#source: ops/eds

[marshmallowgoop]

And I'm just a little messed up I'm a little out of my head

[Song link] [YouTube link]

[cowboy-robooty]

im so glad i live under a rock and never look at anybodys posts ever bc omfg me when gus shows me her feed and i keep getting mad like every 9 things i see because i go "thats from the dears outro. does anybody know thats from the dears outro. do they care" and keep seeing people use anime ops/eds or niconico douga meme songs thinking its a tiktok song and not from the source LIKE OMG. IM GOING TO KILL EVERYBODY AND THEN MYSELF.

[auressea]

Bisexuals Win! We don't 'discriminate'. My adhoc theory that 'Bisexuality is the biological default for Mammals, and heterosexualism is a human cultural norm' is established!

"Same-sex attraction and behavior are widespread across the animal kingdom, from male gentoo penguins co-raising eggs, sex among all-male bachelor packs of gorillas and “seasonally bisexual” flying fox bats. "

including more than 1,500 species, according to a Nature Ecology and Evolution study.

“an ancestral condition of indiscriminate sexual behaviors directed towards all sexes.” (this is fancy talk for 'bisexual' behaviour)

[dragontatoes]

I'm trying not to use "hypothetical" in my peer review of someone's op-ed on nuclear energy but how else do I address: "but how about the elderly person that gets poisoned from growing a carrot in their contaminated ground?  Science at this point has not documented the long-term effects of nuclear energy and has left many questions unanswered."

yeah alright. let's go ahead and use the evidence of no evidence ig

[boredomstrides]

Hi, so, I read both of these posts. It seems like your first source regarding Prediabetes came from a Lancet article back in 2012. Not necessarily saying this automatically disproves what you're talking about, but the fact of the matter is that 2012 was still a point in time when doctors and the general public were in agreement that the fault of Type 2 could at least relatively easily be put on the shoulders of - if nice, the food industry and how much everything around us has added sugars, and if not, the people who have Type 2 on account of bad dieting.

I'm not entirely certain this post is saying that "if you have impaired glucose tolerance you're kind of fucked ¯\_(ツ)_/¯," but it seems more on the lines of "don't guilt yourself into an eating disorder, if your doctor's not a piece of shit they'll walk you through what's going on."

I'm saying this from experience, I got told I had a high insulin resistance and high glucose levels, and I'm on some medicine right now to try and get my body to go down to safer levels before this causes me any major problems. My doctor recommended I try and aim for a low carb diet to help with the medicine, something I've been trying to do, but I've decided to relax on at least slightly after the first week where it ended with me blacking out from eating so little.

My being at risk has been known since I was a child, but all of my doctors back then, and my parents today, have tried to imply or directly tell me it is my fault and if I don't lose weight I'll have type-2 diabetes. Years I have been at risk. Years I've dealt with hypoglycemia without even knowing the name of it. Years my doctors saw all the signs, but never bothered to try and check my blood. Years my own parents insisted I must have narcolepsy, even though they also suffered signs of hypoglycemia.

It has only been this year that a doctor decided to actually check my blood levels to see what was happening instead of assuming they already knew. Posts like these with articles containing multiple sources are actually really important. Had I seen this when I was first given the medicine, I might not have malnourished myself, and I might not have been so angry with the world around me, and myself, for that first week.

I saw a comment on your blog that says 'the way you eat does not cause diabetes'...are you able to expand on that or provide a source I could read? I've been told by doctors that my pre-diabetes was due to weight gain because I get more hungry on my anti psychotics and I'd like to fact check what they've told me! Thank you so much!

Pre-diabetes was rejected as a diagnosis by the World Health Organization (although it is used by the US and UK) - the correct term for the condition is impaired glucose tolerance. Approximately 2% of people with "pre-diabetes" go on to develop diabetes per year. You heard that right - TWO PERCENT. Most diabetics actually skip the pre-diabetic phase.

There are currently no treatments for pre-diabetes besides intentional weight loss. (Hmm, that's convenient, right?) There has yet to be evidence that losing weight prevents progression from pre-diabetes to T2DM beyond a year. Interestingly, drug companies are trying to persuade the medical world to start treating patients earlier and earlier. They are using the term “pre-diabetes” to sell their drugs (including Wegovy, a weight-loss drug). Surgeons are using it to sell weight loss surgery. Everyone’s a winner, right? Not patients. Especially fat patients.

Check out these articles:

Prediabetes: The epidemic that never was, and shouldn’t be

The war on ‘prediabetes' could be a boon for pharma—but is it good medicine?

Also - I love what Dr. Asher Larmie @fatdoctorUK has to say about T2DM and insulin resistance, so here's one of their threads I pulled from Twitter:

1️⃣ You can't prevent insulin resistance. It's coded in your DNA. It may be impacted by your environment. Studies have shown it has nothing to do with your BMI.

