#or incite any particular controversy

[cantsayidont]

November 1987. A retelling of the origin of Dr. Mid-Nite in SECRET ORIGINS #20 adds to the sense that this longtime JSA member may have been a gay man. Narrating these events after the fact, McNider remarks that his nurse and research assistant Myra Mason, a regular supporting character in Dr. Mid-Nite's solo strip in ALL-AMERICAN COMICS) was in love with him (which is apparent in the Golden Age stories), but that it was "a love doomed from the start" for reasons he "could never quite bring [himself] to tell her."

Roy Thomas, who wrote this adaptation, later asserted that he hadn't meant to imply that McNider was gay, but couldn't recall what he had intended, and in context, it's hard to see another way to take it. In Dr. Mid-Nite's origin story (both the original and this retelling), McNider does decide not to tell Myra that the explosion that has nearly blinded him somehow gave him the ability to see in the dark, and he doesn't tell her about his new career as Dr. Mid-Nite. However, the way Thomas frames it strongly suggests that whatever McNider couldn't bring himself to tell her existed before the explosion and his subsequent career as a costumed adventurer.

It was a truism of '40s pop culture that being blind or suffering some other serious permanent disability made someone an unsuitable romantic partner, so it wouldn't have been too surprising for McNider to spurn Myra's affections on those grounds, which was the implication in the Golden Age stories.

However, that's not the impression the SECRET ORIGINS story gives. Adding to that the fact that McNider spent the rest of his life as another of the JSA's confirmed bachelors, and that prior to his death during ZERO HOUR, his closest relationship was as a mentor to physician Beth Chapel, and it's hard not to come away thinking maybe he was gay.

[viscountessevie]

Unladylike Rules of Attraction [ARC Review]

Release Date: 23rd May 2024

Overall Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐️

Spice Level: 🌶🌶🌶

Content Warning: Attempted Sexual Assault, Racism/Xenaphobia, Minor Misogyny

Unladylike Rules of Attraction is the highly anticipated sequel to Amita Murray's debut Historical Romance series, The Marleigh Sisters. This second novel centres upon the dazzling sitar player and royal court singer, Miss Anya Marleigh.

She meets her match in Lord Damian Ashton at a family game of Pall Mall at the Budleigh Estate. Anya and Damian find themselves linked together when Damian is named as the executor of an inheritance left to Anya.

***

As someone who read the first novel of the series exactly a year ago, I knew exactly what I was coming into with an Amita Murray novel. Ms Murray loves her murder mystery plots. From what I gleaned from Unladylike Lessons in Love, the romance comes secondary. I was well prepared for that and I think maybe some new readers were not. As a blanket disclaimer to new readers and the publishing marketing team, I would like everyone to know that this series is not quite like Bridgerton. In fact, it feels like an antidote to Bridgerton.

While Bridgerton has been heralded as the baseline of diversity in the HR genre, Amita Murray actually takes the care and consideration to write actual people of colour into her books grounded in realism. I especially love and relate to the fact that all the Marleigh sisters are Indian just like me. While some aspects of the books are unflinchingly harsh (see trigger warnings above), that was the reality for people of colour in Georgian/Regency/Victorian England back in the day.

With Unladylike Rules of Attraction, it feels like Amita Murray has finally found a good balance between her thrilling plots and the romance. I definitely enjoyed the chemistry and sex scenes between Anya and Damian in this book more than the previous installment. That being said, I do wish the scenes themselves had lasted longer than most men do 😂. The ideas and acts for the various scenes were inspired but felt as though they were not tapped into their full sexy potential.

On the flip side, I really did like the romantic progression of the two. I think some of the most beautiful lines came from both Anya and Damian when they were being introspective about their lives and each other. Amita perfectly laid out their flaws and where those traits came into conflict. I do love a great grovelling montage from anyone in HR and this book definitely delivered in that respect. I also loved how seamlessly the romantic arc of this book intertwined with the main plot. I really appreciated that it was given focus once most of the loose ends of the book was tied up!

Speaking of the main plot, I loved this particular one very much. Just like Unladylike Lessons, Amita knows how to write a great mystery plot with an inciting event to rival any HR Act 3, high stakes, and a high speed plan that will take place over a week.

The plot was not only well written but the writing of this book was extremely compact - the book was very well structured. It also took me for a joyride. With twists and turns I did not expect them to go the way they did. Yet in true Amita Murray fashion, she did lay some hints early enough for sharp eyed readers to catch. I think this is one of the few books I've read where the inciting incident AND the HR Act 3 both were stressful. They both had me gasping loudly in the best way. While the resolution of the plot may seem controversial to some, I think it was very rooted in realism which honoured the characters and world building.

Of course, it wouldn't be an excellent book without a wonderful set of secondary characters! I admire how she knows how to write a supporting cast that props up their leads well. I adored how Trixie and Jeremy supported their respective leads and how some characters connected back to the first book! I loved how the really lovely callbacks stood well on their own if you hadn't read the first book.

As always, not only are the supportive characters written great, her villains are written all too well in the most horrifying ways. I think what makes them so terrible is that they feel real. We have all met people like this in person. Our very existence of being different threatens them so they do everything in their power to make you feel small. I will always appreciate how Amita holds up a mirror not just to society back then but how people like these villains still exist in this day and age.

The parallels at times really catch me off guard and have me very emotional. It is a very real part of our lives as readers of colour and I like how Amita has all her readers confront with the fact. Some of us don’t get to close the book and move on with our lives from the conflicts present in the book.

Last and certainly not least, I sang all the praises for the last book as well: I absolutely adore that their fractured sisterhood is the thread of this series. It’s such a compelling part of the books. In this novel, the sister scenes really shone on their own alongside the already intriguing story. The mystery of their origins keeps unravelling in the best way and I cannot to read more!

My only complaint for this book would be the fact that I wanted it to be longer overall! Just so the romance could have been explored even more in depth. A few extra scenes here and there to fully illustrate their connection. I could sense and feel it by Act 2, more specific scenes of connections would have made this book stellar! And of course, I would never complain about more descriptive sex scenes 😂.

Overall, this is the best book of the series to date (and I love Lila dearly!). It is for anyone looking for a more realistic look into the historical side of historical romance novels! If you’re into that, murder mysteries and compelling characters and themes, this book is for us. Happy Reading everyone and I can’t wait for this book to be in everyone’s hands!

Thank you to HarperCollins UK, HarperFiction and NetGalley for an advanced copy of this book in exchange for my honest review. 

[mxescargot]

OC masterlist

misc/multiple universes

garv (fishboy)

prima (tropey good guy)

vindicta (tropey bad guy)

ursa (dark magic bounty hunter)

ari (light magic bounty hunter)

urban fantasy/superhero

premise: a timeline that diverges several years before ours where a significant minority of the population across the world contracted strange illnesses that led to various magical powers; focuses on the Eastern United States (aka what im familiar with). themes of disabled justice and solidarity.

micheal (he/they): friendly college kid who always puts others before himself, teleportation powers

jem (any pronouns): an old self-insert, shapeshifting powers

ayaan (he/they): kid with unique powers that mess with the fabric of reality, of particular interest to the villain

emilia (she/her): sociologist studying how superpowered people interact with a society built for non-superpowered people, recently gained fire/energy/plasma powers of her own in an accident

saiorse (any pronouns): software developer and emilia's spouse. he does not have superpowers

alison (he/him): evil CEO (maybe also politician?) looking to take advantage of superpowered people for his own gain. especially young, powerful superpowered people. i do not know how to write villains tbh

eren (she/her): micheal's classmate.

haru (they/she/it): your average edgy 14 year old.

high fantasy: the world of An

premise: weird mix of some of the history i'm interested in, with a technological level of around the 1840s to 1860s? focuses on a governmental transition from absolute monarchy to parliamentary democracy and the greater inclusion of ethnic minorities in the political system and society as a whole. the people are sorta kemonomimi-hobbits with mammalian and insectoid features. also has eldritch shit going on in its magic system.

these are some of my oldest characters and have changed a lot, their original concept was a "five elements" thing and that still shows through.

