#so my questions so far are wtf happened to paul. that was definitely not paul. were those cultists

[spookietrex]

Oh it's so good to have special interests again.

[thejudgingtrash]

Can you explain to me how Rachel was annoying in the series?

Well, I’ll try to keep myself short for this one (lol no, this took an hour to write). Also, let’s not forget that they’re all kids, but I’m basing this off from when I read the series as a fourteen year old because my opinions haven’t changed much (for better or for worse).

I’m not the biggest fan of Rachel. I have to admit that portrayals of her by Simi, Kit, Logan, Apollo and all the others helped to shape her into something cooler than what she had been in my foggy memories but I actually went back to take a look in the books (well, TTC + BOTL so far) to refreshen my mind about events that have happened.

Also, you should browse through @blackjacktheboss's blog as she’s a) hilarious and b) says whatever I say in like a single sentence lol. But your ask is about me and my opinions so here we go:

What I didn’t like about Rachel was that she’s rude and bold (DON’T GET ME WRONG, I love that in female characters!!!), but she doesn’t have Annabeth’s excuse of survival of the fittest (literally running off as a traumatized seven year old) and introducing us into the world of the Riordanverse.

Percy was on his way, had shit to deal with and Rachel pretty much interrupted him from the get-go and thought getting her answers was more important than letting Percy just rush forward. Yes, this is Rachel’s entrance into the series and the net Riordan threw into the sea, to make us little fish adapt to her. But it still didn’t sit right with me, probably because I would never interact that way.

I get why she did that, but it’s the way how she did it that’s just making me go ???

Even if I was seeing weird things, I wouldn’t set out to distract/interrupt someone who is incredibly busy to get my way. Rachel’s dick move seems like a Karen boomer type of thing to pull off, but guess that’s up to you.

If I were her, I’d either film/try to photograph the monsters via phone (if that’s possible) or internet stalk enough to find the other person (note: despite Riordan’s stupid rule of not being able to use phones, demigods still can use computers/the internet, I guess). Percy was national news like a year or two ago in the timeline, so it shouldn’t be that difficult to find more stuff out about him, even in like 2008 or so. Let him have a spot on Perez Hilton's shitty gossip blog, for the OGs reading this.

Annabeth was used as a tool of exposition to introduce us to CHB, the demigod life and how things roll around there. She barged into Percy’s mission as a nuisance first but a necessity second in TLT.

However, in comparison to Rachel, Annabeth was transformed into a fully-fledged protagonist within a span of a chapter or two. Rachel needed another separate book after her first appearance, so we don’t just know Annabeth better, we know that she’s an important constant throughout the story as of Rachel seems… almost random? Is she truly necessary as a character?

This doesn’t come from a shipper perspective, this is coming from a character design perspective and adds to the feeling that the way she has been introduced to me as a reader just seems off.

Yes, BOTL makes sense with her as a reborn Ariadne, but technically Sally could’ve done the job as she’s a clear-sighted mortal as well lol. Then again, Sally is an adult, went to college, had a job, was unfortunately probably working it up with Paul, did the cha cha slide with him and had overall better shit to do.

Then Rachel as the oracle, which is just super weird in general. Wasn’t Apollo himself responsible for issuing prophecies in the OG myths? Or did he both, have the oracle of Delphi as his spokesperson and issue important stuff to Team Olympus? Am I mixing things up? I’m getting sidetracked, my bad.

Either way, this oracle gig might be the only time I’d say Rachel might be important in the future (badum tzz), but Riordan fumbled the bag in the follow ups series so there’s that. Did she even appear in HOO? Can’t remember and also don’t care.

Rachel is used as one out of three choices in regard to his love life that Percy can make. Calypso literally got introduced into BOTL and was admittedly Percy’s biggest what if… But the general gist doesn’t sit right with me. We have three possible routes with Percy and the others:

Rachel: somewhat normality in the mortal realm

Annabeth: the danger and thrill of the demigod life

Calypso: ambrosia and nectar. a hint of immortality

(On one hand, literally why but on the other hand, mad props for Percy who has literally three romantic leads in the same book.) I’d cancel one of them at least out and since Annabeth isn’t going anywhere, I’m taking Rachel. Sally could literally been Percy’s anchor to a normal mortal life as she had intended until it didn’t work out anymore when he became twelve and his monster alerting scent grew stronger.

Calypso and Annabeth would’ve been the perfect opposites where each of them had a strong case. The demigod life within the realms or mortal or the demigod life ascending to Olympus/immortality. Sounds cooler and is way simpler. Three people is way too much, this truly feels like a shonen anime harem thing and it’s defo not my cup of tea (and while some Annabeth sideships aren’t my thing (Lukabeth go cry in the corner, no one likes you, WTF, Connabeth you fugly), it’s super unfair that Annabeth solely has Percy (fuck off Luke) to rely on in regards of romantic endeavors).

Rachel almost feels redundant? The option to walk away from all of that… which isn’t really true as Rachel really tries to push and insert herself into the story the very first time we meet her? But that’s just me, I’m certain that others are saying they’d kill off Annabeth or kick Calypso (I mean yeah) into the curb.

Big ALSO:

Why does Percy need another white and uber-rich love interest?

I semi-joked on Dez’ post (@sawasawako) with this response about Annabeth needing to keep up with powerful Rachel, but the core still stands.

We already have an affluent Annabeth (granted, we don’t know exactly how the Chase’s riches are divided, whereas it’s clear that Rachel can just make anyone drop dead by saying who she is. Annabeth needed that weird lotus casino credit card to make that happen, so Miss Harvard Legacy doesn’t wield that Dare schmoney. Also don’t think Annabeth can just up papa’s money and go…? Idk).

Why do we need another person needing to upstage this?

Like Rachel has to triumph in regards to standard and prestige as if it were a badly written Jane Austen AU. For what reason…? Why not make Percy friends and acquaintances with someone who comes from a normal household for once, not super rich brats (Piper, Annabeth, Rachel, technically the Graces with their TV starlet mother amongst others).

Moreover…

Important question: why should Percy actually be impressed/attracted to that? He’s dirt poor and has been sent to (boarding) schools filled with stupid rich people since he’s been twelve, probably even younger than that. As if that’s the very first thing Percy would look out for or be wowed or something. He’s used to rich douchebags. I think he’s more surprised that someone used their money for his benefit for once and not to crash daddy’s new Mercedes again.

Like seriously… Rachel did that weird art project thing in BOTL with her covered in gold and posing like it’s a super normal thing to do? Even for rich snobbish kids standards? That sounds weird to me. I don’t know, maybe Riordan’s been streaming the new Gossip Girl reboot on HBO Max on repeat and thought this girl is on fiyah (performed by Alicia Keys).

Rachel trying to separate herself from her money just comes off as super hypocritical when she’s using the very same funds to finance her lifestyle. I get it, trying to make amends and make a difference with the damage you have done but... your father still doesn't give a shit about the environment or YOU, sweetie. Kick him in the balls for once! Then you can go out about your art projects.

The concept of Percy having friends in the mortal realm is cool, but why does Rachel almost have to compete with Annabeth with her wealth and art stuff?

No seriously, the comparisons are constantly there, out and about. Roaming freely on the finest grass, needing to be feed delicious locally sourced carrots and stuff.

Annabeth is Athena’s kid. Athena is the goddess of wisdom, weaving, justice, warfare yada yada and arts and crafts. So definitely something which would affect Rachel, right (someone write that Athena messing with Rachel because she can AU and tag me please!)?

Annabeth wants to become an architect which translates to fancy building designer who is driving engineers like Leonardo Eugenio Valdez Cortes insane irl because the maths and physics don't work like that in the working field trust me I'm an engineer, which could/should be considered an art form.

They even shared some common ground while talking about architecture and design in BOTL!

Furthermore, they both share broken homes with absent parents (granted that all demigods go through that). Wealthy families at that as well. Shitty fathers that don’t care about their daughters well-being. Rachel however, is super powerful and influential in an unseen level in the mortal world. She isn’t like Matt Sloan (?) who truly messes up by destroying shit to get his father's attention, but she’s still in that circle and can easily demonstrate that. Making deals with her father and what not. We rarely see Annabeth doing that. Did y’all forget the fucking helicopter Rachel brought along in TLO?

Pan saying Rachel is just as important as her father has multiple meanings to me…

(Sidenote: I do think it’s hilarious that Annabeth is jealous/annoyed of Rachel that her remarks were she’s cute right and Percy went??? Or when Tyson said Rachel’s pretty? Or that time when Annabeth actually defended Luke and his weird behavior (because Kronos was slowly taking over, don’t forget that kids!), because f that rich artist nepotism kid that Rachel seems to be, right?)

Another note: Percy thinks Rachel is annoying in BOTL for a while and it took a while for him to admit that and he spent way more time being annoyed/jealous (for once, Lordy) at Luke for him to even notice lol.

I guess it’s really hard for me to exactly pinpoint what’s bothering me. I believe Rachel's persona just doesn’t seem to hit right, because it feels like a knock-off Annabeth who just simply isn’t a demigod, yet has two cool powers, but in even richer who still needs to be part of the story for exactly what reason?

The jumping around from the richest in the series to the poorest in the series is kinda bothering me as if the middle class doesn’t exist, like I’ve stated earlier. Why didn’t Riordan mix it up with Rachel, giving her more nuance the minute they met, not towards the end? Have her be Percy’s platonic friend from the get go. No weird oh wait she is kinda cute in the middle bullshit.

This kinda drifted more into a Perachel vs Percabeth essay, which really wasn’t my intention. Don’t worry kids, I’m criticizing Annabeth (and her stans) enough already.

And I do think that others in the fandom have softened my views on Rachel as a person like I’ve stated in the beginning. So friendship!Perachel is popping! But I do think that there are some valid points that I’ve made.

Also not gonna lie, Rachel issuing the new prophecy in TLO kinda dampened the end of PJO series but that’s more Riordan’s fault than hers.

