#plan b 2009 | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

batshit-auspol · 1 year ago

Note

have we talked about the woolworths debacle yet?

Sigh.

Alright kids strap in, because the culture wars are back and stupider than ever.

So there are two characters you need to be familiar with in this story before we continue:

Woolies (i.e. Woolworths) - One of two supermarket chains in Australia. Not related to the giant Woolworths chain that used to exist overseas, other than the Aussie one swiped the name because the original forgot to trademark the name 'Woolworths' here. Biggest company in Aus, and also the biggest employer. Not a brand anyone with more than two braincells would pick a fight with.

Peter Dutton - Man with less than two braincells, and current leader of the political opposition in Australia. Best known for bearing a passing resemblance to a potato and once demanding that a homophobic song get played for balance when a football halftime show performed 'Same Love'. His reputation is so bad that if you told an Australian that Dutton's favorite pastime was drowning puppies, they probably would believe you.

And to prove our point, here's the best headline a friendly newspaper could come up with to try spin his image:

The third thing you need to know is that in Australia we have a national holiday called "Australia Day" which is basically a scheduled day for everyone to get into a giant argument.

This is because for the last 30ish years it has been held on the anniversary of the British claiming the land around Sydney as a colony which was:

a) More the founding of an English prison then the founding of Australia, and more importantly

b) from the perspective of the people who were already living here, kindof a very shit day

Now not everyone agrees on this, and even those that don't 'celebrate' will often still have a get together with friends, but it can't be denied that we've shifted a long way from the days when the country used to celebrate Australia Day by kitting ourselves out in Aussie flag budgie smugglers, drinking enough beer to drown Harold Holt, and partying like it's 1789.

(Now a brief break for a real photo of Peter Dutton at a press conference)

Good luck sleeping tonight. Anyway back to the story.

As a result of this shift away from the trend of showing your patriotism by wearing Australian flag underpants, this year Woolworths decided that they were no longer going to be rolling out their box of southern cross thongs - on the grounds that "this kitschy shit never sells" and they are far too busy with more important things like blaming price gouging on inflation and installing self-checkout machines that think your canvas bag is a crime against humanity.

Never a man to miss an opportunity to act like a massive twat, upon hearing that Woolies had dumped their flag merch, Peter Dutton rushed onto the airwaves to declare that Woolworths had "gone woke" (paging 4chan circa 2009) and called for the country to boycott the store, a story which Australia's media have gleefully put on loudhale for over a week now in order to drive outrage clicks.

We at this point remind you that Woolworths is a company which, as we previously mentioned, basically has a monopoly on selling food in this country. Not exactly something you can boycott.

(Another real Dutton photo break)

Needless to say Dutton's dumbass plan did not immediately put Woolies out of business, however the relentless media campaign by Rupert Murdoch's minions did result in a bunch of innocent low-wage floor staff being harrassed by The Dark Lord's fanboys and a few Woolies stores were graffitied.

Allegedly being the 'free market' guy, Dutton also kindof snookered himself by demanding the free market not decide the fate of Australia day, but logic was never one of his strong suits.

Anyway, in the end we're just going to keep having this dumb circular argument every year, fulled by a media who love fanning the flames, until a politician has the guts to shift the date to May 8 (pronounced m8), and everyone promptly forgets this was ever a thing.

All in all, that's the long and the short of it. As a final touch we'll leave you with this real tweet by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, in all its batshit glory.

We look forward to the absolute dumpster fire of comments this post is going to generate - as is the Australia Day tradition.

#australia #auspol #batshit

3K notes · View notes

stra-tek · 3 months ago

Text

Big random list of things that NEARLY happened in Star Trek with no context or citation...

Harry Kim was to appear in Picard season 3 as a Captain (possibly of the Voyager-B)

Sarek was to use the Guardian of Forever to go back in time to become Surak of Vulcan, in a Next Gen episode

An episode was pitched where an NX-01 med tech played by Alice Krige was captured and assimilated by the Borg, becoming their queen

A Star Trek movie was almost made about undoing the Kelvin Universe, and would have had Shatner and Nimoy appear

They considered having Will Riker die, Data become first officer and Thomas Riker the Ops officer in TNG's "Second Chances"

JJ Abrams wanted Nichelle Nichols to cameo as the mother of Zoe Saldana's Uhura

The first season of Enterprise was to be set on Earth, culminating with the launch of NX-01 at the end of the season

They considered a shock reveal in ENT season 4 that it was actually the Vulcans who split off from the Romulans, and Romulus was their original homeworld

William Shatner wanted to return as Kirk from the Mirror Universe, in an Enterprise episode that involved time travel and creating the mirror universe with the transporter

Elnor was going to "explore his sexuality" in early Picard season 2 plans, before a change of showrunner and his character mostly vanishing

The ENT writers wanted Shatner to play Chef, a Kirk look-a-like hired by Daniels and trained to act Kirk-like to give an important speech at some point in history the real Kirk is mysteriously absent from

Data was originally created by mysterious aliens, and was to have a twin sister

Prodigy season 2 writers discussed having Chris Pine's Kirk from the Kelvin universe join the crew for a few episodes

In the originally filmed cut of Star Trek: Generations, Kirk is shot in the back and dies

Very early discussions for what eventually became Star Trek: Picard considered an adaptation of the Star Trek: Destiny novel trilogy

These discussions span off from a Short Treks pitch where a young cadet Jean-Luc Picard met Nichelle Nichols' Uhura

Early plans for the 2009 movie had wholesale destruction of the Prime universe, including the destruction of Earth. Thank Perpetual Entertainment for getting the destruction scaled back to Romulus so Star Trek Online had a Federation left to feature

There's was a story treatment written for Star Trek III: The Search for Spock where Spock stays dead

This one might be a little sus, but Christopher Pike in Discovery season 2 was planned to be very religious and fall to his knees at one point before the Red Angel, and clash with Michael over science vs faith

Early ideas for Star Trek Into Darkness had Benedict Cumberbatch as Robert April, former Enterprise captain turned rogue

Seven of Nine was going to sacrifice herself in order for Voyager to get home

A time travel Justice League of Trek movie by Brent Spiner, bringing together all eras of goodies vs all eras of villains, was considered

