#ok it's like 70 percent a joke
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
I'm not worried about the ship wars reigniting when the live-action ATLA comes out...because the zutara fandom has a lil something the others don't...
~*~feminist theory~*~
143 notes
·
View notes
Text
These are only yes but lack resolve. Force you to invite. He responds whipes them out says keep comin they stop cold yes. Asses charge and are nuts.
The rate of cancer here increases. Pot smoking they lose appetite. Are sicker. CBD sales way up so is the death rate. It is encouraging the growth.
Now about ten percent hv it in Florida no. 70% and our of that 50% are terminal. Soon 80% and 60% of eighty percent. Deadly stuff. Will start dying tonight. Huge deaths. And put too as their own push in. Tons fight too. Zombies we walk them out. It's gross here we use it shortly.
The guys start their approach on the crabs. In only days all the small are out. No invasion. Big ones are too far away see bugs. No use too fast. The land ones see us won't go there. Can't catch bugs get in their shells eat them they drown them takes hours sometimes days they use blood. Not enough.
Small crabs go south along Floridas West Coast. Eat it leave stinks feel wisps of salt go straight south of Cuba Puerto Rico and Dominican and Haiti into the Mid Atlantic. Starts now, today. Goes into tomorrow and for days they split in the South soon the outer rings of crabs. Head east head west. Now the first Southwest group and first Southwest and huge each the size of the first and second groups as they moved already smell only sulfur burns their eyes...big ones 300' plus can see push them good I get help they say squeal with glee ok enough by big ones I see it's good
Right now
When the big ones sit alone nope. They move in two directions with the roughly fourth group. Split in the middle yup. The small ones out you'll see it jagged line. Crabs go southeast splits oddly but yes on both sides.
They will see it try fail miserabley.
Starting tonight after four days nothing. But they will try. Trump wants to remove reinstall our son. Tommy f wants him in. They both are viciously inept. We use it. He says four days nope but the big ones out for two weeks as they exit. Still. They get booted then try it. On Florida.
Too big yup. We hault them too but crabs distract use up time ammo. But not while he's there.
Thor Freya
Olympus they're going too fast and we're going to miss the window they're very finicky about it and don't give a s*** for going after bugs cuz the bugs get in them and destroy them and they want to go to the ocean so I say you can do it from the ocean and he says they're going to be far away from there cuz it stinks after a while it won't
Trump
Try to stay for like 3 months at least and it'll be this flavor they ate the other keep them off 500 miles they're very discouraged but really they want to use it to take it over what I'm saying is it's going to be a hell of a week and they're going to be trying this dumb s*** and it won't work and they want to move him and they won't move in time the big ones are just sit there for about 2 weeks and bashes of them go out little packs like nine 30 MI in like 15-30 miles and takes forever but that's what they do.
;-here's some of the things going on it seems the pseudo Empire wants them out and that's why they start doing it in earnest but it turns into a joke when they try because most of the medium small ones 10 ft are out and they found some three footers and they're all alone and the big ones can't see it they try to help them and they get them angry at them and they die in tidal waves they do it a lot tons of them go out there and they're really really stupid stuff and it's kind of hilarious.
Thor Freya
Olympus
They moved from over there temporarily it is because they were pushed out and they do attack the Trump and the Sun and brother and they use the lady who rats on them and as Rosemary and it's always been her it's her character but she's not really saying that much but that's what they say it's for and they might manage to get him there and he might say that he can't fly for some reason doesn't have any money
Thor Freya
Olympus
0 notes
Note
I have an interesting theory, since theirs a theory that Leslie is a woman using the this world she created to cope with the lost of her husband and son (Roy and Yellow guy), I think she's also doing to same for duck and red guy. The reason being that in the episode "death" it says duck died from forgetting to drink water and red guy dies later "not in the episode" from drowning in a lake. Maybe they're important people in her life who tragically died these ways and using her memories to cope.
ok personally and please don’t think i’m saying i’m the right one ok but personally i am atleast 70 percent certain that Lesley said the “you’re not my real son” line as a joke specifically to tell the audience that guessing the obvious answer, an older woman in a series famous for only a dad and not a mom, that she’s yellow’s mom is actually the wrong answer. Like she wants us to keep guessing.
for one she does outright say she was kidding, and that is way too easy a give away. It would be extremely odd for the show to give away a secret that big, that's not really their... writing style? Far too “tell and not show” for a series usually very abstract. And that's so important-- Becky and Joe constantly say how they want the series to be abstract. That was one of the reasons they scrapped wakey wakey-- it was too on the nose. Making her simply yell " You're a fake son based on my real son! " seems like the most on the nose thing physically possible. And having them all be people a random chick knew who died and it made her sad is... a little too creepypasta-y for their surrealist style of narrative. Not really a surrealist masterpiece. but two---- really pay attention to what she says Focus on everything she responds to and why. She seems to be mocking the very idea of figuring out who she is, doesn't she? One of Lesley’s first introduction lines is that she is asked if she’s built all this, and she says “ That’s a good question ” and when she’s asked for an answer, an answer to a Super Cool Bit of Lore, she simply starts laughing at them. Then, when they insist they explain, she gets frustrated and says “BECAUSE ITS FUNNY.”
And so I rewatch the scene again and again and I’m thinking ok, I get it. THAT’S what she finds "funny." Right? Not the suffering of the characters overall per say-- not Yellow overall-- the thing Yellow was doing RIGHT in that moment. The very desire to mystery solve, game theory, film theory what’s going on-- the very act of finding an answer to the whole thing. She sees THAT like....... a game. And then she gives Yellow a book that would have likely been filled with riddles and puzzles for him to try to find the answer to ( as you can tell by the puzzle shapes on the shredded pages and the cover being a puzzle yellow made up... she gave them a mystery. Precisely like she has US. The audience.
And so personallyyyy........ I get this strong feeling that whatever she is.... Its nothing that easy.
92 notes
·
View notes
Text
Headcanons (I promise these won’t make you cry)
Ok so on @eatyourdamnpears post there were a lot of headcanons, and I decided to put them all in one post, but just bear in mind, half of this is credit to @thedarkestcrew cuz she did some amazing HCs, and I’m by no means stealing hers, just putting it all in a better place.
- Liam sends packages to Ruby because he can't make a fool out of himself in person so it's the next best thing.
-These packages include things like hand writing notes, stuffed animals, any ruby jewellery he finds, pictures of them on dates that he printed (he has matching pictures and keeps them under his bed)( Cole and Harry find them but it's too cute to tease him), and finally, videos to make her laugh
- He also keeps a menu from Ruby Tuesday, and LOADS of old CDs and rock band t shirts
-Cole and him borrow each others jackets all the time and it's not a problem because they live in the same house and they can just go over to the room next door,
-But when ruby starts stealing Liam’s jackets that he stole from Cole? well now the Stewart house is missing 10 leather jackets and you can't just get them form the girl who lives a state away. So she has to send them back in the mail,
-keeps a few that smell like Liam because she can
-sometimes people are confused which Stewart brother Ruby is really dating. And the fact that they look like twins it adds to the confusion, and the Ruby and Cole literally love to watch people get so mixed up
-oh absolutely, they’ll walk in on ruby and Liam making out, but two second later see Cole smoothing Down her hair and calling her Gem, AND seeing her he friendly with Chubs and cleaning his glasses because her skirt has better fabric for it, AND seeing her joke around with Nico
-it becomes a bet to see who she's with
-Liam will give Ruby his jacket, but than Cole comes and notices it's his jacket and makes a joke about them dating, she just gives him the jacket because she'd rather wear lee'. bystanders are distraught
- And then Clancy comes along and brags about how he kissed Ruby and then the people who bet are just like 'where. the. hell. did. clancy. frickin. gray. come. from???
-Ruby thinks most of the rumours are funny and will be really vague about who her boyfriend is. most of the time just seeing Ruby and Liam together will be enough for people to figure it out by how the are relaxed around each other and look lovingly at the other.
-But when she hears the Clancy rumour she shuts that down faster than Charles scarfs Down a pancake
- Also, Liam's mum and Harry have an ongoing bet about who Ruby is actually dating because it's just so confusing at this point. Grace is like 'are you blind???' and Harry Is like 'there's something with Cole, I swear!!' But eventually realised its Liam and gives in
- Grace thinks she’s dating Cole, because when she visited she hugged Cole first and than a minute later hugged Liam. Yes, she went out to the park with Liam but grace doesn't know that, also she spend 20 minutes in Coles room chatting. She thinks Liam just has a crush on her or something
- Ruby's parents can't tell them apart for anything and made a rule of " announce who you are before talking" after Liam kissed Ruby on the cheek and her mom thought that was the same person who told someone to go-F themselves ten minutes ago and nearly faints. It takes them a while the even figure out there are two blond southern men that flirt with their daughter
-Grace is always giving Liam encouraging mom advice like, 'there are always others' and 'you'll get there someday' and Liam is just like 'thanks, mom'
-Ruby's dad is just so tired of confusing Liam and Cole, he's like 'Stewart sr' and 'Stewart jr.' He tried to call them 'Ruby's boyfriend' and Ruby's friend, but Cole answered to both just for the fun of it
-Chubs does not think it's funny at all and spits out what he's drinking when he sees Cole look when her dad says ' Ruby's boyfriend'. almost strangles Ruby until he hears about it.
-Vida thinks it's really funny but event breaks and tells everyone it's a joke the day after. she doesn't know how many more times she can see Liam pouting
-After the Cole fiasco is over. his parents wait about a week and try to get Liam with Ruby. it's a bunch of prep talks, buying new clothes, telling him how to not mess up. when the big date comes her kisses her as a hello and they feel betrayed
-When ruby’s dad says the jr, sr thing he has Harry looking too and now he just needs to have ruby in the room with him, whoever’s face gets softer Is Liam, the one who stands up to tease her about something is Cole
-One day they talk about it and their 70 percent sure it’s Cole because they think he’s more her type while Liam would be good for her. Anyways they see her making out with Liam and are shocked and think she’s cheating on Cole.
-Harry had to sit Cole down and explain that Ruby isn’t faithful and Cole is absolutely loving it. He’s eating it all up, goes along with it, calls ruby in-front of him and ‘breaks up with her’, she also thinks it’s hilarious because for crying out loud it’s been a few month into the new program and why not see how long they can keep going. I swear they have a whole plot on how they met, what line made them fall in love the, whole 9 yards.
-Grams knows of course because she pulled her aside and threatened her to date Liam because he’s the poster ’ nice southern boy’. Liam does not enjoy his girl friend pretending to date his brother but she throws enough Liam flirting into the mix to make it even.
- when Cole ‘breaks up’ with her, they have a fully fledged fake argument, like ‘remember that time when we got ice cream and you told me you told me you loved me’ and ‘you never loved me!!’ And for Ruby this is easy, because let’s face it Ruby is a grade A liar (in a good way) and Cole should be a 5 star actor because he is so damn dramatic.
-Harry is totally buying this, and in the end they confess to their parents that Ruby + Cole was never a thing, and Liam is just looking at his mum like ‘SEE, I TOLD YOU I WASN’T A TOTAL LOSER’ and poor Grace just bakes a bunch of things just to make it up to him, and they all have a laugh about it.
-But it was getting to the point where Ruby’s parents asked Zu which one she was dating and she was like ‘I am not getting involves in this.’ and Cole is just giving her a discreet thumbs up for playing her part while she just rolls her eyes.
-Oh absolutely they get into it, everyone who knows their lying get popcorn and treat it like its a movie. Cole says something absolutely ridiculous like “ you can take my heart, and my dignity, but I’m taking back the popcorn I gave you that one time” and Ruby has to use all of her enegery to not burst out laughing.
-Ruby can also fake cry quickly so she’s sobbing, and by the end schools her face within a second and wipes away to tears Cooly. Ruby’s mom can’t trust her after that. also still kinda doesnt belive she’s dating anyone because of the Cole thing. Liam comes over 5 times before she’s convinced that this isn’t another prank. Ruby tells her she’s going on a date Saturday and says “ ha ya alright I’m not falling for that again” and than on saturday spends 6 minutes looking around the house for her before calling her and realizing that she wasent kidding
-Vida definitely films the whole thing like it's some telenovela, while Chubs is rolling her eyes at her but Zu secretly loves the drama and her stupid family. And Rubiam parents mention this at their wedding as well like, Ruby's dad would be doing a speech 'today we are gathered for the union of my daughter and Cole- Liam, i meant Liam. Its definitely Liam. Right Ruby??'
-Cole shows up to Haven for a visit about to yell at Liam and Ruby for not inviting him sooner after Harry and Grace let the location slip
( I know cole being dead is one of the things that sparked haven being made on liams part, but let's just say the spark for haven was Ruby getting harassed and Liam not being able to see her like that and asking her to run away with him to the middle of no where. Good? Great)
-Cole is about to walk through the door before a kid puts a frog in his hand and another kid asks if he can beat the level on his game boy.
-he thinks it's really adorable and the kids start calling him Liam for a Few minutes so why not,
-anyways he sneezes in a lone hallway and lights something small on fire before quickly putting it out.
-Owen is coming out of his room but sees the panic in Coles eyes and says ' hey, I'm not one to judge' and walks back into his room.
-When Ruby gets home she stops and stares at him for a full minute like " that's..... not Liam????"
-he calls her gem and she can't decide between jumping a hug onto him or punching him.
-Liam gets home and the kids all do a double take like ' you changed shirts??? can got a hair cut????' before doing a double take between the two
-Loads of the kids gather around and start making daisy chains for Cole’s hair, and he freaking loves it.
-He’s surprisingly good with kids as they all hover around him asking questions, holding his hand and showing him random things and it warms Ruby’s heart so much
Again, credit to @thedarkestcrew for thinking all of this, and this post has been fun
#the darkest minds#tdm#in the afterlight#rubiam#ruby daly#cole stewart#liam stewart#vida conner#charles meriwether
41 notes
·
View notes
Text
When I first met my husband, Neal, I thought he was gay. Maybe that's because he told me he was gay. So while I was attracted to him, I figured he would just be my gay best friend. Then, one night, we wound up in bed together, and let's just say that he did not act like a gay best friend usually acts. In fact, he seemed more comfortable with my body than plenty of straight men I'd dated had been. And after a hot-and-heavy weekend, I knew a lot more about Neal than "gay" had hinted at: He'd been married before (to a woman), and he was (still is) attracted to both sexes. Since his divorce he'd mostly dated men, so he'd gone with "gay" over "bi" when we met, but deep down that's what he is: bisexual. I was not entirely surprised, and I was definitely not disappointed.
However, I did have some concerns. Early in our relationship, which got super serious, super fast, I was anxious: I worried Neal would change his mind, say that he was actually truly 100 percent gay after all, and leave me for a man. (Maybe you've heard the joke? A man who says he's bisexual is gay, straight, or lying.) Another part of me worried whether a bisexual guy could ever really be monogamous. Also, didn't being with a man who was interested in men and women mean that I was competing against everyone in the world for his attention?
I just wasn't that familiar with bi guys. Bi women are practically mainstream: Megan Fox, Lady Gaga, Anna Paquin, Jessie J, and Evan Rachel Wood, to name only a few, have all spoken openly about being bisexual. When a woman says she's bi, it makes her more desirable to men. But few celeb men are out as bi—and you never see two guys making out in a bar to get women to pay attention.
Plus, I must admit I wondered whether all the stuff people say about bisexuals might actually turn out to be true—that they're untrustworthy, just going through a phase, or slutty; that they'll break your heart or give you STDs and probably cooties too.
Dating a bi guy, even one as great and as honest as Neal, was daunting to think about.
The sliding scale of sexuality explained
Understanding the basic science of bisexuality helped me a lot. Ritch Savin-Williams, professor of developmental psychology at Cornell University, who has done extensive research into arousal patterns of gay and bisexual individuals, puts it simply: "Bisexual men are attracted to both sexes. They have variations in how much they lean toward women or men." It's important to note that Savin-Williams, like most social scientists, differentiates between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. "So a guy could be attracted to 70 percent men and 30 percent women," he says, "but still meet a woman he wants to spend the rest of his life with and be monogamous. His orientation is bi, but his sexual behavior is straight." Conversely, if someone is having sex with both women and men, then he is behaviorally bisexual, regardless of what he says his orientation is.
What many women struggle with is not the fear that a guy is bi but the fear that he's temporarily bi and will eventually identify as gay. It's not a weird thing to worry about (I worried about it!), since many men have done exactly that. "Before homosexuality was as accepted as it is now," says Allen Rosenthal, a researcher at Northwestern University, "homosexual men often identified as bi in the process of coming out, like getting their feet wet. But it was a disservice to genuinely bisexual men because it left a lot of people with the impression that bi is a transitional orientation." The good news is that the reasons the bi-to-gay move used to be so prevalent—societal and family pressures, fears of being openly gay—are lessening. These days, it's more OK to be gay, and that's making it more OK to be bi. Progress!