TLDR: I’m just not a huge fan of this overbearing, uber-rich, excessively flaunting being that Rachel sometimes displays. She’s flawed, she’s broken at times, has a semi-interesting background story (although it has been done over and over again throughout the series and should be changed up for once) which is great, but it is still annoying.

We don’t need an anti-Annabeth who feels like a weird caricature of the real Annabeth.

Also if this seems super incoherent, repetitive, or whatever, I'm sorry, massive headaches + mental health going down the goo lagoon does this to ya, I hope I made somewhat sense!

[lime-gutz]

The mercs with a SO with telekinetic abilities? Kinda like Stephen King’s Carrie White ( can usually control it but sometimes will go into a trance and cause all sorts of anarchy when horribly overwhelmed) If you don’t want to do all of them how about medic, scout, and spy :3

OOOOOOO okay that concept sounds really fucking interesting. As we all know the tf2 universe is wack as hell and so like, yeah this concept..

Let's get general hcs out of the way before going into specifics with each of the 3 to give everyone a better understanding of like...my thought process??? (I'll mention the other ones in passing through this but I'll be focusing on the specific 3 you've given me).

I imagine if there was such a 10th class, one that is telekinetic, I'll be calling them the Telepath as their class name, I assume would have gotten such an ability through means of. Well. Obviously telekinesis is very not normal so this could go lots of ways, taking into account that you mention specifically causing anarchy when overwhelmed/experiencing a breakdown I wanna be fun and say the Telepath got this ability in the form of a curse. (For what? Idk have fun with deciding, I'd like to hear!)

I would like to say they've been experiencing this curse for years of their life and had grown old enough with it to the point of knowing how to keep such an ability in check as, when not doing that it could lead to dire consequences. That being in the form of a completely wrecked house or general surroundings.

So by the time they were employed as a mercenary they are well fitted with the knowledge of how they know it works, how they personally deal with it, how far this ability can really go as in they know their limits, and how to control/keep themselves in check as to not break anything..doesn't mean that absolutely nothing happens of course but for the most part, is able to keep things unbroken.

Now, with that out of the way, let's get into the 3 specific mercs you've picked for me to talk about.

Medic:

(General)

You had his attention ever since he read the words "Telekinetic" on your papers that were given for him to observe any medical records! He was excited to meet you..and experiment on/with you specifically. No doctor just has patients with telekinesis!! He's most definitely going to take every opportunity he can to run experiments on you to see just how much the difference goes between you and just a normal human subject.

Practically bouncing on the heels of his feet, his hand lightly shaking under your firm hold of a handshake, an unsettling grin on his features as you both shook has when you first met but..again! He was excited and eager to start whenever he can with the experiments he has planned.

Insanely talkative with you during said experiments. He gets like this when he's eager to devour any knowledge and experience he can get his bloodied hands on..and talking helps him think more. He can talk about just. Super casual things that has nothing to do with what he's doing or talking about what he's doing in the moment (although you're not sure if it's for your sake or if it's just a habit he does for himself.)

Finds it absolutely rejuvenating to watch you fight on the field. You're really something! It's glorious to see your telekinesis abilities in action, while your abilities can only do so much, the much it could do was such a sight! Ohoho!! How you can break enemy bones, their blood decorating the hot sandy grounds of the desert, how you can use the rough terrain to your advantage and gain the upper hand..You're thrilling to watch.

While he can see some restraint on your part when it comes to keeping your emotions in check the best way you possibly can, (as he is well aware of what can come of you becoming wildly overwhelmed) He still chooses to work with you more on how to better your ways of doing so...better??

He's not the most patient man, not by a wide margin or patient in any sense of the word, he has to understand that it also wouldn't be wise to just. Fly off the handle when getting frustrated with you in particular for whatever reason as doing so would result in a completely wrecked base. He keeps this in mind because once they've all experienced such an attack its not really something that you can really forget ya know? That's not to say he's softer with you when talking to you or being less blunt but he can show some restraint on his own emotions just a bit for you.

(Romantic)

-apologies if the telekinetics aren't really talked about here, I feel like overall telekinetics are used more so on the battle field and not for everything the Telepath does

Realizes that overall, you've done a good job managing yourself when it comes to being grounded and staying calm in situations where he could even say he probably wouldn't be as calm. Accompany this with you willingly working with him to find perhaps even better solutions to better dealing with it and you then gain just a bit of admiration on the "doctor's" part.

I view Medic as someone who's generally more willing to let looser when he's around someone he's particularly close with. More fun, less...serious if you will?? Sure he's generally jovial and not serious, but I imagine he's even more so when around company he actually enjoys being around so it's no surprise it's what he started doing with you if you both actually gained a bit of a friendship.

It's a common occurrence to see you both messing with each other in a playful manner, nothing downright cruel or mean, just playful. Ex. When he tries the "Ohoho! You can't possibly reach what you're wanting! Look at how short you are compared to me!" Being a tall man and holding something out of your reach to which using your telepathetic abilities you're able to slip said thing out of his hands quite easily, which leaves the man chuckling as he means it all in good fun.

If you're sitting there like "wtf I want some soft stuff too give it to me you bitch" I reply "okay man mfuck" and give you the softer stuff like, right now. Never fails to get a small smile out of him if you were to use your telekinetics to just brush a stray hair our of his face and smooth it back in place to keep his hair neat. Or if you use it to push his spectacles gently back on his face correctly and no longer crooked on his nose.

Enjoys just the simple touches such as you hooking his arm with yours as he works for a little bit if the work he's doing doesn't require a lot of movement, or just a simple kiss to his cheeks and nose..maybe a peck to his lips if he's busy with something. Not to say he doesn't enjoy more lingering touches when he's not horribly busy however!

Quite enjoys laying his head against yours and leaning some of his body weight onto yours and you doing the same back to him as to balance the both of you out into something more comfortable. He finds that your presence is good to have while he works, helps him feel down to earth and less tightly wrapped in his spiels of thoughts.

Scout:

(General)

Finds that your presence and abilities are both handy on field, although he insists you're not as good as him..he's not gonna not give you credit for how utterly fucking cool it is to see someone use something that resembles literal super powers!! But! He also finds your skills useful for playing any tricks on an unsuspecting teammate...if you're in on it of course, if not he'll complain and whine to you that you should at least try it with him and to think of how cool and funny it would be if you did.

Beg you to do things like, for instance, could you make him fly in the air? Your abilities can only go so far of course and not wanting to disappoint, you were successful!...for a few minutes before his ass flopped onto the floor and he got a bloody nose. However as if blood was not dripping from his face currently he was insistent that they have got to try it again sometime!! Flying felt so cool!!

Probably the teammate who has the most interest in your abilities solely for the fact he thinks it's super cool and only thinks of cool ways for you to use it cause..c'mon!!! He doesn't understand why you wouldn't just use it all the time it would make SO many things easier!!

In an attempt to understand you as a person better and how you live with such an ability he's keen on asking questions if you don't get annoyed with him asking so many and then shooing him off. His questions are more so for curiosity and getting to know you reasons as opposed to Medic's who curiosity was mostly scientific.

He's a dude who has a sense of longing to have..someone to like/relate to. Someone to trust and call his friend! And if you're able to show him that you're someone who can deal with his antics, questions, and things that others will find annoying but are things you accept of him..hey man. You got his loyalty and friendship. Take good care of that.

He really likes to talk about just a bunch of things if you're someone he considers a friend. He's not holding back! He's gonna let you hear all of thoughts he has in the world! Or..talk to you about more serious things that only you as friends would share with each other and no one else perhaps...his worries with his mom and knucklehead brothers, or you and your worries.

(Romantic)

Scout is someone that could be described as super touchy with those he feels close enough to. Which st this base, he doesn't consider anybody quite close enough for anyone to ever see. 'Cept you of course. Growing closer to Scout he's way more comfortable wrapping an arm over your shoulders, giving you side hugs, bumping your side with his affectionately and such.

Okay in his defense with that date he tried to set up with Pauling he totally wasn't expecting a giant fucking mutant bread to come and attack the lot of them so, technically while Spy considers him a failure in the department of wooing women the set up of the date wasn't....horrible???? I mean. It looked like a prom yeah but hey! He's learned a thing or 2 from that experience and so he's more likely to have something at least slightly suited more to your tastes since he's gotten to know you better.

You like to push his cap over his eyes quickly with just a flick of your telekinesis before battle starts, leaving him to laugh and fix it before he quickly and effortlessly catches right back up to you anyways. It's okay though, he gets you back later by pressing a cold beer to your neck if the battle is won.

If given the go ahead by you he'll sit with you somewhere and have either an arm draped over your shoulder or your head on his chest as drones on and on about whatever it is he's currently thinking about. He likes talking, and you like listening to him talk even if you don't follow every single thing he says, you get some comfort out of it.

He won't admit to anyone..but you maybe, that your a huge softspot he has. Like, his family is his softspot..and with family that includes his mom, his brothers, and you to some extent, and he'll be sure to remind you every now and again that he's loyal to you and only you. You can trust him when tells you, but reminding you about that fact never hurts!

Overall, he trusts and loves you to the fullest and he can only hope that you return both of those in full back to him. He's indulged the most information about himself personally and his worries to you and only you, and you've done the same for him.

Spy:

(General)

Standoffish with you in your initial meeting. Your first impression of him was one you couldn't really say was kind or nice in anyway. While the man wasn't downright cruel he still couldn't be described as nice. After all, he did blow smoke in your face upon initial meeting. However, you didn't return this first impression in kind back as you were quick to gather the smoke blown at you in a sphere kind of shape and have it blown right back in his own face, his expression souring quite a bit.

He can be mad all he wants, but you let it be known on your first meeting that you're not letting yourself get pushed around. Something that while not in that moment, he grows to appreciate and admire that you're not gonna let people like him walk all over you.

Once you've proven your worth as a teammate to be welcomed on the team by proving yourself in the face of battle, he's lightens up on you considerably. He views his actions as a sort of..tough love kind of situation if you will. He figures that, if you're really deemed fit enough to have your own spot on the team with the rest of them..then he has no need to keep being tough on you as he thinks it would no longer be necessary if you're already here to stay correct?