Spock shot JFK to fix the timeline in a proposed sequel to The Motion Picture

Ripper/Ephraim was originally going to be a regular, if giant tardigrade, crewmember on Discovery

Prior to Leonard Nimoy's involvement in what would become the 2009 Star Trek movie, a story outline was written about prime-universe cadets Kirk and Spock, in a story inspired by TNG's "The First Duty"

The Enterprise crew went through a black hole, back in time and introduced primative man to fire in another 70's movie script

A TNG movie was written where Picard summons a hologram of James T. Kirk for advice

George Kirk was to be found in the pattern buffer of the wrecked U.S.S. Kelvin 30 years later and resurrected

Voyager's EMH was originally to take on the name of his creator early on in the show, and the first Voyager novels call him "Doc Zimmerman" assuming it would have happened by publishing time

There's concept art where the U.S.S. Cerritos is a Galaxy-class starship

Riker was planned to dislike Data, and treat him poorly because he was an android

They considered making Troi's loss of powers in "The Loss" a permanent thing, because of how much hassle they caused the writing staff

Harry Kim wasn't originally planned to survive Species 8472

#star trek #star trek discovery #star trek aos #star trek the original series #star trek picard #strange new worlds #tng #the next generation #deep space nine #star trek voyager #star trek prodigy #short treks

408 notes · View notes

hyperfixatinator · 6 months ago

Text

Where is the line?

In the comics, Tim Drake's moral code is an enigma to me, particularly his stance on the Batclan's no-kill rule. For all the fans who say he's always one step away from full blown villainy, there are even more saying he's a strict goody two-shoes who could never stoop that low.

Then there's the different takes on where Tim draws the line between these two extremes. Personally, I find that line hard to pinpoint. Digging for canon demonstrations of his morals has lead me to more questions than answers. My biggest question right now is:

What counts as breaking the no-kill rule in Tim's eyes?

Luckily, the Robins 2021 comics shed some light on this. In issue #3, "Tim", or rather an imposter of him, said that choosing not to save someone isn't the same as killing them, and that letting a villain die can be a way to get justice. Normally, this point would be moot since it's not Tim himself who said it. However, at the end of issue #6, the real Tim clarified that what the imposter said WAS his real opinion on the matter.

Not only that, but Tim has shown this belief through his thoughts and actions before. Twice.

The first time goes all the way back to Robin 1991 #5. During the fight against King Snake, Tim kicked him through a nearby window, fifty stories above the ground. As King Snake's life hung in the balance, Shiva appeared and commanded Tim to kill him.

Tim refused. He walked away, leaving King Snake entirely at Shiva's mercy.

What gets me is that Tim made no move to save King Snake from falling. And he made no effort to stop Shiva from committing the murder, either. His only thought as he heard the man's scream was "Fifty stories is a long way to fall."

The second time was in Red Robin 2009 #26. Tim orchestrated a whole plan to manipulate Captain Boomerang into getting killed by Mr. Freeze. The whole time, Tim blamed Captain Boomerang for making all those bad choices, despite Tim being the one raising the chances of them being made. Tim believed he was innocent because he wasn't directly participating.

Tim then stopped that plan, but not for any noble reason. He decided that he couldn't let anyone else kill Captain Boomerang but himself.

Tim couldn't bring himself to do that, either. So he had to spare his father's killer in the end.

This seems pretty cut and dry so far, right? Tim believing that letting villains die is alright as long he doesn't do the deed himself? I'd think so too, if there weren't other moments contradicting this.

In Robin #35, Steph insisted on leaving an enemy who got buried under the snow to die. Tim chastised her for it.

Neither of them were responsible for the snow, or for the enemy getting trapped in it. Plus, that guy tried to kill them with a chainsaw moments prior, so he's not exactly an innocent damsel in distress.

Maybe it was because this enemy wasn't a big enough fish to fry. We didn't really get confirmation that this guy has actually killed before, and he's around goon status at best.

But then in Robin #46, Tim chose to save another enemy who got himself into a deadly situation. That enemy was a murderer known as Young El. This time, Tim wasn't telling anyone else why they should save a murderer's life out loud. These were his private thoughts.

Notice how Tim's inner monologue sounded kind of on-the-fence. He contemplated justice finally catching up with Young El as the floorboards gave way, bringing a support beam down on him in the process.

However, Tim immediately switched gears to rescue Young El from under that beam before the water rose too high.

But Tim, as he told Young El the reasons he's saving him, asked himself "Do I even believe what I'm saying?" He could be asking this about two different things he said here. A) "Maybe it's not too late for you to learn something, Young El.", or B) "Death's easier for you when it's the other guy. Death's never been easy for me."

For Tim to doubt his belief in either of these statements is very interesting. He could be questioning if Young El is already too far gone for redemption, or he could be questioning if seeing someone die has never been easy for himself. For all we know, it could be both.

Unfortunately, Tim never got to see if his choice to save him would pay off. Tim wasn't strong enough to lift that beam, and Young El drowned.

There's a question on my mind as I read these pages. What makes this murderer's death different from when Tim let King Snake fall to his "death"? Sure, King Snake didn't actually die, but Tim didn't know that until later when the man came looking for revenge in Gotham.

Tim was once able to simply walk away from what he was certain would be a killer's demise. But then he's consumed by guilt over not being able to prevent a different killer's death down the line, to the point of hallucinating.

On top of that, what changed Tim's mind later? Red Robin #26 and Robins 2021 #3-6 still happened in the future. The only significant difference I can tell is that these two comics involved the killer's of Tim's parents, making it personal. But if the Imposter from Robins 2021 got his beliefs from his profile before his mother's killer got involved, then does that still hold up?

Maybe we should put a pin on it for now. There are other things Tim's done that brings the details of his no-kill rule into question.

Such as that one time Tim actually killed someone with his bare hands.

In Robin issues #51-52, Tim accidentally killed Lady Shiva while drugged on amarilla, a plant that enhances the user's speed beyond human limitations.

It may be argued if the amarilla altered Tim's mind enough to excuse him of fault or not. However, I want to focus on what happened after Shiva was revived. Here's another question to go with the first one:

Does Tim believe the kill still counts if the victim was revived afterwards?

From what I've gathered, yes and no. It's kind of complicated.

