#people are dying and being tortured

[random-fandork]

I'm fucking exhausted.

[mikakuna]

i see this jason todd who actually looks his very young age (instead of the 30yr old man that comics like to portray)

and feel my heart breaking just imagining bruce beating him up, almost killing him, mind-breaking him, and just overall being a total piece of shit father towards him.

a huge chunk of the reason why people don't view bruce's actions towards jason as abusive or wrong is because jason doesn't look his age. he's drawn to be this 35yr old father of three who looks even older than dick (and way too on par with bruce) that people see their fights as one between batman and any of his regular rogues. when they fight, it just looks like batman is fighting a man his age and not an actual young person. it doesn't look like batman is fighting his son who's barely even drinking age (and who def wasn't drinking age in utrh). their fights are portrayed in a way that eliminates the very real power struggle between them.

this applies to jason's entire character as well. a lot of people don't sympathize with how he died or his actions as robin or his fights with the other bats because he doesn't look his age. he always looks older and scarier than everyone else. tim has many sympathizers from the titans tower incident because jason just looked like a grown man fighting a 12yr old (even tho i disagree, tim was built and like 17 lmfao).

anyways, i just wish comics would actually draw jason to look his age, which literally ranges from 19 to early twenties. he's young- so young, and it's so annoying to see him drawn and written as someone older than even bruce.

[mermaidsirennikita]

frustrating levels of discourse continue happening on twt ugh https://x.com/lara_e_brown/status/1839303817256645101

Lol yeah, I've honestly just given up on reading takes like that because once you've seen one, you've seen 'em all.

It's an extremely shallow reading, using things like "pale", which you can in fact be while having a darker complexion, with both examples relating less to a physical appearance and more to his aspect in the moment (his face is "white" because he's scared; he's "pale and effeminate" because he's in a wan and weakened state). And I say "both" because you tend to come up with faaaar fewer examples of the text relating Heathcliff as pale than... not.

I also find it funny that this user uses Heathcliff marrying Isabella as an example of why he MUST be white, when Heathcliff and Isabella literally run away together because nobody wants them to be together, PARTICULARLY her brother, and this rips the Linton family asunder. Almost as if.......... it was............... breaking a taboo......................

Like, yeah! 18th century Yorkshire wouldn't have accepted that marriage. And if there's one thing we know about Heathcliff—if it's not accepted, he's not gonna do it.

One of the entire points of his character is that he lives against law and taboo and societal norms (while at the same time being deeply aware of the fact that his existence doesn't gel with them). In that thread, that user references the Byronic hero, with the name drawing from Lord Byron and his own literary fascinations. Byron was obsessed with taboo, lived to break them (most famously the taboo of sleeping with people of the same sex, and probably the taboo of incest as well... COME TO MY TED TALK TO DISCUSS HOW THAT COULD RELATE TO HEATHCLIFF, ALSO). One of the reasons why more recent scholarship (and I don't even mean super recent) surrounding Wuthering Heights has come to terms with the interpretation of Heathcliff as a man of color is that he does embody the taboo even more.

And obviously... some taboos (the incest one) exist for a reason. But the book also seems interested in questioning how much we really gain by treating someone (someone like Heathcliff) as other and wrong simply for existing. Again, we go into the cycle of abuse.

I also find it rather belittling of people to refer to general 18th and 19th century values when discussing how people "would have" seen Heathcliff, or interpreted the text. Because, for one thing—yeah! A lot of contemporary readers did not in fact Get It. Perhaps in part because they did have the biases that people like that user seem to believe would have prevented the author from exploring Heathcliff as a man of color.

... But if Emily Bronte thought exactly as the detractors of her novel (who condemned it as wicked and aberrant) did, she never would have written the book, I think. Who's to say, though? It's difficult for EITHER side to make leaps about what Emily knew or thought, because she is someone who didn't live very long, has been portrayed as an eccentric (and perhaps even maligned by Elizabeth Gaskell's portrayal of her) and definitely had something of an offbeat upbringing. We just don't have much directly from HER. So it's a bit rich to me to make assumptions about the kind of limited worldview she may have had on topics like race, when we really do not have a lot of definitive information about her worldview, but DO know that the book she wrote, which some theorize to be about a man of color, REALLY upset some conventional readers.

Like... why would you contextualize that book within a purely conventional reading when the entire reason why Wuthering Heights matters is that it defies convention?

