#tagged as mine for the addition

[newsfromstolenland]

This is really important, a lot of white trans people don't seem to understand that misgendering doesn't only occur because of transphobia.

A full decade before I started identifying as a non-binary woman, I had white kids misgendering me and calling me a man or a boy because as a brown girl I didn't fit their idea of what a woman or girl is supposed to be.

European standards of beauty and femininity often lead to women and girls of colour being viewed as "too masculine" and often lead to misgendering.

And I think that the reason that white trans people refuse to acknowledge or accept this is because they don't think and/or care about the experiences of women and girls of colour.

I also think that there's an idea among white trans people that misgendering is an experience that somehow belongs to the trans community, and by saying that cis women of colour get misgendered, we are saying that trans people don't. But it doesn't belong to you. And we aren't saying that.

An important part of recognizing that trans women of colour experience higher rates of transphobia and misgendering is recognizing that they are misgendered both for being trans and for being women of colour. Which in turn requires recognizing that women of colour, including cis women, are often misgendered for their race and ethnic features.

No one is trying to take the experience of being misgendered away from you, or claim that you don't experience it. It's just that racialized women experience misgendering for our race too.

Caption: [A stitch with user @/sapphicyuji. The text on screen reads, " "you can't misgender cis people!", you have never had your gender questioned outside of your transness and it shows. sincerely, a trans poc".

I'm actually super glad we're having a conversation about this. The masculinization of black and brown women, because for years I felt like I endured this unique form of trauma until I realized other people went through the same thing too. And if there's one thing that I'd like to add to the conversation, there seems to be this misconception that this is something that starts at puberty. Like boys tell you you look like a man to hurt your feeling when that's so far from the case.

The first time I was purposefully misgendered was in kindergarten. I was constantly referred to by the masculine variant of my name, I was chased out of the women's restroom, and I had grown adults questioning what my biological sex was before I even knew what the difference was. And those behaviors persisted into adulthood because now if I present as anything less than 100% feminine, people will either compare me to men or animals.

And for myself and for many other brown and black women this is a life long act deliberately intended to humiliate, shame, and other us for the features we were naturally born with and I'm glad we're having a discussion on how harmful it actually is.]

[logicpng]

...at least that's the link order that made most sense to me

[Image ID:

Clownillustrations' Welcome Home fanart. Wally Darling is drawn at an angle slightly from below, lacking his mouth, and the eyes wide open and bright white looking the viewer. In front of him, along his height through the middle of his face, a long stripe made of the blurry Welcome Home website screenshots, glowing. Behind him is a vinyl record with a plain red label.

The background is littered with text, a wall of repeating "Let me in." from top to bottom to the left of the image, Wally's dialogue behind him, and the text on the foreground, slightly corrupted, says "I will help you understand neighbor I will find a way soon"

End ID]

[torchlitinthedesert]

I'd be curious to hear your Ob-la-di Ob-la-da take lol

I claimed Ob-la-di Ob-la-da as a political song. No, I'm not kidding.

Obviously, Ob-la-di Ob-la-da isn't a protest song. It's a perky ska-style number about the happy, everyday life of an immigrant family. And it was released in 1968, when immigration had just become the most inflammatory topic in British politics.

In spring 1968, the UK government proposed a new Race Relations bill, making it illegal to refuse housing, employment, or public services to anyone on the grounds of race or national origin. It was a response to racism, particularly against recent immigrants, especially those from the Caribbean.

Cue a lot more racism, most notoriously from politician Enoch Powell, who gave what is still commonly referred to today as the "Rivers of blood" speech. Powell ranted about sending "the immigrant and immigrant-descended population" back to the countries they or their families had once come from. He was particularly freaked out by the idea that, having come to Britain, people would settle down and - horrors - have babies, eventually outnumbering the white population. Powell was sacked by his party the next day, but he sparked a horrible wave of racist protest and abuse.