After Tim killed Shiva, he was understandably distressed about it, about how he can never take it back.

But after Shiva came back to life? Nothing. He didn't dwell on the fact he broke the vow to never kill. For something that devastating to happen in his life, it's odd that Tim didn't bring it up ever again, privately or otherwise. Especially considering what happened later in Robin #123, when Tim thought he killed Johnny Warlock.

Tim was utterly inconsolable. He lost all faith in his abilities as Robin, and in himself as a whole. It also contributed to his decision to quit being Robin after his dad found out. In general, he seriously dwelled on that "kill" for a much longer time than he had after killing Shiva. The difference being that he knew Shiva was resuscitated immediately afterwards, while Tim didn't know Johnny survived until issue #141.

But there's the fact that Shiva really did die. Her heart and breathing both stopped. So are we to believe Tim moved on from that so easily because she's alive now? What happened to never getting that back?

Come to think of it, not long after Tim killed and revived Shiva, there was someone else who landed in that same boat. Dick.

In Joker: The Last Laugh #6, Dick brutally attacked the Joker after believing he killed Tim. Dick ended up accidentally killing Joker instead, before the clown was resuscitated.

Here's the thing. While Tim was trying to comfort Dick, saying that it's ok because Joker's alive now, Dick didn't believe so. He was still distraught that he killed someone. The fact Joker came back to life afterwards didn't matter to him. To Dick, it still counted. So what does that say about Tim?

Before we move on, there's another person Tim knows who also died and came back from the grave. Jason.

Tim openly acknowledged Jason was killed before coming back, too. Multiple times. For example, when they met up in Red Hood and the Outlaws 2011 #8.

Tim hadn't shown any signs that he thinks Jason's murder doesn't count anywhere, except for maybe once.

In Knight Terrors: Robin #2, Tim and Jason had a heart-to-heart, and Tim said something strange.

"You survived."

Except Jason didn't survive. He died. To say Jason survived that night would've meant he never died to begin with. Him being alive now doesn't change that. Was this Tim telling a white lie to make Jason feel better? Or does Tim see being revived after death as "surviving"?

Ok, now we can move onto the next question. Or rather, bear with me as we go back to the first question. It's a broad topic with plenty more to talk about.

What does Tim count as breaking the no-kill rule?

We already asked how Tim feels about bringing villains back from the dead after killing them. And we asked how Tim feels about leaving a villain to die without getting directly involved. However, we still don't know how much involvement Tim needs to have in an enemy's death before he'll take responsibility for it.

We can confirm he won't mercy kill in Red Robin #21, even if it means giving someone a fate worse than death. No exceptions.

Tim also doesn't allow anyone he's actively teaming up with to kill, especially if he's the one in command. He's been amicable with known killers before (Huntress and Pru, for example), but only when they remain non-lethal while working alongside him.

Apart from that, though, it becomes less clear. However, I think this is a good place to expand on when Tim blew up a lot of League of Assassins bases in Red Robin #8.

I'm not going into whether or not those explosions actually killed anyone. I've seen evidence supporting both sides of this debate, so I'm just going to say it's up to interpretation. What I AM talking about is whether or not Tim would've felt responsible if they had killed someone.

Before overloading every generator in the LOA database, Tim gave a warning to the Wanderer. He told her that he couldn't be held responsible for what would happen to her if she didn't leave.

After initiating the explosions, Tim warned the White Ghost that they had fifteen seconds to leave before it was too late.

Fifteen seconds. That explanation on the mistake of letting him in might've taken roughly another fifteen to twenty seconds. Did the other bases even get a full minute head start? The way some of the people were already running away could imply they at least got a warning, but it's possible they might not have.

Even if everyone in every base received a warning, would that be enough for Tim to avoid holding himself accountable if they didn't make it out in time? Tim's the one who rigged the bases to explode, but I guess giving someone a warning means it's now their fault for not heeding it?

We can't be sure he even considered the possibility of those explosions killing anyone. Tim knew they were dangerous enough to bring the whole Cradle down, and the other ones we saw looked pretty powerful (except the ones in Ra's hideout). But Tim also called Ra's a murderer right after that happened, which would've been very hypocritical if Tim himself thought he committed murder.

So, my guess is either A) Tim relied on sheer luck for those explosions not causing any casualties and chose to believe they hadn't, or B) Tim didn't believe the deaths of anyone caught in them would be his fault.

Again, this isn't about whether or not blowing up the LOA bases killed anyone. It's about how willing Tim was to take that risk, and if he would've blamed himself for anyone getting killed from it.

Either way, it's canon that Tim had no guilt for the explosions he caused, or for anything he did before Red Robin #22. Just ask the Sword of Sin.

This is an exerpt I got from the Fandom DC Database on the Sword of Sin:

"The Sword of Sin can be ignited with the mind of the wielder, if the person is powerful enough. The sword has the ability to conjure in the mind its victims all of the sins for which they are guilty or have not atoned for."

When Tim was stabbed with this sword, he was immune. The Sword of Sin decided he was innocent. Although, I have to ask how reliable this sword was in making that judgement. If the sword is judging others based on its own set principles, then something's not right here.

The Sword of Sin was also used on Dick, and he wasn't immune. It dug into Dicks subconscious and unearthed memories he'd long since repressed. Memories of himself watching a boy get beaten to near death, and then doing nothing. He just walked away.

Now, tell me why the sword brought this to light, but not the time Tim left King Snake to die!

It wasn't an accident. Tim deliberately chose to leave instead of trying to save this man from the murderous Lady Shiva. Sure, Tim was no match for Shiva and he might've not been able to stop her, but the same could be said for an eight year old Dick not stopping a group of much older kids. Neither of them tried to stop the attackers.

Tim didn't atone for it, either. When King Snake returned in Batman #469, Bruce told King Snake that it wasn't Tim who left him to die. We know that's a lie, but Tim never corrected this. He let Shiva take all the blame.

We have two instances of a boy choosing not to prevent someone from having a near death experience. One guilty, and one innocent.

Did the Sword of Sin think Tim was justified because King Snake was corrupt? That doesn't sound holy to me.

Was it because Tim didn't feel any guilt over it, while Dick did? Can the sword's judgement be thrown off by the victim not feeling any shred of guilt over their actions, even subconsciously?