So Could You, Should You? We asked glamour.com readers if they'd date a bi guy. The results:
__I'd have a lot of questions,
but maybe.……………………………16%
No way.………………………………..36%
Totally, why not?…………………….48%
In other words, two out of three of you would consider it. Explained one commenter: "If he's into me, he's into me. If he happens to be into guys too, well…we only have more in common!"__
Our little nonsecret
Neal assuaged my anxieties by being so enthusiastic about me that I had no reason to doubt his attraction. I was impressed by his self-awareness too. He realized he was bisexual when he was 20, and he still considers himself attracted to both sexes, at a ratio of about 80:20, women to men. My friends said he was an improvement over more macho guys I'd brought home in the past, and no one really made a big deal about the bi thing. They'd already seen him with men and with women, and we run with a pretty arty crowd. Bottom line: I was in love. As the years passed, I saw that Neal had more integrity and self-knowledge than anyone I'd ever known. And so, reader, I married him. We've been together and monogamous for 12 years, married for eight.
Neal is comfortable with his sexuality. He's "straightish," in the terminology of a gay friend of ours. But he is kind of "gayish" too. He is a performance artist, eccentric, and has—true to stereotype—better style than I do. And if I'm like, "Wow, Mike is superhot," he doesn't stare blankly but says, "Totally. Because of the way he plays guitar, right?"
Generally, we don't tell the world about Neal's orientation (well, until now!). Not everyone is as supportive as our circle, and to be honest, I have zero interest in talking with someone who thinks I'm in a sham marriage just because my guy doesn't go, "Ewww!" when Channing Tatum takes off his shirt.
There have been a few bumps along the road. Early on, Neal confessed that he had a crush on someone else. In the moment before he told me who it was, as my heart sank, I thought: Oh God, it's a man. He's gay. He's going to leave me for a man. I am a fool. How did I not see it coming? How stupid could I be?
Then he told me who it was: a woman. And we worked through it. In retrospect, I think we would have been OK even if it had been a man. In the years since, we've weathered crushes I've developed too, and a million other surprising and not-so-surprising things. I don't think we're any more open-minded than most couples—but the amount of honesty required at the beginning of our relationship has served us well.
Talk, then talk some more
So how do you make it work with a bi guy? "If I were a woman involved with a bisexual man," says Savin-Williams, "I would have very honest communication with him about what he means when he uses the term." Trust me, I asked Neal a lot of questions about what he was into and what to expect as our relationship deepened. Would he commit to monogamy? What kind of boundaries did we need to set up? Be clear about what you're asking, warns Lisa Diamond, professor of developmental psychology at the University of Utah. "The question Are you attracted to men?' is different from Would you want to have a sexual relationship with a man?'" she points out. "Many men might say, It's a hot fantasy, but not one I would act on.'" At that point the question becomes whether or not you're OK with the fantasy. On the other hand, if he says he wants more than a fantasy when it comes to men…then he might not be the guy for you.
No matter whom you're dating, part of love is taking that leap into the unknown. "The only way to be truly sure," says Barbara Hernandez, a family and marriage therapist, "is over time. It depends on the values of the person, and the strength of commitment, and whether both partners work hard at it." Good advice for any couple, even a straight-as-an-arrow one.
At some point, if you're still freaking out about whether your bi guy is really bi, you might need to acknowledge that what you're worried about is whether he's really yours. "We all need to be honest with ourselves," says Diamond. "I wonder if the underlying concern isn't the same one we always have: Does he really want me? Is he going to leave me? That's a concern as old as the hills." With Neal, I came to look at it this way: If he was choosing to be with me, then he was choosing me over all men and women everywhere. And that felt kind of awesome.
Believe it or not, Neal's sexuality doesn't come up that often in our daily lives. My failure to close drawers, his inability to throw anything away, and an ongoing disagreement on who is the more lenient parent are all topics that cause more strife than his sometimes thinking men are hot. Really, who can blame him? Men are hot, especially ones who are honest and confident. Especially ones who, even though they may be attracted to lots of people, pick you.
#bi tumblr#bi pride#bisexuality#lgbtq#support bisexuality#bisexuality is valid#bi#lgbtq pride#pride#lgbtq community#bisexual education#bisexual nation#bisexual dating#dating#bisexual marriage#marriage#bisexual rights#bisexual injustice#support bisexual people#respect bisexual people#bisexual community#bi positivity#bi youth#bisexual youth#bisexual representation
33 notes
·
View notes
Text
Our First Episode: The Bechdel Test and its Various Offspring
Maddy: Hello and welcome to our podcast, "We Studied Film For Three Years And All We Got Was This Podcast". I'm one of your hosts, Maddy Raven. I'm a third-year theatre and film student.
Jemima: I'm Jemima. I'm also a third year, but just straight film student.
Sarah: And I'm Sarah. And I'm also studying film and television.
Maddy: So this podcast is going to be about film criticism, specifically focusing on diversifying female voices in film criticism, because we think that there are a lot of male, straight white voices in film criticism. Shout out to Michael, who is a straight white male editor.
Maddy: He's looking from side to side!
Jemima: We love Michael.
Maddy: And we're putting this together partly as part of our assessment. So this will be assessed, but also because we want to talk about films and we like to talk about films and we have super interesting conversations about them.
Maddy: And we want to share them with the world because frankly, my opinions are fantastic, actually. And I'm going to force them on everyone else.
Jemima: Yeah, our opinions matter. And because we've kind of done three years of this, I think that we can all agree we have a kind of educated response to films that we just want to put across and create a dialogue about.
Jemima: But at the same time, we want to keep it informal. We want every person, people that don't watch films often know nothing about the theory of it, and then the people who have also studied it as well. We just want to make it fun, accessible and yeah, hope you enjoy it.
Maddy: We'll also be having guests on the show, hopefully including, you know, like friends, even family, I'll get my dad to come on and rant about how much he loves Jeff Bridges. My dad is like a massive crush on Jeff Bridges. And he's like, no, no, I'm sorry. I'm sure I'm straight.
Maddy: It's like, you are gay for Jeff Bridges, like so gay for Jeff Bridges, it's ridiculous.
Maddy: But having people on to talk to people from the film industry as well and hopefully talk about various things to do with the industry as well, because as everyone knows, it is really difficult to get into the film industry and hopefully at least one of us will somehow make it there and we will be able to share knowledge.
Jemima: Yeah, let's hope all of us, but at least one that would be great.
Maddy: There's four of us, one in four should make it. Yeah.
Jemima: Twenty-five percent. That's fine.
Maddy: So each episode will be about like a topic. We like topics. It's a general topic and we're going to start out. Oh my God, my text has disappeared from my notes. That's terrifying.
Maddy: So we just thought we'd start out pretty gentle and start by talking about the Bechdel test, which since it came out as part of Allison Bechdel's comic, which came out I think was in the 70s when I can't find it in my notes.
Sarah: I think that one was from nineteen eighty-five.
Maddy: Nineteen eighty five. Thank you Sarah.
Maddy: Since then it has become, you know, this huge thing it has come so far since then, and there's even a website where you can go and search up your favourite films and we'll be talking about some of our favourite films and why they passed the test and why they don't and how we feel about that and also why the Bechdel Test exists, in our opinion. So, um, Sarah, do you mind giving us a little rundown of what the Bechdel Test is? Because you sound super knowledgeable and smart.
Sarah: Thank you. Sure. So it's called the Bechdel-Wallace Test, it originates from a comic strip called The Rule by Allison Bechdel from 1985, part of her comic called Dykes to Watch Out For.
Sarah: Yeah, lesbians to watch out for lesbians, lesbians substituting a word that can be considered a slur.
Sarah: And yeah, basically these two characters in the comic strip, they're walking past the cinema, I think, talking about movies. And one of them says how they only go to see a film if it passes three simple rules.
Sarah: So it needs to have at least two female characters who talk to each other about something other than men.
Sarah: And I think since then, people have added that the female characters need to have names, so, yeah, it started off as just a kind of tongue in cheek little joke about how few films actually do have something really simple, like two women in them. And I think, yeah, Alison Bechdel said this is inspired by a conversation she had with her friend Liz Wallace, which is why sometimes it's called the Bechdel-Wallace test. But since then, yeah, critics have kind of rolled it and made a more official kind of way to look at films.
Maddy: Yeah, yeah, that's it. So have any of you seen Pacific Rim?
Jemima: Yeah, wait, there's more to say about that.
Jemima: There's the whole Virginia Woolf thing. OK, so also another thing is that Alison Bechdel, she prefers it to be called the Bechdel-Wallace test just because they created it together and she got most of the credit. That's one thing to say. And then the Virginia Woolf thing, she read A Room of One's Own and thought that was a great way of just kind of encouraging the feminist writings to be transferred onto film.
Jemima: So this test should be really easy to just apply. Another thing as well: there's an additional, Sarah, you said the named character one. The other one is a total of more than 60 seconds of conversation. That's another important one.
Maddy: So what is A Room of One's Own, because I've not actually read the book. So when you say the Virginia Woolf thing, what do you mean?
Jemima: So it's a nineteen twenty-nine essay.
Jemima: "All these relationships between women, I thought, rapidly recalling the splendid gallery of my fictitious woman, utterly simple. And I try to remember any case in that course of my readings where two women are represented as friends. They are now and then mothers and daughters are almost without exception, they are shown in relation to men.
Jemima: It was strange to think that all the great women of fiction were, until Jane Austen's day, not only seen by the other sex but seen only in relation to the other sex. And how small a part of a woman's life is that?
Maddy: Oh, that's quite pretty, actually. Maybe I should read that, I'll say that, but I won't read it for years to come because I'm bad at concentrating,
Sarah: You can borrow it if you'd like.
Maddy: Yeah, I would. Genuinely, I wish I could read, but I'm probably sitting down and doing it. So obviously, the Bechdel test is a pretty simple test. It has been elaborated on slightly, but I've read a lot of articles about this and in particular, people notice that certain films were passing the test, while other films were failing them. There was such a disparity, like it said here, like Pacific Rim fails the Bechdel Test, despite having like this badass woman, called Mako Mori, she's a Japanese fighter like she because she kicks this guy's ass like ten minutes into the film. It's amazing because the film fails the test essentially and somehow, Thor passes it.
Maddy: So, you know, people are wondering how do we- how do we remedy this? So a Tumblr user called Chila invented the Mako Mori test after watching Pacific Rim. And you will pass this test if you have one female character who gets her own narrative arc that is not supporting a man's story. So moving on from, they have the bare minimum, which is like two female characters talking about, you know, something other than a man to each other: it's also at least one of these women getting a narrative arc and getting to live her own life. And it's not because of a guy, basically.
Maddy: And then Roxane Gay, who is fantastic, you should follow her on Instagram, we love her. She proposed this six-part test. And it says, is there a central female character who is supporting female characters, who doesn't compromise herself for love or live extravagantly for no explained reason? And at least half the time is this character, a woman of colour, transgender and/or queer?
Maddy: And there's also a sixth point, which is a requirement, which is the suggestion that female characters shouldn't have to live up to an unrealistic feminist standard. They can be flawed so long as they feel like they're human beings because, you know, like women, in order to win a place in film a lot of time, it's almost as if women have to be on their best behaviour. They have to be really good. And that's something I'm particularly interested in. I'm really interested in women that are horrible people. I am obsessed with Gone Girl. It's a little bit of a problem. But the Cool Girl Monologue, it changed my life. I know everyone says that everyone, everyone on Twitter was just like the Cool Girl Monologue created so many monsters. And yes, it should have done because I love it. I love women who are horrible. And I think we should allow women to be horrible in films as well. And I think we should allow them to be angry and cry. And just off the top of my head, just like I've seen so many amazing, like montages like this, especially like I tried to with my social media feeds, with a lot of like women that are talking about film and just watching female rage on screen can be so exciting sometimes. Like, um, have any of you watch Lovecraft Country yet?
Jemima: Yeah, I have.
Maddy: When she smashes the car windows with the baseball bat.
Jemima: Yeah. Yeah. And then everyone's like, oh, I can smash windows too. Yeah.
Maddy: And there's also like well - what were some other examples I was thinking about? Ready or Not. We studied that a couple of weeks ago with Peter Falconer in our Contemporary Hollywood cinema unit. She's just screaming at her husband. She's so angry she doesn't even have words anymore. She just starts yelling. And I'm like, yes, you know, I love that. I've got away from myself. Yeah. I just love women who are horrible people, and I think that should be more of them. Yeah.
Jemima: And Carrie is an awesome one to do female rage about. Of course, she's a flawed, flawed character, but we have compassion for Carrie. We understand her because she has depth to her.
Jemima: And that's all we want, female characters with depth, motivation. We can determine throughout the film, not just prancing off to a man.
Maddy: So then the next test after that was the Sexy Lamp Test, which was made by Kelly Sue DeConnick. I love the name: Sexy Lamp Test. It's quite easy to pass. You pass it if your female character, it could be replaced by a sexy lamp without the plot falling apart. You're a fucking hack. So, yeah, I'm thinking back to maybe, X-Men First Class where that woman who like turns to diamond half the time follows - is it Kevin Bacon? I think it is Kevin Bacon. It's like she's one of the baddies, I swear, because, like, all she does is just be hot, have boobs and turn to diamonds sometimes. I fully believe, like, she could literally turn into a sexy lamp at any point through the film and nothing would change.
Jemima: Like, I mean, her turning into diamonds is kind of commenting on that itself, she's nothing but a mere object of desire in that way.
Maddy: And just talking about like, yeah, if she could literally be replaced by a lamp and the plot wouldn't change. You've got an issue with your female character. And then when you put all these tests together, it's been put together and formed the Crystal Gems test. So it's named after the heroes in Steven Universe, which I still haven't watched and still need to watch Steven Universe.
Maddy: And it creates this big triangle. And you just kind of you can mark whether or not it passes the tests and it creates a cute little graph. And there's also other stuff like the Ellen Willis test, so that requires the story to make sense if the genders were flipped. So I'm thinking about Overboard! Have any of you seen Overboard?
Jemima: The new one?
Maddy: Yeah, I'm thinking about the fact that they swap the genders for the new version like it's problematic both ways. Just for context, Overboard, is it Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn? Yeah, so she's like this rich woman living on a boat and he's like a workman on the boat. And I think they get into that argument because she's a dick and he pushes her off the boat - I don't know, she falls off the boat. She gets amnesia and then he's somehow got a load of kids. His wife is dead or something, I think. And he's got loads of kids. And so instead of like a normal human being, when he finds that she has amnesia, she goes to the police station and she doesn't know where she is, who she is, instead of being like a normal non-psychotic human being and just leaving her on her own, after he's basically- actually I don't think he pushes her off the boat. He takes her home and tells her that she's his wife and makes her help him raise the kids. I think it's supposed to be this comment about like teaching her humility and teaching her to be a good person. But it's not that. It is kidnap.
Jemima: It's like 50 First Dates. I had a real, real big problem with the fact that she could not consent to any of the dates. She was vulnerable. She had a disability. She was basically being forced to, like, fall in love with Adam Sandler. And great, cute I understand the rom-com assets of that, but at the same time, like you do not know this person. She wakes up every day. Like just because you've invested so much in her does not mean she should be forced to hang out with you every hour of the day and love you.
Jemima: You know, it's just a bit crazy.
Maddy: So, then they obviously remade Overboard, but they were like, oh, instead of, like, remaking it - obviously people would have had an issue with it if they'd remade it today with the same role models, everyone would've refused. Actually not everyone, sane human people would have been like, this is fucked up. You can't just kidnap women and tell them that your wife because they've got amnesia. But like, they decided to swap the gender roles as if that made it better. So this is Chris Pratt's ex-wife.
Jemima: You just called her Chris Pratt's ex-wife!
Maddy: I did! Because I've been thinking about him a lot and the fact that he's a conservative and he's like a horrible, homophobic Christian.
Jemima: Allegedly.
Maddy: Allegedly, allegedly. Allegedly. Oh, no. I'm already getting sued.
Maddy: But yeah, I was just thinking about - it's still messed up, even if it's a girl kidnapping a guy, it's still messed up. But then in that way, I guess it does pass the Ellen Willis test.
Sarah: It's an awful idea.
Maddy: And in the last one, the last test I really do like is called the Tauriel, the one the Evangeline Lily plays in the altogether too long Hobbit franchise. The one who falls in love with Aidan Turner.
Maddy: Anyway, it's a test that says that if there's going to be a woman in the film where she works a job the same as a load of guys, she has to be good at what she does. At least one woman has to be good at her job because they never have jobs. It's always like, you're a housewife. That's your job.
Jemima: You're a mother and a wife first and that is your job.