I do shy away from using the word "canonical" to describe Heathcliff's race, because while I know what people mean when they say it (and I'm sure I've said it at some point) it's just a word choice that people like that user will latch on to. Like I've said before, there is no way to prove with 100% certainty Heathcliff's race either way. Which isn't to say that you have to do so to state that he's a man of color. It's just the kind of pedantic strategy people will use in threads like these.

And I'll notice, too, that she omits Nelly's line wherein she speculates that Heathcliff's mother could be Chinese or Indian. I mean, what's her take on that specificity combined with the lascar speculation? No mention of Liverpool relating to people... not... from America or Spain...?

I do worry sometimes that people see someone's major concentration (say, if someone has a BA in English or something, which for the record I don't) and go "Damn, that's end-all, be-all" A) it's not, there's more to research than getting a degree B) you could also use literal wikipedia footnotes to kickstart your own deeper dive into this, there are tons of people who've made careers discussing books like WH debating the issue C) having a degree of any level never kicks your bias.

To go back to my own degree... I knew old art historians who saw nothing gay at all in Michelangelo's work. You can know a lot about a lot, and it doesn't mean you have an open mind.

I think anyone can read WH, do some research about the era and Emily, and drawn their own conclusions. And you are just going to have to make your conclusions based on your own assessment. There is no smoking gun here, and there never will be because the smoking gun would be a living Emily Bronte willingly telling you what she meant.

And I didn't read Heathcliff as a person of color from the jump, for the record. I was thirteen when I read that book for the first time; I'm white; I picked that book in the context of it being a Great English Classic, and as far as I knew, those were all about white people. Because... that's what you were taught about WH at the time, at least where I was.

But when I was first introduced to that interpretation some time later, it was a literal "OH!" moment. Because like... yeah. There isn't a smoking gun for Dorian Gray's sexuality (and yes, we know a lot more about Oscar Wilde than we do about Emily Bronte; but the absence of knowledge of Emily's interests and attitudes doesn't mean we can assume she DIDN'T have an interest in writing Heathcliff as a person of color) but The Picture of Dorian Gray makes way more sense when you interpret his queerness for what it is. Wuthering Heights makes way more sense when you interpret Heathcliff's race for what it is.

[baby-girl-aaron-dessner]

Celebrity worshipping stans on Twitter have become upset over Taylor Swift not posting on Twitter anymore due to the #SwiftiesForPalestine movement trying to hold her accountable for her silence. It has caused a lot of division within the fandom.

The celebrity worshipping stans who infantilise the 34-year old billionaire are extremely upset:

The fans who care about genocide and social issues also react:

[helpimstuckposting]

Anti-Sterek people are funny to me because like oh yeah sure I just stare at my friends lips all the time, I get as close as possible to their face as I can and then just stare at their lips. You know what else I do? Hold their mothers prized possession for fifteen years after they’ve left, I keep it right where I see it, fix it up all the time, and I have super complicated feelings about it. I also name my first child after the same grandparent they use the name of, I do that for all my purely platonic friends. Just dudes being bros, bros being dudes

[sashisuse]

free geto from the shackles of jjk twt’s lack of reading comprehension 😣😣

[the-paris-of-people]

The past couple days online have been... interesting. I consider myself a leftist, think capitalism is corrupt, and think that it needs to be seriously reformed/overthrown. I admit that while I've thrown around phrases and terms like "burn it all down" and "the revolution needs to come" out of frustration without actually thinking about what a revolution entails: excellent organization, unity, and strategy to defeat the United States, the world's largest military superpower which has inflicted political and social destabilization across the majority of countries around the world. There also needs to be superb infrastructure and community to support the disabled, elderly, and poor populations who rely on government assistance and programs, healthcare, and accommodations while this so-called revolution rages on.

All I've received from the far leftist movement are lectures from condescending intellectuals who rattle off academic citations regarding ideological theory rather than practical, tangible steps to advocate for change in our local and regional communities. I have not seen one of them actually discuss conversations they've had with their friends, family, or Americans about what they want to see reflected for the future of the country. I have not seen one of them discussed how destructive, detrimental and traumatic a Trump presidency was for social prejudice and morale in the United States. I understand that for many marginalized groups they've been living in a facist state for centuries so the possibility Project 2025 doesn't galvanize them to see the two parties differently, but I don't think it is fair to white leftists falsely equivocate the election of both parties for the entire American population at all??? Or like at least specify the issues you're referring to in which you view both parties as the same????? Literally one TikTok creator who I used to follow talked about how true leftists are so much better than liberals because they aren't waiting for a presidential candidate to save the world NOW due to the accelerated apocalypse due to climate change but when asked how to change the world they suggest sharing ideas of your future utopia with other leftist groups. How the fuck is sitting around talking about living in a walkable community is great considered "saving the world now"? How are you going to dismantle and restructure American infrastructure to create these communities? How are you going to remove existing racial and social tensions to create a community where everyone lives happily side by side? Do people not consider reality at all?????

