

Me personally? I live in texas. And I have steadily seen the population of Latino people grow exponentially over my time growing up. But unchecked Mass migration has gotten so ridiculous over the years there are areas in North Central Texas around Dallas where there are 10 to 15 mosques within 10 to 15 miles. Which is absurd. Now I don't have any problem with mosques existing in any cities or states. But I will say one thing specifically. When you are seeing mosques overtake churches in the United States and you have enough of a population of a different culture(s) that you need 10 to 15 mosques in that range? It's pretty much safe to say that you are functionally being replaced. And you don't even have to take my word for that. Cuz if you listen to a lot of the people in the Bronx and other areas like Chicago and what not where there are currently illegal immigrants taking over hotels and homeless shelters, as if their rights are that of free things provided by taxpayers in this country. You are seeing a lot of them talk about the fact that they are being replaced. And I actually believe that they are. Because people Mass imported into this country will be added to the census. And if the Biden administration has anything to say about it he will get them identifications and voter IDs before the election comes around. Because recently over a million new registrations of voters have come out of Texas tens of thousands of whom have been dead. We had a similar phenomenon in Missouri I believe. And the way that this was found out, was through a program that is specifically meant to be used for new voter registration not in fact to clean voter rolls. Never you mind the fact that Biden has been selling us out to other countries by moving all of our stuff over to other countries. And the only positive thing that he has done was something that Trump had already been planning to do in the first place. Which was the chips act. More or less to start producing silicon here because it is better that we bring a lot of our manufacturing back to the United States. Especially when we are perpetually at economic war with China.

Democrats in my opinion feel incredibly uneducated. And for some God forsaken reason they think the going to school magically grant them an education. But then you listen to them talk and it is clear they have absolutely no clue what is going on with the world around them. They literally just repeat things that they've heard. Which honestly doesn't shock me. However it doesn't make it any less sad if you consider the fact that they're allowed to vote while literally not knowing anything about what's going on in this country.

Never you mind the charisma scandal with Joe Biden and Hunter biden. Never you mind the fact that Joe Biden used his position as vice president to protect a company that his son was working for that belonged to a foreign nation. Never you mind the Joe Biden used his power as vice president to get his son, or try to get his son lucrative deals in the energy sector in China. We have found out so many things that the Democrats lied about. The inflation reduction act which actually increased inflation. And had more to do with the green New deal then literally anything to do with reducing inflation. Then there was the LIE of the don't say gay bill. Which convinced a lot of people you could no longer say gay in schools or some people believe that you could no longer say the word gay in the state at all. Despite the fact that the bill was called the parental rights in education act, and it's entire goal was that teachers were required by law to tell parents when issues were arising with their kids. And that they could not have extracurricular discussions about LGBT topics in schools. But see here's the fun caveat. the law The Way it was written also prevented them from talking about cisgendered topics. In other words it barred teachers from using class time to explicitly discuss sexuality or gender identity. As teachers jobs is quite literally to teach academics in particular subjects related to what they've been briefed to teach. So if you are a math teacher, your job is to teach math. Not to talk about how your wife is Polly lesbian Ace and how she just got a train ran on her at a fetish community event that was pro LGBT. (No I did not hear about this being an actual thing that happened but it is an extreme case of what was happening. IE: teachers talking about their romantic and sex lives openly to their students and prompting class time discussions about LGBT topics that had nothing to do with what they were allowed to teach in the first place).

The fact of the matter is so much of the things that the Democrats have put out via the news and other sources have been bald-faced lies. And most of that can be proven generally. But the problem is the news are not going to tell on themselves. Which makes things frustrating because when cnn, msnbc, the New York times, abc, the guardian, the daily beast, and many other outlets outright lie they all align democrat. And so they are not going to tell on themselves or tell on each other unless there is absolutely no choice but to do so. We saw a member of Congress intentionally set off a exit/fire alarm in order to delay proceedings. But guess what he had a D in front of his name so he got away with it. Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence of malfeasance, gross negligence and possibly maliciousness, by having her staffers destroy cell phones with hammers and use bleach bit software on servers to remove the fact that she had sent dozens if not hundreds of classified documents to foreign entities. Never once prosecuted because of course she has a D in front of her name Rachel maddow almost cried on live TV whenever they said that no Trump was not in fact linked to Russia. And that Russian gate was a hoax as a whole.