Finds some of your antics when using your telekinesis amusing..not that he would admit that out loud of course. You swear you might of heard a sucking in of breath to laugh, soft chuckles, or hell even a few snorts from this man a few times when you mess with people but..you also didn't have proof it was him so you wouldn't know completely.

Has admitted to you at one point that you were more tolerable to be around as opposed to the other teammates, not to say that none of them could hold good conversation no, but most could get a bit tiring to socialize with and it was quick to make him want to reside back in his smoking room. You however, were someone he can actually bear to talk to for more than an hour.

Can also admire your skill and how well in check you can keep yourself, it shows serious restraint on your part and that's not so easy for everyone. He finds it admirable that you try so hard as to not cause any kind of harm to anyone or break anything.

(Romantic)

Okay dunno if you can tell but this guy is very much not a low key kind of partner. He's one to shell out quite a pretty penny on gifts he knows you'll enjoy or dates he takes you on. It's a love language of his.

Is also not low key at all when it comes to affection much in public. Hand holding, kisses to the corner of your mouth, kisses to your hands and forehead, the works of that sort but is sure to not overwhelm you if you're not to heavy on that.

You can give the love back whenever you're on the base, super simple things that sure, aren't as out there as Spy's but are gestures he can appreciate no matter how small they are. Using your telekinesis to fetch him a lighter from across the room as to not have him get up to retrieve it, or to use it to tidy up his tie or flick dust and dirt off of his pristine suit.

You find that although unwilling to part with too much information himself, he's very much listening to things you have to say. A sharp eared good listener if you will, he supposes all of those years of eavesdropping on his end has done him some good as he's very much still listening even though he may be occupied with something.

Indulges himself in your company far more than anyone else. Mostly in the dark evenings as he's usually off doing his own things after battle whatever those things may be. Isn't one to talk about work when everyone is clearly not having to do it as of right now, he just wants to wind down at least a tad (as he never allows himself to completely relax as that would pose a danger to the kind of job he has of course.)

Finds that your a good reading partner, not for reading out loud to or you reading out loud for him but, you're someone good to be around if you wish to work around someone who has a bit of life around them as although silent in speech you're not silent in activities that don't require talking. Reading for example, you don't speak but you're also not silent, your soft breathing, maybe the quiet whistle of your nose as you breath out, the light sound of your bouncing your leg against fabric, or just the sound of rustling and turning pages. It calms him.

[notthefilmreview]

Falling in love with Aster Flores in 1hr and 45m (aka watching THE HALF OF IT)

Hi, it’s Dana and today I’m going to be reviewing THE HALF OF IT!

I am so excited; I have been waiting for this movie since the trailer first came out weeks ago so it’s safe to say that my expectations are high and I truly hope that this will be rememorable. 

I also did a reaction to the trailer of THE HALF OF IT so if you haven’t seen that the link is here.

I think that’s all I really have to say so read on to see my reaction to THE HALF OF IT...

This is just a lovely way to start a movie and I have noticed that a lot of movies do that. I personally really like the simplicity of adding a meaningful quote at the beginning of a movie (especially if it’s actually corely related, not just added for the sake of adding it) because it gives it that book-like, nostalgic feeling.

In the first few seconds of the movie we already have that idea of soulmates explained in some really creative animation and lovely narration. What I’m thinking is that obviously alluding to that connection between Aster and Ellie being almost soulmate-like.

And here we have Ellie who is scientific and rational and doesn’t believe in soulmates. Oh, she is going to find that everything she has once believed in is going to be proved so so wrong once she meets Aster and I just can’t wait!!!!

Ellie’s mum. We don’t know what has happened to her yet. Is she dead? Has she left? Is she missing? Was there an accident? But what we do know is that she is the reason why Ellie has closed herself off from other people and believes that love is irrational and meaningless. Therefore, for Ellie to truly accept her feelings for Aster she’ll have to face her mum and I am not ready for this; this is going to most likely be such an emotional part of the movie and I will definitely be crying my eyes out as I attempt to write up this review.

Also, Ellie has a lot of checklists and I feel that vibe because that is pretty much my whole entire life.

Mr Flores? As in Astra Flores?

I think the music teacher might be Aster’s dad and I feel like that’s going to relate in someway. I don’t *exactly* know how - yet - but I will ponder on it throughout the review.

So Aster is also in her dad’s class and she has such a beautiful voice, seriously, listen to it; she sounds like an actual angel and she makes it look so effortless. I understand why everyone likes her so much because even I want to marry her!

I think that Ellie has a crush on her even before she meets her in the corridor and that’s quite cool considering that the trailer made it look as though she gained a love at first sight crush on her (which she obviously doesn’t believe in).

Ellie’s philosophy teacher, who is quite close to her, knows about her essay writing business but never actually turns her in. This was a question I had during my trailer review because I was wondering how none of the teachers have noticed (or they were all just blind).

Another question about the essay business I had was how she manages to get away with writing around the same essays for everyone. However, it turns out that Ellie writes different essays for everyone and that is just amazing.

Also, Ellie was talking about leaving or staying for university so I think that’s also going to be a big thing. I hope that she ends up leaving at the end for her own sake.

Wow, okay, was it just me or did you feel that sexual tension too?

Because that just took my breath away and just made me love Aster even more. I didn’t even know that I could love her more but just watching her talk to Ellie was so beautiful and I just love her. Wow.

She’s so smart and so knowledgable about everything. I just want her to talk to me for hours and hours about anything that comes to her mind.

Aster also has known Ellie for some time which was a surprise because from the trailer I thought that they only met there for the first time. Hmmmm...maybe Aster also has feelings for Ellie????

I’m sensing a theme. Almost feels like a philosophy essay on love...maybe.

Everyone seems to be hanging out in the church which is quite different, I guess.

Aw, Aster is insecure about being at the peak of popularity and she’s being extremely honest about this to someone she’s only just met. This really shows that even through Ellie’s writing, Aster can tell that the person who’s writing this is genuine and someone she can trust to open up to.

(Also, she should drop her friends and find other people who don’t try to boost their own ego by bringing you down to their level. You are above them. Aster! They are nothing like you, honey!)

But her boyfriend’s quite funny and cute (in like a puppy kind of way). I know we’re meant to not like him because he’s getting in the way of Aster and Ellie but if they just break up I feel like he’ll just be a bit of a cool guy. I love how he has taco time with his girlfriend because that’s just too cute (and also makes me quite hungry).

This.

This.

Oh my, this is just beautiful.

They created art together from a bunch of lines that just so happened to get together.

Wow.

They are goals.

...this, on the other hand, is anything but.

I feel so bad for Aster being letter-fished (y’know, like catfished?) like that. She just wants someone who understands her at that deep sort of level; someone she can talk to about philosophy and art and literature; she needs Ellie (or me because I love books, abstract art, and philosophy too - hit me up, Aster!)

Omg, guys, is Aster Flores my soulmate?

She laughs at horror films! I laugh at horror films! I have seriously never met anyone else who’s crazy enough to laugh at horror films apart from Aster and I am astonished.

Why is she perfect in every way for me?????

However, I do find it extremely creepy how they’re basically stalking Aster and learning everything about her, writing every detail on whiteboards, windows, and notebooks.

I just love the contrast between Paul’s energetic, lively, and chaotic family contrasting with Ellie’s small and quiet home atmosphere.

What’s a taco sausage? A taco with sausage pieces? A hotdog but with a taco shell instead of a bun? A taco shell in the shape of a sausage?

It turns out that Ellie’s mum died when she was quite young.

Paul ends up finding out about Ellie’s crush on Aster quite early on. Actually, everything in this movie happens quite early on which I like because it just gets to the point of the plot without beating around the bush, constantly keeping the audience on their toes. I just love this movie so much.

What I also love is how Paul doesn’t go “you’re gay????” with all those question marks. It’s just normalised without questioning the gender of who she loves; just the person. Paul is actually just a cinammon roll at heart and he does deserve to find love but not with Aster (and I hope he learns that).

I’d probably eat that.

Hmmmm I’m thinking that this might be a bit of foreshadowing for the ending. I predict that Ellie leaves Squahamish and as the train is leaving, Aster (or maybe even Paul because I can’t see Aster running after trains) runs after her to say goodbye.

Hearing them eat those taco sausages has actually made me quite hungry.

Awwwwwww look at this boy; he is too cute to handle; he deserves so much love.

Ellie’s song - oh my. Can you just imagine her having a duet with Aster singing this song? And the fact that everyone claps is just beautiful.

Just no. Please, no. Please, stop, you’re only hurting yourself here. She has a name, please use it.

Also, Ellie’s sudden popularity??? Drunk Ellie??? Protective Paul??? 

Their friendship is everything that is needed in the world.

Okay, so if I thought that the corridor seen had sexual tension well...this...is on a whole other level.

Aster is conflicted between her destiny to marry Trig and how understood she feels when “Paul” writes to her.

Also I am here for the bromance between Ellie’s dad and Paul.

THIS. SHOT. IS. EVERYTHING.

It sort of reminds me of the lake scene in After - except better.

(Btw, this was kind of their first date. Right?)

Ummm...okay...WHAT DID I JUST WATCH?

WTF PAUL?

Paul, oh my, are you okay? Paul, honey, you were a cinammon roll. I cared about you, Paul. I believed that you deserved to find love when you finally realise you’re just not right for Aster.

Paul, I know that you’re not the brightest bulb in the shop but - this is not what I meant. This is not how I wanted conflict to arise.

This movie was going so well having this PLATONIC friendship that is sweet, caring, and supportive.

Paul, you’ve ruined it.

But, you know what the most annoying part is??? It’s the fact that I know at the end of this movie him and Ellie are probably going to make up and they’re going to brush that near kiss off as Paul being cofused or something and everything will be happy.

Usually, I enjoy watching something that I did not expect and the movie has been delivering that so far - including this. This, on the other hand, I did not like. 

What kind of signals are you getting, Paul????