the names are based on my conlang :> i didnt try to make the romanizations look pretty, just functional, so uhh ⟨v⟩ is a schwa and most letters correspond with IPA values but idk if thats accessible. here ill replace j with y and v with whatever letter looks best, you can see the mess of the "official" spellings in the tags. they dont exactly have a gender system like ours so pronouns are what i imagine they'd use if raised in our culture and language yk

baa'oni (they/she): activist reviving the long-suppressed/erased (idk what the right word is) life-related magic practices of their ancestors. name translates to "sundew"

lausa (she/her): noble who uses her position of power to help incite change, eventually becomes prime minister. romantically involved with baa’oni, causing suspicion and controversy. name translates to "shadower"

laanya (they/them): self insert. former water magic student reconnecting to it after trauma, also tries to get involved in activism. name translates to "river delta"

treyii (they/she/he): young and uncertain, pressure is put on him to achieve great things and they don't know where to belong. name translates to "sparks"

unnamed character referred to as "wind guy" (they/he): a vengeful prince with command over the weather.

star wars

premise: focuses on jedi fighting in the clone wars. i mostly made these characters in quarantine lol

aiya (they/xe): twi'lek anakin skywalker on a budget. padawan during the clone wars, becomes an inquisitor.

rakiss (she/they): mirialan; Aiya's fellow padawan and very close to xem. killed in O66

haalas (he/him): togruta; aiya's strict master, very loyal to the light side of the force itself and scared of losing another padawan to the dark side. survives O66, but is eventually killed by aiya, who blames him for rakiss's death.

malice (they/she/it): dathomiran zabrak who was the first padawan of haalas. left the order and turned to the dark side, but isn't with the Sith.

ekiv (she/her): rakiss's master, also a mirialan, and longtime friend of haalas. mom friend, but only because she's a people pleaser with massive gifted kid burnout. survives O66; assumes a new identity and learns how to heal.

hizta (any pronouns): tusken ex-bounty hunter who now runs a droid repair shop on coruscant. acquainted with aiya before and during the Clone Wars, aids the Rebellion.

penelope (she/they): human; old colleague of Hizta's. generally fairly cold and professional until you get to know them; actually very affectionate.

i also have some underdeveloped clone trooper OCs

hollow knight

cornu (they/them): HKsona. void-corrupted snail shaman capable of harnessing both soul and void magic.

unnamed fairyfly OC

[pokemoncaretips]

Any tips for a phantump? Recently, my partner chandelure found one sleeping on my patio. It's been caught and released a few times both by myself and by professionals, but because she keeps coming back I've grown a little attached. I wonder if she feels safe because both of my other pokemon are ghost types? I live in a very dense forest, if it helps!

General notes: The subject of a large number of superstitions, some true, some not, the phantump is one of the safer and more good natured ghost pokemon, though it's evolution does need careful handling and space.

General care: So...we'll need to address one thing before we go any further. The legends of the phantumps origin. Some say they are made when the spirits of people who have died in the forests, particularly children, become pokemon. Others say they've seen trevenant eggs hatch into phantumps.

The thing is, for once, the superstitions around this aren't false. At least, not completely. Though most phantumps are hatched that way, there are a small population that were people. And it's hard, borderline impossible, to tell which is which. People tend to rely on monitoring it's behaviour. Does it seek out one place in particular? Does it react to certain toys? The memories seem to be very faint, but there is something there.

If it keeps coming back, it could be that it just likes you. Or perhaps its family used to live there.

If you know someone who's had a child or family member go missing, it may be the kind thing to do to keep your phantump in its pokeball around them, as even if it is a hatched one, it could still cause distress.

Much has been discussed about the ethics of phantump keeping, but those who really know and understand pokemon know that what matters is the phantumps opinion at the end of the day, and they seem to just be regular ghost types, enjoying battling and playing like any other pokemon. It's slightly controversial, but I personally see nothing wrong with it. If it didn't want to be with you, it would leave.

They don't need feeding, but do photosynthesis to some degree. A sunny windowsill is prime napping territory for a phantump.

The trevenant is a different beast. For one thing, it's large. Very large. It's an outside pokemon. As it evolves, the friendly, personable nature changes drastically, and it becomes introverted and somewhat distant, preferring to be alone. That said, a loyal trevenant tends to stay close, rooting itself in the back yard of its trainer rather than the woods its line prefers. They like to be near you, but just doing their own thing. Try and avoid stomping on the ground near where it roots itself. It spreads its roots out like a small nervous system, and that can overwhelm it.

The rumour that their leaves can be used as medicine has no basis in fact or science. Care rating: Green

Training: Phantump are playful and curious about the world, enjoying meeting new people and pokemon. They often do well in battles. Trevenants will fight for trainers they've bonded with, but tend to ignore strangers commands. Training rating: Green

Safety: It's said that phantump lure children into the woods to make more phantump. This is a fallacy. They are a friendly pokemon, and rather innocently invite children to play. The danger is that wild phantump live in deep woods, and aren't aware that kids can get lost or injured there. They just can't understand that living things need warmth and food and shelter. A phantump with a trainer, living in a house, is much safer. They love pokemon parks, and may invite themselves to play with groups of children. I rank them orange, however, as they may accidently cause accidents by trying to incite games they don't realise are dangerous, like climbing tall, rickety trees. They need supervision.

Trevenants can be aggressive when provoked, but they tend to have good reasons, and a trained one is much more capable of controlling itself. Safety rating: Orange

Overall ranking. A controversial pokemon with a sweet nature, the phantump is a good choice for people looking to keep ghost types. Just be aware that for some people it can cause painful memories.

[amanda-melly]

Good omens s3 - my thoughts on the second coming - will Jesus appear in season 3? Will he come back as a baby?

[EDIT: I checked some material about the Book of Revelation and I changed my mind on some important aspects of this post - notably that the Apocalipse and the Final Judgment are not something that happens out of the blue. I thought that from one moment to the next Christ would come to earth, everyone would immediately be dead, the dead would rise and everyone would be judged. I was wrong. There's a whole deal about 7 seals and 7 disasters and 7 whatnots and apparently the antichrist is thrown into fire and bottomless pit AND THERE'S A DRAGON then it gets even crazier because the people who are judged as good people get to live 1000 years then something happens AND THE DRAGON IS SENT TO THE PIT TOO then more stuff happens then finally earth is definitely over and the good guys are in heaven happily ever after and the bad guys are all in the bottomless pit and flames etc.

This interview in particular is really funny because they even mention how the whole thing looks like an action movie.

Also, the number 7 and the tempest with the lamentations have all been foreshadowed in season 2, so I think we'll have some pretty crazy armagedon action in season 3 after all. ]

(original post)

I just checked Wikipedia about the second coming because I didn't know what exactly is supposed to happen. My main question was: is Christ born again to a human mother, grows up and THEN judges everyone? Or he arrives at the final moment of earth, and proceeds immediately to the final judgment?

The answer is: the main belief is that there is no resurrection of Christ, that is, in the second coming he doesn't come as a baby. Nor is there an inciting incident to kill everyone (like a nuclear war or something like that). Everything on earth just gets killed out of nowhere in a split second and without any earthly cause. And the dead rise. And Christ returns. Apparently the antichrist does something in the second coming but Jesus defeats him and proceeds to the final judgment.

So I'm guessing there won't be a baby Christ nor a resurrected Christ on earth when it comes to the second coming.

Averting the second coming, in theory, could prevent Jesus from appearing at all in s3 - or, at least, appearing in present day earth.

To be honest, I think good omens could hardly feature Jesus in more then some very, very respectful and "conservative" flashbacks, like they did in s1. Jesus could perhaps be shown as an irreproachable ethereal being. I don't think good omens could pull off anything remotely controversial regarding Jesus.

I used to think it'd be fun to have a "Christ reborn baby situation" as a callback to the whole antichrist baby in season 1 but I don't think now that s3 will involve babies.

I think it's better to focus on what Gabriel says - there will be a storm, the dead will rise, there will be great lamentations.

Also, according to Neil Gaiman seasons 1 and 3 are action packed, fast, intense, with a slow and romantic season 2 between them (also, season 2 was filmed during covid, and there will hopefully no such restrictions for s3).

I think there will be a lot of things going on in s3, in more places and bigger sets. I think it will have more adrenaline and more chaos. What exactly I don't know. But now I'm fairly certain it won't involve a baby Christ - but perhaps the dead will rise.