Maddy: Exactly, like if there's going to be a woman, she's going to have a job and she's going to be good at that job. Just one, the rest can be terrible. Just one. Just one of them has to be a smart human being who is capable.
Maddy: That's all we want.
Jemima: Practical skills. I don't know her.
Maddy: Yes, exactly.
Michael: I've had to not interject like three times. The sexy lady from X-Men is called Emma Frost. And turning into diamond is her secondary mutation. And they've just they've just really badly represented the character on film. I'll defend her.
Jemima: When I was like 15, I read this autobiography by one of the world's most famous groupies from the 60s and 70s. Reread it the other day. And it's the most horrendous anti-feminist paedophilic disgustingness I have ever read. I don't know. It's like glamorising everything. And of course, it was a sign of the times. But like even in her, like, epilogue, she was just like, I excuse myself and my behaviour, it's all fine and it's like, no.
Jemima: So I guess it just takes a twenty-first century perspective on things, isn't it? To reflect, hopefully.
Maddy: Yeah, so I guess. Oh, there are so many more tests I could go into if you guys are up for that
Jemima: Do you reckon we should start doing the film stuff?
Maddy: Yeah, I would like to mention, though, just to make it clear that I'm not a terrible person. There are also lots of tests. So the Deggans rule requires a show that's not about race to include at least two non-white human characters in the main cast.
Maddy: The Morales Rule by actor Natalie Morales, asks that no one calls anybody papi, dances to salsa music, or uses gratuitous Spanish if they're a latinx character.
Maddy: And one of my personal favourites is the DuVernay test, or sometimes referred to as the Kent test, after Clarkisha Kent. She's an interesting film critic. A piece of work passes it if African-Americans and other minorities have fully realised lives rather than serve as scenery in white stories. That makes me think back to The Help, you know, Viola Davis. She's been saying, I regret being part of that film, but a lot of the time it is about making sure that you're not just including women and giving them a seat at the table, but making sure that people of colour and people who are queer as well because there's also - I'm not how to say this, I'm probably going to butcher it, the Vito-Russo test.
Maddy: There are three requirements to pass this test. The film must contain a lesbian, gay or bisexual or transgender character. That character must not be predominantly defined by the orientation or their gender identity. They need to be as unique as straight cis characters, and they must be important enough to affect the plot. They can't just crack some jokes or paint urban authenticity.
Maddy: There's also the Topside test for trans literature and there are plenty of other tests like the Finkbeiner Test for non-fiction and the Lauredhel test for toys. So there's loads of tests. The Bechdel test started quite a few movements in film, and it's all very interesting. So I think next we're going to be looking at some of our favourite films and seeing whether or not they pass the test.
Maddy: And you are welcome to judge us and our favourite films, as I'm sure you will. And I'm sure we'll judge each other.
Jemima: Please do.
Maddy: I think Jemima should go first.
Jemima: Well, I have a few that I can pick from. I think a good one to start would be - have any of you guys in Starship Troopers? OK, so any one of us, which is Michael and he doesn't even speak a lot, so we'll get him to speak - unmute yourself at this point.
Jemima: OK, I'm going to quiz you on it. Do you think it's a feminist film?
Michael: Isn't like - they're fighting bugs, right? Yeah, isn't like the main enemy, like the queen bug.
Jemima: OK, I'm talking about interpersonal, human relationships.
Michael: Yeah, I think there's only two female characters and they're both trying to, like, vie for the attention of one male character. If I remember.
Michael: Is that right?
Jemima: But what is it? What I find to be really interesting about the film is that, basically, the protagonist, male, heterosexual character, he goes into the army because his girlfriend encourages it, she's in the army, he's like, I don't know what to do. I'm going to follow Carmen to the army.
Jemima: And that is a switch from tradition - it's gender play, which I enjoy. And also the other female character, called Izzy, who also enters the army. But her motivation is to get the protagonist because she fancies him. But they met because they both played American football together on the same team. And it's a Paul Verhoeven film. Paul Verhoeven works a lot with eroticism. So you can see the kind of anti-feminist stuff from sexualising women, but at the same time.
Michael: Is it Showgirls?
Jemima: Yeah, the same time he's giving female voices power and narrative arcs and all this stuff. And I really enjoy it. And I think when I was a kid, some of my favourite films like Starship Troopers, Aliens, all of that stuff, I really enjoy strong female protagonists. And I think he got somewhere with it, although there's a lot of tits and ass. But you got somewhere.
Jemima: I don't even know - this is just talking to you guys. But I don't even know if it's good to talk about film if we haven't watched it or whatever, because it's hard because you guys haven't got much to comment on those two.
Maddy: Interesting comment.
Sarah: Yeah. I mean, we can cut it out later if it doesn't work, but like you have some interesting stuff say so like. Go ahead.
Jemima: Thank you. I'll just do a bit on the Bechdel test. So the movie does have at least two women in it, surprisingly, only two though. Some of the other women are nameless characters like you do have women captains, all of that stuff. But yeah, I think the point of having women able to do like military stuff, at a time when women couldn't even do that in the 90s. So I appreciate that. And I think it's much better than our world at that point. So that's a good point. And then they don't talk to each other. That's one that interests me. They only talk in relation to the guy. I think - I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but one of the females dies halfway through, so they can't really talk to each other. Plus, it's all narratives in different parts of space and time and super difficult. Three: about something other than a man. Well, obviously, that's not applicable because they don't talk to each other. And when they do discuss it, it's all about men. And then two additional points that we could make is: two women must be named characters, they are called Carmen and Dizzy, so that's yes and/or they must have at least a total of 60 seconds of conversation. If I was to manipulate this, I would say at least 60 seconds of action, because they're both strong, physically strong women in the film. And you see that throughout. Carmen, at the end, she's like there, fully, with this giant bug and all the men and all the army surrounding her, but she keeps her cool and she survives an awful lot and she does it all by herself.
Jemima: So I think that's a good point. Yeah, that's me done.
Maddy: How about Sarah next?
Sarah: So one of my favourite movies is Lady Bird, have we we all seen that one?
Jemima: Yes.
Sarah: So, written and directed by Greta Gerwig, films that are written and directed by women, well, more likely than films written and directed by men, it seems, Lady Bird does pass all of the features of the Bechdel test because when women write, we know that we have lives and we speak to women. And that's a normal thing that would happen in, you know, a character's life.
Sarah: Yeah, we've got several named female characters who are friends who have conversations about various things. They do talk about men now and then. But like that isn't their only interest in life.
Sarah: I think that Lady Bird's like a pretty good bit of female representation, I mean, the characters are quite well rounded, the main character, Lady Bird, but she's a likeable character that lot of people, you know, relate to in some way, but she isn't, like, flawless, she's quite emotional, but not in a sort of derogatory hysterical kind of way - in a kind of stereotyped fashion.
Maddy: Yeah, I was just thinking I've just been thinking about the fact that we've also been looking at Little Women, which is obviously also directed by Greta Gerwig, this term as once again, as part of our Hollywood unit. And I was thinking about, you know, the moment not that not the proposal moment, but the bit where Joe is in the attic with her mom and she's talking about, you know, her life.
Maddy: And she goes women. They have minds and they have souls as well as just hearts. And they've got ambition and they've got talent as well as just beauty. I'm so sick of people saying that love is all a woman is fit for. And I think Greta Gerwig does that very well. I mean, it's the same actress both times. It's Saoirse Ronan and I think they're a very good duo.
Maddy: And I think you're right. You know, female directors and female writers, they are women, they talk to other women a lot of the time, hopefully. And they are aware of the fact that, you know, I can't believe I have to say this, but we have complex inner lives. We have thoughts and stuff.
Maddy: I have many opinions, like I've said, and we deserve to have them represented on screen.
Maddy: And I think for Greta Gerwig, despite the overwhelming whiteness of a lot of the people that she casts in her films, she does a very good job of showing, you know, a particular type of female character.
Maddy: And she's very good at teenage girls as well, I think. Yeah, very good at that age group. And she clearly remembers her own adolescence quite well. And she does a very good job of just kind of like, talking about that kind of stuff. I don't know. I rate her for it, I think it's pretty cool.
Jemima: Yeah. I think one of the great things about Greta is the fact that she has completely found a niche in the market. How many times have like we heard about a mother-daughter film? Not a lot like - can we think of any right now?
Maddy: Still Alice, I think is it called?
Jemima: Yeah, that's one.
Maddy: I guess, is My Sister's Keeper a mother-daughter film?
Jemima: We do not talk about that film. *inaudible giggling*
Jemima: Yeah, so Greta really works with the kind of bringing - fleshing out people, not just women, people, and then bringing the interplay between them into question. Just flawed characters - we all have- like, we still love each other. We all make mistakes. And her films really brilliantly portray that. And growing up is also like coming of age films, heart-wrenching. And I really enjoy the fact that, like at the end of the film, I feel like men, women, children, anyone can get something out of Lady Bird, get something out of Little Women.
Jemima: But one additional point is that Little Women, the text of it, she is like the film is- it basically keeps the fidelity with the book, so the literature is really, really ultra-feminist, of course.
Jemima: With Little Women, she obviously was inspired by the text and kind of did it in a contemporary fashion. It was feminist in the start and it really encouraged that narrative and pushed it forward. So yeah.
Maddy: Yeah, I found somehow a way to bring up in almost all of my seminars so far with my girl, that being like, hey, you know, Jo March, she's a lesbian, right? And everyone has, like a little debate about it. I'm just like, guys, she is a lesbian. But, yeah, like a lot of fun to talk about Little Women.
Maddy: I was just looking at my little list of films and I kind of wanted to talk about, um, I think in particular The Personal History of David Copperfield.
Maddy: It came out earlier this year, it's Dev Patel as David Copperfield.
Jemima: We love the casting.
Maddy: We do. So I found a really interesting website and it's called Mediaversity Reviews.
Maddy: And it gives a kind of like A to F grade for overall diversity for films. And it gives really in-depth reviews of just like, you know, films in terms of like their diversity points.
Maddy: But it does it in a really good way. Like it's not to virtue signal-y. And even, you know, it talks about, you know, like the directors.
Maddy: It's got like a little emoji next to the director. And it shows you whether or not the writer like where they're from is a guy, are they white, you know?
Maddy: Basically, The Personal History of David Copperfield gets a B. So A would be the highest, but it gets a B because they give it five out five for- my Internet connection is unstable.
Maddy: Yeah, The Personal History of David Copperfield gets a B, so the technical diversity, which is kind of talking about overall in terms of just like casting and crew was five out five. But despite passing the Bechdel test, it does point out that a lot of the women kind of like- well, the thing is, it is called The Personal History of David Copperfield.
Maddy: And a lot of the women in the film kind of like exist on the periphery of his life. And, you know, it's all about him and his angst and his stuff he's doing.
Maddy: And it - apart from obviously the fact that it's Agnes, the one who ends up marrying him - which is another thing, she ends up marrying him - she helps to uncover Uriah Heep, who voices Paddington, by the way. She obviously helps to, like, expose the fact that he's swindling her dad and that he's taken over the company and is terrible. So for that, it gets points because it's like, yeah, she's a badass. Like she steals the documents, she does a load of stuff. She's super smart. But apart from that, the film is about a guy and the women tend to exist on the periphery. And, you know, even though, like. Did any of you ever watch Wolfblood?
Sarah: Yeah, I did.
Maddy: Did you recognize Maddie from Wolfblood? She's the one that runs off with Steerforth.
Maddy: Yeah, just a random point. You know, it's Maddie from Wolfblood, but like, you know, just thinking about her, like she kind of like exists on the periphery of the story. And the only time she really comes into play is when she's like either engaged to Ham or she runs off with Steerforth and then he abandons her in London, goes off and dies on the boat. I found him hilarious. I probably shouldn't have done. I just- I just love the way he's always like, "remember me at my best." And I'm like, dude, at best your best is literally someone else's rock bottom. You kind of suck. He's like, "remember me at my best" - you're kind of a dick, though. No one thinks that you're the best.
Maddy: Just stop. But yeah, for race, it gets four out of five and they make a point that obviously Charles Dickens when writing the book, everyone he would have been imagining would have been as white as snow. And that's how he saw the world at the time. But they made a point of just like casting actors they knew would do a good job.
Maddy: And you know, it literally doesn't matter, like it's a story - it is a fictional story and the people are like, oh, but why would so-and-so have so-and-so as a father? That doesn't make sense. It's like, yeah, but, you know, this isn't a film for people who are masters of genetics. This is a film for people that enjoy films and enjoy the story. And all would do a fantastic job.
Maddy: So it gets a really good score for race diversity, but it makes a point, it says, 'when white directors cast blindly without making changes to the character based on the actor's ethnicity, it merely ticks a box of diversity. Meanwhile, matters of true representation not just in body but through diverse narratives defaults to a white experience'. So essentially, I think- I think what they're kind of trying to make is kind of like a point is a bit like the Sexy Lamp test. If you could change the race of this character and it would have absolutely no effect on the plot: is that true representation? I think that's the point they're trying to make. I think what they're trying to say is, yes, this is really good, like I know they had Dev Patel in mind to play David Copperfield from the start, but I think they're making the point that, like, if you're going to cast someone as a character, you need to bring into consideration how their race changes the way that they interact with the world around them and how that might be reflected in the narrative.
Maddy: And it's not interchangeable. And, you know, David Copperfield, looking the way he does, would not have had the same experience as a David Copperfield who was white would have done, especially in Victorian England. But in the end, it's a film. It's a fictional film.
Sarah: It's a difficult balance to strike, isn't it?
Sarah: You don't want to make it all about race all the time, but you still need to like acknowledge it. It's difficult to represent without overshadowing other elements.
Jemima: If you look at the director, Armando Iannuci- butchered his name. But like, if you look at his authorship, so Death of Stalin, he had Russians from Yorkshire, like his thing is and I listened to an interview when he released Personal History and his justification for all of this stuff is the fact that we can put history, not the kind of the racial side of things, but just history and how things would have been accurately presented, we can put that aside to just have quality in cast and crew.
Jemima: And I think that's a very good point. And of course, this stuff does make a great grounds for the other side. But at the same time, I think he and a lot of people and including what's his name, Dev Patel, all of those people they really, really appreciated and kind of acclaimed, the casting direction, because now so many casting decisions are based on-
Jemima: His essentially groundbreaking thing, because obviously the controversy around having a brown person in a white film as the main protagonist, whatever, and now everyone seems to be doing it. So it kind of has some rubbish sides to it, but at the same time, it's encouraging diversity in a lot of different ways.
Maddy: I remember when the trailer came out for the film, when the comments were just full of the, you know, "Charles Dickens would be rolling in his grave". And it's like, yes, he would, because he was a racist. Everyone back then was racist. But I don't care what he has to say because he's dead.
Maddy: And thanks for the books, Charles, but they're ours now. And then it got zero points for disability.
Maddy: It makes a point. Obviously, it's oh, my God, I'm forgetting everyone's names. Hugh Laurie. Yes. Hugh Laurie playing Mr Dick.
Maddy: He obviously has some issues with his mental health and everyone's really lovely to him about it. I don't - I think they get points for that. But then that's kind of cancelled out by the fact that Mr. Wickfield is serious, he has serious alcohol problems and everyone just kind of think this is a big joke.
Maddy: So for all the points that it gains for being like Mr Dick clearly has something going on there and everyone's super lovely to him about it. And they're never mean to him and they appreciate him for his intelligence and he's great, that gets cancelled out by the fact that Mr. Wickfield is a serious alcoholic and they all kind of make fun of him, but they get zero points for that.
Maddy: I don't know if I would count alcoholism as a disability.
Jemima: It is a mental illness.
Maddy: Yeah, it's mental illness, I think.
Maddy: But that means that overall it gets a B grade. And I just thought that was an interesting article. I'll probably link it below. It was written by - I'm probably butchering this again, Alicia Johnson, but the Alicia's got a J in it. I think it sounds like it's kind of Polish, so I don't know. And yet it seems like a really interesting website like they give diversity grades to loads of different films, including Lion, another film by Dev Patel, which again, because it doesn't pass the Bechdel test but obviously is very diverse. And yeah, I just- I love The Personal History of David Copperfield, it makes me happy. It's also because obviously, like Bleak House, like the actual Bleak House is in Broadstairs and I'm from Broadstairs.
Maddy: So like, like literally the school next to my school growing up is called Charles Dickens. There are so many pubs in town named after various Charles Dickens things like, when I worked in the pharmacy, so many people would like have prescriptions. It would be like, oh, your address is literally Bleak House. That's so cool.
Maddy: And I don't know, I don't think he was a particularly good person, I've really struggled to read a lot of his work because it's long, it's Victorian. But Charles Dickens obviously is a little bit like- I'm very territorial about it. I'm like, oh, my God, Charles Dickens!
Jemima: Heritage, isn't it?