I seriously just want to know what’s going through this guys mind when he asks Ellie “You don’t want me to kiss you?” because she has seriously shown no signs of wanting to kiss him. Not gonna lie, Paul, but I think Ellie would rather make out with a bottle of Yakult than you!

I don’t know, I feel like that just ruined this movie for me. Going into this movie I knew that there will be something that causes a rift in their friendship but I thought this movie was better than using that over-used plot of platonic friendship turning into something more (or something like that, anyone ever watched Naomi and Eli’s No Kiss List? Well that’s what I’m sort of talking about).

There’s about 25 minutes left in the movie so I guess we’ll get through it (I just hope that somehow Paul redeems himself because even Trig seems more of an appealing character now).

Wait.

I swear we established this way at the beginning of the movie.

I’m so confused.

Wow, too far Paul.

I seriously take back every nice thing I said about you earlier being accepting, lovely, caring, and all that because this scene has just ruined him for me. I can’t believe they’re kind of making Paul the antagonist!!!! He had so much potential and they just did that.

There is just no way he’s redeeming himself at the end. I wouldn’t make friends with him again after this.

I really just want to fight him at this point; he just needs to go away; I’m not happy at all.

Why is the only good guy in this movie Ellie’s dad? Seriously, there is not a single good guy and that just makes me so annoyed.

I can confirm.

I feel so bad for Aster, seeing the one person who she thought understood her (Paul) try to kiss Ellie.

And you don’t either Paul. 

I’m pretty sure Ellie’s dad understands her a lot more than you could any day so don’t go around thinking that you really know her because if you did then you wouldn’t have said what you said.

AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY YOU ARE A QUEEN ASTER FLORES!

Paul got what he deserved and I had to replay that soooo many times just to get that satisfaction.

(Personally, I think that Aster should have slapped Paul and then kissed Ellie amongst all the triggered homophobes).

This shot is just beautiful. They know they’re both heading in different paths, with Ellie deciding to go to Grinnell and Aster going to art school and this might just be their last chance to get things right between them.

Are we seeing this???

THIS IS EVERYTHING I WANTED FROM THIS MOVIE!

Even though they’re not ending up together their is that agreement that they like each other and they might even wait for each other after university.

That was just the best goodbye ever. I am so proud of Ellie’s confidence growth.

Ew, no, not you again.

I thought we were done with this guy after he got slapped.

Why can’t it be Ellie’s dad wishing her a farewell???

I can’t believe she just forgives him after he told her she’s basically going to go to Hell and we don’t even see him say sorry to her. I just hate how we were made to love him and...

Oh he’s running after the train oh my, I hate this so much. 

Alright, this running and this goodbye would have been cute if all that stuff before didn’t happen - but it did. And no matter how much I try I can’t see Paul the same way no matter how much he attempts to make it up to Ellie.

Paul doesn’t deserve her tears.

(say it with me kids)

The most annoying thing is the fact that this was meant to be a friendship-centric story so I did expect that Aster and Ellie wouldn’t be the main focus but they just ruined the friendship and attempted to restore it in the last 25 minutes through Paul’s speech at church. This wasn’t a friendship story and Paul wasn’t a good friend. 

Paul, in the first half was a good friend (the best) and had so much potential. Paul, in the second half destroyed first half Paul and replaced him with his evil homophobic twin brother.

Lol maybe that’s why they call it THE HALF OF IT!

At this point, I don’t even have anything to say except for the fact that I am very much disappointed in Paul’s storyline and what Netflix thinks is a “platonic friendship between a guy and a girl” (or a friendship in general).

As for Aster and Ellie, they got the ending I partially expected with Ellie deciding to leave Squahamish for university and them going their separate ways after that brilliant kiss (there are no words to describe the thick sexual tension between these two people).

Aster in general is just an amazing person who deserves to rule the world and I hate how she had to go through that letter-fishing but the upside is that she has time to figure herself out and what she wants in life at art school without fake friends and Trig holding her back.

I’m happy that Ellie gets to leave Squahamish but I feel sorry that her dad has to hang out with Paul the homophobe back home (I hope his taco sausage business fails and I’m not even sorry).

Anyway, that was a bit of a disappointment but if I just the almost kiss part out of my mind then it’ll be less traumatic.

What did you think of the movie? Good? Bad? Still angry with Paul? Tell me in the comment! Bye!

[stainedglassgardens]

Watched in April

Queen of Earth Black Christmas Dogs of Chernobyl Firecrackers Les Misérables The Evil Dead The Daughters of Fire (Las hijas del fuego) The Fallen Idol The Wailing (곡성, Gokseong) Inherent Vice Sorrowful Shadow Mistery Lonely The Grand Bizarre Zombieland: Double Tap Waves '98 Uncut Gems The Last Séance Too Late to Die Young (Tarde para morir joven) Room Queen & Slim The Holy Mountain (La montaña sagrada) The Chaser ( 추격자, Chugyeokja) Made in Dagenham The Color of Pomegranates (Նռան գույնը, Nřan guynə) Lost Girls Ghost Town Anthology (Répertoire des villes disparues) And Then There Were None Doctor Sleep Meshes of the Afternoon Circus of Books Catfish Wildling Delphine The Strange Love of Martha Ivers The Red Balloon (Le Ballon rouge) Nona. If They Soak Me, I’ll Burn Them (Nona. Si me mojan, yo los quemo) The Lodge Invisible Man Sans Soleil

Did not finish

Horsehead (Romain Basset, 2014) Sinister (Scott Derrickson, 2012)

Did not like

Sorrowful Shadow (Guy Maddin, 2004) Mistery Lonely (Harmony Korine, 2007) Uncut Gems (Josh and Benny Safdie, 2019) The Last Séance (Laura Kulik, 2018) The Holy Mountain (La montaña sagrada, Alejandro Jodorowsky, 1973) Doctor Sleep (Mike Flanagan, 2019)

Okay

Queen of Earth (Alex Ross Perry, 2015): The way it was filmed reminded me of The Midnight Swim and Always Shine. I watched it because Elisabeth Moss is in it but was rather disappointed in the end -- it was beautifully shot but went nowhere

Black Christmas (Sophia Takal, 2019): Like Assassination Nation, this is a film I'm glad young people today have -- and it was fine, and if there’s anything I’ve got to say about so-called raging feminists it’s that we need more of them, but yeah the ending was disappointing and I felt that I had aged out of the target audience a good number of years ago

The Evil Dead (Sam Raimi, 1981): Finally saw this! Love me a a good campy horror story once in a while

The Wailing (곡성, Gokseong) and The Chaser ( 추격자, Chugyeokja) (Na Hong-jin, 2016 and 2008): A healthy dose of wtf in both of those, I’m still not sure I “correctly” grasped the intended tone. I also just lost all interest in The Chaser when (spoiler) the girl died. What’s the point of that? Are we in Game of Thrones now? I may still be angry about that, actually

Inherent Vice (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2014): I know it’s a good film but it bored me to death. I don’t like stories about men or drugs

Zombieland: Double Tap (Ruben Fleischer, 2019): A sympathetic, slightly disappointing sequel

Waves '98 (Ely Dagher, 2015): I don’t remember much about this short but I did think it was good

Room (Lenny Abrahamson, 2015): I couldn’t watch this as separate from the book, it felt more like a companion film to me than anything else. It was good I think, but I’m definitely not the best judge on this one, because the book was so amazing and I’m still not over it, apparently

And Then There Were None (René Clair, 1945): Was it good? Who knows. They changed the ending and added in a crap love story, so who cares, really

Wildling (Fritz Böhm, 2018): I liked it? I didn’t really see the “feminist themes” in this but it was good

Delphine (Chloé Robichaud, 2019): This is one of those short films that are a little too “slice of life” for me to really enjoy. I can tell it’s good, tho

The Red Balloon (Le Ballon rouge, Albert Lamorisse, 1956): This is apparently a classic short film, and I think I would have enjoyed it a lot had I seen it in 1956. Seeing it today, when everything in it has been used in a hundred thousand other films, made it fall flat a little

Nona. If They Soak Me, I’ll Burn Them (Nona. Si me mojan, yo los quemo, Camila José Donoso, 2019): Watched this because it was directed by a woman! Did not know what to expect at all. The non-linear narration kept me trying to remember if there was something I could possibly have skipped that would have made more sense of it. I think the premise (old woman throws Molotov cocktail at former lover’s car) is better than the finished product, although it is very well-shot and the acting is amazing

Good

Dogs of Chernobyl (Léa Camilleri & Hugo Chesnel, 2020): Short documentary that had me on the verge of tears several times (you can watch it for free on YouTube!)

Les Misérables (Ladj Ly, 2019): It’s hard to talk about films like these. It is very good, very important, I think everyone should watch it. Think a new La Haine

The Daughters of Fire (Las hijas del fuego, Albertina Carri, 2018): Loved the reflection on pornography. The pornography itself was a little more... boring... but I appreciate the intention, and the guts it took to shoot something like this

The Fallen Idol (Carol Reed, 1948): An amazing British classic (adapted from Graham Greene!) that I had somehow never heard of. Great acting, especially considering the main character is a small child

Too Late to Die Young (Tarde para morir joven, Dominga Sotomayor Castillo, 2018): There will be people in this world to say that "uhh nothing happens in this film", a statement to which my reply will be twofold: first, it's beautiful so who cares, and second, how many other films have you seen that take place in a commune in the 1990s in Chile? That's what I thought. Shut up

Made in Dagenham (Nigel Cole, 2010): Films like this and Suffragette, that is, mainstream films about the working classes and political activism, are almost bound to be flawed, but I'm grateful they exist all the same. And how many of those have we seen that are about workers’ unions, with an all-female main cast, and nuanced dialogue about communism and the place of women in the home and of men in feminism? I’m glad that male directors have finally figured out that one of the best ways to avoid showing a one-dimensional idea of women is to have lots of them in one film. And Sally Hawkins! I love her

The Color of Pomegranates (Նռան գույնը, Nřan guynə, Sergei Parajanov, 1969): Another one of those classics I had never heard of (until I got Mubi!). Indescribable, beautiful

Lost Girls (Liz Garbus, 2020): Really liked the speech at the end about the police failing the victims and their families, really liked that the old inspector guy wasn't made to be someone who was on the side of the victims instead of on his own side. Bleak, sobering. When I watched this I didn't know Garbus was the person who directed that Nina Simone documentary, which I also love.Will definitely seek out more Liz Garbus in future

Ghost Town Anthology (Répertoire des villes disparues, Denis Côté, 2019): I watched this not knowing anything about Denis Côté or the film, and I loved the atmosphere even before the supernatural element really kicked in. Films like this and The One I Love or Everything Beautiful is Far Away are my kind of low-key science fiction

Meshes of the Afternoon (Maya Deren and Alexander Hammid, 1943): Aaaand another classic I finally saw! It just warms my heart to see that stuff like this was being made (by a woman!!) in the 1940s

Circus of Books (Rachel Mason, 2019): I saw a headline calling this “the queer Stories We Tell” and I loved Sarah Polley’s documentary and wouldn’t go quite that far but I can see where it’s coming from. A good autobiographical documentary about the complexity of families

Catfish (Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman, 2010): I think everyone going into this today knows what this is going to be about, but let me tell you, it does not reduce the impact

The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (Lewis Milestone, 1946): Barbara Stanwyck and Lizabeth Scott! Murder! Intrigue! Love and sleaze!