Moderates left of center people and people on the right seem to have a far better idea of what is going on in this country rather than run of the mill liberals. And they certainly know significantly more about what's going on in this country then neoliberals. Under Trump the economy was good. We had no new wars. There was an actual attempt to bring our soldiers home had many generals not lied about how many soldiers we had in foreign countries. Remain in Mexico was great policy for mitigating immigration. And the easiest way to understand why the media hated Trump is one very specific instance. The one time that Trump specifically opted to use military force explicitly in a very specific drone strike. Many of the dem aligned media opted to call that particular act presidential. Even though technically what they said was finally Donald Trump starting to act like a president. Donald Trump fired Bolton. Yes a little too late, but the fact remains that he did. So if I were to take a wild guess as to why the media hated him it wasn't because he was a fascist. It wasn't because he was a dictator. It wasn't because he was going to form gay hunting parties. And it wasn't because he was trying to reform the kkk. It was because he was a threat to their power. And while certainly there were more powers granted to the deep State under trump, we had significantly more victories generally speaking as a country because of trump. Specifically the Abraham accords. The fact that under Trump no new wars did start. The fact that Donald Trump without security walked into North Korea as a symbol of good faith. Something no other president has ever done. Trump held up an LGBT flag that said gays for Trump in front of the rnc. And the RNC clapped for him. I grew up around Republicans, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that The stereotype that constantly gets put on to Republicans is functionally false in most cases.

Meanwhile the Democrats consistently claim that they want to help minorities and that they are trying to protect democracy. Except one, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. And two, Democrats are literally the party of the KKK. And contrary to Democrat messaging and several Neo progressives messaging no there was no broad party switch. Almost every form of legislation passed by democrats has negatively affected minorities in some way shape or form. It is consistent. And it is frequent. Democrats as they are and have been for the past 20 plus years are in my opinion a malicious organization of evil autocrats. Or more accurately a group that seeks to be autocrats. No having said that I will say one thing. This is a post specifically about democrats. However I will concede to the fact that there are Republicans who very much are no better. But I think the scales are functionally different. And imagine the scale like this. You have one scale with 30 lb on one side and 5 lb on the other side 30 lb is the evil rot of the Democrat party and specifically The crazies. Be 5 lb are the same people. Where as Republicans you are looking at a 30 lb weight on where as Republicans you are looking at a 15 lb weight on one side and a 10 lb weight on the other side. The 15 lb is the neocons and the actual unit party assholes. The 10 lb are the decent Republicans regardless of whether I disagree with how they do things. And you might think by me saying this that I am a republican. Except no I'm not even conservative. Mind you, it is my obligation to tear the party that supposedly is supposed to support me to shreds because they are malicious snake oil salesmen who do not actually care about this country. And are frequently doing everything that they can to bankrupt the American people, flood this country with people that they can buy off, and sell us out infrastructure and all to foreign entities specifically China.

Speaking of which. Let me just mention one thing because it's insulting to me. China is currently in the midst of genociding Uhygur muslims. Which includes forced sterilization. Forcing them into labor camps. And having Han Chinese men rape the Uhygur Muslim women. And based on the reports multiple times daily. I have seen more people harass random Jewish people and any company that could theoretically be linked to Israel then I have seen any backlash against China whatsoever. The reason this is so extraordinary to me is because I have seen vtubers and celebrities get literally harassed and dog piled because they wanted to buy something from Starbucks but because something something Israel all of a sudden Starbucks is on this "evil blacklist of companies controlled by the evil Jewish state". Meanwhile I have heard zero pushback or boycott for any extended period of time against China whatsoever. You arrogant f**** are all still using tick tock. You're still buying stuff off temu, which is actually worse because guess where your products are made from that website? Oh yeah right Uhygur Muslim labor camps. A video on that here-