🤔

[creativewriting101]

One-Word Prompts

Recently, I’ve been really liking the idea of one-word prompts, so here are some that I’ve seen and/or thought of that I liked:

Alembic - anything that transforms, purifies, or refines.

​​Alluvion - a gradual increase of land on a shore or a river bank by the action of water, whether from natural or artificial causes.

Arboreal - Of or relating to trees; treelike

Bel-esprit - a person of great wit or intellect.

Cause celebre - any controversy that attracts great public attention.

Cordate - heart-shaped.

Eidetic - of, relating to, or constituting visual imagery vividly experienced and readily reproducible with great accuracy and in great detail.

Fantast - A visionary or dreamer

Flocculent - like a clump or tuft of wool.

Paraselene - a bright moonlike spot on a lunar halo; a mock moon.

Lethologica - When you can’t think of the word for something

Mellifluous - A sound that’s pleasing and sweet to hear

Apricity - The warmth of the sun in winter

Retrouvailles - The happiness of meeting again after a long time of being apart

Antediluvian - very old, old-fashioned, or out of date; antiquated

Beneficence - the doing of good; active goodness or kindness; charity

Cryptomnesia - the phenomenon of not recognizing the return of an old memory as a product of memory, but instead regarding it as a new or original thought or idea.

Cupidity - Eager or excessive desire, especially to possess something; greed.

Foible - A minor weakness or failing of character; slight flaw or defect

Girandole - A rotating and radiating firework

Gul - a large octagonal design derived from the shape of a rose, a motif on rugs.

Handsel - a gift or token fore good luck or as an expression of good wishes, as at the beginning of the new year or when entering upon a new situation or enterprise

Humicolous - of or relating to organisms that live in or on soil.

Hydra - A persistent or many-sided problem that presents new obstacles as soon as one aspect is solved.

Infodemic - a massive amount of widely and rapidly circulating information about a particular crisis or controversial issue, consisting of a confusing combination of fact, falsehood, rumor, and opinion.

Integument - A natural covering, as a skin, shell, or rind

Jocular - given to, characterized by, intended for, or suited to be joking or jesting

Lachrymose - suggestive of or tending to cause tears; mournful

Limerence - the state of being obsessively infatuated with someone, usually accompanied by delusions of or a desire for an intense romantic relationship with that person.

Lunisolar - Pertaining to or based upon the relations or joint action of the moon and the sun

Meritocracy - A system in which a person’s progress is based on ability and talent rather than class privilege and wealth.

Neophyte - A beginner of novice

Nescience - Lack of knowledge; ignorance

Proceleusmatic - Inciting, animating, or inspiring

Pulchritudinous - Physically beautiful; comely

Qiviut - the soft, dense, light-brown woolly undercoat of the musk ox, used in making fabrics.

Sartorial - Of or relating to clothing or style or manner of dress

Satori - Sudden enlightenment

Saudade - A deep emotional state of melancholic longing for a person or thing that is absent

Sumpsimus - Adherence to or persistent in using a strictly correct term, holding to a precise practice, etc., as a rejection of an erroneous but more common form.

Sweven - A vision; dream

Tohubohu - Chaos, disorder, confusion

Uitwaaien - the Dutch practice of jogging or walking into the wind, especially in the winter, for the purpose of feeling invigorated while relieving stress and boosting one’s general health.

Vernal - Of or relating to Spring

Vibrissa - one of the stiff, bristly hairs growing about the mouth of certain animals, as a whisker of a cat.

Zeitgeist - The spirit of the time; general trend of thought or feeling characteristic of a particular period of time

Amity - friendship; peaceful harmony.

Gazeetter - a geographical dictionary

Anamnesis - the recollection or remembrance of the past; reminiscence.

Ginkgo - a large shade tree native to China, having fan-shaped leaves and fleshy seeds with edible kernels.

[bazpitchs-violin]

okay. i have some thoughts. so i'm about to say something controversial

about keating, specifically.

!!DISCLAIMER!! all of this is said objectively, is not targeting anyone in particular and is just based off of observation and is NOT meant to be upsetting or problematic

that being said, don't like, don't read.

okay.

as a fandom, as much as i love having people who love this movie that i love, i feel like so much of what we take away from it has started to boil down to "look at all these silly gay kids with teen angst!!!" and don't get me wrong, that is undoubtedly a part of it, and we do think about neil and todd deeply at times, and even cameron apologists will go to great lengths to defend him.

generally speaking, however, it seems like a lot of people interact with the movie and the characters on a surface level ("silly gay kids with teen angst!!!") which, is absolutely not a bad thing, please, enjoy media in any way you please.

this isn't meant to be like a boo you're all doing it wrong thing by any stretch of the imagination, i just wanted to talk about something, and i don't want to make anyone feel as if i'm diminishing the way they view the film, because i absolutely don't want to do that at all.

however, i feel like the reason a lot of people don't talk about keating and his importance and his character and all the good things he is is because they see him more as some sort of a plot-furthering device than a person who was genuinely important to his students.

because the movie does use keating being their teacher to incite their individual journeys of self-discovery that he doesn't necessarily walk them through himself, i can see where it comes from, but continuing to interact with it on that level means that no matter how much you try to psychoanalyse these kids, you're going to be missing a part of it.

the reason keating was able to do everything he did for the poets was because he gave them all things they needed. and those things were different for all of the poets. and that's why cameron hated him, because he didn't offer cameron anything he thought he needed or anything he wanted to need.

todd needed someone to show him he was worth hearing

charlie needed someone to tell him it was okay to rebel

meeks needed a place to be someone other than The Smart Kid with all the answers

pitts needed a little bit of all of that

knox needed someone to show him that expressing himself was good

neil needed someone to see him. to encourage him. to tell him he was doing a good job.

and think about it, we know keating showed todd he was worth hearing, look at the scene where he makes him improvise a poem. he could have accepted that todd didn't do the assignment, but he didn't. he knew there was something in todd that needed to be heard, and wanted to be the one to make it come out.

and charlie! i mean, day one keating tells them to rip pages out of their books. day. one. not to mention the scene where keating is talking to him about the phone call, and at the end jokes that "if it had been collect, that would have been daring." keating's whole thing was about challenging the system, and he showed charlie that he could too.

meeks is an interesting one, because you're going to be like how did his teacher offer him anything like not being the smart kid?? meeks likes being smart, of course he does, but as with anything, sometimes that feels like all he's good for. like people only put up with him to put him in their study groups, to get his homework answers, and that wasn't how keating's class was set up. because keating taught unconventionally, because he made the boys challenge themselves and their voices, because he was never looking for One Right Answer, there was no way that meeks would be the one providing the answers anymore. because they had to come up with their own, and that was the only way they'd be right. he didn't have to play this role of the secondary teacher for the class, he got to enjoy reading and writing and fucking around with his friends without feeling like their tutor.

and pitts, i mean, pitts is an awkward guy. quiet. he doesn't say very much, but he's caring. he is a deeply caring person. we see this a lot in the scene where he brings a roll and splits it. it's only a second, but it says a lot. he's probably an older brother, he likes to share, he likes to feel like he's doing something important. and keating makes everything important. messes with pitts in this way that's new to him, treating him like a kid instead of another adult (he was likely parentified at home) and he clearly sees something in him and works to foster that.

knox is a character that just has this bottomless pit of feelings in him. but it's the 50s, what do guys have to do with feelings? keating not only helps him see that he's allowed to have feelings, but helps him learn to express them too. (granted, that could use a little help, but i blame knox being an idiot) he's having his emotions validated for the first time in his life.

neil. the scene in keating's office, the scene when keating asks if he talked to his dad, the beginning of what keating is saying after the play, the look of wonder and understanding from neil when keating was talking, the fact that neil was the one who went and hunted him down so they could ask about the dead poets society in the first place. neil's lived his whole life in a box. he needed someone to see who he was. not just who he was supposed to be eventually. and keating saw him. he listened to him. he encouraged him to follow what made him happy, because he deserved it. keating was the first person to show neil that he deserved anything.

keating gives them all freedom in different ways, so they gravitate towards him. they establish early in the film that the boys all come from families where they're expected to succeed, and for the first time in their lives, they're being told that something else is more important. for the first time in their lives, someone just wants them to grow. to learn.

because so much of the movie focuses on the relationships between the poets, it's easy to forget how instrumental keating was in all of that, how important he, as a person, is to all of them. and without taking that into consideration, you're always going to be missing something about the movie.

keating walked into that job knowing that helping those kids was his mission.

it's well established that he went to welton so he knows what it's like. he knows hell-ton not just welton.

he probably came from a family like the poets'. he was probably told to be a ceo or a doctor or a banker. it probably killed him all through his formative years of young adulthood. so he went back. because he knows that these kids have never once in their lives been told that what they think and do and say and want is important.

so he goes back to his high school, which, based on what we know about him and the school, is probably not something he wanted to relive. but he walks in there, determined to help the boys he teaches find their voices completely separate from what they've been told to want and say for their whole lives. he does that intentionally. he does it carefully and with a purpose. he isn't just a device the kids go through, he's just as important to everything else in the movie as neil or todd or the flying desk set.

the whole idea of the movie isn't just that the kids are rebelling, but the person who teaches them how. the person who tells them it's okay. the person who tells them their thoughts are worth thinking.

keating isn't just there. he's important to the collective, but also to the boys personally.

anyway!

sorry if you read all of this, it kind of got away from me.