The Lodge (Veronika Franz & Severin Fiala, 2019): This was so efficient. It is so well-done, and Riley Keough is amazing as usual. More subtle than Franz and Fiala’s last effort, Goodnight Mommy, and at least as good

Sans Soleil (Chris Marker, 1983): It’s hard not to be disappointed by this after hearing every film bro I’ve ever met describe this as his fave ever. It is... pretty racist and sexist... but yes, very pretty, very nice if you can get past that

Faves

Firecrackers (Jasmin Mozaffari, 2018): Is this a coming-of-age story? Anyway it’s about two working-class teenage girls in small town Canada who are this close to making their dream of leaving for New York, and one of them is fuuuuucked up...

The Grand Bizarre (Jodie Mack, 2018): I think this is what I want from a non-narrative documentary. I’m tired of seeing pretentious Godfrey Reggio knockoffs. This quite simply blew my mind and is one of those very rare films I can see myself rewatching ten times

Queen & Slim (Melina Matsoukas, 2019): I can’t not compare this to Natural Born Killers and Thelma and Louise, both of which I used to love and haven’t seen in a number  of years -- but Queen & Slim is quite possibly better than both of those. The tone, the breadth, the acting -- even the soundtrack. It’s a masterpiece

Invisible Man (Leigh Whannell, 2020): This is about a man who creates an invisibility suit. This is also about a woman who is being stalked and abused by a controlling man who just won’t rest until he has completely destroyed her -- but of course, since this is cinema and the woman in question is Elisabeth Moss, she ultimately beats the shit out of him. This was very difficult to watch for me but I’m glad I stuck through

*

I got Mubi this month! So glad I did. It’s so much better than both Filmstruck (RIP) and Amazon Prime. I like that choices are made for me up to a certain extent -- and those choices often turn out very good, and always interesting. And yes, we’re still in lockdown, I’m still unemployed, hence the number of films watched this month. Hopefully we can get out in May and I’ll end up watching less!

[yungagora-blog]

My script for my video “Libertarian Socialism IS NOT an oxymoron, critiquing Esoteric Entity”

First point I should make: that libertarian socialism is an umbrella term for a lot of positions that all believe in the voluntarily stateless society based on worker ownership (socialism) but disagree with the means to achieve and maintain it. So, the whole point of making this video is to have the viewer aware of this, and so not to conflate all libsoc thought as one as Esoteric Entity has.  

0:41 First point that esoteric makes: that socialism is not voluntarily.  

My argument: I can agree that certain strains of socialism are not voluntarily and very hierarchical (Marxism, i.e. state socialism) and tho I question certain libsoc thought (ancoms, ancols) this is something you have to present when debating saying “libertarian socialism in an oxymoron”, which thought do you mean?  Because as I said in my other video a lot of your arguments are against anarcho-communism but lump the whole of libsoc thought with it, not rebutting the ideas that are contrary to anarcho-communism.  

My first quote is Benjamin R Tucker can be found in his “Instead of a Book” and as the name implies, is actually a collection of essays from his newspaper “Liberty”, this quote can be found ‘A puppet for god’ but the debate Tucker is in this article begins in “Mr. Levy’s Maximum” where he attempts to argue that “the state is precisely the thing which the anarchist say it’s not – namely a voluntarily association of contracting individuals.”,

his argument being “When I said in my previous replies to mr perrine, that voluntarily assoications necessarily involves the right of secession, I did not deny the right of any individuals to go through the form of constituting themselves an association in which each member waives the right of secession.  My assertion was simply meant to carry the idea that such a constitution, if any should be so idle to adopt it, would be a mere FORM, which every decent man who was a party to it would hasten to violate and tread under foot as soon as he appreciated the enormity of his folly.”  Contract is a very serviceable and most important tool, but its usefulness has its limits; no man can employ it for the abdication of his manhood.  To indefinitely waive ones right of secession is to make one’s self a slave.  Now no man can make himself so much a slave as to forfeit the right to issue his own emancipation proclamation.  Individuality and its right of assertion are indestructible except by death.”  

In another quote in page 44-45 of instead of a book BRT extends this too with third parties, that third parties who did not agree to the terms and conditions of two agreeing parties are not bound to that same agreement made, so I don’t see your argument for “socialism, a system where people aren’t free to associate with others on a voluntarily basis, don’t have a right to the production of their own autonomy, or don’t have the right to exist free of free” if anything everything I have just stated agrees with your latter statement of “libertarianism a system that seeks to maximize the individual liberty of indidivuals allowing for the self ownership, autominity, and voluntairty association. “

 1: 24 – 3:17 Esoteric point “You can’t redefine arbitrarily redefine socialism”

Camreon does a poor job in defining socialism in this bit especially where it lies in common with libertarian socialism.  Socialism can be defined as “worker ownership of the means of production”, now what differs with libertarian socialism and state socialism is their goals with this definition, which Tuckers sums as AUTHOIRTY and LIBERTY.  Tucker describes state socialism as “The Doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice.”   And then describing anarchism (libertarian socialism) as : “The doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntarily associations, and that the state should be abolished”

 So yes, Cameron and libertarian socialist can do this as this is what happens with all philosophy, people create thoughts and disagree with those thoughts or parts of it and make up their own terms to show where they lie, especially in the realm of political philosophy, I am not saying I agree with it but that in a manner it is useful, for example, you can’t go about telling everyone you are a “classical liberal” hoping they’ll actually know you are an anarcho-capitalist, you have to explain how you are both but that the latter differs from the primary (statelessness).  And still you don’t address any of Cameron’s claims on how and why libertarian socialism differs from state socialism.

 Esoteric entitiy in 4:00-4:50: Is it really hard for you to understand that state socialism and libertarian socialism are two different things?  I can agree with your point on “why these regimes call themselves socialist” but you’re still not attacking Cameron’s argument on how libertarian socialism & state socialism are two different socialisms.  And my problem with relying on dictionary.com to define socialism is best worded by a comrade I made through my first video who said “ I know you (ME, Agora) were like 'wtf your using the definition of socialism from a dictionary'. But to explain why you said that, that's how we feel a lot of the time because dictionaries give the simplest of definitions where-as a better understanding can be gained from encyclopedias. Maybe if you explain that, it would be better. There is a long historical tradition of libertarian socialism whether or not it "sounds right" to him. So he's literally arguing against history. When he looks up the definition of libertarianism he doesn't understand that the free will definition refers to free will vs determinism in philosophy. As in, are your decisions predetermined? He doesn't understand libertarian free will has nothing to do with politics. That shows how uninformed he is.”  

 5:38: in your point here you attack anarcho-communism and its forced collectivization and so assume that libsocs are not in favor of individual ownership which these next quotes will disproves: Paul Eltzbacher writes about Proudhon

“Proudhon calls that portion of goods which is assigned to the individual by contract, “property”. In 1840 he had demanded that INDIVIDUAL POSSESSION be substituted for property; with this one change evil would disappear from the earth. “ and continues to tumble around by his belief in INDIVIDUAL POSSESSION & PROPERTY till in 1850 he announces “What I sought for as far back as 1840, in defining property, what I am wanting now, is not a destruction; I have said it till I am tired.  That would have been to fall with Rousseau, Plato, Lousic Blanc himself, and all the adversaries of property, into COMMUNISM, against which I protest with all my might; what I ask for property is a BALANCE – that is, “justice.”

Eltzbacher explains: “In all these pronouncements property means nothing else than that portion of goods which falls to the individual on the basis of contracts, on which society is to be built up.  The property which Proudhon sanctions cannot be special legal relation, but only a possible part of the substance of the one legal relation which he approves, the relation of contract.  It can afford no protection against a group of men whose extent is determined by legal norms, but only against who have mutually secured a certain portion of goods to each other by contract.  Proudhon, therefore, is here using the word “property” in an inexact sense; in the strict sense it can denote only a portion of goods set apart in an involuntary legal relation by particular legal norms.  Accordingly, when in the name of Justice Proudhon demands a certain distribution of property, this means nothing more than that the contracts on which society is to be built should make a certain sort of provision with respect to the distribution of goods.  And the way in which they should determine it is this: that every man is to have the product of his labor.

Now for this quote on property can be found in Tucker’s “Liberty and Property”: “Man has little to gain from liberty unless that liberty to control what he produces. One of the chief purposes of equal liberty is to secure this fundamental necessity of property, and, if property is not thereby secured, the temptation is to abandon the regime of contract and return to the reign of the strongest.”

6:55 Now Cameron, being an ancom believes in “direct democracy” but this isn’t to say, all libertarian socialist believe in democracy.  Some quotes:

“Royalty is never legitimate.  Neither heredity, election, universal suffrage, the excellence of the sovereign, nor the consecration of religion and time makes royalty legitimate.  In whatever form it may appear, monarchical, oligarchic, democratic, - royalty, or government of man by man is illegal and absurd. “  

“Democracy in particular is nothing but a constitutional arbitrary power succeeding another constitutional arbitrary power; it has no scientific value, and we must see in it only a preparation for the REPUBLIC, one and indivisible.”