So. I have gone completely off script at this point. And I understand that this is long and effectively a rant. But it boggles my mind that even when confronted with actual reality people will continue to vote for Democrats because they've literally bought into the lie that they are the party of love and tolerance. When they have done so much more damage to varying communities including minority ones. Fun fact about things like affirmative action. All they actually do is make other people hate you for getting a job based on your skin color. And nothing anyone can say will prevent anyone from viewing it that way. Because you have quotas to meet under affirmative action saying you have to have X number of insert demographic here. Which means that if you only have 50 spots that you have to hire for you are legally obligated to save positions for people based on the color of their skin. Rather than first come first serve. Then you have DEI bullshit. In which even people who thought that DEI had a different definition soon realized that it was actually making people more racist. Which honestly shouldn't shock anyone. And then you have the welfare state. And which you can survive pretty decently off of welfare up to and including social Security and food stamps. And it is actually easier to survive off welfare then it is off of a job paying between nine and twelve dollars an hour depending on where you live. What's more they make these benefits particularly lucrative for certain demographics of people. Meanwhile other people get the shaft. Because a group depended on the government will always bow to the government. And those in power are very much aware of this. And if you really need any more actual proof look no further than california. Where it is been a constant that they have been trying to "fix" homelessness and clean up the city in general. Only for people like Gavin newsom and others to say that it was impossible to do in a short period of time and likely would not improve. Only for Gavin newsom's communist hero Xi decided to come to a conference and he got the city very clean very quickly and kept it such until the man left. Not to mention has forwarded several different forms of legislation that have made life worse for people in california. That $20 minimum wage that you thought would be so great? Yeah 10,000 people lost their jobs over it. Color me shocked. Oh except for the fact that Panera bread didn't have to abide by this because they donated a s*** ton of money to Gavin. So it was never about helping the people. It was literally just placation. Or maybe you could look back at the legislation where he tried to repeal the part of the California Constitution that says you can't discriminate based off of XYZ protected classes. Which means he wanted to allow discrimination based off of those things. Or there is the ever so present fact that it is no longer a crime much less a felony to intentionally and knowingly give your partner HIV.

Are there uni party republicans? Absolutely. There are also RINOs. As well as warhawks. But almost all of them fall right in line with the Democrat establishment. Because for all of them it is war money and power. Now I'm going to wrap this up a little bit by saying this. There are quite a few decent Republicans that get a bad rap because of mainstream media who exceedingly have a Democrat bias. And yes there are a few although not many Democrat politicians who are not evil assholes. But that shortlist is in fact a very short list.

*Rant Finished

[crystal-lillies]

alice takes a peek down the rabbit hole; or, what happens when I accidentally find a grifter-type news article on a subject I love

the ugly snort I made when I stumbled across a headline proclaiming that U.S. Comic Books are failing because of "wokeness" but Manga is thriving instead...

no joke, I felt like H.Bomberguy setting up a bit before a 4-hour long video essay as I found this article on my "new tab screen."

and I had to read it because my first thought, of course, was, "My dude," (the author is a man) "where the fuck have you been? Manga has ALWAYS been much more left and progressive than most mainstream U.S. comic books! You shot yourself in the foot right there!"

But, of course, I wanted to see if that point got addressed, and what else this article had to say, despite knowing that it was not meant for my eyes. The first mistake was that it claimed that manga was imported "non-woke" material within the first two paragraphs, while then much later acknowledging that what "might be called wokeness" exists in manga, particularly in LGBT relationships, even citing the outcry when the Sailor Moon dub censored the ships baked into the text of the story.