Maddy: I don't know. I shouldn't be so protective over it, but, you know, I enjoy it. Oh, yeah. How long is the recording so far, Michael?
Michael: I can't actually see a time- if I click on recording will it tell me?
Maddy: Oh, I thought you were timing it. I thought that would have been-
Michael: Would have made sense when I started, yeah.
Sarah: I've been timing it on my phone and that's coming up to like forty-eight minutes - I set it off a bit before we, like, started.
Jemima: Yeah. Shall we do a conclusion then, we probably can't fit much more.
Maddy: Yeah.
Sarah: I read some stuff about the Oscars and how like only 50 percent of Oscar Best Picture winners have passed the Bechdel test. Yeah, only half of the Best Picture nominations this year did, might be worth mentioning.
Maddy: I don't want to defend any one, but I will make the point that there have been far less films to choose from this year. Like if- the way we're going the Husavik song Eurovision: Fire Saga or whatever is going to be the one that wins the Best Song for the Oscars.
Maddy: And that would obviously not be ideal, but it's a pandemic! Let Will Ferrell win an Oscar.
Jemima: I just think that, like what makes films Oscar-worthy does not make films good. Yeah, I think that's something that we can all agree on.
Jemima: And so it's just like to win Oscars, you basically have to tick a couple of boxes. Is it melodramatic and sloppy? Yes. Like has it got some really pretentious narrative points? Yes. And then is it either a musical or biographical, all of those things, then it passes. But then that's why a lot of directors and auteurs and stuff just completely reject the whole award system. It's just like the most anti-diverse, anti-feminist, anti-everything. But obviously, as we see in the next couple of years, they have just released that new classification - it won't be implemented for a while, as we know, but I guess they just copied the BAFTAs with a lot of it, doing the whole score marking system of they have to have this amount of diversity in the cast and crew for them to even be allowed to be considered for the award.
Maddy: Cool. Who would like to conclude, I would like not to because I introduced.
Jemima: And so I really hope. Well, we really hope that you have enjoyed this. Obviously, it's a first time, but yeah, I think we've made some really insightful points.
Jemima: And if you would like to look into them further, I'm sure, Michael, God bless his soul, our little white guy at the site-
Jemima: Yes. He'll put some great resources, everything that we were talking about in the description. Yeah. Is there any final thoughts from anyone?
Maddy: I love Dev Patel.
Sarah: Yeah, I second that.
Jemima: I agree with that wholeheartedly.
Resources:
Failing the “DuVernay Test”: 6 signs your on-screen black character is a tired stereotype
The Bechdel Test, and Other Media Representation Tests, Explained
The Personal History of David Copperfield on Mediaversity Reviews
#podcast#transcript#film criticism#dev patel#personal history of david copperfield#greta gerwig#lady bird#saoirse ronan#peter vanhoeven#xmen#bechdel test#ava duvernay
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Paul McCartney's Meat Free Monday Mission
June 25, 2009 -- The Telegraph
Sir Paul, Mary and Stella McCartney are leading the Meat Free Monday campaign to persuade people to avoid meat once a week. It is not an attempt to turn the world vegetarian, one day at a time, but a crucial step in the fight against climate change.
There is a charming, seemingly random video on YouTube of Paul McCartney demonstrating how to make mashed potatoes. It's a recipe from Linda McCartney's On Tour book (he is following the instructions from his own well-thumbed copy) and there is something quite endearing about the way he shows you Linda's tip of how to chop an onion, as he hacks away with the knife the way no professional chef would. He is no Jamie Oliver. Obviously, Sir Paul has many other talents and his guide to making mash the Macca way, a video he made as president of the Vegetarian Society, is just a bit of fun – the perfect accompaniment to a couple of Linda McCartney's vegetarian sausages.
Food was a key part of Paul and Linda's relationship and when they decided to go vegetarian in the seventies, it was a spontaneous and joint decision. "Linda and I, we were on the farm and we saw lambs gambolling and we were eating leg of lamb…so it was a compassionate thing. That seems to be the least important thing to people these days. It seems to have gone right out of the window, the whole idea, unfortunately, because it's rather a nice thing, a bit of compassion."
What was it that made this man hate us? These days, Linda's food still brings the family together. They are actively involved in Linda McCartney Foods, which recently had a bit of a dust off and a rebrand. The family all taste and approve any new recipes, and I imagine, their freezers are well stocked with Linda's burgers and sausages. It is important to them, their way of keeping Linda's legacy alive. So when Paul decided to launch a new campaign, Meat Free Monday, it was the perfect opportunity to get together for a rare public group hug.
As he muses over a suitable recipe for another cookery video to promote the new campaign, he remembers one of his father's favourite recipes. "Pea sandwiches," he recalls. "I remember my dad making one for John once." But his daughters groan. "It has to be mum's lasagne," says Mary.
While Mary prepares to take the photographs for this story, Paul takes a tiny mouth organ from his pocket and plays as Stella sings along. "This is why Bob Dylan wants to write songs with you," she laughs. It's a family joke. Despite the news reports that the two musicians are about to record together, Paul tells me later that the rumour is totally unfounded. "No, that's a newspaper thing. He just said some very complimentary things about me in some interviews and I love him. I think he's a great poet and writer so I've always admired him. I don't rule it out and I admire him. But we're not the kind of people who would ring each other up." Mary takes her place in the picture, arranges her dad's hair which is blowing in the wind, and presses the shutter.
The family is famously vegetarian, but Stella says for this particular debate, she wishes they weren't. This is not an evangelical mission to make the world a veggie but an attempt to do their bit to slow climate change. "It's an environmental conversation, not a vegetarian one," says Stella. "It's ok to just give up meat for one day, it doesn't make you a vegetarian if you hate vegetarians, it doesn't make you cranky, hemp wearing pot smoker. It's alright, it's allowed - it doesn't make you a kind of the person you don't want to be. It just means you are doing something positive."
Paul read about the campaign in America and decided he needed to get involved. Over the past year, he has been talking about it, writing letters to celebrities and chefs, talking to schools, and galvanising support from as many people as he can, including Woody Harrelson, Doris Day, and Ricky Gervais. Two weeks ago [Monday 15 June], he held a press conference to launch the campaign at Oliver Peyton's restaurant Inn the Park. Peyton himself – a fully fledged bone marrow sucking carnivore - has agreed to promote meat free dishes every Monday at the restaurant.
The campaign has some weighty research behind it, not least from the UN. "Dad got the report," says Mary, who is softly spoken but has a cool air of authority about her. "You were sent the report weren't you?" She looks at Paul who has joined us round the table at the Portobello Hotel in west London, quietly whistling to himself. "Yeah, I was originally sent it. Livestock's Long Shadow it was called. The UN, who are our appointed global watchdog, said 'hey, cattle rearing is more harmful than ALL transport.' That is the statistic I thought was shocking because until then I thought it was aeroplanes, cars and trucks…"
According to the report, livestock are responsible for 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, which is indeed a bigger share than that of transport which accounts for 13 per cent. "We're not just talking about a few cows," says Paul. "We're talking billions. I took a drive from Santa Fe down to El Paso, a road trip I was on, and you go past I think about 15-20 miles of cattle as you drive down the motorway and it's the same cow; it's a brown and white cow. There are billions of them! And that's where it comes home. That's where the methane is coming from, this is the problem, not just a couple of cows on a farm. It's not just Daisy and Buttercup any more."
It seems the world is coming round to the Macca point of view and this is too good an opportunity to miss. It's the first time not eating meat is being promoted by scientists – 'traditional eaters,' as Paul calls them, not vegetarians with a vested interest. For Stella and Mary, following their father's lead is perfectly natural. Linda would certainly have been there, waving her placard. She was already talking about the relationship between food and the environment long before the UN decided it was time to act. This is part of the family's way of keeping Linda's legacy alive. "Ideally yes, be vegetarian," says Mary. "But if not, just reduce your meat intake to make it fun do a meat free Monday."
Listening to them running through the arguments and the statistics backing up their campaign, you feel this is a typical discussion that would happen over a family nut roast. Occasionally, they talk over each other and finish each other's sentences. "It can be so overwhelming," admits Stella. "And you can feel so …oh god, but I've got to get that plane there and I've got to drive my car with my three kids here. You are led to believe that transport is the main problem, but actually it's diet. To be honest we could sit and bang on about it…"
Paul: "But we don't want to bang on, we don't want to say to you look, you have to go veggie. The idea of this is for the environment, for your children's future, would you consider just one day a week changing your habits? And then if you decide to do two days, three, four, then so much the better, but if people would do it, it would have a huge impact."
Stella: "If everyone gave it up on a Monday it would be more effective than everyone stopping driving their car on a Monday. We are not perfect. It's so important to get that across because it's like oh, those bloody Maccas, talking again about not killing cows! It is boring. But the reality is, I like to think I am trying to do my little bit. I will turn off the lights when I leave a room; I will turn off a socket if I don't want to be using the socket. And those are tiny little things."
Paul: "Even President Obama tells you to do that."
It is a small thing they are asking us all to do. Very few of us eat meat every day of the week, but by cutting back on what we eat, we can make a difference. On average we are eating twice the amount of meat we ate in 1961, the year the Beatles first performed at the Cavern club in Liverpool. "The idea of having one type of meat for your breakfast and another type of meat for your lunch, and then another type for your dinner, and in between having your sandwiches with another kind of meat, we really do eat too much of it," says Paul. To produce a single kilogram of beef, farmers have to feed a cow 15 kg of grain and 30 kg of forage. It is a highly intensive business that is ultimately not sustainable. Livestock production is responsible for 70 per cent of the deforestation of the Amazon jungle and by 2050, the world's livestock population is expected to rise from 60 billion farm animals to 120 billion. It is a scary fact when you consider that a single cow can produce 500 litres of methane per day, which has around 25 times the global warming impact of CO2.
"I think we forget more and more that we are animals," says Stella, "and we are part of a planetary system where all of the animals are on this planet together and you are made to feel like a hippy dippy jerk that should go and live in a tipi for even making a point of remembering."
Despite the fact that she rarely gives interviews, Stella is the most vocal of the three, passionately backing up her father, shaking her head, saying 'it's all money, money, money!' about the projected growth of the meat industry (world demand for meat is estimated to double by 2050) and butting in with the odd comment like: 'Greed is not a good look. I was brought up to think this was not a good look. Everything in moderation.' And she knows her stuff. She urges me (and you) to watch a film called Home that was made by the aerial photographer, Yann Arthus-Bertrand, and launched the previous week on World Environment Day. You can link to it from her website.
As she says, she tries to do her bit. Although she already incorporates sustainable and organic fabrics in her mainline collection, she also designs a capsule Green Collection which is as purely ethical and sustainable as she can make it and is sold at Barneys in New York and Harvey Nichols in London. On her website, in between pictures of models looking supremely cool and confident in her clothes, if you click on the 'Green me' button, you can read Stella's eco tips – small things we can all do to help slow down global warming. Her London shop is powered by Ecotricity. Her skincare range, Care, is made using 100 percent organic active ingredients and is Ecocert –certified. And of course, she tells her celebrity friends off for wearing fur and doesn't use leather.
"In my industry, there is no alternative in people's minds to leather shoes. Now I'm not making a leather shoe. I'm doing alright. We can get by. Things change. Humans are the best animals - the best adapters on the planet. We adapt quicker than a tree does in the rainforest. We adapt, that's what we do."
In March, she was given an award by the Natural Resources Defence Council (which works to protect wildlife and wild places) in New York. "I was lucky enough to present that to her," says Paul. "I said that when she joined the fashion world, she first of all was employed by Gucci and my first thought, and Linda's, was uh-oh Gucci is leather city. When you think of Gucci, you think of leather. We thought about how long is it going to be before she caves in on her principles? And we waited, and we waited, and we waited, and she never did. That is a fantastic achievement… and that's what's great about new ideas, different ideas, people catch the fire, they get excited with the stuff. It's just thinking about it instead of just becoming a Gucci slave. Took a little bit of guts to do that."
Despite the fact that Stella feels she has been pilloried for her beliefs and principles, it seems to have paid off. Just as the fashion world has finally come round to her big idea of wearing jumpsuits and your boyfriend's jacket, we seem to have arrived at a moment when having principles – and a bit of compassion – is not such a bad thing. It is perhaps no coincidence that she is the only fashion person to be included in Time magazine's annual 100 most influential people list this year, an achievement she is obviously proud of, giving me a high five when I mention it. Just as any father would, Paul admits to having the magazine on his kitchen table, open at the relevant page – a tribute written by Stella's mate, Gwyneth Paltrow. "Even if you are not vegetarian somehow Stella gets you to believe," she writes. "She manages to convince you (never sanctimoniously from a soapbox) that killing animals is needless and cruel and bad for the environment."
Paul says she didn't have to be that way. "She could have caved in and we almost would have forgiven her. The pressures were so huge but the fact that she did not…" Stella cuts in. "I'm very lucky. I don't think that I am magnificent, I just think I've been very lucky. I think I've been brought up in a certain way. Mary's like that, my brother [James, a musician] and sisters [Heather from Linda's first marriage, and Beatrice from her father's second] are like that. My husband's like that. I think that you do stand out if you stand out against things. It was very hard in my industry especially to have those kind of principles and I did have the mickey taken out of me probably up to about a year ago. And people will probably read this and chuck it on their barbie and cook beef on it but the reality is I'm more impressed by people who take a risk and who stand up to good beliefs and I think in this day and age…"
Paul: "It's how the world changes."
Stella: 'The main thing is not to bang on about it too much. We don't generally bang on about it, I try to keep my head down and get on with it and design pretty frocks, that's my job. And dad makes pretty good records when he's given half an hour in between his potato mashing, and Mary's a fantastic photographer. But I don't think we want to come across as forcing people to think a certain way, I think it's just a very valid issue and life's too short to not do something you believe in. You've only got a short period on the planet to make something of your life."
With all of this passion and desire for change, I wonder if Paul will be writing a Dylan style protest song to promote their cause. "I do have a few sort of animal awareness songs, but they are very difficult to write. I wrote one called Looking For Changes that was applauded by PETA, which started off with 'I saw a cat with a machine in its brain', you know that picture? A hardcore picture. That made me write that, but it's very very hard to do and it's not my forte. I wish it was, that would be kind of nice to be driven in that direction. Songs aren't always what you are passionate about. You'd like to think that they all were but sometimes it's just about I love you, or you're great."
And with that, our time is up. Stella's phone has been ringing non-stop. "We're going to get a bit of flack for this," says Paul, who can't resist singing into my Dictaphone before turning it off. "Why do we feel we need to do it? You know what, because Meat Free Monday is a damn good idea. I mean, what are you going to tell your kids? That we can do something about it. This is one of those things that you can do."
#article#meat free Monday#vegetarian#mary McCartney#environment#Paul McCartney#stella mccartney#family#Heather McCartney#Beatrice McCartney#James McCartney#charity
19 notes
·
View notes
Link
via Politics – FiveThirtyEight
It’s November. That means your seasonal depression is settling in for the long haul, the 2020 election is a year away, and the Congressional Democrats are taking the impeachment inquiry into its next, very public phase. This week, some transcripts of formerly closed-door testimony were made public, and televised hearings will now follow.
Given that there are three months until the Iowa caucuses and the official kickoff of voting season — aka, political consequences time! — we’ve been thinking about the various ways that impeachment might affect each party’s 2020 electoral prospects. And there are a lot of them. So while we’re not oracles over here, we can already divine how this could end. Think of this as your wham, bam thank you ma’am primer on impeachment and its potential 2020 outcomes.
I) Things Are Bad For Trump And Very Good For Democrats
This set of scenarios imagines a black and white version of the moral-political universe: the American people believe Trump abused his power and they push to punish him personally and his party more broadly.
1) Trump loses everything: In this version of events, the public impeachment hearings become appointment viewing for the nation, attracting tons of attention and meaningfully shifting public opinion. The Democrats pull off the synthesizing of facts and narrative in such a way that a majority of independents and a healthy swath of Republicans turn against President Trump. (Right now, FiveThirtyEight’s average of polls asking about impeachment and removal from office shows 47.5 percent of Americans in favor, 45.6 percent opposed. Currently, only 11.1 percent of Republicans think the president should be impeached.) So much does the tide turn, in fact, that Trump loses his congressional allies and is forced to resign. Think Nixon. Mike Pence becomes president, but only for a few months; the public sees Pence as irrevocably linked to Trump. Like Gerald Ford’s eventual fate, but all sped up. Even sympathetic Republican voters stay home in key states, while key swing demographics move toward the Democrats. Pence loses the election and what’s worse, the GOP loses the Senate, as vulnerable senators are seen as having done too little, too late. Ouch.