2️⃣ The term "pre-diabetes" is a PR stunt. The correct term is impaired glucose tolerance (or impaired fasting glucose) which is sometimes referred to as intermittent hyperglycemia. It does not predict T2DM. It is best ignored and tested for every 3-5yrs.

3️⃣ there is no evidence that losing weight prevents diabetes. That's because you can't reverse insulin resistance. You can possibly postpone it by 2yrs? Furthermore there is evidence that those who are fat at the time of diagnosis fair much better than those who are thin.

4️⃣ Weight loss does not reverse diabetes in the VAST majority of people. Those that do reverse it are usually thinner with recent onset T2DM and a low A1c. Only a tiny minority can sustain that over 2yrs. Weight loss does not improve A1c levels beyond 2 yrs either.

5️⃣ Weight loss in T2DM does not improve macrovascular or microvascular health outcomes beyond 2 years. In fact, weight loss in diabetics is associated with increased mortality and morbidity (although it is not clear why). Weight cycling is known to impacts A1c levels.

6️⃣ Weight GAIN does NOT increase the risk of cardiovascular OR all causes mortality in diabetics. In fact, one might even go so far as to say that it's better to be fat and diabetic than to be thin and diabetic.

Dr. Larmie cites 18 peer reviewed journal articles (most from the last decade) that are included in their webinar on the subject, linked below.

[radioregine]

since i can't even find the tcg volume that collects the final four books + i'm not in the mood to start digging through storage for it, i've finally narrowed my shit down for this project. it's gonna have to be 'showdown at the okie dokie' bc that's one of the stories i have on hand from galleria's pov

[punkbarbarian]

for folks who don’t follow them on instagram— ally beardsley wrote part of an op-ed in the washington post for the 50th dnd anniversary about a moment playing dnd that really stuck with them and i wanted to share it here!

“a character’s journey — and my own”

I was an aspiring comedian in Los Angeles and had just landed a salaried job at the comedy website CollegeHumor. My co-worker and friend Brennan Lee Mulligan was looking for six comedians to create a show that would be like an at-home game of D&D. Why not? “Dimension 20” became a weird punctuation to my day.

I remember there being too many rules to remember. I kept turning to my friend, Brian Murphy, to ask which dice I should be rolling. I wasn’t paid overtime, but I loved the group and was having a lot of fun.

For the second season, I had my sea legs. I created a character for the campaign who was transgender. I had started going by the gender neutral they/them pronouns at work and among friends, but sourcing hormones or getting surgery seemed equal parts expensive and invasive. A fun thing about fantasy is stripping away the crunchy, real-world limitations and asking yourself: “What would I do if I could do anything?”

That season’s arc for my character, Pete, was extremely euphoric for me. I had described him as a trans cowboy you might see at Burning Man, and the artist drew him dressed as a freaky Hunter S. Thompson in an open shirt to show his top surgery scars. He has wild magic — uncontrollable and dangerous in the game mechanics — which we used to explore the painful chaos of leaving a family that doesn’t accept you.

Since then, I’ve started testosterone HRT and had top surgery. It’s funny to listen back to myself playing a character who had transitioned in ways I hadn’t. It’s full of inaccuracies that make me smile. Pete takes a testosterone pill every day; I now know it’s a weekly injection or a topical gel. I see my face, one wrapped up in playing something so new but instantly right. It was like an oracle. A near-future me who has health insurance! Who’s talked to their mom about being trans and even spent a week post-top surgery on that mom’s couch in Temecula, Calif!

As I started transitioning my appearance, seeing that in front of the camera felt raw. I was starting hormones, and my voice was cracking. Realizing it was all being recorded felt naked at times, but it has been really nice to talk to fans and friends about how important it is to see someone that looks like you taking a big risk on themself.

With Pete, it was really important to me to tell a story other than the dramatic lead-up to a medical transition. So we started with him having just gotten out of surgery, but that’s all you see of that process. Part of his backstory is that he doesn’t have a relationship with his transphobic parents, and before shooting the first episode, I felt sick to my stomach. I’ve been on a journey with my parents, and our starting place didn’t have much common ground. When my character meets with his father, it felt as though I was actually running into my own on the street.

Brennan could sense that discomfort, and as my character’s dad was about to call Pete by his deadname, Brennan shut the interaction down, surrounding his dad with bubbles that carried him into the sky. Magic is the power and freedom to manipulate your reality, and you can banish the awful voices in your life — let them swirl away into the air.