All this was brewing over the summer, as The Beatles worked on the White Album, and on this song. What is Ob-la-di Ob-la-da about? It's an everyday love story. The ska style frames Desmond and Molly as Jamaican - which, in a British context, strongly suggests that they're immigrants. The song builds a happy ending out of exactly the things that racists like Powell were terrified that immigrants would do. They work, get married, and have children, who grow up and help with the family business. Life going on, happy ever after.

The Beatles were certainly aware of the tensions sparked by Powell, immigration and the Race Relations Act; they were still talking about it, and trying to write a protest song about it, in the Get Back sessions in January 1969. Ob-la-di Ob-la-da doesn't talk directly about any of that. Its subjects - work, home, children - are the sort of thing that 1970s rock journalists would put down as Paul's normie bourgeois sensibilities.

But normie is where most people live. The song presents Desmond and Molly as deeply relatable. It assumes that their happy ending is something everyone can root for and sing along with. That is not an apolitical act, particularly not in Britain in 1968.

And people did sing along, in their millions. Ob-la-di was staggeringly popular. The Beatles didn't release it as a single in the UK or the US (though it topped charts in Australia, Japan and Europe). There were multiple competing cover versions. One by the band Marmalade went to No 1 in Britain, and sold about a million copies. Paul's own favourite cover was by The Bedrocks, whose members were all first-generation immigrants from the Caribbean.

(Obviously, there are other questions here about race, music, and appropriation; The Beatles, and most of the artists doing cover versions, are white people singing black music. Hello, history of western popular music.)

As I said, this isn't a protest song. But it has been sung in protest. @beatleshistoryblog found this great footage from a Women's March in London in 1971. Just listen to the first seconds: la la la la life goes on.

[megabuild]

enjoying the progression of "i wish ao3 filtered character and rpf tags for minecraft youtubers separately so i could filter out the nasty rpf shippers" > "i don't care about the filtering system but wish i didn't have to see real streamer names etc." > "i wish ao3 filtered character and rpf tags for minecraft youtubers separately so i could filter out the characters and get right to the irl infidelity porn"

[newsfromstolenland]

Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly's announcement Tuesday that Canada has suspended 30 permits to export military materiel to Israel may have been meant to placate pro-Palestinian activists demanding an arms embargo. But without more transparency, it remains a political muddle.

One week out from a byelection in a previously safe Liberal seat in Montreal where New Democrats (and their pamphlets) are pushing Canada's response to the ongoing violence in Gaza as a ballot question, Joly proactively used her scrum at the governing caucus's retreat in Nanaimo, B.C. to rebut claims the Trudeau government isn't doing enough.

"Our policy has been clear," she said. "Since Jan. 8, we have not accepted any form of arms export permits to be sent to Israel."

Accepting her claim that the government's policy has been "clear" means forgetting the mess last spring when a New Democrat MP introduced a Commons motion calling on Canada to "suspend all trade in military goods and technology with Israel" that had to be watered down at the last minute so more Liberals could support it.

Activists point to the many millions of dollars in defence trade that may continue to flow Israel's way under previously approved and still-valid permits.

Joly told reporters she asked her department to look into Canadian companies' existing permits.

"We are asking questions to these companies. Following that, I asked my department to look into any existing permits of arms or parts of arms that could have been sent to Israel," the minister said.

"Following that, I suspended this summer around 30 existing permits of Canadian companies and we are asking questions to these companies."

She did not say what her questions were.

A suspension is not a cancellation. Last spring, Joly was among those warning that sudden, arbitrary or politically motivated terminations invite legal action by firms that hold the government responsible for their business losses. Supply chain disruptions also cause problems for Canada's defence procurement relationships with allies.

There may be over 200 valid permits to ship to Israel right now, so 30 suspensions falls well short of the total arms embargo activist organizations — not to mention 22 Liberal MPs — have demanded.