2) Voters abandon Trump but stick with the GOP: Congress remains split along partisan lines and few in the Republican Party end up pulling a Fredo on Trump. He doesn’t need to resign and stays at the top of the GOP ticket in 2020. But the televised hearings are damning to Trump — the public doesn’t like what it sees, and remembers that come November. The impeachment proceeding lowers morale among Republican voters who aren’t part of Trump’s hardcore base (the president currently has a 41.3 percent approval rating and a 54.6 percent disapproval), leading to lowered turnout particularly among reluctant Trump voters in key states. (We first identified reluctant Trump voters in the wake of the 2016 election as Republicans who had cast their ballot for the president unenthusiastically. This group tends to be better educated than the rest of Trump voters, though like most of the president’s voters, they are white, and middle-aged or older.) This scenario might look like the 2018 midterms, when independent voters went for Democrats by a 12-point margin. In this scenario, Trump loses the election but things are a little better for GOP as a whole; it keeps the Senate. Democrats get two houses: the White House and the House of Representatives.
II) Things Are Bad For Trump But OK For Republicans
This set of scenarios imagines a post-impeachment political landscape that has rid itself of Trump. The Republican Party is in a state of flux, trying to figure out what comes next after the end of an administration and party platform driven by a single, powerful personality.
1) President Pence: Impeachment hearings go really badly. The tide of public opinion turns against Trump and he loses his allies in Congress and is forced to resign. This scenario is a little like the one we started with, except with one key difference: Pence becomes president and wins the general election. He draws huge turnout from Republican voters who love Trump — the campaign charges them up about the unjust fate of Trump — while also reassuring reluctant Trump voters that he, Pence, will make for a steadier hand on the till. Currently, it should be noted, Pence has a net average approval of -5.5 percent according to a Real Clear Politics average; Trump is at -12.0 percent.
2) The Republican Civil War: The tide of public opinion turns somewhat against Trump, but not enough to shake the faith of leading GOP figures — Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham still watch the Super Bowl with Trump. But certain rebellious GOP figures are fed up and have had enough of hiding their concerns: Mitt Romney joins Jeff Flake (remember him?) in calling for Trump’s impeachment and removal. The moderate GOP caucus falls in line with these figures and the whole lot of them decide to throw their support behind the candidacy of Bill Weld, or, even better, back Romney in a longshot primary bid. They know they probably won’t win, but they siphon off support from Trump and lodge enough attacks for the president to be mortally wounded come general election time. He loses, and Romney et al finally settle in to implementing the 2012 GOP post-mortem plan to win back Latinos.
III) Things Go Very Well For Trump And Backfire On Democrats
Oops. The Democrats took a gamble on impeachment and lost. Their narrative doesn’t gel on TV; the details of the Ukraine scandal are too mired in diplomatic minutiae. People can’t keep track of the cast of characters. Who’s Kurt Volker again? Wait, what did Gordon Sondland do that was so bad? The Fox News apparatus proves to be a powerful story-telling voice for the president’s side of things, and Democrats can’t push their advantage.
1) Trump wins: The House remains split along partisan lines — nothing really changes after the vote to open the inquiry. Few if any Republican senators vote against Trump during his Senate trial. And after watching a whole lot of CSPAN-style television, the American public is divided over what they’re seeing, a la Brett Kavanaugh. (Republican support for now-Justice Kavanaugh only increased following his testimony while Democratic opposition ramped up.) The election is a squeaker. A combination of semi-ambivalent Republicans and low-energy Democrats — perhaps their base isn’t entirely thrilled about their nominee? — leads to Trump winning the election. The Democrats keep the House, the Republicans keep the Senate. Late night shows’ writer’s rooms get a little ‘70s retro, firing up the cocaine to fuel them through four more years of comb over jokes.
2) Utter chaos and destruction for Democrats: Congress remains split along partisan lines and the televised hearings leave the American public divided, a la Kavanaugh. Republican voters are angry, though. Really angry. The election is a squeaker but Trump pulls through, thanks to his enthused base, reluctant Trump voters and independents who think that the Democrats have led the country through a national pain in the neck for naught. (Independents are the real surprise, given nearly half of them supported impeachment in early November 2019.) The Democrats not only lose the White House, but also the House, as Democratic members from more moderate districts are punished for having put the president on trial. The Democratic gains of the 2018 midterms are all but completely reversed as college-educated whites from the suburbs — the Trump era’s stereotypical swing voter — make their way back to the GOP side of the dividing line.
3) The weird mixed-bag: The public hearings are damning but Republican voters and elected officials stick with Trump. Democratic voters nationwide are ready to dump Trump, though. Turnout on both sides is high. In certain key swing states, vulnerable Republican senators are ousted (a recent Morning Consult poll shows sliding net approval ratings for some Republican senators up for reelection). The Democrats keep the House, miraculously win the Senate and come out ahead in the popular vote, too. But in a re-hashing of the 2016 election, Trump wins the electoral college. The nation goes to bed confused on Nov. 3, 2020, and spends the next four years wondering whether there was ever any other way things could have ended.
1 note
·
View note
Note
1-100 do it scrub
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED LET"S GO!!!! SORRY FOR THE WALL!
1. What is you middle name?Actually don’t legally have one.2. How old are you?213. When is your birthday?September 134. What is your zodiac sign?Virgo5. What is your favorite color?Green or orange. Both are very good.6. What’s your lucky number?759 and 1137. Do you have any pets?No but I reeeeeeeally want some!8. Where are you from?I’m from Louisiana, the boot of the country. 9. How tall are you?IRL I’m around 5 foot 6. Average height my dude.10. What shoe size are you?10 and a half to 11… yeah big feet for kicking your a-
11. How many pairs of shoes do you own?Like…. 2 or three? One tearing about as the seams. 12. What was your last dream about?I…. don’t remember. But I do remember it involved tripping over my roommate’s mountain of clothes while shouting at her for something.13. What talents do you have?Not blinking, screaming a variety of sounds, needle felting, embroidery. 14. Are you psychic in any way?No, not at all psychic.15. Favorite song?DON"T MAKE ME CHOOSE! Well, one of my favorites of all time is ‘Life itself’ By Glass animals. Though Missio songs have been growing on me.16. Favorite movie?Ok this is gonna be weird but Matilda is one of my favorite movies. Watch it whenever it comes on TV. 17. Who would be your ideal partner?Alrighty have them. They’re up above making me answer all these in one go. Love ya babe!18. Do you want children?No. Kids intimidate me.Only fur babies. 19. Do you want a church wedding?Nah. They seem a little too formal for my taste.20. Are you religious?Well I was a long time ago, but I’ve honestly fallen out of it over the years.
21. Have you ever been to the hospital?Yes. Emergency stitches.22. Have you ever got in trouble with the law?The closest time I did was because we tried to walk home via railroad tracks ditching mom at a pizza place. I was put in the back seat of the cop car and cried thinking I was gonna go to jail. I drew a smiley face on the foggy window……. I was young and stupid.23. Have you ever met any celebrities?Nnnnnnnope!24. Baths or showers?Baths all the way, I enjoy just soaking and totally not falling asleep in the water.25. What color socks are you wearing?I have no socks on now. Jokes on you!26. Have you ever been famous?I’m not famous. Nooooooot at all.27. Would you like to be a big celebrity?Noooooo. I like being in the shadows.28. What type of music do you like?Little bit of everything, but mostly pop or really chill music.29. Have you ever been skinny dipping?Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. 30. How many pillows do you sleep with?Three at most. Hug them all
31. What position do you usually sleep in?It shifts to on my back or on my side just curled up among the blankets.32. How big is your house?Honestly not that big. Simple little adobe.33. What do you typically have for breakfast?If I’m at home a sandwich, but really it’s anything I can grab. Maybe some chips. 34. Have you ever fired a gun?Only a water gun. Never touching a real gun.35. Have you ever tried archery?Actually I have! Not too bad at it!36. Favorite clean word?Clean word…… Moxie. I love just saying moxie.37. Favorite swear word?Bumblefuck……. Some friends help make that.38. What’s the longest you’ve ever gone without sleep?24 hours. Worst night of my life39. Do you have any scars?A few! Claw marks on my arm, but the most infamous one is on the bottom of my left foot. That one needed the stitches.
40. Have you ever had a secret admirer?If I did they hid it really really well.41. Are you a good liar?Oh no I’m the absolute worst liar. Anyone can tell you that.42. Are you a good judge of character?I like to think it’s about 75 percent accurate? I have a decent enough judge, but it sometimes glitches and I feel like crap for it.43. Can you do any other accents other than your own?I……. no? 44. Do you have a strong accent?Not really. It abandoned me.45. What is your favorite accent?I’m a sucker for like Irish tones. They’re neat to me!46. What is your personality type?If it’s the letter’s thing it’s ENFP. IF I had to say for myself….. loud.47. What is your most expensive piece of clothing?I really don’t know. Maybe this one nice light blue jacket I have. I can’t answer that honestly.48. Can you curl your tongue?I think so!49. Are you an innie or an outie?Innie.50. Left or right handed?Ya girl leftie all the way!
51. Are you scared of spiders?Only a few like Brown Recluse and Black widows. All the others are perfectly fine with me. 52. Favorite food?Chicken and Dumplings. My favorite comfort food when I can get it.53. Favorite foreign food?I’d have to say eggrolls and Mongolian chicken. I really love Mandarin food apparently.54. Are you a clean or messy person?Messy. No question about it. I live in a rat’s nest. Working on it though!55. Most used phrased?Either 'you got this!’ or 'FIGHT ME!’56. Most used word?Bruh. I say bruh IRL waaaay too much.57. How long does it take for you to get ready?3-5 Minutes…. not counting the hour is takes for me to actually wake up.58. Do you have much of an ego?No? I least I hope I don’t.59. Do you suck or bite lollipops?Both. I do both.60. Do you talk to yourself?All the time.
61. Do you sing to yourself?Even more so! 62. Are you a good singer?Ehhhhh, we’ll call it so so.63. Biggest Fear?Lightning. I absolutely freeze up and cower from it. Not fun.64. Are you a gossip?…… yeah in recent years I have collected a lot of dirt. But I only receive it and don’t spread it. I hoard all your secrets for myself. 65. Best dramatic movie you’ve seen?How’s how to train your dragon 2 count?66. Do you like long or short hair?I have a pension for shorter hair, every to fun your fingers through.67. Can you name all 50 states of America?I better if I flipping live here!68. Favorite school subject?Art(Duh), but if we didn’t have that I have a soft spot for history or Speech and Debate.69. Extrovert or Introvert?Extrovert. I scream hi to everyone!70. Have you ever been scuba diving?No, but it sounds so fun!
71. What makes you nervous?Everything. Silence, chances in schedule, deadlines, my own thoughts. So…. everything.72. Are you scared of the dark?Not really. I love the dark. I am the dark.73. Do you correct people when they make mistakes?Eh..... no. They’ll figure it out on their own.74. Are you ticklish?I am not disclosing this information.75. Have you ever started a rumor?No thank god. That ain’t my style!76. Have you ever been in a position of authority?I mod servers on discord and I do them very well. So yes, that is my authority.77. Have you ever drank underage?No thank you. Not really a fan of alcohol from the looks alone.78. Have you ever done drugs?No….unless caffeine counts.79. Who was your first real crush?My first crush was a guy in like fifth grade called Mark. Annnnnd that was the first time I had my heart crushed in front of me. Luckily he grew up to be a jerk so I’m over it. 80. How many piercings do you have?Zero. I am a chicken.
81. Can you roll your Rs?“Pretty sure I butcher them when I try.82. How fast can you type?Honestly not that fast. 83. How fast can you run?Depends, who am I chasing?84. What color is your hair?Dark Brown, almost black.85. What color is your eyes?Brown as well. 86. What are you allergic to?Seafood, wasps and bee stings, penicillin. 87. Do you keep a journal?Not really. Though i may try to do one again!88. What do your parents do?My mom is a retired teacher. She…. doesn’t really do that much now.89. Do you like your age?Yeah. I’m content with my age and where things look to be going now!90. What makes you angry?Small things, disrespecting arts, just blunt stupidity. Anything off r/insanefacebook.I get angry at a looooot of things.
91. Do you like your own name?Yes I do. I am proud of my name!92. Have you already thought of baby names, and if so what are they?I have even though I don’t want kids. Though I can’t remember them at the moment.93. Do you want a boy a girl for a child?NO KIDS!94. What are your strengths?Drawing expressions, optimism, staying motivated to do a thing.95. What are your weaknesses?Anger, paranoia, long list of health issues. 96. How did you get your name?I have no idea.97. Were your ancestors royalty?I don’t freaking know!98. Do you have any scars?I ALREADY ANSWERED THIS!!!!!99. Color of your bedspread?Dark grey.100. Color of your room?White….. it’s a dorm room.
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
Hard Feelings Part 4
Summary: (Modern Au) After the death of your only living relative, you find yourself lost in life and your feelings. To make things worse, you have to deal with Steve Rogers someone from your past that is more present in your life now than ever.
Pairing: Steve x Reader
Words: 2461
Warnings: This Part is one of my favorites, you are going to discover a little bit of the past between the reader and Steve. And what is in her letter.
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
On the lobby you see, Bucky waiting for you “Don’t you look fancy, Mr. Barnes?” You say pulling him for a hug; he hugs you back kissing your cheek “Look who is speaking, you look amazing. The businesswoman look fits you.” He says hugging you by the waist taking you to his office
“It’s being too long since we saw each other… when the last time was?” You ask sitting on his couch, taking off your high heels. “I think it was on Nat’s birthday, four months ago…. Oh boy, it’s been ages… being a responsible adult sucks.” He says laughing and giving you a soda of his minibar.
“Come on, Bucky we were never the responsible ones of the group, this was always Nat and Steve job, they just put up with us.” You joke “That is true, talking about my new boss he said that you wanted to talk to me?”
“Yes, I do actually, so I want to be a part of this company and Nana let me a very loving latter giving me a few ideas in what I can succeed in here. I could work with Natasha in the PR department, with you in here or with Pierce in the shopping department. So you were the chosen one.”
He laughs at the tone you are using before saying “Well I do feel honored, can I ask you why?” You nod, taking one more sip of your soda “Well, I feel like I caused a lot of problems for PR department in a lifetime, so would be a little ironic if I worked there and shopping involves money and Pierce two things that I am not really in the mood to deal with it.”
You say sincere, there is something about Pierce that makes you don’t trust him “I would choose Nat over me at any time, but that is just me.” You laugh squeezing his shoulder “Of course you would, you are in love with her.
You watch as he blushes and clears his throat. You find cute their relationship; they would do anything for each other “Can I ask you a question? You are afraid of what he might ask you, especially if involves, Steve and what happened between you two. You don’t like to talk about the past, even if was with one of your closest friends.
“What do you want from this? Do you want to run this department? Do you want just to pitch ideas? You know that whatever you want, you are going to get it, I just need to know what I am working with it.” You nod, it’s a reasonable question.
“I don’t want to run your department, Bucky. I also don’t want you to say yes to every idea that I have. I never worked with advertising, so I know that my ideas are not going to be the best in the begging but I do want to learn.”
He smiles at you “So, I should treat you like an intern?” He asks playful, you roll your eyes at him “I am not getting anyone coffee, but yeah basically I am an intern.” He smiles at you, shaking your hand “Well it is going to be a pleasure to work, you.”
“I agree, James. It’s going to be almost like college but we both are going to be sober most of the time.” He laughs sitting on his desk “Please, Steve will fire both us if we show up drunk for work.” He starts to answer a few emails and you two keep making small talk until he calls you by your full name “Steve Grant Rogers is asking with you are ready to go to lunch with him.”
You sigh; you knew that Steve wouldn’t let this lunch thing go “Tell him that I will meet him in the lobby in 10.” You watch as he types the message and laughs at something that Steve said “Are you going to explain to me what is happening between you two?”
“No?” You don’t even know how to begin to explain; since your grandmother died Steve was being the perfect prince charming. He was caring and understanding, always making sure that you were being taken care of.
Yet he left you, he broke your heart and just walk away without any explanation. You don’t know if you can trust him with your heart, the first time he left was hard enough and you don’t think you can do this again.
“You should talk to him.” He says, taking you away from his thoughts. Of course, he thinks like that. Bucky was Steve best friend since they were little kids and he was the one that introduced you two when you guys where in college.
You and Steve were never close friends, until a couple of years ago. Bucky started to date Natasha and with the two of them spend so much time together, you and Steve kind of start doing the same. Sure took almost one year for him to kiss you, but after that first kiss, things went by pretty fast.
When he ended things with you, you didn’t just lose a lover, you lose one of your best friends. You like to pretend he didn’t mean anything to you, but in reality, you know how much he marked you “You know, you are not the first person to tell me that.” You say putting your shoes and grabbing your purse,
“So follow our advice, I can’t take this anymore. He looks at you like a lost puppy; he would do anything for you.” You smile at yourself; you like to think that this is true “I am going to have lunch with him, right? Who knows what is going too happened.” You say trying to end the subject “I talk to you later, Bucky.”