And is it not wrong for people to have a fucking sliver of optimism and hope at incremental change that's achieved within the corrupt bipartisan system of American politics, even if they know it's propaganda??? Is it wrong for people to have a singular fucking moment of relief in feeling like their values, beliefs, and lives will be better protected and THEY can advocate for change better??? Is it wrong when there's a couple months until the most pressing election in recent history for people to make the choice they feel will reduce the most amount of harm???

[girlbob-boypants]

You know there actually *is* a really interesting read to be had with Jade Shadows through the lens of how when a man's political beliefs uphold oppressive systems (even to his own detriment), it does often come with a similar belief that his wife's body is His to decide what to do with.

It creates the question would Jade have survived if her husband was willing to change his ways or swallow his pride sooner? Will he even see it as that or does he still believe it was his choice to deny her the medical expertise of the Tenno's Cephalon because he's pro Imperialism and the Tenno are revolutionaries?

[tenebrous-academic]

Actually I can’t stop thinking about the way Watcher dropped the news on the same day as the release of TTPD. Did they…think that it would somehow cause us to associate it with they hype of a new album? Or were they hoping the news cycle would focus on Taylor and let them sneak this one by us? We know they have swifties on staff - what was the thought process here?

[girl-drink-drunk]

nah, i'm not letting the reveal distract me from the cruel jokes made once again about sharon and the fact that alice also died for nothing

[lord-squiggletits]

Something else that makes me sympathetic to Pharma's situation is like. Idk if there's an actual term for this or if someone smarter and more academic wrote it about some real life context that actually matters.

But, so we've already established among Pharma stans that the circumstances at Delphi were blackmail/torture with no real way out that wouldn't involve Pharma being responsible for people getting killed (either killing patients for the deal or having everyone die bc he failed his end of the deal).

And I feel like while "he's still in the wrong because he killed people" is part of it, another sort of implicit part is the idea that Pharma should've been willing to take more personal risk, maybe even risk dying? I mean, Ratchet does ask "why didn't you just detonate it near the DJD" (to which Pharma responds that he did try to get Sonic and Boom to do it, but they refused) so like

Idk I feel like we do have this social notion of martyrs as a very romantic ideal, people you can praise for being so brave and strong and righteous that they ended their own lives for their cause, while you can also coo about how sad and tragic it is that dying is what it took for them to do the right thing. But at the same time I feel like in reality, having an expectation that people become martyrs is kind of a toxic social norm bc like. It's very easy to demand that others sacrifice their lives for some Ultimate Moral Good when you yourself aren't experiencing the same hardships as they are. And ultimately it is kind of fucked up to tell someone "the moral thing you should've done was risk your life/kill yourself" because asking someone to pay their life to do the right thing is no small request. And sure, the typical response would be to call them a "coward" for caring more about saving their own skin instead of doing the right thing... but again, death is a really scary thing and self-preservation is a really strong instinct, so it kind of feels like having this binary view of "you're either a Brave Hero who sacrifices your life for everyone else or a Dirty Coward who's too scared of dying to do what's right" is kind of fucked up?

I guess the best way to describe it is that if someone willingly gives up their life as a sacrifice to others, it can be a noble thing because it's a choice they made willingly, but if it becomes a Moral Standard that in order to be a Good Person you have to be unafraid of throwing your life away and if you aren't willing to die you're a Cowardly Bad Person, that's when it becomes toxic.

Idk, I guess how this ties back to Pharma is that he was never in a position where he expected to make these kinds of moral decisions/ultimatums. He's a doctor who doesn't even get into combat, his job is to heal and not to kill, he's behind the front lines in a hospital that's supposed to be a safe, neutral place for him to heal people. So in the face of suddenly having a "murder people on behalf of me, or I murder everyone you swore to protect" ultimatum thrust upon him, I understand why Pharma wasn't """"""""""brave enough"""""""""" to "do the right thing" (whatever that would've been in the case of Delphi). You could argue that maybe a frontliner soldier accepted the burden of possibly dying for their cause and they've become used to it as someone who lives that reality every single day, but I feel like for Pharma, who's a doctor and a protected non-combatant (from what we can tell), that sort of risking of his life/living with the fact his life could be snuffed out any day isn't something he would've been prepared for at all.