That could make sense given what we know Tim did in the past: King Snake falling, the vandalism (explosions), and ALL the lying over the years (Tim reviving Shiva might count as atonement, so I'm not including that). If the sword based its judgement on God's will alone, then odds are high it would've picked up on one of these.

Even so, I'm not going to sit here and say this is definitely the case. I'm not familiar enough with how the sword effects other characters to make that call.

If this is indeed false, then did the DC universe's version of God decide to pardon Tim of his sins when he prayed earlier that same issue, despite him not believing he had any? I mean, who knows, right?

You can probably see why there's more questions than answers. The point is Tim didn't have any guilt for the things he did before Red Robin #22. Tim was canonically convinced he had nothing to atone for.

So then why did he say the opposite later in Knight Terrors: Robin #2?!

In the heart-to-heart between Tim and Jason, Tim tells him this:

"You have a lot to atone for...We all do..."

Tim knows that the words "we all" include him, right? By saying this, Tim admitted to also having things he needs to atone for, right?

Is this another white lie to make Jason feel better? Is it one of those slight changes the New 52 made to the canon? If not, then why did he change his mind? Did his no-kill rule change and make him feel guilty for some past actions? Is it not the no-kill rule, but something else?

What changed?!

Where does Tim draw the line?

I don't know. We've narrowed it down to a general area, but it's kinda hard to see a line when it's so blurred it could be a gradient.

Tim baffles me. He acts as a steady moral compass for others when he can't even seem to stay consistent with his own. You're free to call it poor writing (and honestly, fair), but I find his hypocrisy fascinating.

That's what it is, isn't it? Tim's a hypocrite who's completely oblivious to being one. And it's not like this was never mentioned in the comics before. Damian called him out on it!

In Batman & Robin 2011 #10, Damian confronted Tim about his near-murderous reaction when Fist Point killed Artemis (Teen Titans Vol 4 annual #1). Damian then accused Tim of constantly rejecting him because they have more in common than Tim's willing to admit.

It's debatable how accurate that accusation was, but Tim had a pretty volatile reaction to it.

"I believe in every choice I make!"

Does he? I don't think someone who's so sure of what he believes in would contradict himself to this extent. Especially if he wasn't doing it on purpose.

He wouldn't vehemently push Bruce's no-kill rule onto others and berate them for bending that rule, only to go and bend that same rule himself when the Batclan isn't around. He also wouldn't exploit what he thinks are loopholes, decide later that those loopholes broke the no-kill rule, and then earnestly claim he never broke it.

Why is he like this?! He's had arguably the most normal childhood out of the whole Batclan before becoming Robin! What could've made him so fickle about this?!

Where does he draw the line? And how will he know when he's crossed it?

#batman #dc #robin #tim drake #red robin #theory #analysis #long post #tim drake is a menace #unhinged tim drake #To think all of this was written without mentioning Tim's corrupt future selves #or the numerous times he's actually contemplated or attempted murder #Believe me I would've loved to add 5-10 more screenshots of those moments alone #but I hit the 30 image limit :(#Anyway I want to study Tim in a lab #Feedback is welcome #I'm aware I hadn't read all the DC comics so I could've missed something

683 notes · View notes

gnomewithalaptop · 7 months ago

Text

Y'know, it's so funny to me when people make out like Tim Drake would keep files on how to take down his friends when Tim has explicitly said he disagrees with Batman on this:

[Young Justice (1998) #36]

Like, yes, during his Red Robin tenure he does make a Hit List full of contingency plans for known heroes. But if you go and read that, you'll notice that, while the Justice League and Damian may be on there, Tim's own friends are decidedly absent:

[Red Robin (2009) #14]

In fact, a lot of these heroes are people that have either (a) attacked Tim specifically, (b) have a track record that includes turning evil/getting mind controlled, or (c) are on the JLA (meaning Batman probably already had those files compiled and Tim just stole them).

So yeah: Tim's not down with contingency-planning for his friends. You know which one of the YJ crew DID agree with Batman though? My favorite blorbina Anita Fite, aka Empress:

[Young Justice (1998) #36]

But yeah, this contrast is honestly fascinating to me. Because while both Anita and Tim have been shown to be incredibly loyal individuals, this exchange really highlights the fact that, between the two of them, Anita is far more likely to engage in this kind of pragmatism when she thinks it's necessary to get the job done

The whole Our Worlds at War arc actually does a really good job of illustrating how both of them react to betrayal from within. It's not just the Batman Files conflict either -- I'm thinking specifically about the hallucination-based torture Granny Goodness put them through, which showed them their worst fears. Most of the team ended up having to watch their loved ones die, but what's super interesting to me is that we really only see Anita and Tim hallucinate that their loved ones blame them for their deaths:

[Young Justice (1998) #37]

Like. It's not the same as a teammate turning evil at all. But it does give us a good idea of how they'd both react when faced with a friend or teammate doing harmful things, albeit on a smaller scale. Because where Tim kind of just accepts Superboy yelling at him and moves straight into bargaining for Kon's life, Anita actually flips the script, gets angry, and defends herself against her father:

[Young Justice (1998) #37]

(she actually gets so righteously pissed off that she manages to break out of the VR simulation Granny Goodness had her trapped in, but that's another point)

But yeah, it's super interesting, because by this point, both Anita and Tim have been set up to be very similar characters. They both can be a little bit obsessive, they both have some issues with boundaries and stalking (Tim with Nightwing and Batman, Anita with Cissie), and of the team, they're both portrayed as the "normal" members (Anita does technically have mind control powers but she barely ever uses them, and in a fight, she's basically just a very good, human-level fighter)

But at the end of the day, though Batman forces Robin to put on a cool front of objectivity, Tim (at least in his pre-grief-spiral era) ultimately wants to see the best in his team. When the people he cares about screw up, he wants to give them second chances. And when that trust gets broken, his first instinct is to try to use diplomacy, or, failing that, simply remove himself from the situation (as we see at the end of the Our Worlds at War arc when he quits the team)

Anita, on the other hand, while still incredibly loyal, does not hand out that loyalty unconditionally. We see this when she tries to keep her identity secret from the YJ squad, we see it when she gets pissed in Granny Goodness's hallucination when her father blames her for her mother's death, and we see it when she later blames Secret for her perceived role in Anita's father's death