“Authority was no sooner begun on earth than it became the object of universal competition.  Authority, government , power, state, - these words all denote the same thing, - each man sees in it the means of oppressing and exploiting his fellows.”

“All parties without exception, in so far as they seek for power, are varieties of absolutism; and there will be no liberty for citizens, no order for societies, no union among workingmen, till in the political catechism the renunciation of authority shall have replaced faith in authority.  No more parties, no more authority, absolute liberty of man and citizen, - there, in three words, is my political and social confession.”  - Proudhon

 And then I don’t think direct democracy is necessarily  “unlibertarian” , just the fetishism with majority rule over individual, this fetishism being “because the majority agreed to it therefore it must be right”  , an example I can think of is the death sentence, just because a majority voted to enact it doesn’t change it from murder, therefore right, but direct democracy in this case would solve the problem for a society “what are we to do with violent criminals” (serial killers, serial rapist, serial pedophiles) , that ALL participators of said society would ALL have an equal vote in the matter to enact or keep inactive the death sentence.  

7:14 You don’t know what the big fuss is about

I agree, libsocs and libcaps can stand by each other more and less but what prevents this is the conflating of each other’s philosophy.  Do you believe a libertarian socialist is interested in associating with you when you bring up the Economic calculation Problem, something only applicable to centralized (statist) economies?  

8:19 social hierarchy

I can agree with your statements on “income inequality” as Benjamin R Tucker even says “There will remain the slight disparity of products due to superiority of soil and skill.” But as Voltaire de Cleyre wrote in her dialogue “The individualist & the communist” : ““Certainly I do believe there are such differences in ability, but that they will lead to the iniquity you fear I deny. Suppose A does produce more than B, does he in anyway injure the latter so long as he does not prevent B from applying his own labor to exploit nature, with equal facilities as himself, either by self-employment or by contract with others?”‘”

But now where social hierarchy comes in is the artificial enforcement of the ability for an individual “from applying his own labor to exploit nature with equal facilities as himself, either by self-employment or contract by others”.  So, people who have made their power through the state or similar institutions of absolutism, have a social hierarchy over those who can’t achieve similar power by those same institutions.  Some people being , aristocrats, bureaucrats, , aristocrats having to rely on  a total monopoly of land to keep their subjects as peasants or whatever caste they were born into, bureaucrats often showing political and economic favoritism mimicking the aristocrats of the past with the same effects.  

 So yes, people making different life choices is not a hierarchy, but you don’t seem to realize that a system that PREVENTS individuals from making or choosing those different life choices through artificial enforcement is a social hierarchy.  That, power relations between two parties THAT are not equal, that is legitimate, voluntarily, where one party through some means has acquired a good deal of COERCIVE power, is a social hierarchy.  A good video about this is Punkonarant’s “What is power and how does it work?” I will post a link in the description, and tho a video against capitalism, I feel is good video on coercive power (statism).

 9:56 “That libsocs want to abolish the state and voluntarily association through a coup d’état”

 I don’t know where you got your “wanting to abolish voluntarily association” which I would like a source from as all libsocs, from mutualist to ancoms believe in voluntary association. I am not sure why Cameron doesn’t explain but I will. Again because libertarian socialism is an umbrella term for various thoughts that all disagree with another, they also disagree with what they call the “Social revolution” not a “coup d’état”, and yes, anarcho-communist, anarcho-collectivist, theorticans Peter Kropotkin & Mikhail Bakunin did argue for a violent revolution against the state and its cronies

But, the social revolution is not just against men, but against relations and things with it.  Bakunin wrote: “Bloody revolutions are often necessary, thanks to human stupidity; yet they are always an evil (line added by me) a monstrous evil and a great disaster, not only with regard to the victims, but also for the sake of the purity and perfection of the purpose in whose name they take place.” Bakunin, Volkssache

“The first act of the social revolution will be a destruction , which is so natural and justifiable because it is at the same time an impulse to renovation, will find its full satisfaction.  How much old trash there is to clear away!  Does not everything have to be transformed?  “ Peter Kropotkin

Now I chose to quote Bakunin first to explain his view on the Bakunin dialectic in contrast to the Hegelian, Marxist,which explains the views of Bakunin & Kropotkin on violent usurpation.  

 In ch 1 of the introduction of the book “The Basic Bakunin” , Robert M. Cutler writes : “ For Bakunin , the resolution of the dialectical contradiction signifies the victory of the negative.  In this victory  , both parties are vanquished ; neither is superposed on the other in the outcome. The negative and positive disappear , together and totally, in the final conflagration to which their struggles lead. “  and also “In Bakunin’s vision of the contradiction, however, the Positive and the Negative mutually destroy one another leading to the transcendence of both but preserving nothing of either.  Thus Bakunin, in his revolutionary exhortation, foresees no aspects of existing society based on the institution of the state, to survive the universal insurrection. “  And so if Bakunin believed that the violence of the state (the Positive) was to not survive this violent revolution, along with the Negative (violent usurpation) , therefore the Bakunin synthesis proposes a New World free from muddle of the Old.  

Kropotkin wrote “The work of destruction will be followed by a work of re-shaping”

But, as I can tell you are not one for violent revolution, neither am I, which is why I agree more with the “reformatory theachings” (as Eltzbacher puts it) of Godwin, Proudhon, Tucker & Tolstoi.  

 “The sole requirement is to convince men that the general welfare demands the change.”

“The point is to convince men as generally as possible.  Only when this is accomplished can acts of violence be avoided.”

“The means to convince men as generally as possible of the nessecity of a change consist in “proof and persuasion. The best warrant of a happy outcome lies in free, unrestricted discussion.  In this arena truth must always be victor.  If therefore we are would improve the social insitituions of mankind, we must seek to convince by spoken and written words.” William Godwin, An Enquiry concerning political justice and is influence on general virtue and happiness

These next quotes are from Proudhon.

“Accomplish the revolution, they say, and after this everything will be cleared up.  As if the revolution could be accomplished without a leading idea!”  Apparently this had been mistranslated and Steven T Byrinton, the translator, writes “Eltzbacher finds sens “all wil be enlightended” where I translate “everything will be cleared up”.  Eltzbacher’s view of the sense – that to those who say “enlightenment must come by revolution.” Proudhon replies, “No, the revolution must come by enlightenment” – correctly gives the thought brought out in the context.”

But now don’t be spooked by the word “revolution” as Proudon said “I want the peaceable revolution.  I want you to abolish the very institutions which I charge you to abolish, and the principals of law which you will have to complete, serve toward the realization of my wishes, so that the new society shall appear as the spontaneous , natural, and necessary development of the old, and the the revolution, while abrogating the old order of things shall nevertheless be the progress of that order. “When the people, one enlightened regarding its true interests, declares its will, not to reform government but to revolutionize society, then the dissolution of government in the economic organism will follow in a way about which one at present only make guesses.”

“Nothing is requisite but to convince men that justice commands the change.” To Proudhon (Along with Tucker & Tolstoi) the Social Revolution would only be possible through education of anarchist philosophy and the development of counter institutions to show to people what is anarchism, without violating the law.  And through the establishment of these anarchist counter institutions based on non-violence, non-coercion, voluntarily order, anarchism will replace the old world of coercion, violence, and involuntarily order.

Tucker says it best : “The idea that Anarchy can be inaugurated by force is as fallacious as the idea that it can be sustained by force.  Force cannot preserve Anarchy; neither can it bring it. In fact, one of the inevitable influences of the use of force is to postpone Anarchy.” Instead of a book, A Principal of Social Therapeutics

And to play God’s advocate with the Devil, the idea of a “peaceful” transition from a stateful society to a stateless society is a bit utopic.  A historic example of this would be the early Christians and several North American Indian tribes stance to, “turn the other cheek”, and often these people would be persecuted, aggressed upon, and killed when taking this extreme nonviolent route which is the stance of Leo Tolstoi.

Again looking to North American Indians we see how repeatedly they made contracts with the U.S. government which the government did not keep, stealing land and resources from the Natives, often leaving them to resettle in the rot of dissolute lands, resulting in the Indians to fight back.

 My point being, that just because you are peaceful, non-coercive, voluntary society not breaking the law, won’t stop the state from initiating force upon you, and tho we should glorify violence, we must understand that revolution as the anarchist saw it came out of a necessity to oppose statism, hierarchy, coercion, and create the New World from the shell of the Old.  

  10:23 Not to be rude but you’re confusing Lao Tzu with Zhuang Zhou, Lao Tzu in his “Tao ti ching” makes repeated remarks about how monarchy is part of “the way” (tao).  I am not sure if you said Talmud, that is the written law of the Jews, but I wouldn’t associate any religion with anarchism as some of these arguments of comparison are usually based around “themes of anarchism”, not that they were actually anarchist.  And on Lysander Spooner, Spoon was born 4 years after Proudhon and died about 10 years later, so yes they were contemporaries but what you don’t say is that Spooner’s anarchism is based of Josiah Warren anarchism based on Proudhon that is mutualism, aka anarchist socialism.  But you are right, Cameron makes a shit argument for an appeal to tradition which I won’t make, reading Paul Eltzbacher’s “anarchism” has shown me that anarchist philosophy doesn’t necessarily have to agree with each other 100% , but that it must be voluntarily as I have shown.       11:49 As I have demonstrated that yes, libertarian socialism does fit the definition of libertarianism I hope you can actually address Cameron’s point here, that being, why should we as libertarian socialist not identify as libertarians?       12:04: already explained in my first point   12:36 Cameron makes a good point here that you just dismiss without giving an actual argument.  When you look into the history of libertarian movements from the past a repeated theme is that they’re often betrayed for authortianism and suppressed by their opposition, usually marxist , now don’t tell me that doesn’t even ring true with some ancaps are making an appeal out to the alt-right (ancap chase, Christopher Cantwell, molyneaoux)     13:00 Camerons examples are of ancom regimes that I’m not interested in defending so I will give my own examples of anarchism at work.  Josiah Warren’s “Cincinnati Time Store” The entrepreneurship of Benjamin R Tucker, a man who started his own newspaper (Liberty) , translated the works of several anarchist having them republished.   Lysander Spooner, my favorite example as he challenged the U.S. governments monopoly on mailing, out-competing the U.S. until they made his buisness illegal, preserving its monopoly.     Henry David Thoreau, believed in self-reliance and abhorred slavery so much he refused to pay the tax   So here is some anarchism in action.   14:11 not an argument �Z5'\Z�

[kalique]

MINE THOUGHTS ON BIG BROTHER

FAYSAL - definitely a jock type, can’t see him getting evicted first unless he pisses everyone off. he’s got a face that’s either “i’m the nicest guy in the house” or “i’m the new josh,” there is NO in between. his strategy for not letting anyone see he’s a physical powerhouse is going to kind of backfire because he’s SUCH a huge jock that i could tell he was a fucking jock from just his headshot, no freaking way anyone is going to think this guy isn’t a physical threat. 