On the lobby, you find Steve, waiting for you. He took off his jacket, he looks almost sinful with his sleeves rolled up and the big smile that he has on his face. He puts his hand on the small of your back, leading you to the parking lot.
“Where are you taking me to lunch, Steve?” He smiles at you sweetly “It is a surprise.” He says playful, you roll your eyes at him “You know that I hate surprises.’ You say looking at the window, trying to figure it out where he is taking you.
In 10 minutes he parks in a small restaurant that you used to come with your grandmother when you went to visit her in the office. It was like a little tradition for the two of you, eat French fries and drink milkshakes while you two talked about everything.
“We can go to another place if you want.” He says taking a string of hair out of your face and putting behind your eat “No, it is ok and they do have the best French fries that I ever eat.”
You get out of the car going inside the restaurant; you wonder why he did bring you here he knew that you used to come here with your, Nana. He even came once with you guys a couple of times, sure there was lot more people like Nat and Bucky but he was still there.
“So who is the CEO life treating you?” You ask trying to make small talk, you don’t want to fight right now at least not again “These last few weeks were insane, I went to a lot of meetings and I was trying to understanding all your grandmother duties but now I think I am getting used to.”
You nod, you can imagine how difficult must be to take care of a company, especially one of that size “But its definitely weird have my own office, I was so used to the financial department with everyone talking and laughing that sometimes I feel pretty lonely.”
“At least you have, Peter to make you company he seems like a good kid.” You say trying to make him feel better “He is, he talks a lot and very fast. Sometimes I can’t even understand what he is saying, but you two would get along just fine.”
“I will make sure to go say hello to him before go meeting Bucky tomorrow morning.” He smiles at you, but before he can say anything the waiter comes to take your order. After you two order your burgers, Steve asks “Are you going to work with, Bucky from now on?”
“Yeap, so you are going to see me almost every day, hopefully not during the coffee runs.” You joke, making Steve laugh “He wouldn’t do that you, you are too smart and creative. He is lucky to have you on his team.” You feel yourself blushing because of his compliments, why he had to be so nice?
“And I do own 70 percent of the company.” You say playful, trying not to think about what he just said “That helps too.” He says in the same tone as you, you two keep talking more about work, you tell him about what you are expecting from advertising and he tells you a little bit more about his duties as CEO.
You are grateful that he brought you here, you are having a wonderful time and you can’t wait to eat your burger and fries “I want to ask you something but I don’t want to overstep our boundaries.’ He says grabbing your attention, you are afraid of what he might ask you.
“Go ahead.” You say letting curiosity get the best of you “How was Vermont?” Now you know why he was afraid to ask you that, he knew that there were your parents used to live before they died.
“It was nice, it was a good change, you know? The Cabin was so different from the mansion, not only by the size but the colors and the atmosphere. I can see why my parents would want to raise me there.”
You say smiling at him; the cabin was exactly like your parents left with the same furniture and the same homely feel. Everything was so well preserved that was nice to have a taste of the life they had.
He nods, holding your hand. You can see that there is something on his mind but before you can ask what is wrong he asks “Will you be back to the manor? I mean now that you are back” He asks brushing his thumb on your palm.
“No, I can’t live there anymore. I came back a few days ago and I am staying with Wanda at least for a while.” You say not trying to get into many details, you feel grateful that your food arrives making him let go of your hand focus on the burger in front of him “Are you going to live with, Wanda now?”
You sigh, you don’t like all these questions that he is making you “When I came back, I rented an apartment is really nice and kind of small but I love it. If you want I can take you there later, but I still don’t have any furniture so it might take you a while.”
“Good, I don’t like to think you all alone in that mansion. I will buy you some roses for you to put in the new place.” He says sweetly, you know that he means well but how can he cares so much about you after breaking your heart a few months ago.
“Steve, we need to talk. It’s no fair how things….”Before you can form a complete sentence, his phone starts to ring “I have to take this, its work. When I came back we will talk, ok?” You nod as he leaves the table and answers his phone.
You start to play with your phone waiting for him to come back, you need to know why he cares so much about you. You are pretty sure that is a mix of guilty about he has done in the past and pity about what happened to your grandmother.
It is the only explanation.
“Do you mind if I sit?” You look up and see Pierce standing in front you before you answer he is already pulling the chair in front of you “How can I help you, Pierce?” You ask trying to sound formal and understand what he was doing in there.
“It’s being a while since I saw you. I think the last time was at the funeral, I hope she is resting in peace.” He says touching your arm “Thank you, I am sure she is.” You say taking his hand away from you; all you want is for him to despair.
“She clearly wasn’t in her right mind putting that kid as CEO, I mean I work for this company for almost 50 years and she gives the job to Steve Rogers? He is in the company for less than a decade and he is so irresponsible.”
You feel annoyed, who does he think he is? To talk bad about your grandma and Steve to you, like you ever going to take his side.
“I am sure that he is the best man for the job, Pierce. Nana was always great at recognizing talent.” You say trying to end the conversation “Of course, I am just saying that the company could do better and so do you.”
You face fell out of your face for a few seconds, you knew that you couldn’t trust, Pierce but this s a new low even for him. He sounds like a Disney villain that wants to marry the princess to take care of the kingdom and you wouldn’t be surprised if this was exactly his plan.
“I think you should go, Pierce and I would like to remember that I can fire you anytime I want so please put yourself in your place.” You watch as Pierce leaves your table complaining about something. You need to keep an eye on him; you don’t trust him at all.
You wonder where Steve is, all you want is to get out of here and talk to him about everything. You feel his hand on your shoulder, you can’t help but lean on his shoulder “Are you ok?” He asks, noticing that you are little pale.
“Yeah, can we go now? We have a lot to talk to.” He nods paying the bill “Do you want to go back to the office or you rather come back to my apartment where we can have some privacy?”
“Your apartment, I don’t want to talk about this in your office.” You say leaving the restaurant and getting into his car.
Part 5
Please Leave feedback, I really like this series it is one of my favorites that I wrote so far and I believe that you guys will really like. So share your opinions with me. And of course, if you want to be tagged let know.
301 notes
·
View notes
Text
like i was scrolling through youtube this morning and i came across a poll that was like “you can press a button and there’s a 70 percent chance you’ll get a million and a 30 percent chance you’ll die. do you press it” and like. i know for a FACT like two years ago i would have been like “lol that’s a win win” but my IMMEDIATE thought once i saw that was “hell no i’ve got max to think about” like. Ok gayboy /joking
y’know not to be pda on main but it’s kinda bizarre how being in a committed relationship has made me rethink literally Everything i do. in like a good way of course but like it’s strange finding out how ive been like. thinking in terms of even like little stuff just bc i have a Guy I Like A Lot
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Memes and Marriage Equality
Recently, Australia passed the vote with a 61.6% vote for “Yes” for marriage equality, changing the Marriage Act to the phrase “two people” to encompass all to marry, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersex Australians. One interesting result of this vote was the voter turnout of those who are under 25, since they are the most likely to support marriage equality, but the least likely to be enrolled to vote (Butler).
In the vote for the Marriage Act, voter turnout for a younger generation was at a steady 70-80 percent.
“Digital campaigning, including tools like memes, are part of the new language of political campaigning.” - Rose Jackson
“Political campaigning has changed. How do you reach out to a group of people that have no landline, can’t be door-knocked, don’t watch free-to-air television and think politics is out of touch?” says Rose Jackson, NSW Left faction leader in the Huffington Post.
This usage of memes for something usually very serious or hard to understand is similar to the way that advertisers have co-opted messages of a youthful generation in the past, using the “language of liberation” to sell products, like how cigarettes latched onto first wave feminism and aligned smoking with women’s liberation (Zeiser). However, there are limits to how effective these messages can be, and it all depends on the receiver’s level of Internet meme literacy. The meme takes a chance that those reading are familiar with the format, however, it can seem abstract or confusing if someone is not in on the joke. This type of joke takes a gamble on the receiver’s understanding, at the risk of eliminating the power of its potential humor.
One example of memes done right that had an impact during this vote was the “Dank marriage equality memes for yes-voting over18s”. Even the title of the page itself is an Internet inside joke: a “phrasal template” originating from a page called “Dank Memes for Edgy Teens” from 2015. The Facebook page is full of jokes urging young Australians to enroll to vote by the deadline, using memes such as the wikihow cat illustrations in “Pills that Make You Stare” meme (2017), “Powder that Makes you Say Yes” (2017), Owlturd comics, “Distracted Boyfriend” (2017), or the “Nut Button” (2016). Another that uses this strategy is the Australian Young Greens page, or NSW Left.
[Above: “Dank Marriage Equality Memes for Yes-Voting over18s” posts a meme that follows the “Nut Button” template to urge voters to vote ‘Yes’ on a marriage equality act]
Memes are reactionary by nature, and a good way to express opinions through a GIF or visual instead of just through text. The reproducibility and immediate recognizing of a meme format is important, too.
[Above: of these two images, one shows a physical act of smearing glitter paint onto a handheld sign that urges others to vote ‘No’ to Marriage Equality. The other is an online meme using a wikihow illustration template demonstrating the user’s aversion to the message, both demonstrating the person’s dislike of the ‘Coalition for Marriage’ campaign.]
The albeit sometimes bizarre emergence of a kind of “Internet language” through meme literacy can help make discussing these serious social and political issues feel a lot more palatable. Not only that, but it makes those who get the joke laugh, which will more likely lead us to spread the joke to our friends, so they can laugh too.
[Above: Use of the Kermit the Frog “But That’s None of My Business” (2014) template]
[Above: Use of Gordon Ramsey and the “Lamb Sauce Located” (2017) template]
One of the dangers of using this approach is that this Internet language is always evolving, and extraordinarily fast. Memes expire, become old enough to be ironic, go through phrases of being acceptable to use, and are rich with interactions that constantly change and shape the meme’s underlying connotations. It’s not easy to be completely on top of the shifting landscape of memes. When companies aren’t completely tuned in, these types of campaigns very quickly lose their appeal and can feel out of touch with modern digital popular culture.
For example, Queensland Greens sent out this tweet on November 14, 2017 as a reaction to the result of the vote. However, the image of a rainbow projecting out of a computer screen to a stick figure is related to both the “puking rainbows” or “ASDFmovie” meme era, both of these jokes being extremely outdated: one originating from 2006 and the other 2008, which is ancient in meme years when we consider how fast these digital cultural phenomenons are created, spread, manipulated, and how transient their ‘life cycle’ of relevance can be.
Other content, including a celebratory GIF produced by Tumblr’s @staff account, maintains a professional, streamlined look. Memes are known for feeling youthful and funny, but on the downside the connotation for this is that they are viewed as unprofessional and very amateur (as some memes employ the use of crude editing as part of the joke itself).
When people are engaging so much with the digital sphere, it’s harder now than ever to produce content that people like, want to share, and will break through the vast amount of data being presented to individuals every day. In the past, many companies employed the use of sexual imagery to “break through” the slew of images and believed it was a surefire way to grab attention. Now, research has shown this is not only not a good business strategy, but it isn’t actually that effective (Dolliver, 1999, Fetto, 2001). Memes have proven to do a great job at “breaking through” the vast amounts of daily media clutter, and they are the hilarious sugar that helps the medicine, the emotional labor expended on being informed and involved with news or politics, go down.
Image sources:
1. Participation by Age and Sex bar graphs
2. Dank Marriage Equality Memes Facebook photos page
3. Vote Yes Nut Button
4. It’s Ok to Say No handheld poster
5. Wikihow Cat “It’s ok to Say No” reactionary
6. When You See Your Mate and They’ve Got a Flat Tire / That’s None of My Business
7. Marriage Equality Located
8. Queensland Greens Twitter status
9. ‘Australia Said Yes’ Twitter status
10. Tumblr Staff Gif
Works Cited:
Andi Zeiser (2016). “The Corridors of Empower” in We Were Feminists Once: From Riot Grrrl to CoverGirl®, the Buying and Selling of a Political Movement (pp. 3-28)
Lauren Rosewarne (2007). “Advertising and Public Space” in Sex in Public: Women, Outdoor Advertising and Public Policy (pp. 9-31).
Josh Butler. “How Memes Could Swing The Plebiscite For Marriage Equality Supporters.” Huffington Post Australia, HuffPost, 16 Aug. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/08/16/how-memes-could-swing-the-plebiscite-for-marriage-equality-suppo_a_23078669/.
22 notes
·
View notes
Text
5 Hollywood Stories You See Everywhere (That Are Always BS)
Entertainment sites are facing a serious problem: There’s a limited number of things that happen every day, but their readers will click on an infinite amount of articles, as long as someone or something vaguely famous is involved. The solution? Follow the grand Internet tradition of making shit up. Print a headline saying “Bill Murray killed and ate Miley Cyrus!” and watch as it gets 100,000 shares before either of their publicists can deny it.
Now, all of us have fallen for stories like these in the past, but there are some particularly egregious types of bullshit articles that should really be setting off our hogwash alarms by now. Starting with …
#5. Stop Saying The Simpsons Predicted Stuff
The Internet is 80 percent porn, 70 percent fanfic on Tumblr, and 90 percent inaccurate statistics. Whatever’s left is made out of bullshit listicles about how some old Simpsons episode predicted today’s events. Apparently, they foresaw Donald Trump: Angry Half-Chewed Orange Starburst For President 15 years before it happened:
They also predicted that Lisa would be an adult by 2010, so …
But before you go proclaiming Matt Groening “King of the Psychics,” consider this: That episode aired in 2000. Guess what lying, hypocritical moron announced he’d be running for President in 2000? No no, the other one. Yes, Trump said he’d run for President under the Reform Party in 2000 (and had been talking about it since 1987), meaning The Simpsons predicted precisely squat. And as far as them “predicting” that President Trump would destroy the country … duhhhh. That’s like predicting grass will be green, or that a diaper will be loaded with shit.
Can anthropomorphic loaded diapers even legally run for president?
And we do this all. The. Fucking. Time. Unless some fat yellow dude destroys an entire city by pressing the wrong button at the power plant, it’s no big deal if real life imitates The Simpsons. It’s a topical show with damn near 600 episodes under its quarter-century-old belt. Of course there’s going to be overlap with reality — which hasn’t stopped sites like BuzzFeed from marveling over the matter. Let’s review their mind-blowing discoveries:
So the Simpsons made an irradiated food joke, and now Japan’s got irradiated fruit? That’s not a new idea. If anything, the vegetation around Chernobyl predicted The Simpsons. Oh, and the deformed Japanese veggies were bullshit anyway. Off to a good start, BuzzFeed!
OK. So. In 2004, a bunch of Ohio voting machines glitched and accidentally gave George W. Bush 4,000 extra votes. In 2008, the Simpsons satirized that incident. In 2012, it happened again for real. And that’s supposed to be a score for Homer and friends how? Just because your memory was crippled by all those ’90s nostalgia GIF parades doesn’t mean that the past suddenly didn’t happen, BuzzFeed.
This is probably the closest one: They successfully predicted that somebody who works with wild animals would eventually get attacked by one. Impressive. What’s next, claiming that The Simpsons predicted baseball players playing softball?
DICK TRACY, YOU ASSHOLES! THE JETSONS! EVEN THE FUCKING FLINTSTONES! Somebody got paid for this list! You know what, we’re moving on before this gives us an aneurysm.
Arrrrghhh! Too late!
#4. People Need To Chill About Idris Elba Playing James Bond
Eventually, Daniel Craig will stop being James Bond. And despite the fact that he’s a totally outdated character, tradition dictates that we’ll need a new one. One of the top names being bandied about is Idris Elba, who deviates from the Bond norm in one glaringly obvious way …
“The world isn’t ready for a Bond with facial hair. Sorry.”
OK, there’s also the race thing, an issue which Bond novelist Anthony Horowitz dealt with in the worst possible way. In an interview with The Daily Mail, he claimed that Elba would suck as Bond because he’s “too street.” The Internet responded by figuratively painting Horowitz’s naked body gold and leaving him to asphyxiate.
Most were only scandalized to find out there are still Bond books, though (or books in general).
First off, this quote came from The Daily Mail, so rage-sharing it is like raging over something the bad guy said at WrestleMania. Even worse, all these headlines conveniently ignore where he named other black actors he’d prefer play Bond. Everybody’s focused on “too rough” and “too street,” while see-no-eviling the part where he recommended Hustle‘s Adrian Lester instead.
There’s still a race issue at play here, of course — but not in the overt, simplistic way that everybody seeing red took it as. It’s deciding that black actors, who have proven their ability to play both suave and rough with equal tenacity, should only be one thing. Horowitz is typecasting Elba as a rough, street black man, and Lester as a suave, classy black man, and won’t let them sit at each other’s table. And nobody’s talking about this except … The Huffington Post? Really? Dear Internet: When BuzzFeed-Minus-Cat-GIFs is the voice of reason, it might be time to pay attention and rethink things.