[kiefbowl]

I was reading an opinion piece on Kate Middleton's cancer diagnosis on CNN by Jamal Baig about the increasing rates of cancer in patients under 50. As far as 5 minutes of googling and JSTORing can lend me to believe, there's nothing illegitimate about Dr. Baig. However, I found this bit in his opinion interesting:

Now, I'm always dubious when reading anything that attributes a very broad generalized idea that changes in diets have caused an increased in cancer, because more often than not it's not pointing to an exploration of, say, increased pesticide use, but the author's personal bias against the quote unquote "unhealthy", especially those who are deemed "fat" by the medical industry.

That being said, I was curious what source he linked, half expecting it to lead to just another op-ed from some other doctor from who knows when, but I was pleasantly surprised! Written by a man named Michael Donaldson, it was an evidentiary review published in a scientific journal called "Nutrition and cancer: A review of the evidence for an anti-cancer diet."

Now I wasn't going to give the whole thing a read, but I stopped in each section, gave a quick skim to get a general vibe, moved on to the next section, etc. I was immediately suspicious that the very first line in the abstract was "It has been estimated that 30–40 percent of all cancers can be prevented by lifestyle and dietary measures alone" as that seems to be a bananas statistic to just posit, but it still had the air of scientific integrity, so I did my skim.

The first handful of sections had things that gave me some moments of pause, that this article was in fact another doctor simply cherry picking data to confirm his own biases, but nothing so egregious as to do a spit take. That comes in a few minutes. The first section that made really go hold the phone was when we got to his Flax Seed section.

Compare how he writes about Red Meat...:

(that's all he wrote, btw)

...with how he starts writing about Flax Seed:

Did I just enter a Flax Seed commercial? Does this guy work for BIG FLAX SEED? on and on he writes about Flax Seed, and I start getting a sense that perhaps this man has a Flax Seed Agenda. In any case, he eventually moves on and I quickly skim to get to the end (because it's boring among other things).

So, who exactly is Michael Donaldson?

Girl are you kidding me

The Hallelujah Acres Foundation is a FOR PROFIT company that sells a """biblical""" based diet program called the hallelujah diet and also sells supplements on said site.

Now, in case you forgot where I started with this, this was the link provided as a "source" to a legitimate doctor's claim in an op-ed about cancer that "at least part of the answer" of why cancer is increasing in under 50 patients are the "changes to nutrition and lifestyle that took hold in middle of the last century." Dr. Baig did not read this article, or if he did was not concerned that it was written by the employee of a company that profits from unscientific research it uses to sell supplements and diets. Which is worse, I don't know.

The point I'm making is that you absolutely need to be vigilant all the time. You need to understand that doctors can not only have biases, but agendas. Researchers can have biases and agendas. Scientists can have biases and agendas. And that magical thinking about real health issues that can affect your future can permeate the scientific community because weirdos write convincing enough evidence that support their already determined world view.

This kind of shit is the reason why women go into doctor offices complaining about pain in their abdomen and get told to go lose weight and come back in 6 months. This is why ideas like moralizing eating have huge effects on women's health and influence medical misogyny, and why it's a feminist issue.

[marshmallowgoop]

ShinRan Week 2023: Day 5 | "I wish I could tell you that I love you"

I wish that I could tell you I wish that I could run into your arms

[Song link] [YouTube link]

[sgiandubh]

Flaunting the narrative

I just came back from a nice dinner & drinks in town, with friends who visit from Athens. Lo and behold, my DMs are on fire again, but my (in)famous Inbox is, as expected, resoundingly quiet. [Later edit: not for long].

It would seem S's latest interview for yet another one of those glossy magazines one usually spots untouched in any random Main Street dentist's cabinet or real estate office did manage to raise a couple of eyebrows, after all. With very few data publicly available, Flaunt Magazine is the kind of media outlet with four times less Instagram followers than S, so this begs the question to whom the murder interview really profits:

There is very little out there about Flaunt Magazine, indeed. Other than it was founded in September 1998 by three amigos (Alex Barajas, Jim Turner and Long Nguyen), all of whom were also part of the editorial team of the (now defunct?) Detour Magazine, there is virtually nothing else. This does or should ring a bell about the real importance and relevance of this media stunt - not much to add here, either. Other than that, past issues of Flaunt seem to be traded between fans of celebrities who (more or less) regularly grace its pages, in what I do think are paid/in kind op-eds written by people with no clear professional print, in agreement and by prior arrangement with the talent's PR:

Compared to Flaunt, a real lifestyle press behemoth such as Harper's Bazaar (this blogger has subscribed to for many years, ahem) has a quite different audience level and marketing approach:

Six times more Instagram followers and a clearly more friendly pricing policy:

[Sorry, what I managed to find is the UK offer - blame it on their regional settings, I suppose: however, I think the US offer might not be that different].