[adobsoncomics]

COMICS THAT I NEVER MADE AN "EVIL TOM PRESTON" COMIC VERSION OF: Maybe I'll consider making this into a comic to celebrate the tenth anniversary of "Evil Tom Preston". However, what bothers me about this comic in particular is the idea that "[pissing] tons of people off" with a "controversial view" ultimately means you're either in the wrong place to share it, or the view isn't significant enough to genuinely upset people.

If I were to share controversial views in the wrong context, like being a flat earther or—even worse—a Trump supporter in San Francisco... it could easily and rightfully provoke anger. But for me to then strawman those who would be rightfully upset, it brings up questions of what it says about me as the creator for depicting them as such.

Alternatively, if I express safe """controversial views""", like say "Super Mario 64 isn't that good of a game", the lack of a legitmately strong backlash renders the comic pointless. And if anyone does get overly upset about a harmless position, their disproportionate anger suggests deeper issues. In both cases, "owning" them is a waste of my time.

Ultimately, I found it futile to turn this into an "Evil Tom Preston" comic. I just couldn't find a way to remake the original comic in my brand of anti-humor, and any attempt to make it entertaining would undermining the essence of Regular Tom Preston's message (however shallow it was). ... That said, if I could take a stab at it today... GUY 1: People really got mad at you for this comic? EVIL TOM: ...yeah... I piss tons of people off because of my very controversial views! GUY 1: Such as? EVIL TOM: Oh, stupid things... Like how I don't think Super Mario 64 is the greatest Mario game ever made... GUY 2: WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU? MARIO 64 IS THE--- EVIL TOM: Hey hey, no need to shout. I know I'm in the minority here, although honestly it's not that big of a deal. But that's just how I feel. Let's just agree to disagree. GUY 2: ...Oh, ok, sorry for yelling. EVIL TOM: No worries! Enjoy the rest of the con! I mean... maybe that could work? But that would still require me to imply that Evil Tom had """controversial views""" that had incited serious anger from people, and that just doesn't make any sense to me. It's even harder to make it today because I'd like to think that Regular Tom Preston has since realized that strawmanning his opponents is a stupid trope and not worthy of a cartoonist like him. Afterall, his original comics were made well over 10 years ago, people can change... right??

[novumtimes]

Ohios RINO Gov. Mike DeWine Confirms All 30 Anti-Haitian Bomb Threats Were a Hoax Most Came From Overseas (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit

Mike DeWine Press Conference Ohio’s RINO Governor Mike DeWine has confirmed that all the alleged “bomb threats” against schools across the state have turned out to be a hoax. The reports of bomb threats have been aggressively shared by Democrats and left-wing activists following outrage over reports that Haitian migrants have been eating people’s animals and pets in the state. Ohio Resident Horrified After Spotting Missing Cat ‘Hanging from a Branch, Being Carved Up for Food’ by Haitian Migrants: Report Addressing a press conference on Monday, DeWine added that many of the supposed threats appear to have come from overseas: There have been at least 33 separate bomb threats, each one of which has been responded to, and each one of whom has been found as a hoax. So, 33 threats, 33 hoaxes. I want to make that very, very clear. None of these had any validity at all. We know that people are very, very concerned, and we have taken some actions, and in a moment I’ll let Andy Wilson go into more detail. But we’ve moved resources into Springfield. So I want to say to the parents in Springfield, these hoaxes, these threats have all been hoaxes. None of them have panned out. We have people, unfortunately, overseas who are taking these actions. Some of them are coming from one particular country. We think that this is, you know, one more opportunity to mess with the United States, and they’re continuing to do that. So we cannot let the bad guys win. Our schools must remain open. It is not clear which country DeWine was referring to. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine says there were 33 bomb threats against Springfield schools that all turned out to be hoaxes and originated from “overseas.” Where do President Trump and JD Vance go to get their apology from the media who claimed they incited them? pic.twitter.com/NKyhUJZwrz — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 16, 2024 DeWine’s statements will come as a disappointment to left-wing activists, many of whom were jumping on the bomb threats and trying to blame them on Donald Trump. We have zero examples of Haitians eating cats but 7-8 bomb threats and one threatened mass shooting by right-wingers who think Haitians are eating cats At this point a Haitian could eat 20 cats tomorrow and the right would still be the most barbaric party in this controversy — Swann Marcus (@SwannMarcus89) September 15, 2024 Yet like so many Democratic Party narratives, they all turned out to be a hoax. Source link via The Novum Times

[archivio-disattivato]

Guyana, Venezuela, and Colonialism

Dec 23. Written By Intersect. Blog post by Lucia E. Murray, Intersect Antigua

On December 14, 2023, presidents Ifraan Ali of Guyana and Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela met in Argyle, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, to sign a “Joint Declaration of Argyle for Peace and Dialogue.” This declaration was crafted as a direct response to the recent re-escalation of tensions between Guyana and Venezuela – engendered by Maduro’s continued invocation of the Guyana-Venezuela territorial dispute and his insistence that Venezuela has claim to the Essequibo region of Guyana. This issue first arose in the late 1800s due to the colonisation and subsequent partitioning of the region by European powers – namely, the Spanish, British, and Dutch. Since then, in spite of repeated efforts to arrive at a resolution, the dispute still persists and has been reignited several times throughout the years. In her article, “Guyana and Venezuela: The Currently Unfolding Crisis of Imperialism,” Dr. Tamanisha John underscores a key, inciting incident in this controversy:

“In 1899, the borders between an independent Venezuela and British Guiana were considered settled via an Arbitral Award – in which Venezuela, Great Britain, the United States, and (what is now) Guyana were all signatories . . . and both parties accepted those boundaries as ‘full, perfect, and final’ (Felix 2015, 6). It would not be until August 18, 1962, that Venezuelan President Romulo Betancourt – given the knowledge that Guyana would soon become independent from Great Britain – declared the Arbitral Award ‘null and void’ (Felix 2015, 10). This date marks the discursive controversy of Venezuela and Guyana border tensions – as legally, the border is considered settled.”

Following continued claims for Essequibo from Venezuela, it was agreed through the 1966 Geneva Agreement – signed by the “United Kingdom [as Guyana was still under British rule at this time], Venezuela and, upon attaining independence, Guyana” (Joseph) – that a peaceful settlement of the matter would be attained through legal means, which includes referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). However, the Venezuelan government has also refused to recognize the ICJ – leaving any further proceedings regarding Essequibo at an impasse. Ultimately, this conflict is one of colonial inheritance and, consequently, completely ignores the sovereignty of the indigenous people native to Essequibo. The potential for this region to be annexed persists beneath conditions created by capitalism, imperialism, and chauvinism – all of which are interlinked as vestiges of colonialism.