Both because they’re right on the money, and because it’ll probably never happen again.
Ex-Bond Roger Moore got in similar hot water recently, accused of opposing Elba Bond over blackness. Moore himself had to clarify that he only said Bond should be 100 percent “English-English” — his interviewer later edited it so it seemed like he was talking about Elba. But you know what? When Elba finally becomes Bond and blows everyone out of their seats, all this ridiculous talk of race, class, and who’s street and who’s not will disappear. Because it’s the performance that matters, not the-
Wait … it was all a rumor? He’s NOT going to be Bond? There were never even talks of him being Bond, nothing but Daniel Craig dream-casting off the top of his head? We got all worked up over that? FUCK.
#3. Every Celebrity Death Hoax Comes From The Same Source: Your Idiot Friends
The world lost the best/worst father in movie history last August when James Earl Jones sadly passed away, according to the Internet. The only person who didn’t hear the news was James Earl Jones, who is still tweeting like normal. Yeah, it was another celebrity death hoax. So what happened? What crapbag news site yellow-journalism’d a beloved celebrity to an early grave this time?
“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooot dead yet, guys.”
None, as it turns out. The source is us. We fake-killed James Earl Jones, the same way we’ve fake-killed every other celebrity since the days of Netscape. We’re not merely part of the problem; we’re all of it.
The only source for Darth Vader’s voice reuniting with the Force was the Woodward-and-Bernstein-approved paragon of journalism called FeedNewz. But FeedNewz isn’t a fucking news site — its real name is prank.link, a content creator where any random asshole can plug anybody’s name into the generator and create a fake news story about them. When people clicked on the “James Earl Jones dies” link to learn how an 84-year-old man could possibly pass so suddenly, they got this instead:
“Also, his most famous line was ‘I quit on you when you cleared out of Detroit with Willie the Pimp‘ … from The Lion King.”
GET IT? You thought a thing happened, but it didn’t! Doesn’t that tickle-torture your ribs? Here’s another knee-slapper: Justin Bieber was raped and killed in Las Vegas … except he wasn’t! How gullible you must be, to think people die.
Don’t worry, David Caruso is on the case.
But if FakeNewz sounds too shady for your phony death needs, perhaps you’d prefer a website that sounds an awful lot like a legitimate one? FakeAWish.com will kill any celebrity you like and report it under the name “Global Associated News,” which is the biggest waste of an official-sounding name since Dr. Phil first called himself “Dr.” Then there’s MSMBC.co, where you create a fake death story (like this one for Arnold Schwarzenegger) complete with a link that looks exactly like MSNBC.com if you’re both blindly clicking on everything and actually blind. And when somebody clicks on it, they’re greeted not by a HAHA PWNED page, but a real-ish-looking news story that you can’t read until you share it with your distant uncle and that guy you haven’t talked to since college:
Or with no one, if you go with the Google+ option.
Alternatively, if using those sites is too much work, you can go with the absolute laziest option and create a “RIP [celebrity name]” Facebook page for someone who isn’t in fact RIPing … and then watch it grow inexplicably popular. Rowan “Johnny English” Atkinson, for example, has no fewer than two pre-posthumous Facebook pages, each with over 3,000 fans. For the sake of our species, we hope it’s simply the same 3,000 who fell for the same thing twice.
#2. Stop Pretending Everyone’s Offended By Movies
Hey, remember when those Native American actors walked off the set of Adam Sandler’s new movie? It seems they were outraged over all the gross inaccuracies, blatant stereotyping, lazy jokes, and other things that have never, ever been in an Adam Sandler movie.
“We thought we were signing up for something more sophisticated, like a male deodorant ad.”
Notice how none of those headlines mention how many actors walked off the set, implying through omission that the number was “all of them”? Well, they did that for a reason: The real situation was way less volatile (and thus, more boring) than the hate-click media reported. According to one of the actors, only four out of 154 actors walked out, plus one consultant, leaving the rest to feel “betrayed” that they were being painted as “sell-outs” to the White Man. Oh, and another actor says they all saw the script beforehand, so those who quit probably should have seen the terribleness coming, even if they haven’t been to a cinema since Big Daddy came out.
Precedent shows “pee-pee on your teepee” wasn’t going to be a metaphor.
Then there’s Mad Max: Fury Road and the supposed shitstorm it caused among Men’s Rights Activists for daring to include women kicking ass:
“Feminists started all the wars,” one anonymous member said.
Makes sense, right? Babies throw tantrums. MRAs are babies, so they’re throwing tantrums. Except they weren’t. This entire story came from one blog post on We Hunted The Mammoth, which centered around the anti-Furiosa furor on Return Of Kings, a site so viciously anti-woman even Al Bundy would yell at them to grow the fuck up. But RoK isn’t a MRA site — just some random cootiephobes — and nowhere on Mammoth does it confuse the two. Every other site, desperate for traffic, did that.
Misogynists want her to grow hair and make babies and sandwiches, while MRAs want her to stop destroying masculinity. And to grow hair and make babies and sandwiches.
Did legitimate Men’s Rights Assbags hate Fury Road? Sure, because vagina. But they’re not nearly smart enough to organize some massive boycott of a film $375 million worth of people saw anyway. Also, despite what leading MRA loudmouths fantasize about while jerking off with mini-tweezers, nobody was “paid to put [an MRA boycott story] in the press.” It was lazy and biased, adjectives with which MRAs should be plenty familiar. And finally, we have the time the Noah movie threw every Christian into a hateful tizzy:
That’s a lot of cheek not-turning.
A survey of over 5,000 people found a whopping 98 percent were tut-tutting the movie for bastardizing the Bible. One problem: That survey focused on “faith-driven consumers,” and was organized by an ultra-religious group called … FAITH DRIVEN CONSUMER. They urge boycotts of anything that disagrees with their interpretation of the Bible, and are the same company behind IStandWithPhil, a petition to reinstate that homophobic guy from Duck Dynasty. Even Family Feud surveys like “Name a body part that rhymes with ‘eenis’” aren’t that obviously slanted.
#1. Nope, That Actor Didn’t Confirm A Sequel To That Movie
You know how we’ve dumbed down “literally” and “irony” so morons can feel literate too? “I literally ate an entire pig yesterday, and ironically, I literally ate an entire pig today, too!” We’re doing that crap with “confirm” now. Where once it meant “official news from an official source,” it now means “anybody saying anything about anything.”
Like these constant breaking news stories about a celebrity “confirming” a sequel to some film, when it turns out all they really said was “yeah it’d be cool to do that maybe.” Recently, the Internet went bonkers over Keanu Reeves supposedly saying that Speed 3 was going to happen:
The biggest question now is: Which of the e’s will they replace with a 3?
But no, Speed 3 isn’t happening, for two reasons. Number one: Speed 2. Number two: Keanu was making a goddamn joke. Some reporter asked him about Speed 3, and he said, “Oh my god, Speed 3: Redemption. Sure. Jack Traven kind of like, dusting it off.” That’s sarcasm, folks — another term we’ve dumbed down because nobody can get it right.
Granted, it can be hard to tell with this guy.
Even SlashFilm admits (at the end, when everybody’s stopped reading) that this is probably a non-story, writing “I’m not sure I take the affirmative answer that seriously, but he said it and it’s our job to tell you what he said.” It’s also your job to cleverly edit your headlines so overexcited Speed demons click and share your gossip without a second thought, it would seem.
Ewan McGregor ran into this too, with headlines screaming about how he’d be down with doing Trainspotting 2, even though it’s absolutely not happening.
How old is the ceiling baby now, anyway?
Good God, three paragraphs in, the man admits “I’ve not seen a script yet and I don’t know if there is one.” And yet People reported this anyway. You might as well report on him debating whether to order pizza or Chinese food.
Even Beetlejuice 2 isn’t as done a deal as the headlines make it seem:
Michael Keaton better start practicing his surf moves.
This “confirmation” was her going on Seth Meyers and yammering, “Um, I think I can confirm it, because Tim Burton did this interview — like, it was very hush-hush, top secret … and then he was doing some press for Big Eyes and he did an on-camera interview and he said, ‘Oh yeah, we’re doing it and Winona’s going to be in it,’ and I was like [shocked face].”
And we were like [unimpressed face]. Until some studio gives us an official release date (like Universal recently did with Jurassic World 2), Beetlejuice 2: At Least Lydia’s Legal This Time is nothing but actors talking.
But boy do we love when actors talk — we’ll believe anything they say, even when it’s so obviously a stupid joke. Like Michael Shannon saying he would return as General Zod for Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice, but with flipper hands:
That’s almost as silly as the name of the movie.
Notice how none of those headlines say “flipper hands”? That’s because even the writers know it’s bollocks, but they still want to suck you in and get your clicks, so they tease you “new details” and “strange change.” Except according to Shannon himself, Zod is stone dead, he only appears via voiceover, and the flipper thing was him being a silly goose:
A Batman story starring a guy with flippers? That’s preposterous.
Welcome to the Internet, Shannon, where you can’t believe everything you read, except for that one thing you’re about to share with your buddies. That thing? Totally believable.
Source: http://allofbeer.com/5-hollywood-stories-you-see-everywhere-that-are-always-bs/
from All of Beer https://allofbeer.wordpress.com/2019/02/12/5-hollywood-stories-you-see-everywhere-that-are-always-bs/
0 notes
Text
13 Marketing Tips For Successful Rainmaking (Part I)
It is Halloween time and there is certainly nothing scarier than worrying about how to be a successful rainmaker. So, in my next two articles — straddling Halloween — I will give you 13 tips to help you. I have written about a few of these before, but they are always worth repeating and remembering (see tip number three!).
Marketing is Pure Statistics: Ask anyone — I mean anyone — how they got their clients or customers, especially the first ones, and it is almost always completely serendipitous. There is no consistency. Indeed, there is a joke that 80 percent of your marketing budget/time is wasted — you just don’t know which is the 80 percent. It is all so completely unpredictable. But this should not cause despair. By use of pure mathematics, if you know you cannot predict outcomes from independent trials, then the best chances of success will come from making as many marketing attempts as possible.
It is OK to Fail: I even recommend it! Don’t be beaten down by failure. Most of your marketing attempts — especially at first — will end in failure. Indeed, the odds are that 99 percent, or even 100 percent, of your attempts will fail for quite a while. Use them as a learning tool — be brutally honest with yourself why something didn’t work — and continuously rework your marketing strategy until you become a major success.
Repeat Yourself: I recently wrote an article about this — and I mentioned it above — and I am re-mentioning it here. It is kind of something you don’t like to really think about, but like it or not you are not front-and-center in the minds of others. They have their own lives to lead. So if you want your messages to be heard and remembered you have to constantly tell people about what your expertise is — and then repeat it multiple times. Of course, you want to do it in a way that is not annoying.
Get Out & About: This is simpler math. If you “get out and about” something “might” happen. If you don’t “get out and about” then it is pretty certain that nothing will happen. You have to get out of your chair and out into the community of your industry or the odds of success fall dramatically.
Knowledge is Power: When you are out and about, you need something to talk about that is both interesting and useful. This is essentially the Power Niche that I have written extensively about — and yes, my book on this is coming out soon. I will not go over it here, but you can see my prior articles on this subject or wait for the book, only a few months away. Once you are “out and about” talking about your Power Niche, you become unstoppable as a rainmaking force.
Be Enthusiastic: Who wants to hang out with a sad sack? Answer: no one! So don’t be that. Instead, let your passion and joie de vivre out. Have fun. Make it clear how much you love what you are doing — perhaps the thrill in your Power Niche. You will be astonished how contagious your enthusiasm is. And even if you are faking it a bit at first, you will find to your amazement that pretty soon you aren’t faking it at all. That’s how it works.
Okay, happy Halloween everyone. Hopefully this will ease your rainmaking fears if you have any to begin with.
Bruce Stachenfeld is the managing partner of Duval & Stachenfeld LLP, an approximately 70-lawyer law firm based in midtown Manhattan. The firm is known as “The Pure Play in Real Estate Law” because all of its practice areas are focused around real estate. With more than 50 full-time real estate lawyers, the firm is one of the largest real estate law practices in New York City. You can contact Bruce by email at [email protected]. Bruce also writes The Real Estate Philosopher™, which contains applications of Bruce’s eclectic, insightful, and outside-the-box thinking to the real estate world. If you would like to read previous articles or subscribe, please click here.
0 notes
Text
Bitcoin: Was $3,800 The Bottom? $2,000,000,000 USDT Holds Up BTC Price, Too Little Too Late?