In other words, I am beginning to suspect more and more Flaunt is that kind of vanity/hybrid press product, where costs and risks are more or less evenly split between the printer/publisher and the client. Therefore, you would be naive to expect anything else than some tightly controlled, neat-o narrative aligned content. Especially considering the targeted audience, which is (of course) the American fandom, albeit with a tinge of 'sophistication' and a totally artificial 'whimsical twist' (California, here I come).

Onwards to the candid bullshittery.

The article opens with a precise timeline reference:

[Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0g2p47xd5o]

Therefore, the interview happened somewhere between 11 and 14 October 2024, just about the time S was overseas and C was spotted having dinner in London with the Rothschilds and no Tracula in sight. And there is another thing that immediately screamed at me from that pixelated page: George Mallory. Which brought me exactly here:

Yes, absolutely. The Golden Goose that never was. That still hurts, judging by the melancholy with which S talks about Everest, not climbing it after all, still planning to visit next December:

Perhaps with Jake Norton, a reputed Scottish American mountaineer (I think you were right on the money, darling - you know who you are, 😘😘❤️), S met and stroke a friendship with since 2023:

The December reference is not innocent at all. It is there to sparkle endless speculation about what S will be doing on Xmas and Hogmanay, too (and with whom, of course - and there you have all the factions dutifully served with an extra side of bullshite to dissect). Fan wars galore, fuming and flaming DMs and inboxes to boot. He/his PR know that and apparently they still need that Idiotenspiel at play for a while. Also, December's got 31 days, something that Stans worldwide seem to suddenly ignore.

Once the proper tone is set and given, the rest flows almost naturally: zero reference to C (1500% expected) and what is a clearly tailored, yet fizzling, bomb:

'I'm really on the precipice': now that is some extraordinary choice of words, isn't it? This and the 'I don't know' are probably the only authentic reactions in the very strange quote I underlined.

'Being on the precipice' is almost always negatively connotated. It logically has nothing to do with the idea of starting a new journey, but it has everything to do with the idea that he is now confronted with the lack of security and comfort and with the potential loss of notoriety the end of OL might bring. Something he very clumsily tries to disguise as 'I feel I'm no longer tied by Outlander', which must also be the counterfactual understatement of the year, really. There is legally and factually no way he wouldn't still be tied by Outlander, irrespective of how tedious that might feel. He still needs the Mommies' hardcore clientele pool, while he is commendably trying to diversify his sales and marketing strategy. These things do not happen in the blink of an eye and he knows it very well. However, he also really needs to portray himself as something else than a one trick pony, in order to remain bankable in Hollywood and elsewhere. Hence the 'I am not tied to OL anymore', I am able to do bigger and better things, and in the long run I would also like to make a springboard, not a dead end out of it.

Finally, there is no way he would be legally untied from OL. Contracts are still contracts. They include clauses and obligations that will be enforced most probably until after the show's last season will be aired. There is very little to zero leeway around it, for the time being. By the time those clauses and obligations will be rendered obsolete, very few of those Anons and Stans and Mommies and Onlies will still be around to even give a flying duck about the whole life situation.

And then, we have the 'maybe I'll start a family'. Despite what all of my Anons are shrieking right now in my inbox, this is not even the first time he hints at it, and I seriously do not understand why the sudden hysterical surge. Anons probably think I am amnesic, or something:

That is a direct quote from Waypoints. He announced nothing. It's been there, in plain sight, for a long time already and if anything, it is consistent with the narrative.

The rest is borderline irrelevant, visually and conceptually incoherent ('nude scenes are difficult and even dangerous to shoot, when dealt with in a non-professional way, but here is a shirtless bucolic pic that will make my Onlies drool and buy collector's issues at extortionate prices'). The overall impression it gave me was of a hastily cobbled and not very clever circumstance paper. Nothing more, nothing less.

There is no amount of wishful thinking that is going to immediately and magically change the current state of play. Reasonable people should expect mild, but constant turbulence ahead, with a sprinkle of cuteness and innuendo just to keep all the fandom's factions engaged and present, which translates to S/C/SC being relevant for potential employers, agents, the press, etc. In a nutshell, absolutely nothing new. You can screech, you won't change an iota of what I know is true and my position is firmer than ever, no matter how ridiculously hard you try to intimidate or harass me. That's all.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Cecilia Nowell at The Guardian:

On the campaign trail this year, Donald Trump routinely criticized US media. The president-elect called for CBS to be stripped of its broadcast license after it aired an interview with Kamala Harris, refused to participate in an interview with 60 Minutes and routinely called journalists the “enemy of the people”. But perhaps no American media has attracted as much ire from the president-elect as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting – a non-profit corporation created by federal law in 1967 to distribute funding to public media organizations like PBS and NPR.