The Venezuelan government’s motivation for the annexation of Essequibo is manifold; however, two key factors are the discovery of oil and U.S. presence in the region. In 2015, ExxonMobil – an American oil company and one of the wealthiest in the world – confirmed the existence of massive oil reserves in Essequibo. Not only had Exxon been permitted to explore particular areas of Guyana prior to this, but they were also present in Venezuela until 2007 –  when the “last remaining oil production sites . . . under foreign company control” (Wilpert) were nationalised. In a capitalist world that rewards the exploitation of land and labour, as well as exponential resource extraction, whoever is in possession of the oil reserves in Essequibo would gain access to substantial wealth and power. This means that both Venezuela and Exxon – and the U.S., by extension – stand to gain a great deal from the region, far more than Guyana, whose government struck a notoriously unfavourable deal with Exxon in 2016 (Sanzillo). Hence, it is no surprise that following the company’s 2015 announcement regarding the discovery of oil in Essequibo, tensions surrounding the territorial dispute rose once again (John). Furthermore, Venezuela’s interest in the region’s oil is corroborated by recent orders from Maduro to “‘immediately’ explore and exploit the [area’s] oil, gas and mines” (“Venezuela orders state companies to exploit oil and gas mines in Guyana territory”). Whether done by the U.S. or Venezuela, the plundering of Essequibo is a colonial practice that is at odds with and infringes upon the indigenous peoples living in the area. 

Maduro’s push to annex Essequibo is also propelled by a desire to secure his position in Venezuela’s upcoming elections through appealing to longstanding, nationalistic sentiments. In an interview with Black Power Media, Dr. Tamanisha John underlines the connection between calls for annexation, (re-)elections, and nationalism. Asserting that Essequibo is a part of Venezuela is essentially equated as being pro-Venezuela – at least within the country’s political sphere. John also adds that part of what is fueling the continuation of this dispute is the persistence of an ideology that frames Spanish colonisation as more legitimate than British, French, or Dutch colonisation – despite the fact that colonisation, in all of its forms, is egregious and unjust. It is along these lines of thought that Maduro held a referendum on December 3, 2023, “to mobilise public support” regarding the dispute. However, “[t]he turnout appeared so underwhelming that the Venezuelan government has been widely accused by analysts of falsifying the results” (“Maduro vote to claim Guyana’s territory backfires as Venezuelans stay home”). The actions of the Venezuelan government to this end are authoritarian, and consequently, colonial in nature. Imposing the Venezuelan identity on the people of Essequibo ignores their right to self determination. In an interview with Agence France-Presse (AFP), Thomas Devroy, “a former village chief” in the village of Arau, Essequibo, says that “Essequibo was ‘the land of the Akawaio’ Indigenous people who live across Guyana, Venezuela, and Brazil.” He states, “This is our land. Before the Spaniards were here, since time immemorial. For us there are no borders, but with the politics now, there is one. And Essequibo belongs to Guyana.” Although the current lines dividing South America and the Caribbean were drawn by colonial powers and do not reflect the reality of the indigenous residents prior to colonisation, it is nevertheless important to recognise that the indigenous Caribbean people – in addition to the afro-Caribbean and indo-Caribbean people – living in the Essequibo region consider themselves Guyanese. This fact alone should warrant an end to the dispute. 

“This is our land. Before the Spaniards were here, since time immemorial. For us there are no borders, but with the politics now, there is one. And Essequibo belongs to Guyana.”

— Thomas Devroy via AFP

It is clear, through their threats of annexation, that Venezuela – while also a victim of colonialism – is engaging in colonial violence against Guyana, as this acquisition would entail exerting dominion over a smaller, less powerful territory to exploit its resources at the expense of those living there. Intersect stands in support of the people most affected by this dispute – this being the people of the Essequibo region, especially the indigenous people to whom this land truly belongs, and the people of wider Guyana. In the face of colonial and imperial interference, we call for their sovereignty to be respected.

[cyarsk5230]

Crunkcore (also known as crunk punk and scrunk) is a musical fusion genre characterized by the combination of musical elements from crunk, post-hardcore, heavy metal, pop, electronicand dance music. The genre often features screamed vocals, hip hop beats, and sexually provocative lyrics. The genre developed from members of the scene subculture during the mid 2000s.

According to MasterClass, crunkcore originated by fusing "post-hardcore punk and hip hop into an aggressive, party-hearty sound in the mid-2000s." The genre took influence from various subgenres related to post-hardcore (screamo and emo) and heavy metal (metalcore and nu metal). Other genres to influence crunkcore acts include rap rock, electropop, dance-pop, techno, and funk.Writer and musician Jessica Hopper claims that Panic! at the Disco's fusion of emo and electronicelements influenced the development of crunkcore in the mid-2000s. While crunkcore is typically characterized by the use of screamed vocals, some crunkcore artists do not scream. For instance, Warped Tour co-creator and CEO Kevin Lyman calls the group 3OH!3 "the real tipping point for scrunk", and said that "though 3OH!3 doesn't incorporate the blood-curdling screams of many scrunk acts, they were the first emo-influenced act to depart from traditional instruments in favor of pre-programmed beats", while still retaining many of the stylistic elements of emo. The Millionaires, who do not use screamed vocals, are also crunkcore.

The Phoenix described crunkcore as "a combination of minimalist Southern hip-hop, auto-tune croons, techno breakdowns, barked vocals, and party-till-you-puke poetics". Inland Empire Magazine described the genre as combining "post-hardcore and heavy metal licks with crunk."

Culture and criticism

The Boston Phoenix has mentioned criticism of the style, saying that "the idea that a handful of kids would remix lowest-common-denominator screamo with crunk beats, misappropriated gangsterisms, and the extreme garishness of emo fashion was sure to incite hate-filled diatribes".Amy Sciarretto of Noisecreep noted that crunkcore is "oft maligned as the nu metal of this generation." The group Brokencyde in particular has been singled out, with John McDonnell of The Guardianreviewing their music unfavorably. AbsolutePunkfounder Jason Tate said that the level of backlash against Brokencyde is more than he has seen for any single act in the ten years. According to Tate, "they're just that bad, and they epitomize everything that music (and human beings) should not be." Brokencyde member Mikl has acknowledged the criticism leveled at them, but stated, "We don't care what people say ... All these critics are trying to bring us down, and yet we're selling a lot of copies of our music and that's because of our dedicated fans." Writer Jessica Hopper also has criticized the group, but acknowledged its appeal to teenagers, stating "brokeNCYDE just completely references anything that might be a contemporary pop culture reference, or anything that a teenage person is into.... You kind of get everything at once."3OH!3 drew similar controversy in 2015 by releasing a single titled "My Dick".

[wolint]

FRESH MANNA

TERRORISM

Psalm 27:1

Terrorism has become prevalent in our world today. There are all kinds of terrorists operating in all sections of society.

Definitions of terrorism are usually complex and controversial, and, because of the inherent ferocity and violence of terrorism, the term in its popular usage has developed an intense stigma.

Terrorism is the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby bring about a particular objective.

Any act that incites fear, panic, violence, oppression, hatred and death at a targeted group of people is a form of terrorism. The aim of terrorism is usually to bully a society or culture into cooperating with the demands of the terrorists. In some cases, the carnage is inflicted for its own sake or as a punishment or an act of revenge.

God is in control of the world, and one day He will judge and punish the wicked that instil crippling fear in people. When the Bible says God protects us from danger, it sometimes means that God protects us from physical danger but always means God protects his people from the spiritual danger of losing their souls to Satan as Matthew 10:28 states.

Anyone can be a terrorist given the situation or opportunity. We have neighbours who terrorize others, and spouses terrorizing each other or their children.

We see this in the book of Acts, especially in 9:1-22. How Saul, who became Paul terrorised Christ-followers. This is religious terrorism at its height.

How about today? Certain sectors of society are being terrorised by a minor group over religion, families, marriages, gender, beliefs and anything they can think of.

Whatever happened to freedom of speech and opinions?

Hebrews 12:14 says we must strive for peace with everyone!

Society has created such violent and panic-filled situations that so many are living in direct opposition to Matthew 6:34’s instruction of “don’t worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its worries. Today’s trouble is enough for today.”

We must not allow terrorism of any kind to cause us to panic about what might happen, but learn to depend on God in prayer and defence and to base our confidence on His ever-present protection. We can only do this by making a conscious effort to not think about what we can’t control and to think only about what we can control. Fretting about the unknowable future is paralyzing and debilitating.

throughout Israel’s history, they were not encouraged to attack civilians instead of soldiers, as modern terrorism does. And the Israelites were frequently reminded that their limited, one-time-only orders to attack were mostly because of the wickedness of their enemy, not their superiority according to Deuteronomy 9:4–6.