Yet...the issue is that U.S. comic books that have been behind in the representation department on many intersectional departments are now working to introduce more of these elements, such as Riri Williams taking over for Tony Stark as Ironheart when Iron Man is no longer around, or that Luke Fox exists in the Batfamily...with all of the other Batfamily around...or that Carol Danvers isn't as much of a fucking sexy fantasy doll than she was made out to be before.

Put a pin in that.

Another point brought up is how at "one time," comic book shops catered to a specific, niche group of people (a mostly male-dominated, juvenile-seeming group) and certain fandoms' toxic behavior soured the image in the public's eye...but NOW the stigma has LONG been GONE! ...I'd need a citation for that, my dude. (there wasn't one)

despite how many people go to Comic Cons around the world, being a comic book geek is still an oft-ridiculed and niche thing (as is the same for manga and anime, but it's a lot easier to find manga in my local Target than most superhero comics). and while some kind comic book shops do go out of their way cater to everyone, as someone who is Not Male and Not Always "Stereotypically Geek"-Presenting, I've had my fair share of judgement for my presence in those spaces.

Now coming back to the pin...making U.S. comic books and superhero stories more aligned with a wider, more diverse, "woke" audience, just like the massively successful imported (supposedly "non-woke") manga have been doing for many years...that's the real problem as to why comic sales are seemingly doing badly, according to you, sir? Not anything to do with the fact that translated manga is at a better price point for the value page-count and quality-wise, which you cited, or the fact it is more widely available to general intersectional audiences, which you ALSO cited?

The cognitive dissonance gymnastics is really something to behold. Sometimes, you really have to see it for yourself, and wonder how these writers are missing the point they're unintentionally making.

But, of course, I'm far from the intended audience that already agrees with the blind defensive ragebait.

and I do feel like H.Bomberguy now after having brought my head out of the rabbit hole.

if I wasn't so averse and terrified of putting more of myself out on the internet...I could see how easy it would be to go insane and make a 4-hour long video essay.

[infinitelycomplexpuzzles]

// I know it's my autism hyperfocusing

but I really DO dislike when I encounter bad writing from ostensible professionals. Because no one is making them write bad plotlines. No one is making them write them in a way that doesn't make logical sense.

Like okay, some plots are mandated by editors. But that doesn't mean every time you write you have to commit a Flashpoint level atrocity upon the canon.

Personally, I chalk it up to what I call demon in a bottle syndrome.

For those unaware, Demon in a Bottle is the comic that established that Iron Man is an alcoholic. Now, even if you like that addition to his canon, the reality is that it wasn't meant to be a foundational comic, because it's a single issue comic wherein Iron Man develops, deals with, and overcomes alcoholism.

Yeah, a single issue!

And now, every writer can't just write a good story, they have to write the story, the story that's going to change the character forever.

And what you end up with are characters that don't feel like characters because every new writer feels like they need to reinvent the character again. Event comics certainly aren't helping this either.

But the whole actually Captain America was hydra the whole time! thing is evidence of this. Actually, Captain Marvel is a fascist is part of this. The whole actually, the hulk is magic now is part of this.

So much time in comics is spent by writers trying to reinvent their characters they forget how to write good stories, and the characters stop being memorable, because if everyone is writing different stuff into it, then none of it sticks. It just becomes 'oh remember so and so's run on x?'

And sometimes, Demon In A Bottle Syndrome metastasizes. It become terminal. That's how you get the Ultimate universe ending in a clusterfuck of incest and cannibalism. It's how you get Brightest Day requiring a full universe reboot or how you get Rebirth being required.

I think this is why the best comic media is not actually in comics at all. There's a reason why people got invested in the snyderverse even if people hated/liked it. There's a reason why marvel movies make billions, why their cartoons live in longer than any of the comics.

I mean, we're still familiar with the 1960's Spiderman show. We know about it than most comics that came out a decade ago. That should point something out to us!

But also, it's just... in a time when comics properties have never been more mainstream, it's really sad to see that comics themselves have never been more forgettable and tiring?