Anita also happens to sit right smack dab in the middle of the YJ morality scale; while she's generally pretty chill and willing to abide by typical superhero codes of ethics (unlike Slobo and Secret), she's also been shown to bend those rules when she believes it's necessary (as seen here when she tortures and threatens to kill a man for trying to hurt Cissie). Ultimately, what this means is, between Tim and Anita, it's honestly Anita who'd probably be the most willing to put her personal qualms aside, buckle down, and go against her loved ones if it was the only reasonable option

Anyway. This is a really long-winded way of saying I think Gun Batman's biggest nemesis should be Empress

695 notes · View notes

crosbyism · 6 months ago

Note

"but then again this is the guy who’s publically known for loving to eat ass so"

I'm sorry, I thought Nate eating ass was fanon. Are you telling me this is an actual canon fact??

god i love when people don’t realise how much “fanon” around sid and nate is actually canon. it’s like heroin to me. also bc it’s like. 90% of the stuff in fics (which is probably why people assume it’s fanon but. oh boy it’s not. there’s shockingly little fanon around these two, mostly because canon is so abundant).

yes, nathan mackinnon is a known ass-eater. let me direct you to this post, anon. you’re welcome.

other nate (and sid) facts you might not have realised are canon:

nate is a known advocate for therapy. he’s been seeing a sports therapist since 2017

they wear matching clothing all the fucking time, sid has said publicly that he started wearing white sneakers and updated his wardrobe due to nate’s influence (iirc nate might’ve even bought him his first pair of white sneakers? either that or it was a “he told me i need to so i did” situation). they share a tailor. unfortunately i now have to bring your attention to the fact that since they have an alarming amount of matching clothes that they’ve bought for each other, that means that they in fact have to know each other’s clothing sizes off by heart. they also low-key share clothing btw

their families celebrate canada day together and their dads are best friends. in-law behaviour goes crazy

nate did in fact stalk his way into sid’s heart (got the same personal trainer and agent at age 13; built his house next door in 2017; they’ve been spending every day in the summers together since at least 2015. sid cooks for them daily, or at least did pre-pandemic. sid refuses to use nate’s gym tho so they always use sid’s).

nate used to have a fan twitter account more or less where he rooted for the pens. it was active until 2017.

sid and nate regularly go to summer weddings together as each other’s dates. they have done this since, once again, at least 2015

nate has confirmed that he used to have a poster of sid on his wall as a teenager (he didn’t confirm he used to jerk off to it but frankly. i think that’d be saying the quiet part out loud)

when sid won the cup in 2009 and held the parade in cole harbour, nate stood by the side of the road watching it. he was about to turn 14, he was already working with sid’s trainer and agent, and he was about to start attending shattuck (sid’s junior high). due to old pics we also know that this was RIGHT before nate had his first growth spurt and hit puberty. i’m not saying seeing sid with the cup kickstarted nate’s puberty and gave him his first boner but i’m not NOT saying it

nate dated vanessa morgan of riverdale fame in his rookie year. she’s now good friends with elias petersson from the vancouver canucks (this means nothing but i do think it’s a very funny coincidence).

nate schmidt, formerly of the VGK, once failed a drug test (it turned out to be a testing-fuck-up); when nhl players were asked about it natemack iconically said “i don’t think he was sticking a needle up his ass” (i just like this one)

when he was a kid, the one other thing sid wanted to be was a hairdresser. nate, on the other hand, “didn’t have a plan B”

nate is canonically possessive of sid (see: the asg 2024) and sid is canonically delighted by this and into it

they go on so many lunch dates in the summer my dude. they go grocery shopping together. like there’s so many pics of them in grocery stores or out having coffee or weird green shakes

oh i almost forgot, they went on a roadtrip through ireland last year. they’ve been on holiday together multiple times over the years though. done some eurotripping together and stuff. in 2015 they spent three months together, three weeks of which were spent living in sid’s santa monica condo together just the two of them

sid has put up a picture of every stanley cup winning captain in his basement since 2008, when the pens lost in the scf to DET. apparently this serves as motivation for him to win the cup. he notoriously does not watch the playoffs after the pens are out

however, he partied so hard at nate’s cup party he actually closed down the party with his dad. nate is the only non-teammate sid’s ever been seen supporting for a cup run (he’s also never been to his teammates’ cup parties afaik so. there’s that)

also they talked on the phone daily and between periods during nate’s cup run. they also canonically have almost weekly phone dates that can run multiple hours. quote nate “i can’t talk to anyone else the way i can talk to him”

they each have pictures of the two of them together framed in each other’s houses

there’s rumours they’re building adjoining houses on neighbouring properties in cape breton next to a golf course bc apparently being neighbours in halifax isn’t enough or something. this one is as yet unconfirmed by reputable sources though

#god there’s so much #anyway please refer to the primer if you wanna know more #sidnate #squidney crocsby #natty mac #kookanswers #anon #long post

320 notes · View notes

aliteralchicken · 21 days ago

Note

What comics should I read to get to know tim

Tim has a lot of content, his first appearance is in Batman #436 and when DC saw he was a success they shoved him everywhere

If you want to read the issues chronologically or come back to lesser appearances later that’s up to you and how you read, as long as you got his origin and some Robin issues down you’ll understand what’s going on with him,

it’s a lot of content but don’t let it intimidate you, the fandom wikis and sites like league of comic geeks are great places to look up issues, which characters they contain and when they were released

But as a very quick list, mostly in order, all pre new 52:

backstory:

• “a lonely place of dying” is Tim’s origin and very essential reading

• detective comics 618-621 is Tim’s first case and the death of his mother

• Batman 455-457 is Tim becoming Robin

Robin 1991:

• robin (1991) Tim’s first solo, him being an independent hero and getting his iconic bo staff

• Robin 2 : jokers wild, joker is not pleased at all with Robin being “back”

•Robin 3: cry of the huntress, start of a great history of teaming up with Helena B. and introduces Tim’s first girlfriend Ari