Schools are terrorizing parents and families for not submitting to their instructions, just as other sectors are terrorising society and people for not toting and submitting to their ideologies.

We’re all seeing and looking evil in the eyes today but such evil refuses to allow us freedom from its influence and control, even when we try our best according to Psalm 34:14 to look away, they come in our faces making it almost difficult to see anything else.

Proverbs 24 talks a lot about evil terrorism and encourages us to be envious of them, their comeuppance is at hand.

God condemns the shedding of innocent blood and those who use violence against the helpless and inoffensive as seen in Proverbs 6:16-18. Let's overcome evil with good.

PRAYER: O Lord, You have heard the desire and the longing of the humble and oppressed; You will prepare and strengthen and direct my heart and overcome evil with your goodness in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Shalom

Women of light international prayer ministries

[pennsylvaniaprelawland-blog]

Gonzalez V. Google Questions The Liability Of Social Media Platforms With Respect To Terrorism

By Morgan Polen, University of Pittsburgh Class of 2025

October 28, 2022

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) has unquestionably been one of the most consequential pieces of legislation ever passed with respect to technological platforms and the Internet. It states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” [5]. In layperson’s terms, the platform/website per se cannot be held liable for the speech and/or content of one of its users. For example, if someone goes on Twitter and posts a defamatory statement, the target of said statement can sue the defamator but not Twitter. It’s also worth noting that Section 230 does not apply to intellectual property-rooted claims and criminal claims [5].

This provision of the CDA is especially crucial in an era where much controversy regarding the discretion of big tech looms over the world of jurisprudence. The issue in the case at hand involves Nohemi Gonzalez, one of the many victims claimed by the terrorist attacks inflicted by ISIS in Paris in 2015. Gonzalez’s family sued Google, owner of YouTube, under the Antiterrorism Act for “promoting” a wave of violent videos and breeding an environment conducive to ISIS members and supporters [2] [4]. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit argued that Section 230 protects the algorithms that are employed to promote such content. The majority did conclude that Congress, not the courts, should be the entity determining Section 230’s reach. However, the ruling produced multiple dissents, which is why it seems an opportune time for the Supreme Court to entertain this case, especially since it hasn’t ruled on Section 230 since its enactment in 1996 [6].

This case comes at a time where many issues regarding the future of technological volition are coming to fruition. For instance, Florida has recently petitioned the Supreme Court to rule on its contentious law, SB7072, which, if upheld, would prevent big tech platforms from censoring select content and people (Moody v. NetChoice, LLC). An analogous issue is posited NetChoice v. Paxton, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld Texas’s House Bill 20, which greatly restricts the power of social media platforms to moderate its users; additionally, it imposes certain transparency requirements, which mandates that such platforms clearly state why they chose to take certain content down. The Fifth Circuit ruled that this law did not violate First Amendment provisions because it stifles censorship, not speech [3].

Nevertheless, it’s been widely understood that the First Amendment similarly protects one’s right to stay silent (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943). Does it not then follow that big tech platforms have a right to “stay silent” and thus choose not to comment on its censorship choices?

Gonzalez is hardly an isolated incident. There’s a copious amount of First Amendment-related legislation swirling around, many issues often at-odds with one another. In a society where the freedom of expression is a hallmark, it’s necessary to remember that speech goes, for the most part, unbridled. Underlying Gonzalez is a case of particular salience: Brandenburg v. Ohio, which notedly overturned Schenck v. United States. Brandenburg (1969) clarified that speech is unprotected under the First Amendment only if it produces “imminent lawless action” or if it's “likely to incite or produce such action” [1]. When do the Internet and social media platforms become legally responsible for their users' tangible threats? Only making things cloudier is the fact that one cannot censor speech on the premise that it *might* have the ability to incite violence in the future. In other words, speech cannot be restricted before the fact. For matters involving the extent to which speech influences acts of terrorism, it’s onerous to disentangle the First Amendment from the Antiterrorism Act. Although Gonzalez was originally brought under the Antiterrorism Act, it ostensibly seems that such a First Amendment issue will be raised when SCOTUS reviews it.

Any case handling the First Amendment must be conducted with extreme care, for it only takes one ruling to send us down a vulnerable path of censorship and persecution. The Supreme Court will hear Gonzalez this term.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Brandenburg v. Ohio. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved from www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492.

[2] Howe, A. (2022, October 3). Court agrees to hear nine new cases, including challenge to tech companies’ immunity under Section 230. Scotusblog. Retrieved from www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/court-agrees-to-hear-nine-new-cases-including-challenge-to-tech-companies-immunity-under-section-230/.

[3] Jurecic, Q. (2022, September 16). Fifth Circuit upholds Texas social media law. Lawfare Blog. Retrieved from www.lawfareblog.com/fifth-circuit-upholds-texas-social-media-law#:~:text=On%20Sept.,and%20imposes%20certain%20transparency%20requirements.

[4] Millheiser, I. (2022, October 6). A new Supreme Court case could fundamentally change the internet. Vox. Retrieved from www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/10/6/23389028/supreme-court-section-230-google-gonzalez-youtube-twitter-facebook-harry-styles.

[5] Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. (n.d.). Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved from www.eff.org/issues/cda230.

[6] Willard, L., Xenakis, N., Cooper-Ponte, A., & Salinas, M. (2022, October 5). Supreme Court grants certiorari in Gonzalez v. Google, marking first time court will review Section 230.

Inside Privacy.Retrieved from

www.insideprivacy.com/uncategorized/supreme-court-grants-certiorari-in-gonzalez-v-google-marking-first-time-court-will-review-section-230-2/

[phdmama]

Yet Again, top/bottom discourse

Sorry folks, for the long post.

I woke up to a DM related to the top/bottom discourse this morning that is weighing really heavily on my mind, and I feel like I need to address some of the points this person made publicly.

This person suggested that I am “inciting a war” between top and bottom Harry stans and that my recent commentary on this has rekindled this controversy and that I am putting “top Harry stans” at risk.

Perhaps I haven’t been clear enough? Note: I’m using the terms “top Harry stan” and “bottom Harry stan” here, even though it makes me PROFOUNDLY UNCOMFORTABLE to reduce people in this way, because it’s the language that was sent to me.

As I have said repeatedly, I don’t care what people’s preferences are. Just because I don’t personally have a preference one way or the other does not mean I am judging anyone who does have a preference, and it absolutely does not mean that I actually secretly prefer “bottom Harry” and think that’s the only content that should be produced.

Over and over again, I have stated that my issue is with the people who not only feel entitled to particular dynamics but who go out and harass or threaten content creators because they don’t like the dynamic those creators are creating. I have stated over and over again that I believe people should write what they want, read what they want, and not be mean to content creators. That’s really it.

Absolutely nothing has come across my Tumblr feed about “bottom Harry stans” being harassed or called names. Nothing has come across my feed about people deliberately mistagging their works. Obviously, none of that is okay, but I am not doing that. I am not seeing people doing that. I am certainly not encouraging anyone to do that. And I have absolutely no control over anyone else’s behavior. I’m actually kind of amused at the idea that I might have any influence at all here.

This message also said that the harassment that content creators are getting around this issue is being perpetrated by one person and that it’s unfair for “top Harry stans” to be punished and denied the content they want for the behavior of one bad apple. First, it’s completely untrue that it’s just one person. This has been going on for the years I’ve been in fandom (and I’m sure much longer than that), and it goes on in just about every fandom I read in. It’s a hot button topic for whatever reason, though I have no idea why.

To the second point, the idea that when I’m writing I’m choosing a particular dynamic to appease readers is just not how I work. I write what I think works with the characters and serves the particular story at that moment. And I will be quite honest and say that I get frustrated when someone takes, for example, a 60K fic that I’ve worked on for months, that I’ve poured my heart, soul, effort and time into simply because I want to tell a story, and they reduce it to who takes it up the ass.

I’ve also said it before and I’ll say it again. The way people talk about this dynamic when they have such strong preferences often seems very rooted in misogyny and homophobia to me, and also seems like it’s often coming from people who may not understand a lot about the incredible nuance and complexity of human sexuality. To care to the point that you actually are “triggered” by the “wrong” content is very concerning to me. (I’m going to be respectful of the term that people are using and accept that they genuinely have a traumatic response to this content, and it’s not simply that they just don’t like it, aka a squick).