[denimbex1986]

'As critics and fans laud Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer, a major talking point is Cillian Murphy in the lead role. He's delivering a tour de force as the inventor of the atom bomb, which many think will win awards, and rightfully so. The movie shows he has that gravitas, covering a wide spectrum of emotions as a torn scientist who knows he's dooming the world.

A lot has to do with his method acting and immersive style. Coincidentally, it pays off years of friendship and camaraderie between Murphy and Nolan, as he's been a supporting character in a few films, including Inception. However, Murphy really broke into the Hollywood mainstream scene via Nolan's Batman Begins. While his performance as Oppenheimer brings Murphy's journey with Nolan full-circle, it ironically reiterates he wasn't fully utilized as Dr. Jonathan Crane aka Scarecrow in The Dark Knight Trilogy.

Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow Missed Out on a Better Ending

In Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, Murphy's Jonathan Crane, much like the comics, was a doctor conducting unethical experiments. He enhanced the fear gas for Ra's al Ghul to use to break Gotham City. But Christian Bale's Batman ended up arresting Scarecrow, which led to a minor cameo in The Dark Knight. There, Crane was once more peddling contraband, only to quickly get locked up. The Dark Knight Rises then gave him another short cameo, pretending to be a judge and casting people out of Gotham to their death.

The thing is, when Bane and the League of Shadows were taken down, the film never wrapped what happened to Crane. It's presumed the cops nabbed him, but this was a very dangerous villain to have on the loose. Given Nolan had a powerhouse actor to work with, Scarecrow could have been reintegrated into the League, or even murdered by Talia for not finishing the job her father wanted. This unfortunately resulted in an underwhelming finish, as he ended up being nothing more than a joke after being set up as a maniacal mastermind in the first film.

Murphy's Scarecrow Tied into Batman's Broken State Heavily

What really resonated with The Dark Knight Rises's Batman was how broken Bruce Wayne was. He hid away from society after Rachel Dawes' and Harvey Dent's death, blaming himself. He feared the public eye, feared attachment, and simply, feared the symbol of the cursed Batman. That alone was grounds for Crane to have returned, psycho-analyzing the Caped Crusader and letting him know fear internally is immortal. Like energy, it can be converted, but never destroyed. The way Murphy's Oppenheimer goes through his journey -- realizing his sins, embracing his mistakes, but accepting he's a necessary monster -- proves Scarecrow could have had that same emotional depth as a man sacrificing his soul in the name of science.

The franchise could have even flipped the script with Bruce finding him on the lam and probing his mind, a la Clarice and Hannibal Lecter, to really find out they state of his mental health. Going this route would have been apt given Scarecrow first gassed him and showed Bruce's innermost fears about losing family, being terrified of bats and how the idea of being alone would haunt him as he grew older. This is why Rachel passing shook up Bruce -- he was experiencing nightmares come to life once more, and it was all due to the seed Crane planted.

That was the perfect window for Crane to speak about grief and trauma, which would have been fitting since he tried to kill Rachel once in Batman Begins. In the process, he could have shown Batman, he was a necessary evil, just bringing out the real Gotham and people's primal states in a way that would have aligned with Joker's schemes. Unfortunately, while The Dark Knight Rises harped on fear, the twisted chemist who revived it in the Bat got the short end of the stick, and came off as an average thug Batman didn't care to hunt anymore.'

[simpsonsnight]

Episode #710

The Wayz We Were Season 33, Episode 4 | October 17, 2021

Man, I really hated this one. The Simpsons becoming bland was a terrible blow for the unhealthily-obsessed-with-cartoons among us. But for better or worse, The Simpsons was ahead of its time with its initial blandness. Television, by and large, has become even blander than the blandest episode of the Simpsons, even, so they now feel actually contemporary, weirdly enough. 

This one is about a Waze-like app causing the family grief by routing too many cars through Evergreen Terrace. It quickly segues into a story about Moe crossing paths with Maya, and falling in love all over again. This time he proposes to her. It sorta reminds me of when the show took another bitter loser, Comic Book Guy, and married him off.