(emphasis mine)

Full article

[lietpolski]

you'll NEVER guess what my favourite eurovision 2024 song is

[huellitaa]

of course i still believe in santa. where is your childlike joy and wondrous whimsy

[xxplastic-cubexx]

what is your favorite thing about charles and your favorite thing about erik? separately, as in what you like most about their characters :]

a devious question this one is, my friend!!! it's hard enough for me to explain my thoughts cohesively, but having to pick ONE thing i particularly love is difficult. with characters like charles and erik, theres been so much done with their characters over the decades and so they have so many components to them that make them so interesting and fun to observe. BUT I TRY FOR YOU TODAY. under the cut i kinda ramble and the size of this text box makin me anxious

i think if i were to be simple and broad, what i enjoy most about charles is his determination to help others, even if he isn't really thanked and/or if people don't even like him. ofc, this isn't to say he hasn't done wrong- to be honest, the fact he does wrong/questionable things at times is another aspect of him i really enjoy, maybe because- broadly speaking- he's meant to be altruistic (intent vs outcome and all that). i don't know if that's super exciting to most people, but it is for me

as for erik, my reason for liking him is easier to explain tbh. To Be Simple And Broad, his progression from villain to antihero over the decades has been fun to observe (as much as i have so far anyhow) and analyze. i think to be a bit more specific, him using his rage and pain as justifications for his villainous actions is definitely what compels me the most: hurt people hurt and the sort, an idea i've always found interesting (something something vicious cycles and the like). yet now, he recognizes this wasn't really. A Just Thing To Do and is beginning to change that, which i enjoy

[newsfromstolenland]

The U.S. and U.K ambassadors to Japan will sit out the annual memorial ceremony marking the atomic bombing of Nagasaki on Friday after the city decided not to invite the Israeli ambassador in what has become an increasingly politicized peace ceremony.

...

A number of envoys to Japan — including those from Canada, France, Germany, Italy and the European Union — have voiced concern over Nagasaki’s decision, sending a letter to Mayor Shiro Suzuki last month stating that not inviting Israel would be lumping the Middle Eastern country in with countries such as Russia and Belarus, the only countries not invited.

Gosh, I wonder what all the countries deciding not to go or "voicing concern" have in common 🤔

And I wonder why people might "lump israel in with russia and belarus"...it's not like they're all invading countries and killing people right now or anything...

But seriously, all these envoys from majority-white western countries skipping or complaining about a memorial to civilians being bombed (many of which countries supported said bombing, one of which actually perpetrated it) because an envoy from a country known for currently killing civilians in an act of genocide wasn't invited? Ghoulish fucking behaviour.

hey i can't make it to Sorry For Visiting Wanton Destruction Upon Your Populace For No Reason Day yeah uhm its just that like you didn't invite my war crime friend and i think its kinda fucked up that you did that

[wildsflag]

james lance with the bottom buttons of his shirt undone

[softness-and-shattering]

Saw/shared a post that mentioned 'youtube grammar' yesterday and I checked the tag and

Its basically the thing where people mishear words or phrases and then say it wrong. Some examples are

'manner of fact' instead of 'matter of fact', 'eck cetera' instead of 'et cetera' 'I could care less' v 'I couldn't care less'

And the poster blamed this on lowered education standards, lack of education, and basically people not learning grammar rules and not being able to break down what language a word is from to figure out pronounciation. Im not saying thats wrong, I dont know.

But I also have a running joke/recognition with friends who are bilingual or speak multiple languages, about how sounds get mixed up your head, and sometimes you'll even think of the right word but your muscle memory will write or type another. The example that started the conversation in earnest was me spelling the word 'pneumonic' instead of 'mnemonic'. (If you're going ooh this is his tumblr, hi! :D).

In a comment I was just writing, I wrote think instead of thing. I knew the word I wanted was thing, its the word I thought, its not the word I typed.

Also today I wrote 'mood' instead 'move'.

Its not a lack of education, or a misunderstanding of grammar, or mislearing a phrase. My fingers just mess it up sometimes, because somehow the link between thought and typing has to do with the sounds, not the root or the spelling or possibly even the language. Because, pneumonic.

I dont know if this holds the same with the spoken word, I dont know what those pathways are, and to begin with Im neither a linguist nor neurologist. Im just noticing patterns with myself and my friends.