Batman events:

tim is in a lot of Batman events, two personal fav of mine (specifically in terms of Tim) are “Batman prodigal” which has some fun Dick and Tim brotherly content and “Batman contagion” which is an interesting story overall

the ones he’s in usually contain an issue of Robin 1993 so can be read in accordance to that but events prior to Robin 1993 include “prelude to knightfall” (a lessor role but a good set up) and “knightfall” (where Bruce breaks his back) which I think are worth checking out

Ongoing solo:

Robin 1993: lasted until 2009, so there’s a lot of Tim content and arguably his most impotent run, it involves of lot of civilian plots which was a core part of Tim’s character

there’s a lot of issues with a lot of different writers, taking place at the time other comics and events, so you will need to prepare for possibly flicking through other runs to get the context needed if that’s what you want (though it’s usually labeled so you’ll know where to look)

it’s essential Tim reading but as I said there’s a lot of it and some issues are vastly different than others, though consistently the side charters are always pretty decent,

Other books: Tim appears in a lot of holiday specials, duo books, 80 page giants, team up books, secret origins ect. If you’re going to read them I’d mostly just go by date released,

but if you are planning on reading young justice I would suggest reading “worlds finest 3: robin/superboy”, “Robin plus impulse” and most importantly “young justice: the secret” before you do

team books:

young justice 1998: it’s a very fun read I adore all for the members, but for Tim specially: he’s in a leadership position for a while, we get to see the start of his long lasting relationships with Kon,Bart and Cassie and it’s a story that really cements the differences between Tim and Bruce

teen titans 2003: very different from YJ98, everyone’s more “mature” (see: mean and sexualised) but it does have a pretty significant impact on Tim’s character in the 2000’s, has the famous gun Batman and cloning Kon plot

Red Robin solo:

Tim’s most famous solo in fandom circles, it’s very good but the reason it’s so good is because it’s a love letter to his previous comics, this comic requires a lot of context of what was “currently” going on, Tim acts very out of character than he usually does and he has a very good reason to

it’s a great comic, good action and plots and I would highly recommend it but under no circumstances should you start with it, it will screw with your understanding of his character without the context needed

Overall: Tim is a very important bat character and so appears in a lot of Batman issues (as well as a bunch of other bat related titles like detective comics and shadow of the bat), and has important roles in many of those events,

he also cameos in comics of people he’s close to (like Nightwing) as well as seemingly random issues of other comics (for example vampire hunting with superman) which gives a lot of opportunity to see Tim written by different writers in situations he wouldn’t normally be in, which is always interesting

#Tim drake

153 notes · View notes

ltwilliammowett · 17 days ago

Note

Hello! I adore your page. Can I ask just where you've learned so much about the age of sail and in such fine detail? I dream of reaching a similar level of expertise, but have struggled to pin down a really good book/site/archive for such references. Thank you!

Hi, thanks for the compliment. There really isn't much of a secret, apart from reading and going to the relevant museums. Museums often have archives where you can get lots of books to read. But many people don't know exactly where to start. So I've put together a little list here to make it easier.

B. Lavery, Nelson’s Navy. The Ships, Men and Organisation. 1793-1815 New Edition (London 2012) B. Ireland, Naval Warfare in the Age of Sail. War at Sea 1756-1815 ( London 2000) N. Tracy, Nelson’s Battles. The Art of Victory in the Age of Sail (London 1996) D.Davies, A brief history of Figthing Ships (London 1996) A. Lambert, War at Sea in the Age of Sail 1650- 1850 (London 2000) G. Wells, Naval Customs and traditions (London 1930) P. Goodwin, HMS Victory, Pocket Manuel 1805 (London 2015) J. Eastland a. I. Ballantyne, HMS Victory. First Rate 1765 (London 2011) J. Bennett, Sailing into the Past. Learning from replica Ships (London 2009) M. P. Smith, Terror at Sea. True Tales of shipwrecks, cannibalism, pirates, fire at sea & otherdire disasters in the 18th& 19th centuries (Maine, 1995) J. Lowry, Fiddlers and whores. the candid memoirs of a surgeon in Nelson’s fleet, James Lowry, 1798 (London 2006) B. Lavery, Royal Tars. The lower deck of the royal navy, 875-1850 (London 2010) R. and L. Adkins, Jack Tar. Life in Nelson’s Navy (London 2008) A. Bruce, Encyclopedia of Naval History (London 1998) J. Black, Naval Power: A History of Warfare and the Sea from 1500 (London 2009) N.A. M Rodger, The Safeguard of the Sea: A Naval History of Britain 660-1649 (London 1997) C. L. Symonds, The U.S. Navy: A Concise History (New York 2015)

https://naval-encyclopedia.com/ C. G. Davis, American Sailing Ships: Their Plans and History (University of Michigan 1984) B. Greenhill, The Evolution of the Wooden Ship (1988) R. Woodman, The History of the Ship: The Comprehensive Story of Seafaring from the Earliest Times to the Present Day (1998)

Admiral W. E. Smith, The Sailor's Word-Book: An Alphabetical Digest of Nautical Terms (England 1867)

And believe me, the more you read, the more little things you notice and the deeper you dig and compile lists and other notes that will help you a lot later on.

69 notes · View notes

coochiequeens · 2 months ago

Text

It's also morphed from what was the rate of suicide attempts to just suicide. It’s not ‘41% of transgender-identifying people attempt suicide’, it’s ‘will commit suicide’. The reality of ‘41%’ is neither, it is ‘41% of people who took the National Transgender Discrimination Survey in 2008 answered in the affirmative to a yes/no question about attempting suicide’ which succinctly describes a number that is effectively meaningless statistical noise from a 14-year old study, something that is much less interesting."

By Sue Donym Dec 22, 2024

A few years ago, in the early Neolithic, when I wasn’t banned from Medium, I wrote a post called ‘The Transgender Movement and Bad Stats: A Debunking Compilation’. I had collected a vast amount of statistics and written about them in some very lengthy articles, and thought it was a good idea to collect them together into a single post.

That article is now five years out of date. Medium also banned me for being a hater, so that article is currently only available online as an archived website. I also have some delicious new statistics to compile. An updated reference guide is in order, although some sections will remain relatively the same.