This ends with Moe asking her to marry him and her saying yes. I’ve focused on Moe as a way to criticize the show’s fall from grace. At the start he was mean and sleazy. Jokes in the classic era ironically showed him having a soft side. That characterization wound up sticking. Mr. Burns had a similar change, going from actually-evil to doddering and oblivious. Modern mainstream comedy programs are so queasy about depicting anything other than blue sky bullshit that all the changes to make the show more toothless are now actually welcome by the modern media landscape. It makes me ill just thinking about it. 

This one is full of overly wacky and pointless gags, and a corny James Taylor needledrop. They bring back Maya, a little person that I legitimately feel uneasy about. I made a half-joking post about the previous Maya episode, suggesting that Maya can easily or subliminally be seen as a minor, and that the show was attempting to groom children. Thank goodness nobody reads this blog, because I was truly just goofing around, and wasn't sincerely trying to give weird right-wingers ammo. It was just incredibly weird how that same episode features a baby wearing what could be perceived as S&M gear domming Homer, and a photo of two children scrubbing an elderly woman’s feet, which ties directly into the story about Matt Groening getting his feet washed by a teenage girl on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane. I haven’t concluded that Matt was aware of the implications of what he was doing, and I think the show’s sicko-mode was unintentional. But I still think it would have been a good idea to rethink this.

But most importantly: episode sucks. The only good thing was Ruth Powers scolding Marge for not visiting her in years even though they live next door. Bad season canon would remind you that she, in fact, moved out of that house at some point, because Sideshow Bob moved into it. I think at the end of that a relative of Ned Flanders moved in. Well, I guess she’s back. I’m just going to put this out there: I would watch the shit out of a spin-off of just Ruth and Laura Powers, maybe they move to Arizona or something. An Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore sorta thing. Yeah. That’d be nice. As long as they didn’t make it lame and retarded. Sorry for saying retarded.

[73647e]

Hi, I'm here for the song ask game :)

sdkjlfhsdkjlfhsdkjfhsdf you seem like a total 70s girlie. like you feel so so warm color palette to me. but like all of the seventies. so not just like dusty springfield or like other mainstream happy shit of the time, im also talking about the gritty shit. because of that, I give you:

if I wasn't bound by that type of stuff, I feel like you would enjoy the strings solo on this:

[k9thefirst1]

How Trump Won

Well. ONE reason. There are many reasons. But I am talking about how Harris, the Democratic Party, the Mainstream Media and their followers all failing to heed - or worse ignoring - one of the core concepts of Machiavelli's observation of the building and maintaining power.

Machiavelli is famous - or infamous - for saying "It is better to be feared than loved." This is a partial quote from his Proto-Political Science book The Prince, and it is one that is missing critical context.

The quote comes from a chapter discussing the question of if it is important for The Prince (let's take that as a metaphor for The Powers That Be) to be loved or feared.

Machiavelli actually says that The Prince ideally would be both feared and loved. Loved for who he is and what he gives, feared for what he can do if crossed.

However, because the public can be very fickle, and because love alone may not be enough if a foe is feared more that The Prince is loved, Machiavelli writes that if The Prince cannot be both feared and loved, he should try to be feared.

HOWEVER, he also has a caveat there for that, which is almost never actually addressed. Even when that quote is criticized in movies and books and TV by showing people betraying the bad guy "because he rules only by fear," they are ironically proving his point.

Basically, while The Prince should be feared if he cannot be loved, it is absolutely vital and critical that he avoid being HATED. Because while love on its own cannot be relied on by a politician to fabricate loyalty, Hate is a powerful motivator for great - not as in good - things.

And by showing with such authoritarian and near totalitarian heavy-handedness how much The Democrats, the Mainstream Media, and their core followers absolutely loath and despise not just Donald Trump, but those that agree with his opinions, or just disagree with them, and how starting with Antifa would actually encourage attacks on them for the sin of using their capacity for Free Will to not blindly agree?