And for me personally, from an outsider's perspective, it strikes me as kind of unethical to go "oh well he should've just detonated the bomb himself even if it killed him" bc again, there's a difference between witnessing a moral conundrum as a bystander versus being the person living with it and being under time pressure where it's do-or-die. Just as part of my personal standards, I feel like death is such a huge consequence/burden of someone's actions (literally you are no longer alive, any potential you had left is cut short, you cease to exist on this plane) that it feels rather callous to go "Well you should've just been willing to die for your beliefs if you really cared that much!!!"

[eric-the-disposable-demon]

hey uh im not coming back just yet I just wanted to say I love yall

[audhdnight]

A woman I’ve known my whole life, who has shown me nothing but kindness, has been campaigning against every single pro-Palestine post I put on Facebook. And maybe it’s naive, but I’m honestly so angry and heartbroken because I thought I fucking knew this person. I thought she was a good and thoughtful and honest woman. She helped raise me. And this is the shit she’s commenting on all my posts

And when she messaged me to ask about my facts, I (again, naively) thought she actually did want to hear what I had to say. But no. “I am actually looking for the truth and I truly would like to hear where you got these ideas” apparently means nothing of the sort. It means “I want an opening to tell you every source you provide is invalid and to tell you to read a book called The Case For Israel”. It means “I am not interested in truth because I’ve actually already decided what I think is true and nothing you show me can change my mind”.

And she’s like best friends with my mother who is so conflict avoidant she won’t tell me to stop posting but she does keep telling me to “remember that every side has their own story” and to “maybe take a break because this seems to really have upset you”.

Why the fuck can they not see what is right in front of their fucking faces????? It’s like I’m screaming from inside a sound proof room. Literally the only friend I have who agrees with me has family in the military and she has already been threatened what would happen if she were to express any anti-Israel or anti-Zionist sentiments whatsoever. She legally cannot say anything. So I’m here alone, spiraling because what the hell is wrong with people???? Why am I the only one I know who cares???

[monpalace]

I’m thinking thots at work, what do we think Wild’s [Name] would be like? -🧚🏽‍♀️

i feel like she'd be the leash that stops him from literally killing himself with whatever dumbshit that comes to mind and wild's the puppy that finds something (in this case, [name]) and refuses to leave it?

maybe she's someone who works at the castle who survived the calamity and was put into something like the chamber of resurrection in hopes they'd find each other and she'd keep him from doing more dumb shit because someone realized "hey, [name] and zelda are the only ones link listens to. they're literally his impulse control. but zelda's not here and [name]'s not immortal, so we should probably put her in like, a cryo-chamber or something" and then handed her off to the sheikah and said "do something please"

or she's some sort of mysterious figure who always appears out of nowhere (and gets to places you'd least expect to find them in) and isn't there when you turn around to look at them? like, maybe she showed up on the great plateau when wild first woke up, was questioned by the king as to how she got there, she just hits him with a "don't worry 'bout it sweetheart," and sticks with wild until he's ready before literally disappearing once he lands on the ground outside the great plateau? then at some point, he finds her again, asks where she's been, and he gets hit with "i was out having fun and getting what i needed to be done," before sticking with him for a few more days and ultimately disappearing again

imagine if she just showed up in the lost woods while he was about to get the master sword and absolutely scared him with "you'll probably want to get more health for that. it'll knock a lot out of you." "how do you know?" "just know that i know and be thankful that i told you," before going off to trade with some koroks and disappearing??

or what if she's a good friend of link's (or lover. idk) that died over the course of the hundred years he's been asleep? she's a ghost like the king, but because she doesn't have to guide him and help him relearn things (the king took that upon himself), she's just there to keep him company? because either zelda or the gerudo (keeping the geurdo to my heart no matter what 🤞🏽) managed to turn her into a spirit/ghost that's not exactly similar to the champions in the sense she isn't stuck to one spot/person and has her own separate set of rules? maybe she's not able to be seen by anyone else except wild so he has to do this, that, and the third to not look insane when she's talking to him in front of people? then, when everything's said and done, she doesn't disappear like the champions or the king because she's was created by the gerudo/zelda?-- or, if zelda made her, she's significantly weaker than 100 years before (and grows weaker the longer wild takes to beat ganon) since zelda's grown weaker as well, but as time passes post-ganon's defeat, she grows stronger?

[televenus]

it would be so much easier if my special interest was like fucking genshin or something what the hell man