There are really good, important, and big conversations to have in fandom about, among other things, misogyny, gender essentialism, homophobia, racism. But fundamentally, this is fiction and it’s all opt-in. If something isn’t clearly tagged to give you the information you want, that’s the information you need, which is that this fic is not safe for you. If it’s not tagged, you can take a chance and read something you might not like. You can have a friend read it and tell you. You can even reach out to the author and ask (and they may or may not answer). But, and this is my main point, you should not be harassing, abusing, or threatening content creators for how they’ve chosen to create.

I mean, no one should be abusing, harrassing, sending hate or death threats to anyone over fictional characters’ sex lives!

I guess my last small point is, if you care so deeply about a particular dynamic, maybe it’s not the responsibility of content creators to give you that. Maybe you should write it? Or at the very least, find the people who write what you love and support them.  I’m pretty sure there are content creators who care deeply about who tops and who bottoms, and who write that dynamic in such a way that you’ll enjoy it.

I’m pretty sure that’s not me though.

[a-room-of-my-own]

Have you read "An Apology to JK Rowling" by Petra Bueskens on Areo? I'm pathetically grateful to read something so clever and well articulated on the subject after the amount of abuse JK has been subjected to

It's a great piece so here it is, thank you anon!

 Rowling recently published an eminently reasonable, heartfelt treatise, outlining why it is important to preserve the category of woman. There’s only one thing wrong with it: it assumes a rational interlocutor. Rowling outlines why the biological and legal category of sex is important: in sports, in rape crisis shelters, in prisons, in toilets and changing rooms, for lesbians who want to sleep with natal women only and at the level of reality in general. Rowling marshals her experiences as an androgynous girl, as a domestic violence and sexual assault survivor and as someone familiar with the emotional perils of social media, in ways that have resonated with many women (and men). Her writing is clear, unpretentious, thoughtful, moving, vulnerable and honest. At no point does she use exclusionary or hostile language or say that trans women do not exist, have no right to exist or that she wants to rob them of their rights. Her position is that natal women exist and have a right to limit access to their political and personal spaces. Period.

Of course, to assume that her missive would be engaged with in the spirit in which it was intended, is to make the mistake of imagining that the identitarian left is broadly committed to secular, rational discourse. It is not. Its activist component has transmogrified into a religious movement, which brooks no opposition and no discussion. You must agree with every tenet or else you’re a racist, sexist, transphobic bigot, etc. Because its followers are fanatics, Rowling is being subjected to an extraordinary level of abuse. There seems to be no cognitive dissonance among those who accuse her of insensitivity and then proceed to call her a cunt, bitch or hag and insist that they want to assault and even kill her (see this compilation of tweets on Medium). She has been accused of ruining childhoods. Some even claim that the actor Daniel Radcliffe wrote the Harry Potter books—reality has become optional for some of these identitarians. Rowling’s age, menstrual status and vagina come in for particularly nasty attention and many trans women (or those masquerading as such) write of wanting to sexually assault her with lady cock, as a punishment for speaking out. I haven’t seen misogyny like this since Julia Gillard became our prime minister.

The Balkanisation of culture into silos of unreason means that the responses have not followed what might be loosely called the pre-digital rules of discourse. These rules assume that the purpose of public debate is to discern truth and that interlocutors on opposing sides—a reductionist bifurcation, because, in fact, there are many sides—engage in argument because they are interested in something higher than themselves: an ideal of truth, no matter how complicated, multifaceted and evolving. While in-group preferences and biases are inevitable, these exist within an overarching deliberative framework. This style of dialogue assumes the validity of a persuasive argument grounded in reason and evidence, even if—as Rowling does—it also utilises experience and feeling. By default, it assumes that civil conflict and opposition are essential devices in the pursuit of truth.

Three decades of postmodernism and ten years of Twitter have destroyed these conventions and, together with them, the shared norms by which we create and sustain social consensus. There is no grounding metanarrative, there are no binding norms of civil discourse in the digital age. Indeed, as Jaron Lanier shows with his bummer paradigm (Behaviours of Users Modified and Made into an Empire for Rent) social media is destroying the fabric of our personal and political lives (although, with a different business model and more robust regulation, it need not do so). The algorithm searching for and recording your every click, like and share, your every purchase, search term, conversation, movement, facial expression, social connection and preference rewards engagement above all else—which means that your feed—an aptly infantile descriptor—will quickly become full of the things you and others like you are most likely to be motivated to click, like and share. Outrage is a more effective mechanism through which to foster engagement than almost anything else. In Lanier’s terms, this produces a “menagerie of wraiths”—a bunch of digitised dementors: fake and bad actors, paid troll armies and dyspeptic bots—designed to confect mob outrage.

The norms of civil discourse are being eroded, as we increasingly inhabit individualised media ecosystems, designed to addict, distract, absorb, outrage, manipulate and incite us. These internecine culture wars damage us all. As Lanier notes, social media is biased “not towards the left or right but downwards.” As a result, we are witnessing a catastrophic decline in the standards of our democratic institutions and discourse. Nowhere is this more evident than in the contemporary culture wars around the trans question, where confected outrage is the norm.

This is why the furore over Rowling’s blog post misses the point: whether we agree with her or not, the problem is the collapse of our capacity to disagree constructively. If you deal primarily in subjective experience and impulse-driven reaction, under the assumption that you occupy the undisputed moral high ground, and you’ve been incited by fake news and want to signal your allegiances to your social media friends, then you can’t engage in rational discussion with your opponent. Your stock in trade will be unsubstantiated accusations and social shaming.

In this discombobulating universe, sex-based rights are turned into insults against trans people. Gender-critical feminists are recast as immoral bigots, engaged in deliberately hurtful, even life-threatening, speech. Rowling is not who we thought she was, her ex-fans wail, her characters and plots conceal hidden reservoirs of homophobia and bigotry. A few grandstanders attempt to distinguish themselves by saying that they have always been able to smell a rat—no, not Scabbers—and therefore hated the books from the outset. Nowhere amid this morass of moral grandstanding and outrage is there any serious engagement with her ideas.

Those of us on the left—and left-wing feminists in particular—who find trans ideology fraught, for all the reasons Rowling outlines, are a very small group. While Rowling is clearly privileged, she has also become the figurehead of a rapidly dwindling and increasingly vilified group of feminists, pejoratively labelled terfs, who want to preserve women’s sex-based rights and spaces. Although our arguments align with centrist, conservative and common sense positions, ours is not the prevailing view in academia, public service or the media, arts and culture industries, where we are most likely to be located (when we are not at home with our children). In most of these workplaces, a sex-based rights position is defined a priori as bigoted, indeed as hate speech. It can get us fired, attacked, socially ostracised and even assaulted.

As leftist thinkers who believe in freedom of speech and thought, who find creeping ideological and bureaucratic control alarming, we are horrified by these increasingly vicious denunciations by the left. The centre right and libertarians—the neo-cons, post-liberals and the IDW—are invariably smug about how funny it is to watch the left eat itself. But it’s true: some progressive circles are now defined by a call out/cancel culture to rival that of the most repressive of totalitarian states. Historically, it was progressives who fought against limits on freedom of speech and action. But the digital–identitarian left split off from the old print-based left some time ago, and has become its own beast. A contingent of us are deeply critical of these new directions.

Only a few on the left have had the gumption to speak up for us. Few have even defended our right to express our opinions. Those who have spoken out include former media darlings Germaine Greer and Michael Leunig. Many reader comments on left-leaning news sites claim that Rowling is to blame for the ill treatment she is suffering. Rowling can bask in the consequences of her free speech, they claim, as if having a different opinion from the woke majority means that she is no longer entitled to respect, and that any and all abuse is warranted—or, at least, to be expected. Where is the outrage on her behalf? Where are the writers, film makers, actors and artists defending her right to speak her mind?