If sections of this article seem familiar to you, that’s probably because they are. I will openly confess to the fact that some of this article is taken from other articles and compiled into what you are currently reading. That’s more or less the point - to write something where the numbers are presented in a digestible format. I make no apologies for this - there are only so many ways to write ‘A says XY is B%’.

You don’t have to read all of this. The sections list below contains the names of each topic - you should be able to search each heading and read it.

I’m not overly fond of writing introductions, so without further ado, let’s dive in.

Sections:

Suicide Statistics - Is 41% A Real Figure?

Prison Statistics - Are trans women more likely to be sex offenders?

Murder Stats - The Fake Epidemic

Homelessness and The Problem with Aggregation

A Quick Funding Update

Conclusion

Suicide Statistics - Is 41% a real figure?

Participate in this debate long enough, and you’ll see the repeated claims that trans people attempt or commit suicide at extremely high rates. That number you’ll often see is ‘41%’. But where does it come from?

That 41% suicide statistic comes from a report done in 2014, based on data from 2008 in the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS), from the Williams Institute, part of UCLA School of Law. Here is a link to the William’s Institute report. Of course, they debunk their own statistic on the third page of the report. How convenient for me.

“While the NTDS provides a wealth of information about the experiences of transgender and gender non-conforming people, the survey instrument and methodology posed some limitations for this study. First, the NTDS questionnaire included only a single item about suicidal behavior that asked, “Have you ever attempted suicide?” with dichotomized responses of Yes/No. Researchers have found that using this question alone in surveys can inflate the percentage of affirmative responses, since some respondents may use it to communicate self-harm behavior that is not a “suicide attempt,” such as seriously considering suicide, planning for suicide, or engaging in self-harm behavior without the intent to die (Bongiovi-Garcia et al., 2009). The National Comorbity Survey, a nationally representative survey, found that probing for intent to die through in-person interviews reduced the prevalence of lifetime suicide attempts from 4.6 percent to 2.7 percent of the adult sample (Kessler et al., 1999; Nock & Kessler, 2006). Without such probes, we were unable to determine the extent to which the 41 percent of NTDS participants who reported ever attempting suicide may overestimate the actual prevalence of attempts in the sample. In addition, the analysis was limited due to a lack of follow-up questions asked of respondents who reported having attempted suicide about such things as age and transgender/gender non-conforming status at the time of the attempt.”

If that was too long for you to read - the question was asked as a ‘yes/no’ question. This has a well-known effect of overinflating the number of people who answer in the affirmative to the question ‘Have you ever attempted suicide?’. The NTDS asked the question in this manner and thus massively overinflated the estimated suicide rate in their sample. The ‘41'%’ number is statistical noise. Not only that, but the authors conclude that there’s no explanations available

“ Second, the survey did not directly explore mental health status and history, which have been identified as important risk factors for both attempted and completed suicide in the general population […] The lack of systematic mental health information in the NTDS data significantly limited our ability to identify the pathways to suicidal behavior among the respondents”

They don’t know why the rate is so high — so you can’t say 41% of transgender people attempt suicide because of ‘lack of acceptance’ or ‘bathroom bills or ‘Donald Trump’. Because the study didn’t ask those questions. That would be the case even if the study didn’t have even more major methodological problems anyway:

Third, since the NTDS utilized convenience sampling, it is unclear how representative the respondents are of the overall U.S. transgender/gender non-conforming adult population. Further, the survey’s focus on discrimination may have resulted in wider participation by persons who had suffered negative life experiences due to antitransgender bias.1 As the relationship between minority stress and mental health would suggest (Meyer, 2003), this may have contributed to a higher prevalence of negative outcomes, including lifetime suicide attempts, in the sample.

A convenience sample means the results are basically a cross between being indicative of a potential issue and waste of time. Essentially, the survey shows the rate of suicide attempts by those who took the survey, which means the results are only applicable to the survey-takers, rather than any broader group of people. This is a problem with all the National Center for Transgender Equality surveys even today - and they’re still treated as an authority on this subject. Total madness.

It’s like if I did a survey of all my friends on whether or not we prefer deep-dish. If I have one Irish person in my sample, and that person just loves deep-dish, I cannot then use the results of my survey to tell Newsweek that 100% of all Irish people love deep-dish. Only my friend does. Similarly, the original authors of the NTDS can say that their survey-takers had a 41% rate of attempted suicide, but they can’t apply the result to the broader demographic of whatever is considered' ‘transgender’ these days.

But unlike me, who did not run off to Newsweek to inform them that 100% of all Irish people love deep-dish, the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), did in fact, tell anyone who would listen that ‘41% of trans people attempt suicide’. Activists, non-profits, politicians and mendacious pediatricians followed suit in telling anyone who would listen about ‘41%’, and it became completely divorced from its original context. ‘41%’ quickly took on a life of it’s own, and became an urban myth, a meme, no different from other statistical noise given life, like claims that ‘50% of lesbians beat their partners’, ‘Humans only use 10% of the brain’, ‘50% of cops are wife beaters’, the opium letter in the New England Journal of Medicine that ‘proved’ opiates ‘weren’t addictive’, and the concept of ‘excited delirium’.

All of those had morphed into adages, things widely accepted as true because ‘it was in a study’, or from being uncritically repeated in popular science outlets. They’re things that often have a grain of truth to them or affirm traditional beliefs, so they’re judged as ‘true enough.’ But they’re all falsehoods, just as much as ‘41%’ is, and all those falsehoods share a similar pattern, going from a random statistic in a poorly conducted survey or even just a case study and from there, gradually morphing into widely-accepted knowledge, even though no one really knows where it came from, nor has bothered to investigate it, because it matches with an agenda or traditionally held beliefs. Eventually, someone with a sense of inquiry to them looks into the statistic and finds that it’s false, but by that point it’s often done untold damage and will take decades to purge from the popular consciousness.

The suicide attempt statistic that started life as meaningless noise from a poorly conducted 2008 study with huge methodological flaws has now graduated from random apocrypha to religious dogma. That statistic, which objectively looks horrendous deprived of its original context, was used to justify a whole range of absurd propositions.

Give me absurd propositions X, Y, and Z, or it’s hateful and I’ll kill myself, trans people have a 41% suicide rate because of discrimination!’