SAM - nice “i want to see your manager” haircut, madam. she describes herself as “multifaceted, charming and charismatic,” and i can already tell i am going to hate this woman. and whomst in the fuck says their favorite big brother houseguest is DANIELE????? (i was trying to think of a worse choice, and i can only come up with like, either cody from last season, or the hantz cousin who got kicked off for trying to kill a guy, or maybe lawon from season 13 who volunteered to get evicted because he thought they’d bring him back with special powers, which did NOT happen.) and then this woman goes on to describe herself with all the positive adjectives she can pull from her thesaurus. she calls herself “extremely perceptive and intuitive,” and says she’ll “influence the other houseguests by means of gentle persuasion and manipulation. Another terrible talent of mine.” I HATE SAM ALREADY. she’s going to get kicked out on day 1 with this attitude. be humble sit down.

TYLER - haven’t we already had like, 50 curly blonde headed surfer guys on this show? what is the deal? anyway one of his descriptive words is “questionable.” he calls himself “questionable.” okay. he says victor, dan and zach (literally “fruit loop dingus” zach) are his favorite houseguests and i love you already, tyler. great choices. his strategy is playing both sides of the house, which isn’t even a strategy since literally everyone does it. his life motto is “do whatever the hell you want” and for something he’d like to bring into the house, he lists “quinoa.” I LOVE HIM ALREADY. I SUPPORT HIM. “QUINOA.” WHAT A LEGEND

BAYLEIGH - okay that is.... the most millennial name i ever heard. but like, it’s not a name that a millennial should have, it’s a name that a millennial would give their child. anyway. one of her descriptive words is “engulfing.” what does that mean, i guess we’ll find out. i like her face. sometimes you just like people’s faces. her favorite houseguest ever is donny, which i think is a clue that i was right that she’s a kind person. she has a kind face AND loves donny, she’s got to be nice (but maybe not too concerned with gameplay, since donny, bless his heart, was the biggest floater ever). her strategy is basically just a long-winded “be myself” kind of thing. i respect that. AND SHE LITERALLY SAYS “BE HUMBLE SIT DOWN” IN HER LIFE MOTTO, DO YOU FUCKING HEAR THAT SAM? i hope bayleigh roasts sam in cold blood and brings her down to earth!!!! okay, further evidence that she’s the nicest houseguest: she wants to bring her bible and yoga mat into the house. i love her. but still, i hope she turns mean and roasts sam. because i hate sam.

JC - here we have our token gay, but he’s clearly also a token bro at the same time. his favorite houseguest of all time is josh....... okay moving on. his strategy is “I am going to be the sweetest small guy that everyone would want to hug and kiss.” best strategy i ever heard in my life. seriously. this is how people win. except for josh, who won by being so insane that no one considered him a threat. which is why NO ONE SHOULD WANT TO EMULATE HIM, THIS STRATEGY ALMOST NEVER WORKS. anyway. enough about josh. returning to jc. not much to talk about with him, just that i definitely think he’s going to get far in the game because he doesn’t talk shit, he isn’t arrogant, he doesn’t look like a huge physical threat (although he’s a dancer so he might be), and his strategy is to be really nice to everyone, which is actually a great freaking strategy. i think he will go far.

HALEIGH - oh my god, first we had a “bayleigh” and now we have a “haleigh.” my god, these freaking millennials and their leigh names. facially, the moment i saw her i was like “she looks just like aaryn” which is..... hopefully not indicative of her personality or beliefs.... anyway, she loves her family, and her favorite houseguest is derrick because “he played an honest game,” yet in the very next paragraph she talks about wanting to deceive her fellow houseguests, so what is the truth? don’t know about her, don’t really have much to say. just that, she talks about being adopted and i hope to god she’s not aaryn’s separated at birth secret twin sister or anything. because that’s the kind of stunt big brother would pull on us commoners. 

STEVE - okay now we have our token old man, who will either get evicted immediately or float to the middle and then get betrayed. his favorite contestant is mike boogie. interesting choice. he literally doesn’t even have a strategy and his life motto is “rock on,” and i love him already. and of COURSE he was a cop, because is there a single token old man other than donny who isn’t a cop? wasn’t kevin a cop? i feel like kevin was a cop. or was that someone else? damn i don’t even remember. this guy looks like the kind of houseguest who will float around and not stir up any trouble, and frankly they’re my favorite to root for.

KAYCEE - her strategy is honesty and loyalty, she’ll probably get betrayed on day one. not to be cynical but really. she says that big brother is the only tv show she watches... damn. that could be a great asset for her; with no other shows competing for her memory, her knowledge of the game could be stronger than others who watch a lot of TV. and if she ONLY makes time for big brother and no other show, she’s probably the superest of superfans. she may be one to watch, or she may not. we will see.

WINSTON - damn this guy looks like a winston. he comments that he’s been living alone for 2 years, as though this will help him adjust to the isolation of the big brother house, but... it’s kind of the opposite? after living alone for 2 years, you’re going to be shoved in a house with over a dozen strangers and forced to interact with them all day every day while cameras watch you. i think this guy is going to have a bigger culture shock than he expects. his favorite houseguest is paul. i can see why people would love paul, he seems like the smartest guy in the room, but the reality is, paul isn’t that smart, he’s just been stuck in two consecutive seasons with a cast full of IDIOTS. winston apparently writes love letters to his dog everyday......... that’s dedication. also, he says that he’s been mistaken for two celebrities: ryan reynolds (i can see it) and justin timberlake (nope he’s tripping). somehow i get the feeling that he’s not going to adjust well to the house, and may end up being one of those guys that begs everyone to evict him because he can’t stand it.

RACHEL - first of all, her favorite houseguest is britney, which is the most valid possible answer. she sort of looks like natalie from idk how many season ago that dated james. strategy: to downplay being a physical threat and remain loyal to her original allies. dude, you gotta go with the flow, sometimes you just can’t stay loyal. i actually don’t even have that much to say. just, she looks okay. fine.

SCOTTIE - forgive me if i’m wrong but is this the token nerd, a la ian and steve? he says his least favorite part of the big brother house will be getting shook when he walks in a room and everyone stops talking because they were plotting something, and... that’s 100% something a superfan would say. his favorite player is evel dick, which would be valid if evel dick wasn’t literally an evil human being. he describes himself as a hungry shark and says that his strategy is to pick off the floaters and JESUS this guy is aggressive. also he is a virgin who has never been kissed and freely admits to this fact. somebody get this man a showmance. 

ANGIE “ROCKSTAR” - this season’s token eccentric with dyed hair, huge-ass harry potter glasses, and crazy eyes. one of her favorite activities is “dancing under the moonlight around a fire to fierce drum beats.” her favorite houseguests are joey (blue haired girl that got eliminated first like 3 seasons ago) and frankie. she wants to bring a statue of ganesh into the house. she mentions giving natural birth to all her children. i am just stating all this information. i am not going to give comment. just.... telling it like it is.

CHRIS “SWAGGY C” - please god, let this guy not be serious about his nickname, because i am not making reference to “swaggy c” for the rest of the summer. he LOVES paul and says that paul is better than every single other winner except a few, and..... i mean he’s not even wrong, but that’s more a statement about the quality of big brother rather than the quality of paul’s gameplay. when asked if he has a strategy, he says “of course” but doesn’t reveal it.... sneaky sneaky, i like the cut of his jib! he mentions wanting to bring a notebook into the house, but says he doesn’t even need it because he has a photographic memory. we’ll see about that, buster. he seems really confident and ready to play, and idk if that will work in his favor or not.

ANGELA - if katharine mcphee and sarah michelle gellar had a baby. she’s like, the 10th consecutive houseguest to say that the hardest thing about the house will be lack of social media. she seems to hate men, her favorite houseguest is rachel, she calls herself the networking queen, and she’s extremely athletic. this lady is either going to get eliminated immediately or make it to the end. i am calling it. i have a good feeling.

BRETT - has the weirdest descriptive words of any of them: “Vehement, riveting, and trophy.” wtf. like many other hgs, he plans to lie about his career for no discernible reason. whatever. he wants to bring a toothbrush into the house because he “doesn’t want the ladies to think he has stank breath.” you and every other competitor, bud. he also mentions hacking into other people’s computers for fun. okay edgelord. i don’t like this guy, i just have a bad vibe. i feel like he’s going to be one of the first eliminated cause no one will like him.

KAITLYN - suuuuuuper spiritual. crystals. mediums. seances. the whole shebang. production is probably gonna ask her to ramp it up to make herself look even more of a stereotype so everyone can laugh. i feel like she’s not gonna make it far and i already feel sorry for her.

[junker-town]

Aaron Donald was sent here to crush quarterbacks and ruin offensive linemen

Aaron Donald proved he’s a special kind of pass rusher against the Seahawks last week. He’s also Retired NFL defensive end Stephen White’s Hoss of the Week.