If anyone does know facts or science about this, please do chime in!

[gordonsicedcoffee]

EMMANUELLE VAUGIER Winner of the Most Thrilling Killing award for SAW II at THE FUSE FANGORIA CHAINSAW AWARDS (2006)

[orioofthestars]

Hello again, FUA nation

from an Aggie I did with @cannedsam102 my beloved 😚❤️

[trans-androgyne]

Genuinely what is it other people are seeing from transandrophobia that I haven’t seen all the months I’ve been in these tags. Has anyone reblogging the posts calling it transmisogynistic actually looked through the tag or read about the theory from any one who uses it. Now it’s calls for violence and saying trans men choose to be men and are immoral for it. I am screaming into the void.

[torchlitinthedesert]

Kenneth Tynan and the Beatles

Shout out to @mmgth for noticing Beatle mentions in the letters of Kenneth Tynan - including working with John Lennon, Paul's 1960s reputation, and glimpses of the breakup. (Alas, no George or Ringo.)

Tynan was a drama critic and later worked with Laurence Olivier at Britain's National Theatre. Philip Norman calls him "the most rigorous cultural commentator of his age": he championed working class plays in the 1950s, supported progressive art (and was widely believed to be the first person to say "fuck" on British television). So he's an interesting perspective: well connected, arty, eager for cultural change, but from an older generation, and outside the immediate rock/pop world.

The first mention is 1966, when Tynan is already working at the National Theatre.

28 September 1966

Dear Mr McCartney,

Playing 'Eleanor Rigby' last night for about the 500th time, I decided to write and tell you how terribly sad I was to hear that you had decided not to do As You Like It for us. There are four or five tracks on 'Revolver' that are as memorable as any English songs of this century - and the maddening thing is that they are all in exactly the right mood for As You like It. Apart from 'E. Rigby' I am thinking particularly of 'For No One' and 'Here, There and Everywhere'. (Incidentally, 'Tomorrow Never Knows' is the best musical evocation of L.S.D. I have ever heard).

To come to the point: won't you reconsider? John Dexter [theatre director] doesn't know I'm writing this - it's pure impulse on the part of a fan. We don't need you as a gimmick because we don't need publicity: we need you simply because you are the best composer of that kind of song in England. If Purcell were alive, we would probably ask him, but it would be a close thing. Anyway, forgive me for being a pest, but do please think it over."

Paul replied that he couldn't do the music because, hilariously, "I don't really like words by Shakespeare" - he sat waiting for a "clear light" but nothing happened. He ended, "Maybe I could write the National Theatre Stomp sometime! Or the ballad of Larry O."

It's interesting that Tynan approaches Paul individually - because they had theatre connections in common? Or did Tynan assume that John wrote the words and Paul the music, so Paul's the guy to ask for settings of Shakespeare lyrics? (Though he does correctly identify Paul songs in his letter, plus the musical setting of Tomorrow Never Knows, so he might just be asking because he's a Paul girl. He also wants Paul to know that he's cool and hip and has done acid.)

Tynan definitely is a Paul girl. On 7 November that year, he pitched possible articles (I think for Playboy). He offers articles on the War Crimes Tribunal (set up by Bertrand Russell on the US in Vietnam), an interview with Marlene Dietrich, or:

"Interview with Paul McCartney - to me, by far the most interesting of the Beatles, and certainly the musical genius of the group."

It's a reminder of how drastically Paul's reputation changed, between cultural commentators of the 1960s and post-breakup.

Tynan didn't get his Paul interview, but he worked twice with John.

On 5 February 1968, he's sorting out practical details for the National Theatre's company manager about about the stage adapation of John's book In His Own Write (which had already had a preview performance in 1967). It's a very Beatle-y affair:

Victor Spinetti and John Lennon will need the services of George Martin, the Beatles A & R man to prepare a sound tape to accompany the Lennon play. Martin did this tape as a favour for the Sunday night production, but something more elaborate will be required when the show enters the rep, and I feel he should be approached on a professional basis as Sound Consultant, or some similar title. I have written to him to find out if he is ready to help and will let you know as soon as he replies.

