#justice must be served

[hollerite]

OBJECTION!

this puzzle only has 5 pieces, and one of them is a corner! How precisely do you expect this little guy to be able to finish it? Hes gonna be so sad when he puts them all together, and that's IF the ones he have can fit together, and then the picture isn't finished! On behalf of all that is good in the universe, I request that you give him enough pieces to finish his puzzle!

[edwardallenpoe]

Hey. Just wanted to put my two cents in, like everyone else on Tumblr dot com is. (It got pretty long so putting it under a cut)

I don't really care about what you think should happen to the fandom. Like. If you are going to continue to engage in the fandom without giving Neil any sort of gain is fine. I'm personally still on the fence on what the fuck to do now. But let's not make that the whole focus, yeah? What Neil allegedly did was fucking terrible. Like. Objectively worse than what JKR did when things first came out about her. Let's forget good omens and sandman and coraline for a minute (don't care if you still engage with those things or burn your copies and remove your tattoos, let's just put it down for a minute.) and try really hard to think. Because we all hated JKR. We burned her reputation to the ground. For good reason. But we can't even decide if we hate Neil Gaiman yet? Guys. Please. We have to believe all women. Plus he's a rich fucking white dude who has admitted to using his power for gain.

And if it turns out (which this is a 8% chance) that this is all not what it seems to be, or even all of it is fabricated, and Neil is innocent, we still gotta stop worshipping this dude. This has got to be a wakeup call that he's not some Messiah. He's a human dude in power who does the same shitty things human dudes in power do.

And I get it. You want to continue to like your stories that he helped create (key-word 'helped' bc he was a part of a team with a lot of these stories, including Sir Terry Pratchett) but me personally? I would be a massive hypocrite if I metaphorically burned my Harry Potter stories to the ground and put HP fans in my DNI because of JKR but said "separate the art from the artist" with Neil Gaiman.

And this is coming from any other Good Omens fan that became way too attached to the story. Like a lot of people have said that story helped in very. Very fucking trying times. It was my rock, some days the only thing keeping me going. The fandom has been an amazing place of creativity and community and love.

But so was Harry Potter. If you think about it. If any Good Omens fans were previous Harry Potter fans you'll know just how wide spread and open and creative and deep the hp fandom was. And this may just be me misremembering because it was a couple years ago at this point (plus everything with Neil Gaiman is still such news) but because JKR was spouting rhetoric that directly harmed us (us being majority queer and poc people) we drop-kicked hp pretty fast and focused on the artist and her shittiness.

Can we have the same attitude towards Neil? Can we separate the art from the artist long enough to fucking focus on Neil? When I say separate the art from the artist I don't mean "remove artist, continue to enjoy art" I mean "remove the art and focus on the artist, and study that motherfucker". How many video essays are their out about JKR? How many books referencing her terribleness? Without giving so much as a hint to Harry Potter?

Separate the art from the artist and focus on the artist and bringing him to justice. And believe the victims.

And yeah I can see your arguments against the source of the information and who the victims went to tell their stories, I can understand those arguments, but let's look at the data, okay? Let's look at what Scarlett and K actually said with their actual words and their actual messages and separate the source from the material. What Scarlett and K talked about is scary. Terrifying. I couldn't even read more than a little bit before I got triggered. I wasn't caring about how the source podcast was talking about it. What Scarlett and K said with their own words should be enough. Make your own judgements. If you can't look at a story without being influenced by the storyteller's hidden agenda and not have critical thinking skills????? I'm sorry but that's going to be your downfall.

Or better yet, if you can't believe victims because they have political views that differ from your own (which, they probably don't. From what I can tell nobody really fucking knows what Scarlett and K's political views are but it doesn't really matter) you need to really study and look into what you mean when you call yourself a "leftist". Because it's not very progressive or helpful to not believe or help victims because of their political views. Sorry. Is that wild for me to say? Idk

Uh anyways. I don't really care what you do in your free time when it comes to enjoying the fandoms. I don't necessarily think it makes you a terribly shitty person for still engaging in it instead of burning all your Neil Gaiman stories, and also like a lot of people have said (and since I'm on the same boat) treating fans like the scum of the earth when a lot of fans have had good omens as a way to escape and has become super dependent on good omens and are justifiably horrified by everything and trying to ignore it is shitty. But I'm personally going to continue to follow this story because I care about the victims. Not because I want to be guilt-free reading a fanfic about an angel and a demon. Because I care about real life people.

[sukibenders]

Rewatching season one after knowing what I know from season three really does open my eyes to Cressida, especially why she was so nasty to Daphne and her belief that she would toy with Friedrich and trap Simon. Like, while her actions aren't excusable by any means, it's easy to understand how her life shaped those views. Which makes it even more appalling that, with all the work spent to give her backstory, the show still went "Nah, she's just a nasty mean girl" in the end.

[bug-slappy]

Bear Poll

Alright! Here we go!

Below is the bracket, all 64 qualifying nominees and their match-ups. These were attempted to be seeded as well as possible (explanation of seeding here)

The matches are as follows and links will be added as soon as their match-up goes up.