“NO MORE FUNDING FOR NPR, A TOTAL SCAM!” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social in April. “THEY ARE A LIBERAL DISINFORMATION MACHINE. NOT ONE DOLLAR!!!” As the Trump prepares to take office next month, public media organizations – such as NPR and PBS, which have aired longtime favorites such as Curious George and All Things Considered – are readying themselves for funding cuts and other attacks against their programming. After Trump was re-elected in November, NPR member stations circulated a report warning that “it would be unwise to assume that events will play out as they have in the past” where funding is concerned, the New York Times reported Friday, and PBS board members received an update from political consultants earlier this month. Trump and his allies have repeatedly called for the federal government to cut all funding to public media. In March 2017, Trump called for Congress to cut all funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the first proposed budget of his presidency – a call he repeated throughout his presidency.

In response to a 2020 effort to defund public media, the PBS president and CEO, Paula Kerger, issued a statement noting that “PBS and our member stations have earned bipartisan Congressional support because of the vital role that public television plays in homes and communities across the country. For 50 years, PBS has served as a trusted source for educational and thought-provoking programming, including school readiness initiatives for children, support for teachers and caregivers, public safety communications and lifelong learning across broadcast and digital platforms.” But the conservative playbook Project 2025 has continued echoing conservative calls to cut funding to PBS and NPR, stating that the new Trump administration��should strip public media of federal funding and licenses for noncommercial education stations.

[...] In November, shortly after Trump won the 2024 presidential election, Musk coauthored an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal with Vivek Ramaswamy (the two have been tasked with leading a “department of government efficiency”, an agency Trump claims he will create). In it, the pair identified the $535m Congress allocates each year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as one line item they would cut to reduce federal expenditures. As recently as this week, Musk posted on X that “legacy media must die”. Although these attacks against public media are growing more concerted, they’re not new. Every Republican administration has aimed to defund public media since the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was founded. American public media traces its origins to the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, passed under Lyndon B Johnson’s administration. A public-private partnership, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting connects 1,190 public radio stations and 356 public television stations with federal grants, allowing those stations to maintain editorial independence and also raise funds from members and sponsorships. Today, 99% of the US population lives within listening range of at least one public media station.

The attacks on NPR and PBS should worry us all, as it is part of Donald Trump's authoritarian war on press freedom.

[our-ensemble]

this shot in aktk mv resembling the rising sun flag ACTUALLY EVIL I CANT BELIEVE THIS https://x.com/BiBee_Vivid/status/1877072192048861494?t=_-tEriJ8ZWfXxLp1x5mTSA&s=19

Thank you for sharing this. Here is a link to an op-ed that explains the Rising Sun flag a bit. I find that it succinctly addressing multiple points that often crop up in discussions of the Rising Sun flag, and its an easy read. There are books on this topic, though I have not read them personally, and some of the online discussion around the Rising Sun flag can be rather inconsiderate to put it mildly. As such, while the op-ed is not the most formal source, it's a good summary for those who need more context.

Additional things to note: the Rising Sun flag was in use from 1870 to the end of World War II, 1945, which would be the Meiji era, then the Taishō era, followed by the (early) Showa era. The imperial expansion of the Japanese government into other countries - along with the annexation of the Ryukyu Kingdom and Hokkaido followed by the assimilation of their respective Indigenous communities - began in the Meiji era. Subsequent eras up until World War II would continue in this imperialistic pursuit, with the bulk of war crimes and aggressions being performed in this time.

This is why the flag's controversy isn't about an accidental connection between the flag Japan used at a specific point of time and its behaviour during that time, but rather because the entirety of the Japanese government's imperialist expansion - from beginning to end - has officially been committed under this flag, hence fashioning the Rising Sun flag into a symbolic representation of Japan's aggressions committed from 1870 - 1945. I point this out because in some discussions about the Rising Sun flag online, it is assumed that people are just complaining about anything and everything related to the Meiji and Taishō era, when concerns are actually tied to the specific ideology that this flag has been used to embody. By extension, the use of the Rising Sun flag by right-wing groups in the present is also not a coincidence.

The use of imperialistic imagery ties into another controversy that Enstars has had in the past with AKATSUKI's Night Watch outfits released in the !-era - and recently brought back as a 3D costume in the !!-era. The Night Watch outfits are modelled after Taishō era police uniforms, which bears similar concerns to the use of the Rising Sun flag. The problem with these outfits is about how the police specifically played an important role in subjugating people under imperial rule, and the emulation of their outfits (especially in an unserious context) trivializes this painful history.

Due to recent concerns with AKATSUKI and Ibuki's writing in the event "Uncertain Skies * The Legend of KAGETSU of the Illuminating Attire of Ascension", we should not take the connections to the Rising Sun flag lightly. I know that many want to give HappyElements the benefit of the doubt and I respect this effort to be understanding; however, since imperialism has been brought up repeatedly with HappyElements in its depiction of AKATSUKI and its treatment of Indigenous characters, we cannot assume that they are totally ignorant.