Above is a fairly representative example of what the use of ‘41%’ turned into - completely misinformed people screaming histrionically about committing suicide because someone told a man to use the men’s room. Not only is that emotional abuse, it can only last for so long before people get sick of the absurdity. The suicide baiting rhetoric was always going to backfire, and it has done so in spectacular fashion.

Now 41% is used as a slang word for transgender suicide. The adage got repeated so often it turned into a meme, and then that meme became a threat, the demographically tailored 2024 version of ‘kys’1.

Now that it’s essentially well, a nasty threat - yes, telling someone to kill themselves for whatever reason is generally unpleasant behavior, sorry - the power of the statistic is reversed. It’s now used like this:

‘why would I let you into women’s prisons when you are going to kill yourself anyway, degenerate?’ 41% already you fucking troon pedophile, no one cares about the opinions of people who will be dead soon

Personally, I don’t know what to make of the evolution of ‘41%’. It’s gone from being a widely held false belief used to justify all sorts of terrible things to a demand that the trans-identifying person you disagree with should go kill themselves. It’s somehow even less constructive than it was before, which is certainly an achievement, albeit a dubious one.

Yes, transgenderism is a dangerous, illiberal cult full of misogyny, racism, and homophobia, but I don’t think it’s right to sacrifice my values when criticizing them - I can do that effectively without telling people to go and kill themselves. Would you tell someone in a similar situation - like a Scientologist, who is also part of a destructive and nasty cult to go and kill themselves?

See rest of article

#The Transgender Movement and Bad Stats: A Debunking Compilation #That 41% suicide statistic comes from a report done in 2014 based on data from 2008 #Using suicide threats to emotionally blackmail others

73 notes · View notes

queer-lovebot · 1 year ago

Text

The Great Kevin Day Pregnancy Scare of 2009. Too much post-game sex plus not enough contraceptive equal the Foxes game bus having to detour on their trip home in order for Kevin to buy Plan B. Embarrassment for the ages and Wymack can’t look Kevin, Andrew, or Neil in the eyes for months.

#aftg #all for the game #kevin day #andrew minyard #neil josten #talked about this in the DMs with bestie Flavia #it’s tickling me again. I think he should freak out just a lil bit

161 notes · View notes

horrorshow · 7 months ago

Text

god bless rhonda hurley. for @spnficrecfest

JUST SO YOU KNOW, I WAS THINKING OF YOU by ficlicks rhonda/dean + sam/dean, 7.7k, nc-17 “If we’re friends then what’s my favorite color?” Dean lifts his head and looks around the bedroom. It’s a tiny room, smaller than the one he shares with Sam. There’s an old white four-poster bed pushed up against the wall with chipping paint and tiny butterfly stickers stuck to the headboard. Her dresser is covered with books, bottles of nail polish and hair clips. On the floor is a laundry basket with freshly folded clothes. Dean scoops up the pair of panties sitting on top and slingshots them at Rhonda. “Pink,” Dean says, crawling onto the bed next to her.

OH SO GOOD, OH SO FINE by deadlybride sam/dean, 7.5k, rated E Zachariah gave them their memories back, but he didn't erase what had happened in the time they were other people. Dean Smith made a mistake, and Dean Winchester--well. He's still living with it.

WITH AUTUMN CLOSING IN by deadlybride sam/dean, 15k, rated E Seven years have passed since then. Sam thought he let it go.

NOT THE GOOD THINGS, NOR THE BAD by deadlybride sam/dean, 20k, rated E Dean wavers in a grey area between being taken and giving in.

THE SECRETS THAT WE KEEP by bexgowen endverse cas/endverse dean, 9.9k, rated E It’s 2014. The Croatoan virus has taken over the world, and Dean Winchester’s brilliant plan to kill Lucifer has failed. Dean should be working on Plan B, but all he’s been able to think about since Zachariah tossed that 2009 version of Dean into Camp Chitaqua was the secret that the younger Dean revealed. The one they’ve kept since they were nineteen years old. The one about the panties.

YOU SAY, GO FAST (I SAY, HOLD ON TIGHT) by hearthouses sam/dean, 11k, rated E This is what Dean looks like blanketed in desert night air. This is what Dean sounds like humming along to Johnny Cash on the local radio station, his thumbs tapping out the rhythm of the song on the steering wheel. This is what will be gone in a few dwindling months. (Mid-Season Three: Sam and Dean take some time away from figuring out how to save Dean from his deal, and live for the moment.)

SYMBIOSIS by deadlybride john/dean, 2.8k, rated E Dean plans a surprise for his dad.

BEDROOM HYMNS by fathersalmon cas/dean + rhonda/dean + dean/baseball team, 8.9k, rated E 5 times Dean Winchester tried to deny his panty kink and the one time he didn't.

PINK AND BLUE by jemariel cas/dean + rhonda/dean, 4.9k, rated E "Would you --” Cas swallows, his voice low and yeah, that’s definitely his ‘I’m horny’ voice, the one that gives Dean the shivers. “Would you like to show me your favorites?”

HUNTER, KNOW THYSELF by imogenbynight rhonda/dean, 2.5k, rated M In which Dean sets up his bedroom at the bunker and remembers his night with Rhonda Hurley.

FRAGILE by dragonspell sam/dean, 3.4k, nc-17 Dean likes to pretend he's the stronger one. But Sam knows just how fragile Dean can be on the inside. Now he just wants the outside to match.

LOVE IN DISGUISE by sleepypercy sam/dean + dean/omc, 4.9k, rated E In order to catch a CEO that's been cutting out hearts, Dean reluctantly poses as a hooker. Sam never expected his brother to look so good in that skirt.

BLUNT by lesson_in_love rhonda/dean, rated R Rhonda Hurley. Dean always thought it was an awful name.

RED LACE by dragonspell sam/dean, 2.3k, nc-17 Dean never thought that Sam would go through with it. He’d thought it was just one of those things��one of the random bits of filth that dropped out of Sam’s mouth whenever he was in the mood.

OH SO FINE by valiant sam wesson/dean smith, 2.4k, nc-17 Sam Wesson really wants into Dean Smith's pants. When he finally manages to get him to say yes, he's shocked to find out that he wears women's underwear under those pressed suits.

#fic #spnficrecfest #spn #spn fic #pink and satiny

70 notes · View notes