I really can't imagine the nightmares offensive linemen have before they line up against Aaron Donald.

Donald is the type of pass rusher where, even if you do everything right as a blocker, he can still embarrass you in front of your mama as well as the millions tuning in nationwide. His incredible combination of speed, quickness, technique and strength is damn near unheard of.

How do you even try to block a guy who can literally do it all — power rushes, speed rushes, inside moves.

If there's an efficient way to beat a blocker and get to the quarterback, you can best believe Donald is probably already pretty good at it. He's been so dominant week in and week out that nowadays when I see a team try to single block Donald it’s almost expected that he'll win that matchup.

I also tend to question wtf that offensive coordinator was smoking.

When a guard realizes the he is going to have to block Donald all by himself, I imagine him hearing Dennis Leary from that that old Nike commercial in his head right before the snap.

"Bad things, man."

He is so damn quick and coordinated with his hands and feet that even with all-22 I frequently have to slow it down to really appreciate he’s doing. And even when I do see it, sometimes I can hardly believe my eyes.

Donald has been a monster since he first got to the league, just as I predicted he would be. Until this season the Rams, didn't have much to show for his stellar play. This year, I wasn't sure how Donald would hold up in the new 3-4 defense that Wade Phillips brought to the team, even one that doesn't rely heavily on two-gapping.

I shouldn't have been worried at all. There are some players players who are so good, it doesn’t matter what scheme you play them in.

Donald definitely fits that description.

Heading into Sunday's game against the Seahawks, the Rams had already won at least nine games for the first time since 2003(!). Their turnaround on offense has gotten a lot of the attention and credit for their success this season, but Donald's performance has had a lot to do with it too.

You can call it coincidence if you want, but before Sunday the Rams hadn't lost a single game this season when Donald had at least one sack (7-0).

On the flip side, they've only won one game this season when he didn't have any sacks after he ended his holdout in Week 2 (1-4).

It was imperative for Donald to have a big day if the Rams were going to beat Seattle.

This was going to be the first time the Rams faced the Seahawks this late in the season since Donald got to the league where both teams had so much on the line.

The key to beating the Seahawks is finding a way to neutralize Russell Wilson. What L.A. really needed was for Donald to go Super Saiyan on that ass.

And oh boy, did he!

Donald didn't waste any time making his presence felt

On the Seahawks' second drive they faced a third-and-12 at their own 23-yard line. Donald lined up as the left three-technique on right guard Ethan Pocic's outside shoulder. Connor Barwin was lined up outside of him as the left defensive end/outside linebacker on the outside shoulder of left tackle Germain Ifedi.

Donald charged off the ball like a blue, gold and white Ferrari and easily chopped right guard Pocic's outside arm down with his inside hand when Pocic tried to punch. As he was doing this, Donald also turned his hips toward the quarterback and stepped across with his inside foot to gain upfield leverage on Pocic. Donald went from the chop right to a rip with his inside under Pocic's outside arm. Pocic was pretty done at that point, but for Ifedi using his inside arm to help out Pocic and stiff arm Donald in the face.

Donald and Barwin, who was lined up in a wide five, were actually running a TEX game. Barwin took four hard steps upfield to try to keep Ifedi's attention, but because most guards need help with Donald, Ifedi reflexively stuck his hand out just in case.

It didn't matter because Donald fought right through Ifedi's hand in his face, but I want to remind you that normally pass rush games are set up to get two defensive linemen on one offensive lineman and force that offensive lineman to make a choice; either keep blocking the guy you started off blocking and hope the free guy trips, or try to come off of and block the looper and hope someone else picks up the guy they were initially blocking. Doesn't really matter who he chooses, though, because when it’s run right, the guy they don't choose should always be free to the quarterback.

What you hardly ever see is the guy getting double teamed still get to the quarterback before the unblocked guy, but that is exactly what happened here.

Even after Ifedi turned to help with Donald after he saw Barwin loop inside, Donald was still able to beat Pocic by powering through Pocic's outside with his rip move. Donald got to Wilson first to take him down for a loss of 8 yards, even though Barwin was literally untouched on the play.

It was going to be that kind of day for Seattle.

Donald is such a beast as a pass rusher, he can't help but make the guys around him better

A play he made, but technically didn't make, perfectly illustrates that.

Seattle had a second-and-20 at their own 10-yard line. Donald was again lined up as the left three-technique on Pocic's outside shoulder. On the snap, Donald took two hard steps upfield and then came back inside to the A gap with a jab ole.

What differentiates Donald's jab ole from most of his fellow interior linemen is that he's able to gain ground upfield with his footwork when he goes inside, instead of just moving laterally.

Because of this and his uncanny quickness for a guy his size, Donald was able to easily beat Pocic with a quick arm over, and he was upfield so fast that when center Justin Britt tried to slide over to help, Donald already had him beat.

Donald was able to split Pocic and Britt and power through both of them for a clean win, but when Wilson saw him coming he decided he best get while the getting was good.

Donald's defensive linemates, nose tackle Michael Brockers and defensive end Matt Longacre, both had Christmas come early as Donald's pressure forced Wilson to step up right into their waiting arms.

There isn't a stat for what Donald did on that play (maybe there should be), but there's no denying he helped Brockers and Longacre get that sack.

There ain't many defensive tackles in the league now, or maybe ever, who could win so cleanly against a center who slides in their direction the way Donald did on that play. That kid is special!

And he was far from finished.

Donald’s coldest move (sorry, Luke Joekel)

With 2:35 left in the first quarter the Seahawks were facing third-and-8 from midfield. This time Donald was actually lined up as the right three-technique on the outside shoulder of left guard Luke Joekel.

What Donald did to Joekel on this play should be illegal in all 50 states. You really don't get how cold of a move it was until you see it slowed down from the end zone angle.

First, Donald initially came off the ball with two hard steps upfield like he was going with a speed rush. Then, he re-directed and went right at Joekel off that second step as if he was going to try to run Joekel right over.

Instead of actually bullrushing Joekel, Donald took a step inside and mushed Joekel in his face (they didn't call it, so it’s legal) with his inside hand. Somehow, Donald was able to simultaneously use his outside hand to engage Joekel's outside wrist and keep Joekel from getting his outside hand on him.

Yes, that's a mouthful, but I'm not done.

When an offensive linemen gets pushed they tend to want to meet force with force; Donald was betting on that. When Joekel tried to push back against Donald mushing him in the face, Donald planted his feet, violently clubbed Joekel's outside shoulder with his outside hand, stepped back outside by crossing over with his inside foot, stopped mushing Joekel in the face with his inside hand and instead used it for an arm over.

All in the blink of an eye ...

Make it so bad, Britt was trying to slide over to help Joekel out, but Donald ended the move with such a flourish that Joekel ended up falling right into Britt.

Make it so bad part two, Donald didn't even get a sack on the play. He did end up with a pressure forcing Wilson to miss a pretty wide open Paul Richardson on a slant, however.

Sack or pressure, it was an impressive ass play regardless. And if you blinked you probably missed it.

Delaying the inevitable

On his second sack of the afternoon, Donald was once again lined up as the right three-technique across from Joekel.

This time it was Joekel's turn to try to block Donald's jab ole inside move, and it didn't go any better than it had with Pocic. Britt was able to slide over this time and bump Donald out just enough to give Wilson a lane to scramble, but it only delayed the inevitable.

Wilson escaped Barwin's clutches, and he tried to reverse back out to his right, oblivious to the fact that Donald was over there. Donald tracked Wilson down and slung him around so hard that he forced a fumble that rolled so far it went it went out of bounds. The Seahawks ended up with a 16-yard loss on the play.

You have to see it to believe it

With the Rams already up 34-0 at halftime, Donald didn't play much in the second half. But he did have one big play left in him before he left the game.

Seattle had a first-and-10 from their own 31-yard line. I'm sure Joekel was tired of seeing him at this point, but there Donald was lined up across from him again as the right three-technique.

This was another example of a play where you really needed the end zone view slowed down to see exactly how Donald beat Joekel. Donald came off and turned his hips to the QB almost immediately, and he looked as if he was going to try to swipe Joekel's punch attempt.

However, instead of Donald just knocking Joekel's wrist to the side the way someone normally would with a swiper move, Donald grabbed Joekel's wrists.

I am not sure what words I could used to accurately describe how hard it is to grab an offensive lineman's wrists like that when they are trying to punch you in your chest, but just know plenty of your favorite defensive linemen couldn't do it consistently.

You really have to focus to catch it, because Donald didn't hold Joekel's wrists for long. He just used Joekel's wrist as kind of like handle bars to push Joekel back for a step or two. Once he got Joekel going backwards Donald knew he would once again try to fight force with force. The second Joekel dug in was the moment that that Donald transitioned into a rip move.

Joekel was, at that moment, the finest of barbecue chicken.

Even though Joekel damn near had Donald in a rear naked choke after Donald's rip move and even though the refs didn't call it, Donald simply was not going to be denied on that play. He powered right on through Joekel's li’l clothesline attempt, turned a tight corner, and took Wilson once again, this time for a loss of 6 yards.

A couple weeks back I talked about DeMarcus Lawrence having training tape technique. You can watch all the Aaron Donald film that you want, but there is some shit he does that most people won't ever be able to replicate. Yes, I am including among "most people" some of your favorite pass rushers.

Point to the lie.

The great philosopher Ric Flair once said, "To be the man, you gotta beat the man. WOOOOOOOOO!"

Truer words have never been spoken.

The Rams needed to beat the Seahawks on Sunday to prove to themselves that they really are legit this season, especially after losing in Week 5.

With the division crown, playoff seeding and plain old bragging rights on the line, Aaron Donald elevated his game and set Seattle's offensive game plan on fire with a blowtorch. With three sacks against Seattle on Sunday, Donald now has 11 on the season, matching his career high from 2015. He added a caused fumble, two pressures and two tackles in just three quarters to help lead his team to victory.

If he isn't on your short list for Defensive Player Of The Yeah, you should definitely fix that. For now, it is my pleasure to award him Hoss Of The Week honors for Week 15 of the NFL season.