[omeynzaol]

y'all I genuinely dont get what happened in the main storyline of Batman after Damian and Bruce had that fight Abt Damian volunteering @ the hospital? Also why are Damian and Tim sharing Robin now, did something happen to Tim as Red Robin? Is Stephanie still Spoiler? What happened to Jason and his outlaws? And lastly, what happened in the valentine issue?? I'm trying to research since I can't get the comics to confirm right now but it's all confusing and my brain is a patchwork of knowledge

Why does DC do this bruhh

Edit: I'll look through the web and get some answers but till then if anyone knows can you explain in the comments? You'd be a literal life saver

Edit 2: Okay, I delved into reddit and got some stuff, Shout-out to Cole-Spudmoney for the info!

Edit 3: I'm tired now so I'll come back l8r and hopefully some of y'all can tell me atleast what happened after the hospital Convo b4 I reaearch

Edit 4: I come bearing gifts, I found out the main fluffy bits of what happened in the valentine issue:

https://www.tumblr.com/littlepikmins/773995391408570368?source=share

The only real problem I have with this comic is this:

Edit 5: thanks to @wesavegotham here's directly what happened after Damian left Bruce on the rooftop (after insulting his shirt)

"Basically Damian is unsure if being a vigilante is the best way to help the people of Gotham. Bruce is upset that Damian has been keeping secrets from him and isn't concentrating on hero work. After Damian left Bruce worked on his current case alone, got drugged, called Damian for help and Damian was almost too late to save him. After Bruce wakes up he's upset because of that and on top of that he's unhappy because Damian keeps talking about the doctor he's working with, which is why he asks Oracle to check his background for connections to Ra's al Ghul after Damian left to investigate on his own. Despite being in no state to do so Bruce also leaves to continue his investigation, leading Babs to call Jason to help Bruce. And that's it, the arc isn't over yet tho."

Now I gotta research about Jason and Steph, cy'all l8r Edit 6: Woooo! its been some time since I updated this post Here's basically what's happened in the most recent comic with Jason (Batman & Robin #17 2025) Credit to

https://screenrant.com/red-hood-return-jason-todd-back-gotham-op-ed/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/Robin/comments/1hxuqux/i_am_so_exicted_for_the_next_issue_of_batman_and/?rdt=41520

Batman and Robin #17 marks the complete breakdown of Damian and Bruce’s partnership as the Dynamic Duo, leaving Batman without a partner at a time when he can least afford it. Bruce is still recovering from a near-death experience following a brutal confrontation with the mass-murdering villain, Memento. Despite Oracle’s insistence that the Dark Knight rest and recover, Bruce refuses—a reaction Barbara clearly anticipated. She reveals that, if Bruce won’t be sidelined, she’s called in help. Right on cue, Batman—who has been lurking on the gargoyle-infested rooftops—is greeted with a simple, “Evening.” Though the speaker remains hidden at first, Batman’s long-suffering sigh quickly clues the reader in—it’s Bruce’s second son and former Robin, Red Hood, lurking in the shadows. Batman, ever the self-proclaimed lone wolf, insists that he doesn’t need a partner. But Jason’s response is sharp and affectionate: “I’ll always love that about you, old man. No respect for your limitations.” Finally, Red Hood steps into view in a striking panel by Javier Fernández, as he and Batman leap off the rooftop together, making it clear that despite Bruce’s protests, he is, in fact, accepting Jason as his crime-fighting partner once again. A small excerpt from what we can expect in the future, (screenrant link)

"There wasn’t much Jason Todd content in Batman and Robin #17, but I’m already beyond excited about what PKJ has in store for the character. The issue ended with the intriguing and ominous note: “Next: Death and the Family,” a clear nod to one of the most famous Batman storylines, A Death in the Family. Additionally, the synopsis for issue #19 gives us a clearer picture of Jason’s role in the upcoming storyline: “A heart-to-heart between Damian and Jason Todd, and Jason's subsequent demystifying of what it means to be Robin, has left the son of Batman questioning his place and his future.” So, it looks like we can look forward not only to Red Hood interacting with Batman but also with Robin." Time to look into Steph! peace :>

[phoenixwrites]

I grew up conservative and Republican. I'm talking, serious conservative values, as in, my father considered Fox News "too liberal" a news source. My dad could forgive me leaving Christianity, but me registering Democrat? That was a bridge too far.

I saw a post essentially claiming that Trump is the only conservative choice for the election, the only one who truly cares for the American people. And it riled up my Old Guard Republican feelings (however latent) because no. However Republican and conservative you are (a minority on this website, I know), Trump is not and never has been Republican and conservative. You are deluding yourself.