Uncle Iroh (Avatar: The Last Airbender) vs. Hurley (Lost)

Roadhog (Overwatch) vs. Bombur (The Hobbit)

Santa Claus (World Folklore) vs. Fezzik (The Princess Bride)

King Dedede (Kirby) vs. Bob (Tekken)

The Heavy (Team Fortress 2) vs. Birdie (Street Fighter)

Wulfric (Pokemon) vs. Asgore Dreemur (Undertale)

Doctor Octopus (Spiderman) vs. Torbjorn (Overwatch)

Jim Hopper (Stranger Things) vs. Choji (Naruto/Boruto)

Greg Universe (Stephen Universe) vs. Obelix (Astrix & Obelix)

Stoick the Vast (How to Train Your Dragon) vs. Daryl Wilson (Dungeons & Daddies)

Bob Belcher (Bob's Burgers) vs. Wattson (Pokemon)

Ralph (Wreck-it Ralph) vs. Professor Birch (Pokeon)

Laszlo Cravensworth (What We Do In The Shadows) vs. Jinbe (One Piece)

Sig Curtis (Fullmetal Alchemist) vs. Tony Soprano (The Sopranso)

Beetlejuice (Beetlejuice) vs. Dawlin (The Hobbit)

Dr. Ivo "Eggman" Robotnik (Sonic) vs. Theobald Gumbar (Dimension 20 Crown of Candy)

Stanley Pines (Gravity Falls) vs. Rick Mitchell (Mitchells vs. The Machines)

Sulley (Monsters Inc.) vs. Kahuna Hala (Pokemon)

Brian Harding (Dream Daddy) vs. Siegmeyer of Catarina (Dark Souls)

George Costanza (Seinfeld) vs. Ice Bear (We Bare Bears)

Dick Gumshoe (Ace Attorney) vs. Bluto (Popeye)

Maui (Moana) vs. Sam (Sam & Max)

Bill (The Last of Us) vs. Varric Tethras (Dragon Age)

Gimli (The Hobbit) vs. Smokey The Bear (USDA Forest Service)

Harrier Du Bois (Disco Elysium) vs. Samwell Tarley (Game Of Thrones)

Vander (Arcane) vs. Frank Reynolds (It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia)

Bobby Singer (Supernatural) vs. John Silver (Treasure Planet)

Senshi (Dungeon Meshi) vs. Martin Blackwood (The Magnus Archives)

Nandor The Relentless (What We Do In The Shadows) vs. Eddie Valiant (Who Framed Roger Rabbit)

Angus (Night In The Woods) vs. Throndir (Friends At The Table: Autumn in Hieron)

Wario (Mario) vs. Ned Chicane (The Adventure Zone: Amnesty)

Bowser (Mario) vs. Mr. Coco (Splatoon)

[lee-da-vinci]

the post-prison bad bitchification of will graham is exactly inversely proportional to the travesty that became of freddie lounds’ style and hair and is a phenomenon that must be examined. in this essay i will…

[mileenaxyz]

Did this really just happen??? 🤨

[seohyun0306]

My father was born on June 16th 1976 in apartheid South Africa, the exact day of the Soweto uprising where around 170-700 school students were estimated to have been shot dead at a peaceful protest. My father’s family were welcoming a new baby into their family while a few hours away, hundreds of parents’ babies were shot dead. To my father’s family and my family, June 16th is not a day to be celebrated for his birth but a day of mourning whose impact has never decreased in all the 48 years since the massacre happened.

How many thousands of parents in Palestine, be it Gaza or the West Bank, have to grieve constantly for their babies getting massacred, imprisoned, tortured, shot and raped even on the days where they should be celebrating their births? Nearly everyday my asks are bombarded with anon hate and blatant disrespect, ignorance and misinformation about my country’s history, which I no longer bother to even entertain. Disrespecting and ignoring what is happening in Palestine is not only disrespectful to their thousands of brutal deaths at the hands of the iof, but also disrespectful towards every single South African death at the hands of the apartheid government.

There are no two countries as intrinsically connected like South Africa and Palestine and no two entities as disgustingly similar as the Israeli government and the South African apartheid government. On paper, South Africa has been free for 30 years, but in reality we will never be completely free until Palestine is too and Israel is crushed and banished into obscurity like our previous regime was.

[cartoontees]

the trolls trilogy has literally covered all its bases by first killing a villain, then redeeming a villain in the second movie, and finally sending some villains to jail in the third. where do they go from here? will they think of some crazy fourth thing to do to a villain in a children's animated film? maybe a trolls shadow realm that the next villain can be locked in? maybe some sort of comedic mandatory community service that they will have to serve for their crimes? will they just circle back around to killing? or perhaps the next trolls villain will face a fate even worse than death. time will tell.

[hanabeeri]

i just realized what jude meant when he said that the law wasn't fair but it was right

[ramenheim]

Op you. You realize the entire point of this moral exercise is to force you to confront the reality that BOTH OPTIONS LEAVE YOU WITH BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS, yes?