The fear that Prince had cultivated in America to Conservatives and those that aren't absolutely enslaved by the Leftist ideology, the fear of getting Cancelled, of being punished for speaking up, of being ostracized by family and friends, turned to Hate.

Not hate of Race, because Trump never once blamed a person's ethnic background at his rallies - unlike anyone siding with The Left who blamed everything on White America and Europeans in general, even if it made no sense.

Not hate of Sex, because Trump never blamed women for anything, only people that happened to be women - unlike anyone siding with The Left who blamed all manner of evils on Men, even if it made no sense.

Not hate of Nation, because Trump always praised America's past - unlike anyone who sided with The Left who saw America as the most vile and evil thing to grace the Earth, and at best perceived America as if it were 1924, when The Klan had a membership of tens of thousands, most of which were in The North (the location that birthed American Abolitionism), and had Segregation in the Federal Government because of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson.

But instead were motivated by Hatred of Fear itself, and those that would weaponize our own organs of the government to spy on and prosecute Americans for the crime of abiding by the First Amendment to practice their religion in a way they did not like but otherwise did not genuinely harm anyone. Hatred of seeing parents being put on Terrorist Watchlists because of the crime of wanting a say in what and how their children are taught in schools. Hate of being hated because they find something funny that someone else didn't, while at the same time not being allowed to be offended when that person in turn found it funny to wish for a presidential candidate to be murdered. Hatred of seeing a man be charged with fake or nonsense charges for the sin of conducting business, whose 'victim' wasn't even victimized and said as much in court.

So I suppose it could be said Hate was why Trump won. But it was hate of the Establishment that made absolutely no measures whatsoever to hide the fact that it hated us for the crime of not being their little drones. Not hate of one demographic or another.

[kayforpay]

I don't have like a degree in music history or sociology or whatever but I do think that its really interesting how music (and media as a broader subject) have moved away from being realistic or even documentary-like to be more escapist since the ~50s.

before then a lot of music was escapist because 1, the wars and the great depression and the lack of availability of recording supplies making general mass-appeal music the only thing getting out broadly

but then after that with the civil rights protests and the Vietnam invasion we did, and with a greater spread of wealth and time (not that poverty didn't exist, obviously, but even impoverished people were actually capable of meeting and befriending rich people who had recording studios, instead of being the unseen maid at their mansion) people of more creeds and classes were able to record more music. pressing vinyl became less complex and specialized. this is the time when old radiography/x-ray films were used in Soviet controlled Russia to make bootleg LPs, because the process became more widely known.

so there was less of a focus on the high life escapism and bullshit from older music, and more music became just... real shit the singer was seeing. especially in Black communities and other communities of color, songs about the very real struggles they faced and saw their neighbors and loved ones facing were becoming more and more popular, to the point that white producers would buy and sell their songs to white artists (for insanely low prices, because racism of course).

so as the genre of reality-based musical storylines became more widespread through gentrification, and then through artists just actually writing their own music about it, it became more popular than fantastical things. fantastical songs usually were either tongue-in-cheek complaints about the world the writer lived in, or metaphors meant to cover their obvious drug connotations in a veneer of respectability.

this carried on pretty consistently from the 60s through to the 90s, where fantastical songs were not meant to be escapism so much as observing a situation that was meant to question your own situation through it ("Iron Man" by Black Sabbath and "Pinball Wizard" by The Who and "The Wall" by Pink Floyd, as well as "American Pie" by Don McLean, with the latter being a skewering of the at the time trend of escapist pseudo-country music touting American perfection).

obviously none of the songs are perfect and I admit to a deep lack of experience with many Black artists from the era, who certainly have similar, possibly better-suited songs to list.