Why do I say that?

Let's go down the list. (Please be aware, I am not defending conservatism--that ain't my political ideology anymore for the whole "they're trying to take away my loved ones' rights" issue. But for the sake of rhetorical strategy, bear with me.)

The claim that Trump isn't a part of the liberal elite is absurd. Trump has never felt dirt underneath his fingernails. Trump has never struggled to pay bills. Trump has paid for multiple abortions of his many affairs and mistresses. He is a draft dodger who mocked war heroes. He is a failed Hollywood celebrity that is grasping at fame. There is a reason Never Trump was popular among conservatives during the 2016 Republican primary.

My Vietnam veteran father warned me in 2008 that Putin wanted to reclaim the Soviet Union, that he was a dangerous dictator that put out hits on foreign journalists. Now he's posting videos of Putin doing judo on Facebook. It is insane that to me that the Republican party is so obviously doing a 180 after warning us for thirty years about Russia.

Trump only started caring about the pro-life movement when he realized he could manipulate them. His voting record is pro-choice. He has paid for abortions, had multiple affairs, and yes, is a serial rapist. None of this is pro-life.

Trump has insulted veterans, dishonored Arlington, and didn't have the balls to fight in Vietnam himself, ran away from the draft like a scared little boy. Now, sixty years later, he has the gall to attack Vietnam veterans and make claims on who is and isn't a war hero? He expects me to believe he gives two shits about veterans? Nah.

Trump does not care about Christianity or protecting Christian freedom. This is a big one. You are falling for a con. Trump is not and never has been a Christian; he just saw a malleable voting block. He has never asked for forgiveness from Christ the Savior and considers doing so weak. He has no relationship with Jesus. He does not pray. He had to have multiple "lessons" on Christianity with top Evangelical pastors to make him more palatable to Evangelicals.

Evangelical conservative Russell Moore penned multiple op-eds where he expressed bewilderment and betrayal that his community was blindly supporting a serial rapist that was antithetical to traditional Christian values. He isn't the only one. A large chunk of Evangelicals are sick and tired of defending a lying, cheating, coward and deluding themselves that he loved Jesus.

A significant portion of Trump's former cabinet has refused to endorse him. I cannot stress to you how wild that is to me. One thing about Republicans? They always vote for their candidate. No matter how much they dislike the candidate--that was the whole thing in 2016. A huge chunk of conservatives disliked Trump and thought him vile, but voted for him anyway because that's what you do when you're a Republican. The fact that so many are breaking away and calling him a danger to the republic? That's a big screaming deal.

Women are not safe around Trump. That used to be important to conservatives, protecting women from rapists--that was my dad's main reason for teaching me to shoot competitively.

If you support Trump, whatever. That's your insane delusional business.

But don't pretend that man is any kind of conservative or gives two shits about what true conservatives care about.

And if I may quote my Evangelical mama, "That man is going to Hell and I look forward to it."

[gwydionmisha]

Our job for the next two years is to survive, to build grassroots resistance, to do all in our power to slow the republican Christo-fascist agenda, and to prepare for 2026 in case there is still Democracy.

Here are some links to help with that

Trump 2.0 Indivisible Guide.  https://indivisible.org/resource/guide

"Democracy 2025:" https://www.democracy2025.org/?utm_source=df-ad&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=21912407002&utm_content=721373734297&source=df-ad-gs&gad_source=1

Have something you want to tell your Congress Critters? If you can't safely contact them in person, here are some other options:

Five Calls to your critters: https://5calls.org/

Here is one that will send your reps a fax: https://resist.bot/

"Congress. gov: " https://www.congress.gov/

ACLU advice for writing to your Critters: https://www.aclu.org/writing-your-elected-representatives

This tracks legislation: https://www.govtrack.us/

Useful organizing links and resources: https://www.tumblr.com/gwydionmisha/771859083592613888/hater-of-terfs-ive-already-reblogged-a-link-to?source=share

Run for Something: https://runforsomething.net/

How to render emergency aid in a riot: https://riotmedicine.net/static/downloads/riot-medicine_a5.pdf

"How to Safely and Ethically Film Police Misconduct:" https://www.teenvogue.com/story/how-to-film-police-safely

Avoiding Activist Burnout: https://www.tumblr.com/veluigi/771755723969478656/on-twitter-im-seeing-dozens-of-threads-from-black?source=share

"ICE Raids Toolkit: Defend Against ICE Raids and Community Arrests:" https://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/raids-toolkit/

Contains a raid tip hotline amoung other things. "Know Your Rights LEARN HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY:" https://wearecasa.org/know-your-rights/