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT
Today in Krypto is the bottom in for Bitcoin. I’m going to look at arguments for and against that thesis. Is Will increasing Bitcoin dominance spell big trouble for altcoins and short term? Are we in for some more price pain or will the Teather gods come out to save us the crypto lark? This is where you subscribe for all of the latest on all of the hottest happening in the wild, wildland of crypto. By the way, if you are new to crypto and you still need help with all of the basics, even like understanding what the heck bitcoin even is or how to safely buy bitcoin or even where to store it. Once you’ve got it, then check out my course. Cryptocurrency explained it will answer all of these questions and more for you. There is a link down below where you can learn more. OK. So let’s start off today with talking about the price action, looking over the charts. First, I want to talk about volume. You see right now, Bitcoin has a volume problem, even though we can see that the price has been on a generally upward trajectory recently. The volume at the same time has been steadily falling off for basically the last month straight. This tells me that we could be in for some short term price pain. It shows that even though the price is going up, that this could be a false price rally since the buyers seem to be increasingly unconvinced by the short term prospects for bitcoin, exhaustion in the markets may be setting in and even being close to reaching a critical point. We really need to see bitcoin close above $7000 to really lure those bulls out in force. We have had five failed tests, a break out in close, a daily candle above $7000. This very stubborn resistance, combined with the volume falling, seems to show that the bulls might be running out of steam in the current market situation. Plus, we are back in that descending channel really from some months back. We thought we’d kind of broken out of it. We seem to be firmly back in that. You can see that we really quite were cleanly rejected at the seventy-three hundred dollar mark, which was the top side of this channel. Seeing Bitcoin now pull back to 58 50 in the coming days would not be super surprising. It is, of course, an area of local support since the big downturn and also the midpoint approximately in this channel. Now a bounce from there, that would be a nice move to see. And of course, to see a confirmation of real bullish momentum. Definitely watch for bitcoin to break and hold above particularly seventy-three hundred. But 7000 would also be a very significant level because closing above 7000, that is likely the candle and really, really need to see to get the bulls excited and to keep it real. I don’t think that the bulls are really going to be in control of the market again until bitcoin crosses back over eight thousand dollars and does so on good volume. Now, that might be the price action that we really need also to get the pre having hyper is into the market to speculate as well. But fear not. Fellow dwellers of crypto land Teather is here to save us. Yes, indeed. Bitcoin’s own central bank is always ready to come to the rescue when the price is down. OK. Though really bad jokes aside. Seriously, the Teather printing presses have been hard at work in the recent weeks, minting a whopping 2 billion dollars more teather to meet market demands and Teather is not alone. U.S. D.C. also saw a 60 percent increase in supply in the same period. Now you can see the USD see chart here. It was a nice steady climb up over last month. Meanwhile, over in Teather Land, they just went on full psycho mode. You see, they just blasted out two billion dollars in Teather in just one day last week. That day, of course, is April 2nd. That 24 hour period saw bitcoin range from sixty-one hundred dollars. All we have to seventy-three hundred dollars. Now, the question we need to ask in this situation was that it was that all that $2 billion did two billion in fresh cash only move it by that much? Or was that just a small portion of the total teather that was minted that went into Bitcoin? Is there’s still more Teather sitting on the side ready to flush in and buy up the market? I really hope the Teather didn’t blow its load too quickly. I mean, hey, look, we all hate when that happens. So much excitement and then you just get to cry yourself to sleep. Leftwards. I mean, a friend told me that’s what happens. I would know personally, of course. But anyway, anyway, hopefully, we will see the new money injected into the market, really continuing to support the price moving forward. There��s a lot of new fiat coming in from multiple places. So great to see that happening. Let’s hope it actually continues to support the mark forward. Next, up, Bitcoin dominance has been in a definitive uptrend since we saw the lows of Bitcoin dominance around sixty-two percent a couple of months ago with the current atmosphere in the crypto markets. I think there is a strong chance that we actually continue to see Bitcoin dominance moving up. The Bitcoin having it is just around the corner and that will likely see a lot of investor money actually go towards just. Bitcoin and also, of course, the markets right now are very uncertain, and in times of greater market uncertainty, investors are likely to choose the safer option, which is, of course, Bitcoin. There will also be a small handful of altcoins like, you know, a theorem and chain link and Kibre Monaro. Those will continue to attract a lot of investor money, but a lot of the highly speculative, All-Points, they could see big, big drops. If Bitcoin dominance continues to rise now, I will consider the dominance uptrend for bitcoin to be intact unless we break and hold below sixty-six percent. Now, if we hit 70 percent, then oh ma’am, altcoins are going to be in big, big trouble. Anyway, it’s time to grapple with today’s big question. Is the bottom in for bitcoin? Was thirty-eight hundred dollars as low as we are going to go? Or are we actually in for a lot more price pain in the markets? Well. Let me share with you a few thoughts for really both sides of this argument. So reasons why thirty-eight hundred dollars may not have been the price bottom for Bitcoin. One interesting factor, of course, comes from the traditional markets and that is that Warren Buffett, he is still sitting on one hundred and twenty-five billion dollars or more in cash. He is waiting for the market bottom to scoop up the deals of a lifetime in the stock markets and bitcoin. Bitcoin has shown a very strong correlation to deter traditional markets recently. Here’s a quick chart just to show you that that shows the price of Bitcoin versus the S&P 500. Now, look. Maybe old man Buffett. Maybe he’s losing his edge. But when he deploys that hundred and twenty-five billion dollars to me and I think to a lot of other people, that’ll be a significant sign that the bottom is in on the equity markets. The fact that he hasn’t yet says that there could be more pain coming in the equity markets and thus potentially more pain coming for Bitcoin. And obviously the biggest factor the bottom may not be in yet for bitcoin is obviously the crisis. Ten million people globally are out of work and they will be for at least a few more weeks in the longer term, the impact of the economic shock could create months of pain. Obviously, I don’t want I just thought to be happening with these are the numbers for unemployment and the drag factory that were going in. Ask yourself this how many bitcoin holders are likely going to need to sell at a loss to cover their bills and maybe even to buy food in the next few months? Yes, there are groups of privileged people who can play the markets at any time, but a lot of holders, they are not in that category. Remember the charts that I shared last week, sometimes about all the new highs that we’re seeing for bitcoin addresses? That is an all-time high for one bitcoin and more at an all-time high for zero points one bitcoin and more being stored in addresses. A lot of new retail buyers have entered the market on the dip. Those same players, unfortunately, maybe the ones forced to sell in the coming months. And the crisis, apart from forcing people to sell, will also likely limit the pool of potential buyers. So people who will be basically more concerned with feeding their kids instead of buying bitcoin. Thus, what we could see is an increasing supply of bitcoin available for sale in the markets at the same time that we see demand falling. A classic scenario for price depreciation. Now let’s talk about a few reasons why. Indeed, thirty-eight hundred dollars might just have been the bottom for bitcoin. Now the first is that the rich will always be here no matter how grim the crisis becomes for working people. There will always be a class of buyers and investors and traders who will be out here playing the bitcoin game, keeping it real. Already have to consider one bitcoin cost nearly $7000. Working people are already largely priced out of this game in terms of the big volume. So that’s kept in mind. Now, another reason why thirty-eight hundred dollars could have been the bottom is that on March 13th, what we actually saw was the incredible cascade of liquidations happening across crypto exchanges, particularly the leverage exchanges. The cascade of liquidations basically fell down into razor-thin order books, which basically pushed the price lower than was reasonable. Really was this was an anomaly event that was just a crazy time and may not be representative of how the wider market is operating now is another reason. Thirty-eight hundred was likely. The price bottom is that many of the big-money players, they ran for the exits back in March. What they needed was cash in. They needed a quick bitcoin, highly liquid, quick place to get cash. Many of these big-money players, they are now out of bitcoin, at least for the time being. They’ll be back, essentially back. They like the bitcoin game. They proved that, but they’re out for now. Sure. Some other institutions, they came in and bought the dip from those sellers. But in general, these big-money guys are out of the market right now. Not the millionaires and all that stuff, but the institutions. Now, another possible reason. Thirty-eight hundred could have been the bottom is that now everybody wants the opportunity to buy bitcoin at thirty-eight hundred dollars or even lower. That in itself is good enough reason why the price may not go down that far. There are just too many buyers in and above those price levels who want that cheap bitcoins. Means there’s significant demand down there for buyers at those levels. And finally, a look at the technicals. First, the rainbow chart just for fun, which is, of course, just a modified view of the logarithmic growth curve buying in or below. The Blue Band on this chart is labelled as basically a fire sale. So buy, buy, buy, buy, buy at these levels. That is where we are now. Buy, don’t sell something to think about. And finally, the 200 weeks moving average. Now, this is a massively important line in the sand for Bitcoin. Going under this line was a brief moment of historical significance. It was likely an incredibly rare buying opportunity for the people who saw through the fear and were able to buy at those low prices and crossing back under the 200-week moving average, that may not happen again for some time, meaning that thirty-eight hundred dollars could have been a once in a decade opportunity to buy Bitcoin. But all of this could be, of course, invalidated by the plain and simple fact that really no one knows how bad this crisis is going to get with tens of millions of people or even potentially in the coming months, hundreds of millions of people out of work. The economy could go down the toilet very quickly. Again, I don’t know that any this happens. It’s prepared for the worst and hope for the best kind of thing. Personally, I maintain a bullish bias long term on bitcoin. I do think that thirty hundred dollars were likely the big shake out for all the weak hands, but really at this point, all bets are off with how the crisis will play out. I am after all. Does it do talk about cryptocurrencies on the internet? But anyway, I would love to hear from you. What do you think was thirty-eight hundred dollars the bottom for bitcoin? Or are we going to see even more lows for bitcoin in the coming months? And if so, how low do you think we’re going to go? We’d love to hear your opinion on that down below in the comments section. Thank you so, so much for watching today’s video. I hope that your stay and save your stay and healthy, you’re enjoying your lockdown, doing lots of interesting fun stuff. Never work out, guys. Always important, even though you’re locked up in the house to, you know, keep healthy. So, anyway, thank you guys so much for watching. Hit that thumbs up button if you did enjoy today’s video. Make sure I subscribe to the channel. If you are new around here, long live the blockchain and peace out till next time.
source https://www.cryptosharks.net/bitcoin-usdt-holds-up-btc-price-too-little-too-late/ source https://cryptosharks1.blogspot.com/2020/04/bitcoin-was-3800-bottom-2000000000-usdt.html
0 notes
Text
Bitcoin: Was $3800 The Bottom? $2000000000 USDT Holds Up BTC Price Too Little Too Late?
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT
Today in Krypto is the bottom in for Bitcoin. I’m going to look at arguments for and against that thesis. Is Will increasing Bitcoin dominance spell big trouble for altcoins and short term? Are we in for some more price pain or will the Teather gods come out to save us the crypto lark? This is where you subscribe for all of the latest on all of the hottest happening in the wild, wildland of crypto. By the way, if you are new to crypto and you still need help with all of the basics, even like understanding what the heck bitcoin even is or how to safely buy bitcoin or even where to store it. Once you’ve got it, then check out my course. Cryptocurrency explained it will answer all of these questions and more for you. There is a link down below where you can learn more. OK. So let’s start off today with talking about the price action, looking over the charts. First, I want to talk about volume. You see right now, Bitcoin has a volume problem, even though we can see that the price has been on a generally upward trajectory recently. The volume at the same time has been steadily falling off for basically the last month straight. This tells me that we could be in for some short term price pain. It shows that even though the price is going up, that this could be a false price rally since the buyers seem to be increasingly unconvinced by the short term prospects for bitcoin, exhaustion in the markets may be setting in and even being close to reaching a critical point. We really need to see bitcoin close above $7000 to really lure those bulls out in force. We have had five failed tests, a break out in close, a daily candle above $7000. This very stubborn resistance, combined with the volume falling, seems to show that the bulls might be running out of steam in the current market situation. Plus, we are back in that descending channel really from some months back. We thought we’d kind of broken out of it. We seem to be firmly back in that. You can see that we really quite were cleanly rejected at the seventy-three hundred dollar mark, which was the top side of this channel. Seeing Bitcoin now pull back to 58 50 in the coming days would not be super surprising. It is, of course, an area of local support since the big downturn and also the midpoint approximately in this channel. Now a bounce from there, that would be a nice move to see. And of course, to see a confirmation of real bullish momentum. Definitely watch for bitcoin to break and hold above particularly seventy-three hundred. But 7000 would also be a very significant level because closing above 7000, that is likely the candle and really, really need to see to get the bulls excited and to keep it real. I don’t think that the bulls are really going to be in control of the market again until bitcoin crosses back over eight thousand dollars and does so on good volume. Now, that might be the price action that we really need also to get the pre having hyper is into the market to speculate as well. But fear not. Fellow dwellers of crypto land Teather is here to save us. Yes, indeed. Bitcoin’s own central bank is always ready to come to the rescue when the price is down. OK. Though really bad jokes aside. Seriously, the Teather printing presses have been hard at work in the recent weeks, minting a whopping 2 billion dollars more teather to meet market demands and Teather is not alone. U.S. D.C. also saw a 60 percent increase in supply in the same period. Now you can see the USD see chart here. It was a nice steady climb up over last month. Meanwhile, over in Teather Land, they just went on full psycho mode. You see, they just blasted out two billion dollars in Teather in just one day last week. That day, of course, is April 2nd. That 24 hour period saw bitcoin range from sixty-one hundred dollars. All we have to seventy-three hundred dollars. Now, the question we need to ask in this situation was that it was that all that $2 billion did two billion in fresh cash only move it by that much? Or was that just a small portion of the total teather that was minted that went into Bitcoin? Is there’s still more Teather sitting on the side ready to flush in and buy up the market? I really hope the Teather didn’t blow its load too quickly. I mean, hey, look, we all hate when that happens. So much excitement and then you just get to cry yourself to sleep. Leftwards. I mean, a friend told me that’s what happens. I would know personally, of course. But anyway, anyway, hopefully, we will see the new money injected into the market, really continuing to support the price moving forward. There’s a lot of new fiat coming in from multiple places. So great to see that happening. Let’s hope it actually continues to support the mark forward. Next, up, Bitcoin dominance has been in a definitive uptrend since we saw the lows of Bitcoin dominance around sixty-two percent a couple of months ago with the current atmosphere in the crypto markets. I think there is a strong chance that we actually continue to see Bitcoin dominance moving up. The Bitcoin having it is just around the corner and that will likely see a lot of investor money actually go towards just. Bitcoin and also, of course, the markets right now are very uncertain, and in times of greater market uncertainty, investors are likely to choose the safer option, which is, of course, Bitcoin. There will also be a small handful of altcoins like, you know, a theorem and chain link and Kibre Monaro. Those will continue to attract a lot of investor money, but a lot of the highly speculative, All-Points, they could see big, big drops. If Bitcoin dominance continues to rise now, I will consider the dominance uptrend for bitcoin to be intact unless we break and hold below sixty-six percent. Now, if we hit 70 percent, then oh ma’am, altcoins are going to be in big, big trouble. Anyway, it’s time to grapple with today’s big question. Is the bottom in for bitcoin? Was thirty-eight hundred dollars as low as we are going to go? Or are we actually in for a lot more price pain in the markets? Well. Let me share with you a few thoughts for really both sides of this argument. So reasons why thirty-eight hundred dollars may not have been the price bottom for Bitcoin. One interesting factor, of course, comes from the traditional markets and that is that Warren Buffett, he is still sitting on one hundred and twenty-five billion dollars or more in cash. He is waiting for the market bottom to scoop up the deals of a lifetime in the stock markets and bitcoin. Bitcoin has shown a very strong correlation to deter traditional markets recently. Here’s a quick chart just to show you that that shows the price of Bitcoin versus the S&P 500. Now, look. Maybe old man Buffett. Maybe he’s losing his edge. But when he deploys that hundred and twenty-five billion dollars to me and I think to a lot of other people, that’ll be a significant sign that the bottom is in on the equity markets. The fact that he hasn’t yet says that there could be more pain coming in the equity markets and thus potentially more pain coming for Bitcoin. And obviously the biggest factor the bottom may not be in yet for bitcoin is obviously the crisis. Ten million people globally are out of work and they will be for at least a few more weeks in the longer term, the impact of the economic shock could create months of pain. Obviously, I don’t want I just thought to be happening with these are the numbers for unemployment and the drag factory that were going in. Ask yourself this how many bitcoin holders are likely going to need to sell at a loss to cover their bills and maybe even to buy food in the next few months? Yes, there are groups of privileged people who can play the markets at any time, but a lot of holders, they are not in that category. Remember the charts that I shared last week, sometimes about all the new highs that we’re seeing for bitcoin addresses? That is an all-time high for one bitcoin and more at an all-time high for zero points one bitcoin and more being stored in addresses. A lot of new retail buyers have entered the market on the dip. Those same players, unfortunately, maybe the ones forced to sell in the coming months. And the crisis, apart from forcing people to sell, will also likely limit the pool of potential buyers. So people who will be basically more concerned with feeding their kids instead of buying bitcoin. Thus, what we could see is an increasing supply of bitcoin available for sale in the markets at the same time that we see demand falling. A classic scenario for price depreciation. Now let’s talk about a few reasons why. Indeed, thirty-eight hundred dollars might just have been the bottom for bitcoin. Now the first is that the rich will always be here no matter how grim the crisis becomes for working people. There will always be a class of buyers and investors and traders who will be out here playing the bitcoin game, keeping it real. Already have to consider one bitcoin cost nearly $7000. Working people are already largely priced out of this game in terms of the big volume. So that’s kept in mind. Now, another reason why thirty-eight hundred dollars could have been the bottom is that on March 13th, what we actually saw was the incredible cascade of liquidations happening across crypto exchanges, particularly the leverage exchanges. The cascade of liquidations basically fell down into razor-thin order books, which basically pushed the price lower than was reasonable. Really was this was an anomaly event that was just a crazy time and may not be representative of how the wider market is operating now is another reason. Thirty-eight hundred was likely. The price bottom is that many of the big-money players, they ran for the exits back in March. What they needed was cash in. They needed a quick bitcoin, highly liquid, quick place to get cash. Many of these big-money players, they are now out of bitcoin, at least for the time being. They’ll be back, essentially back. They like the bitcoin game. They proved that, but they’re out for now. Sure. Some other institutions, they came in and bought the dip from those sellers. But in general, these big-money guys are out of the market right now. Not the millionaires and all that stuff, but the institutions. Now, another possible reason. Thirty-eight hundred could have been the bottom is that now everybody wants the opportunity to buy bitcoin at thirty-eight hundred dollars or even lower. That in itself is good enough reason why the price may not go down that far. There are just too many buyers in and above those price levels who want that cheap bitcoins. Means there’s significant demand down there for buyers at those levels. And finally, a look at the technicals. First, the rainbow chart just for fun, which is, of course, just a modified view of the logarithmic growth curve buying in or below. The Blue Band on this chart is labelled as basically a fire sale. So buy, buy, buy, buy, buy at these levels. That is where we are now. Buy, don’t sell something to think about. And finally, the 200 weeks moving average. Now, this is a massively important line in the sand for Bitcoin. Going under this line was a brief moment of historical significance. It was likely an incredibly rare buying opportunity for the people who saw through the fear and were able to buy at those low prices and crossing back under the 200-week moving average, that may not happen again for some time, meaning that thirty-eight hundred dollars could have been a once in a decade opportunity to buy Bitcoin. But all of this could be, of course, invalidated by the plain and simple fact that really no one knows how bad this crisis is going to get with tens of millions of people or even potentially in the coming months, hundreds of millions of people out of work. The economy could go down the toilet very quickly. Again, I don’t know that any this happens. It’s prepared for the worst and hope for the best kind of thing. Personally, I maintain a bullish bias long term on bitcoin. I do think that thirty hundred dollars were likely the big shake out for all the weak hands, but really at this point, all bets are off with how the crisis will play out. I am after all. Does it do talk about cryptocurrencies on the internet? But anyway, I would love to hear from you. What do you think was thirty-eight hundred dollars the bottom for bitcoin? Or are we going to see even more lows for bitcoin in the coming months? And if so, how low do you think we’re going to go? We’d love to hear your opinion on that down below in the comments section. Thank you so, so much for watching today’s video. I hope that your stay and save your stay and healthy, you’re enjoying your lockdown, doing lots of interesting fun stuff. Never work out, guys. Always important, even though you’re locked up in the house to, you know, keep healthy. So, anyway, thank you guys so much for watching. Hit that thumbs up button if you did enjoy today’s video. Make sure I subscribe to the channel. If you are new around here, long live the blockchain and peace out till next time.
Via https://www.cryptosharks.net/bitcoin-usdt-holds-up-btc-price-too-little-too-late/
source https://cryptosharks.weebly.com/blog/bitcoin-was-3800-the-bottom-2000000000-usdt-holds-up-btc-price-too-little-too-late
0 notes