With the two options being: TOUCHING (& diverting the violence of the status quo onto a NEW TARGET THAT WAS *SAFE* BEFORE, orchestrating their death by your own hand) or NOT TOUCHING (& allowing the status quo to continue its trajectory of violence against the multitude of ppl it's STRUCTURALLY INTENDED to target— but without bearing the personal burden of choosing to kill someone, instead bearing the "'lighter'" burden of passive negligence/ignorance).

This exercise HAS NO CORRECT ANSWER bc it's not INTENDED TO ELICIT A '''CORRECT''' ANSWER— YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO INTERROGATE PERSONAL CULPABILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS & THE HARM THAT COMES OUT OF THAT CHOSEN (IN/)ACTION.

I think you're dishonestly framing this as Voting Blue = Lesser Evil = Pulling Lever when both parties are **well within the status quo**, except Repubs want to multitrack drift to maximise damage.

Voting NOT REPUB means less blood is on your hands; not voting at all likely means more blood than voting against Open Fascism; but voting Covert Fascism is **still voting for the status quo** bc your dems are a centre-right & moving rightward party THEMSELVES.

Your 'first past the post' system means that by any other nation's definition? You are already not a democracy. You need to stop having a kneejerk defensive reaction everytime somebody expresses this opinion of your country. You need to rehaul your entire electoral system for personal voting to have the impact your magical thinking claims it does— & pretending otherwise is /choosing not to engage with the problem/ & turning your back on the lever so you at least don't have to Watch the Outcome.

All y'all fuckers when you say you ain't gonna vote

[theomenmedia]

Echoes Of The Past Trailer Out Now!

Justice delayed but not denied! Dive into the gripping narrative of Echoes Of The Past on Netflix. A tale of wrongful accusation, revenge, and the quest for truth. Premieres Dec 6th.

Check out the gripping trailer right here:

https://www.theomenmedia.com/post/echoes-of-the-past-a-tale-of-vengeance-and-truth-unveiled-by-netflix-trailer-out-now

[xxxairheadedangelxxx]

I do daily tarot readings, they have helped alot in staying appropriately introspective and frankly keep me from spiraling a lot of the time

but every once in a hwile I pull cards that make me fucking delusional and I will spend the resto f the day thinking of imaginary scenarios where they would apply and none of them are fucking good bc its only the mentally ill part of my brain going "well obviously this is connected to me ex but how"

ITS SOMETIMES VERY STRESSFUL

[heatheniousmaterials]

You are the stupid one here, both for missing the point of the post & overusing the big font

Big font is only for punchy main points. This medium font here is better if you want to write a lot & write it big, but really,

you should just write normal size in bold. Please, I am begging you. It WILL stand out, I promise. Even all caps if you have to. Overusing big text makes it lose impact. Emphasizing everything is emphasizing nothing. Plus, I don't know about desktop, but on mobile it's extremely hard to read a contiguous block of big text if it's more than, like, a sentence long.

Anyway, onto your wild misreading of this post,

(see? that's how you use big text. sorry, I'll stop now)

People aren't saying this in front of a judge. You will notice this is a reddit post, not a court transcript. Yes, if you said any of this shit to a judge, you will not get a fair trial & will probably immediately get the maximum sentence, in addition to being held in contempt of court. Yes, sucking the judge's dick is the only way out of this. But that doesn't mean it's not stupid.

You can disagree with something while still being forced to engage with it.

I say ACAB, but I wouldn't say that to a cop because they'd shoot me. That does not diminish my point that all cops are bastards; it just proves that they're bastards who can kill me. If anything, it strengthens my point that they would be willing to ruin or end my life over a petty insult & have thus coerced me into compliance.

OP never said they wouldn't call a judge by that cringe fantasy title. They just said it's stupid that they have to. So if it's bad to say this in front of a judge, & it's bad to say it not in front of a judge, are we supposed to just never say it? By your logic, nobody could ever complain about anything.

You are literally actually doing the "Yet you participate in society. Curious!" image right now. You are a cartoon character.

(also you make the assumption that everyone who goes to court is a criminal? which?? like, the whole point of court is that most people sent there aren't criminals & it's the court's job to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty. not to mention all the witnesses & stuff that aren't on trial but still have to interact with the judge & use that foolish title. really your whole post is just a circus of errors from top to bottom)

this is my all time favourite post I've ever seen on reddit everyone read it please

[labbaik-ya-hussain-as]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Huda (@huda)

[charlesoberonn]

Please read the last two paragraphs of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent to the recent 6-3 decision granting presidents absolute immunity:

Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law. The majority’s single-minded fixation on the President’s need for boldness and dispatch ignores the countervailing need for accountability and restraint. The Framers were not so single-minded. In the Federalist Papers, after “endeavor[ing] to show” that the Executive designed by the Constitution “combines . . . all the requisites to energy," Alexander Hamilton asked a separate, equally important question: “Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility?”. The answer then was yes, based in part upon the President’s vulnerability to “prosecution in the common course of law.” The answer after today is no. Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.