"ICE Watch Programs Can Protect Immigrants in Your Neighborhood — Here’s What to Know: This op-ed explains how to start an ICE Watch neighborhood program in your community.:" https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ice-watch-programs-immigrants-how-to-start

[chiisana-sukima]

Saw that you also wanted to be asked this and I’d love to here your thoughts too. Exact same ask: What’s your thoughts on the idea of Soulless Sam losing his inhibitions and so giving into his darkest desires, and sexually assaulting Dean (which is how the vampire turning scene is read). I often see this tied to the idea that because of the incestuous deal and Azazel’s blood, Sam’s tainted and has this inherent darkness, specifically playing around the idea Sam’s sexuality is dark and perverse, and he harbours these feelings towards Dean and desires to assault him but feels shame and guilt for it. But as Soulless Sam he doesn’t. This reading always felt a little weird and uncomfortable to me but I couldn’t put into words why

In terms of the canonicity component, I have nothing to add to what @aliusfrater said. In isolation, I do think it's fair to read that look in Live Free or Twihard as at least metaphorically sexual, but it's one camera shot with no dialogue doing an awful lot of work in 327 hours of television.

This reading always felt a little weird and uncomfortable to me but I couldn’t put into words why

This is the part I wanted to write about. It feels weird and uncomfortable because it's an especially volatile subcategory of rape fantasy presented using the structure and language of an academic argument.

I feel like I should disclaimer that rape fantasies are fine and normal (and among my personal faves) and that stories are meant to serve people, not vice versa, so I'm not complaining about either the content of these headcanons or their lack of support in the canon version of spn per se. What's frustrating is the way the meta format mixes together assertions of fact about the source material, assertions of fact about rl, and shit an OP made up out of thin air because they thought it was hot, and turns it all into an indiscriminate fact-y sounding stew.

No, actually. No he isn't and no it wouldn't.

Another part of the uncomfortable feeling, at least for me, is the way fandom does intimacy backwards. First we put our blorbos in Situations, then we talk about our favorite Situations and why we love them, then we talk about politics, and then if we really, really like each other, we might discuss the weather. And it's all done in public, often without direct communication.

Usually I love that for us, but sometimes it causes problems we don't have great protocols for solving. I feel super-uncomfortable scrolling past 'It makes a tragic kind of sense that a csa survivor would grow up to be a rapist' without adding 'speak for your own damn self', and I think that's entirely fair of me.

Butttt, I can also guess that an OP who looked at Sam having smoking hot consensual sex and thought 'looks like rape to me' probably has a reason. Maybe the reason is poor sex ed. Probably not.

(Another part of the problem: that 'probably not' was a lie for politeness' sake. I went to the OP's dash and I know they have a reason other than poor sex ed. But I'm not supposed to say that, or especially have guessed it beforehand, despite the fact that such experiences are incredibly common and isolating, and despite the fact that knowing that information makes the OP's error more sympathetic. Because we're supposed to be ashamed that we were victimized, and never speak of it again. So if I could be assed to follow social norms, we would now have two survivors of sexual violence arguing about sexual violence--though only indirectly with each other--and both pretending their only investment was detached academic concern for the sanctity of the canon of a stupid 2000s era ghost-hunting melodrama. Which we both probably like in large part for the exact reason we're not supposed to admit to. Nobody wins that fight but patriarchy).

And you know, ig the thing that's most murky, and therefore most uncomfortable of all for me personally, is how I feel about the fact that this is so obviously a Dean girl (gn) take about Sam. Idek why that's so clear or why I care. I actually really enjoy "soulless Sam, freed of his guilt and inhibitions, does evil sexual things to Dean" fics. One of my all-time favorite fics (Flying Weight by flesh) is in this genre and is even about the vampire bite in Twihard. And I can't always tell, nor do I ever even care, whether they're written by Sam fans or Dean fans. But the chances of a Sam girlie conceptualizing it all this specific way, with the Evil Desires from the csa/demon blood and the predatory (consensual) sex and all, and then writing it all down as a meta, idk man, it would just never happen. And I'm kinda icked out that a meta that posits Sam as a csa survivor also so clearly uses him as a cardboard prop.

And on the one hand, yeah, they're all barbie dolls and everything, so who cares. But on the other, I hope if I wanted to write a meta, for example, about Dean correctively raping Sam in the panic room as part of the demon blood cure, I would build a more careful frame around it. One where it was clear what aspects I thought were consistent with canon, what aspects I thought were plausible in a semi-analogous rl situation, and what ones I just thought were hot.

I was really mad at the OP of the post I took that screenshot up there from when I read the meta and I'm glad I managed to slow down enough to be way less of a douche about it than I initially wanted to be. Maybe this is still too much of a douche, idk. Anyway, ty nonny for giving me the opportunity to process it all.