Of course, the actors from the Harry Potter films are under no obligation to agree with JK Rowling just because she made them famous. They don’t owe her their ideological fealty: but they owe her better forms of disagreement. When Daniel Radcliffe repeats the nonsensical chant trans women are women, he’s not developing an argument, he’s reciting a mantra. When he invokes experts, who supposedly know more about the subject than Rowling, he betrays his ignorance of how contested the topic of transgender medicine actually is: for example, within endocrinology, paediatrics, psychiatry, sociology, and psychology (the controversies within the latter discipline have been demonstrated by the numerous recent resignations from the prestigious Tavistock and Portman gender identity clinic). The experts are a long way from consensus in what remains a politically fraught field.

Trans women are women is not an engaged reply. It is a mere arrangement of words, which presupposes a faith that cannot be questioned. To question it, we are told, causes harm—an assertion that transforms discussion into a thought crime. If questioning this orthodoxy is tantamount to abuse, then feminists and other dissenters have been gaslit out of the discussion before they can even enter it. This is especially pernicious because feminists in the west have been fighting patriarchy for several hundred years and we do not intend our cause to be derailed at the eleventh hour by an infinitesimal number of natal males, who have decided that they are women. Now, we are told, trans women are women, but natal females are menstruators. I can’t imagine what the suffragists would have made of this patently absurd turn of events.

There has been a cacophony of apologies to the trans community for Rowling’s apparently tendentious and hate-filled words. But no one has paused to apologise to Rowling for the torrent of abuse she has suffered and for being mischaracterised so profoundly.

So, I’m sorry, JK Rowling. I’m sorry that you will not receive the respectful disagreement you deserve: disagreement with your ideas not your person, disagreement with your politics, rather than accusations of wrongspeak. I’m sorry that schools, publishing staff and fan clubs are now cancelling you. And I’m sorry that you will be punished—because cancel culture is all about punishment. I’m sorry that you are being burned at the digital stake for expressing an opinion that goes against the grain.

But remember this, JK—however counterintuitive this may seem to progressives, whose natural home is on the fringe—most people are looking on incredulously at the disconnect between culture and reality. Despite raucous protestations to the contrary, you are on the right side of history—not just because of the points you make, but because of how you make them.

[nclkafilms]

Politically impotent, but highly entertaining courtroom drama

(Review of ‘Trial of the Chicago 7’)

*Warning: contains minor spoilers*

To say that the autumn release of Aaron Sorkin’s ‘The Trial of the Chicago 7’ felt timely following a summer of numerous instances of police brutality against peaceful #BlackLivesMatter protesters would be an understatement. To say that Sorkin’s high speed courtroom drama is revolutionary in any way whether as a film or a contribution to a political debate would - on the other hand - be a serious overstatement. From the sharply constructed and fast paced opening sequence where all our main characters are introduced with fast editing, upbeat music and brilliantly written shifting dialogue, Sorkin’s main mission (or ultimate fate) is clear: ‘Trial’ should above all be entertaining filmmaking.

Its story does not seem as the obvious fit for an entertaining story, however. In the shadows of the Vietnam War’s growing number of fatalities, various protest groups plan to come to Chicago in 1968 for the Democratic Party Convention to voice their contempt towards the US’ involvement in the war and the military service procedures. The protests, however, end in violent confrontations with the Chicago police. In the aftermath of these confrontations the leaders of the different protest groups are prosecuted for inciting riot and breaking various other laws. It is the battle between the Nixon administration and their oppositions represented by Students for a Democratic Society, the Yippies, several smaller figures and for some reason Bobby Seale and the Black Panthers (actually making it the Chicago 8), although they did not take part in the protests. The film follows their trial at the hands of eccentric and controversial Judge Hoffman combined with flashbacks to the events of the protest.

The film won the SAG ensemble award and that stands perhaps as one of the single least surprising awards of this awards season. ‘Trial’ is - as hinted at by the title - an ensemble piece if there ever was one. The film has no real lead, although Eddie Redmayne as Tom Hayden (SDS), Sacha Baron Cohen as Abbie Hoffman (Yippies) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Richard Shultz (Prosecutor) might be at the centre of attention. All involved actors have clearly had a good time with their roles portraying them with great enthusiasm, but for most parts also some degree of limitations.

Redmayne’s Hayden is the typical “good guy” who forgets to stay seated when the group protests the judge and continues to argue with Abbie about their political opinions and especially the manner in which they want them implemented. Redmayne does a decent job, but Hayden never really unfolds as a fully fleshed character to me. I do not feel that Redmayne ever really becomes his character and that is main reason why I never fully connected with him. Baron Cohen has run away with most attention for his portrayal of Abbie Hoffman, which I think partially is down to the fact that he is a somewhat unusually dramatic role for the Borat-actor. Cohen is without a doubt a better actor than he might be acknowledged as, and Abbie allows him a chance to show that. It is, however, still in combination with his classical sarcasm and wit that Cohen fully succeeds with his character. Through a returning stand-up routine throughout the film, Cohen’s Hoffman functions in some ways as a narrator and might be the closest we get to a leading role. He also gets to deliver the most touching lines of dialogue in my opinion as he takes the chair towards the end. Finally Gordon-Levitt tries his best to convey the mixed emotions and increasing doubt as Schultz faces the choice between blind loyalty and his devotion to the law. While I always love to see Gordon-Levitt on the screen, I cannot help but feel that Schultz as a character feels highly constructed and I had a hard time believing him to be that sympathetic towards the Chicago 7.

In many ways, I found Mark Strong as Jerry Rubin, John Carroll Lynch as Dave Dellinger and Mark Rylance as the defendants’ attorney, William Kunstler, to be more fascinating characters than both Hayden and Schultz in particular. Mark Strong continues to be more and more interesting and his Jerry Rubin is easily the most enjoyable character along with Cohen’s Hoffman. Strong, too, manages to balance the vulnerability of the sometimes blue-eyed Yippies with their sarcastic distancing and humour-driven protests in the courtroom. I actually believed in his character, when both the protests and the juridical proceedings become too overwhelming for him and he snaps in various ways. Carroll Lynch is an almost criminally underused actor and here I, too, would have liked to explore his character more as he feels so different from the remaining defendants. With the limited material he gets, he manages to create a sympathetic character. The same can be said about Rylance, who uses all of his theatricality as be battles with Frank Langella’s overdone Judge Hoffman. Langella gives it everything and then some to make Hoffman as unscrupulous, derailed and amoral as possible, which ultimately cooled my resentment towards him. He ended up feeling like a caricature more than an actual character and for that, way less scarier.

How come - despite all the characters’ flaws and limitations - that the film is still entertaining, then? Well, the main answer is Aaron Sorkin. While he is still to fully proof himself as a director (Molly’s Game also had some issues), he still is one hell of a writer. You can accuse him (rightly so) of over-writing his stuff, taking to many freedoms with his source material and balancing on the edge of using too much pathos, but it is hard to resist his razor sharp dialogues and tongue-in-cheek one-liners. He is no stranger to courtroom dramas and it is clear that he is on home-turf with all of these juridical and political exchanges of beliefs. For this reason, alone, ‘Trial’ never feels dull or slow. Additionally, this is aided by an often fast-paced editing and the fact, that it never dwells to long on one point before moving on to the next.

This, however, also stands as the main reason as to why the film never feels anything other than impotent as a political work. It never gets too dangerous or too controversial. It gets most dangerous, when it comes to the inclusion and portrayal of Bobby Seale and the Black Panthers. As Seale, extremely talented Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, is highly forgettable mainly down to the fact that Seale is reduced to a prop in the overall story. During the film, the court is accused of including Seale in the trial in order to scare the jury with a black man; adding a layer of racial injustice to the story. But in reality, it also feels as if Seale’s story line has been added to the film to “tick off” the race box; Fred Hampton is also thrown in there as Seale’s legal counsellor with his untimely death just briefly touched upon. The story of Seale, Hampton and the Panthers deserve more time, more attention and more gravity than given here; an initial opinion of mine that was only made clearer after watching ‘Judas and the Black Messiah’.

Ultimately, ‘The Trial of the Chicago 7’ is a highly flawed film and as a political work it stands as oddly harmless and undaring considering its timing and topic. However, thanks to another fast paced and sharp script by Aaron Sorkin, inspired performances from its all-star ensemble lead by Baron Cohen and Jeremy Strong and interesting plot it ends up as a highly entertaining courtroom film. A well-looking, satisfying meal, although it does not last for too long and leaves a somewhat questionable taste in the very back of my mouth.

4/5