(also Nirvana, which was in the vein of other grunge/punk/underground bands of more poetic, less obvious meanings, IE "Smells Like Teen Spirit" being about the general apathy of other people around Cobain's age who were more concerned with sex and fun than with the very real and obvious problems in the world, titled after a brand made to prey on the desperation of that age group to hold onto youth and simplicity in the face of changing times) (I haven't listened to it recently, but reading the lyrics, that's my vibe, I could be wrong)

then around the mid-90s to early 2000s, with the economic stall happening in the lead up to the 2008 crash and the conscious efforts of media companies like Disney and Warner to create more of a desire for and feeling of escapism in music, people started to want more escapist options. although grunge became somewhat mainstream (which for many fans meant it wasn't grunge), as well as hip-hop and R&B music reaching a wider audience through groups like Spice Girls and Destiny's Child and TLC, the general vibe of the music became more focused on hypotheticals meant to elicit simple emotions; happiness, sadness, horniness, and not really as many complex feelings.

the artists could write, record and release more complex and meaningful music, but VH1 and MTV only cared about the singles that had videos attached, and the more simple and fun a song was, the more likely it was to have a video attached.

I'm not going anywhere here, I'm just thinking about it, I think it's interesting. people smarter than me with more history and experience have certainly said it better.

[williamrehmiv]

Sequential Art Revolution: A Journey Through the History of Comic Books

Comic books, with their vibrant visuals and captivating narratives, have captured the imaginations of readers for generations, serving as both entertainment and cultural artifacts. The history of comic books is a tale of innovation, creativity, and cultural evolution, reflecting the changing tastes and attitudes of society.

The origins of comic books can be traced back to the 19th century, with the publication of sequential art in newspapers and magazines. Early examples, such as Rodolphe Töpffer's "The Adventures of Mr. Obadiah Oldbuck" (1837), laid the groundwork for the medium, employing sequential panels and speech balloons to convey stories visually.

However, it wasn't until the 1930s that comic books as we know them today began to take shape. The publication of "Famous Funnies" in 1934, considered the first true comic book, marked the beginning of the Golden Age of comics. During this era, iconic characters such as Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman made their debut, captivating readers with their heroic exploits and larger-than-life adventures.

The popularity of comic books soared during World War II, providing escapism and entertainment for soldiers and civilians alike. Publishers churned out a plethora of titles featuring superheroes battling Nazis and other villains, tapping into the patriotic fervor of the time. This period also saw the rise of influential creators such as Jack Kirby, Stan Lee, and Will Eisner, whose contributions helped shape the medium and define its visual language.

In the post-war years, comic books underwent a period of decline due to various factors, including the rise of television and the implementation of the Comics Code Authority, a self-regulatory body established in response to concerns about the content of comic books. However, the medium experienced a resurgence in the 1960s with the advent of the Silver Age, characterized by innovative storytelling, complex characters, and social relevance.

The 1980s and 1990s witnessed further evolution and diversification within the comic book industry. Independent publishers such as Dark Horse Comics and Image Comics emerged, offering alternative voices and genres outside the superhero mainstream. Groundbreaking works like Alan Moore's "Watchmen" and Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" challenged conventions and elevated the medium to new heights of artistic and literary acclaim.

The 21st century has seen comic books continue to thrive in both print and digital formats, reaching new audiences around the world. Superhero films and television shows have brought characters like Spider-Man, Iron Man, and the X-Men to the forefront of popular culture, further cementing the enduring appeal of comics as a storytelling medium.

Moreover, the medium has become increasingly diverse and inclusive, with creators from marginalized communities bringing their voices and perspectives to the forefront. Titles like "Ms. Marvel," "Saga," and "Black Panther" have garnered critical acclaim and commercial success, reflecting a changing landscape that embraces diversity and representation.

In conclusion, the history of comic books is a testament to the power of storytelling and the enduring appeal of visual narratives. From humble beginnings in the 19th century to the multimedia juggernaut of the 21st century, comic books have captivated audiences with their colorful characters, imaginative worlds, and compelling stories. As the medium continues to evolve and adapt to new technologies and cultural shifts, its legacy remains as vibrant and enduring as ever.