...John Lennon says that as far as his own contract is concerned, we should deal directly with him at NEMS rather than his publisher.

So John prefers to work within the Beatle structure: George Martin, Victor Spinetti, plus NEMS, rather than pursuing closer ties with his book publisher.

On 16 April 1968, Tynan writes to John about his ideas for a wanking sketch.

Dear John L,

Welcome back. You know that idea of yours for my erotic revue - the masturbation contest? Could you possibly be bothered to jot it down on paper? I am trying to get the whole script in written form as soon as possible.

John's reply is very John:

"you know the idea, four fellows wanking - giving each other images - descriptions - it should be ad-libbed anyway - they should even really wank which would be great..."

Oh John.

Tynan still wanted to interview Paul - and was noticing changes in Beatle dynamics. On 3 September 1968, Tynan pitched another feature on Paul, this time for the New Yorker:

In addition to pieces on theatre, I'd love to try my hand at a profile (I remember long ago we vaguely discussed Paul McCartney though John Lennon is rather more accessible)...

Accessible because Tynan had already worked with him, or because John was already flexing his PR muscles? The New Yorker was interested, because Tynan follows up on 14 October 1968:

4. A few days in the life of Paul McCartney (which we agreed should come at the end of the series of articles, because of the current overexposure of the Beatles.)

Why does he see the Beatles as "overexposed" in autumn 1968, when he hadn't in 1966? Was it the Apple launch? The JohnandYoko press campaign? The cumulative impact of a lot of Beatle news?

Tynan was still trying on 17 September 1969:

...I'd like to go on to either Mr Pinter [playwright Harold Pinter] or Paul McCartney... I incline towards McCartney who has isolated himself more and more in the past from the other Beatles and indeed from the public: he seems to have reached an impasse that might be worth exploring. On the other hand Pinter is a much closer friend and would be more accessible to intimate scrutiny."

I'm fascinated by this - that Paul's isolation was visible to those outside the Beatles circle (the letter is dated three days before the meeting of 20 September 1969, where John said he wanted a divorce).

But Tynan was right about Paul being inaccessible. On 5 January 1970:

I'm saddened to have to tell you that Paul McCartney doesn't want to be written about at the moment - at least, not by me. I gather that for some time now the Beatles have been moving more and more in separate directions. Paul went to a recording session for a new single last Sunday which was apparently the first Beatles activity in which he'd engaged for nearly nine months. He doesn't know quite where his future lies, and above all he doesn't want to be under observation while he decides.

So while Paul "doesn't want to be under observation", he's surprisingly open about the breakup - less blunt than "the Beatle thing is over", which he told Life in November 1969, but still frank.

Trying to persuade Paul to open up to "intimate scrutiny" in 1969 does suggest another reason why 1970s interviewers adored John. Tynan works for an older, more established press, but he's offering the kind of profile John would make his own - discussing his inner life and personal/artistic conflicts with cultural commentator who respects him as an artist. And Paul can't run away fast enough. As a journalist, you'd absolutely go for the guy who makes himself accessible and is eager to bare his soul, over Mr Doesn't Want To Be Written About At The Moment.

[thefiretailedweasel-rewritten]

I've found that most ppl that genuinely hate kids actually do understand this, but were never allowed that space to learn and grow safely during their own childhoods, so they're taking out their jealousy and anger on innocent children. Same energy as ppl who say "well i was beat as a kid and I turned out fine!" No, No You Absolutely Did Not.

i feel like a lot of the 'i hate kids' crowd would be more tolerant if they understood that due to a kid's limited experience of the world that 4 hour flight might just be the longest they've ever had to sit still for or that trapped finger might literally be the most pain they've ever felt in their short life or they might not have ever seen a person with pink hair ever so of course they want to touch it or nobody's told them yet that they can't run around the museum and they only just learned cheetahs are the fastest animals so of course they want to put that to the test. how were they supposed to know etc etc.