#this is in quotes because i'm directly quoting the articles and i apologize if it comes off in a weird way

[destielmemenews]

source 1

source 2

source 3

[pistatsia]

so thoughts on kaiser's... can't stand white drinks sentence?

Hi anon! Sorry for the late response

Ignoring possible ordinary lactose intolerance and my fractured by the "Kaiser and Ness, Ness and Kaiser" psyche, I'm betting on the…

Church. Take me to the church

(just in case - I'm an atheist and very poorly educated about religions, so I apologize if there are any inaccuracies here)

First of all, why would Kaiser be connected to religion? In addition to @echari3 stunning post here, where she draws some amazing parallels we have:

Kaiser's name itself is "Michael, God-given."

White is a color traditionally associated with Christianity, churches, praying, and faith;

The Bible is directly related to obedience.

Also? The Bible and the scriptures themselves are associated with milk.

Highlighting the main point from several articles I've read, the Bible is associated with milk both directly (in the religious scriptures) and indirectly consistently declaring the following (you can read the quotes from the Bible and scriptures here, and I'll just summarize below):

According to the Bible, one who is fed with milk is undeveloped and weak;

"I had to feed you with milk, not with solid food, because you weren't ready for anything stronger. And you still aren't ready," - Letters of Paul to the Corinthians 3:2;

A baby does not eat bread, a baby does not eat meat, a baby does not eat anything at all but milk. And the Bible associates man with the baby, whom it teaches its dogmas;

And finally, we come to a conclusion:

Milk is the word of God. And believers who comprehend it are helpless infants.

And what could a man like Kaiser, who by his own words used to be a weak and easily submissive and surrendering person, hate the most?

Helplessness.

The Bible and religious writings teach in many ways precisely submission and humility. Don't take more than you need, give to everyone who asks of you and to the one who took yours, don't demand anything back, give the other cheek and so on.

And little Kaiser, who grew up in a very religious family (most likely obsessed with religion enough to even give him a name associating him with a god), couldn't have known any different. Children are easiest to control until they reach the age of transition - but once they do, they learn to think critically and question authority and the order of the house. If you follow my theory, then noticing this disobedience his family could have pressed on him even harder …

But Kaiser, with his incredibly strong character, did not obey, but instead resisted even more strongly - putting all of his rage, anger, and resentment into it.

You wanted me to be kind and merciful?

Then I will destroy.

You wanted me to be a god?

Then I will be the devil.

[jewishbarbies]

I wanted to share that the exact moment when I decided that I hate Swifties and that Taylor Swift won't ever perceive a single other penny from me is RIGHT NOW. I came across an article/post calling Taylor out on Instagram and had the terrible idea of opening the comments. What I found was not one, not two, but three Swifties trying to defend their cult leader with the following argument (not quoting exactly but they all used this concept in different shades): "Y'all can't hate Taylor for who she's dating because if we hate her for dating someone who's publicly terrible then we should also hate women who date ab*sers because they know who they are (??) and they stayed longer than they should've" As the daughter of a domestic ab*se survivor who also witnessed the ab*se in first person I am livid. This people are really out there trying to justify a grown ass woman dating a racist stating that it's THE SAME THING as women who find themselves in one of the most horrifying, mind-shattering and often quite unpredictable situations ever, and if we don't hate THESE women who find themselves in this situations we are not supposed to hate the poor innocent billionaire singer who chose with her own mind to date a known nazi. I'm offended, angry, scared for society, and I at this point disgusted to unlimited extent. For me it's not only the company you choose to keep, but also what you are willing to let people say in your name without putting a stop on it and this is frankly too much and too far. I haven't been a fan since the whole "Aryan Goddess" thing but from now on I'm not even a casual listener. Taylor Swift and her fans should go to therapy and stop staring directly at the sun so they can see in the mirror how fucking sick and disrespectful they all are. (I apologize for the rant, I just didn't know where else to go)

[llycaons]

sam literally said what lestat did was unforgivable, worthy of death, and that it was important to him that the show/louis not simply move on after lestat’s apology — how is that egging on fans who think the abuse was fine bc he loves him and said he was sorry? like… that’s literally the opposite conclusion to draw from his statements. he’s also the only cast member to have advocated for trigger warnings on the show so he’s clearly thinking about how real life victims could be impacted

well I'm on call all night so sure I'll answer this on mobile. it WILL be disorganized so. sorry.

so I'm not really willing to give reid the benefit of the doubt but I do see your point. I just don't think that point about how it was unforgivable really has much weight against the rest of the stuff he said and how fixated he is on lestat's feelings being the focus when they're literally in the middle of a sham trial he's helping run on the people he abused and tried to murder. like. the context matters

I'd really encourage reading that interview over again and examining what reid is saying to specifically excuse and downplay his character's actions in the context of an abusive relationship, and how that language is used in real life to downplay real abuse, AND reading what bloggers of color have to say about him, as a white actor, giving those interviews.

to quote directly from the article, he SAYS the abuse wasn't as bad as louis remembers and that it was out of character for lestat to treat him like that. and it only happened bc he loves him so much. like? those are defenses real abusers use.

Sam Reid: ... It's probably not as violent an act as Louis made it out to be in season 1, but I think the fact that Lestat did something to him that is so out of his nature was driven by the extent to which they love each other.

that doesn't alarm you? that's literally questioning the testimony of a survivor and claiming an abuser's true nature is actually very loving, and that domestic violence is coming from a place of LOVE. that's part of the fiction that LESTAT THE CHARACTER is presenting to the audience in 2x07, and literally whatever else he says in this interview it's downright disturbing that he's simply parroting his abusive character's talking points in real life, for a real audience, and people are BUYING it

let's examine the 'he thinks lestat should die' line because I don't really buy that either..

Lestat was driven to the point that he didn't fully even recognize himself, and he saw from his own hands an action that was unforgivable. You've physically hurt the person that you love so much that you no longer feel like you deserve to be with them. He knew that, and I think the thing is that he realized that as soon as he's done that, he also has to die.

I think reid is speaking in-character here but if lestat truly felt his actions were unforgivable then why would he beg for years for forgiveness, then go back to being possessive and controlling as soon as louis gave him another chance? if he TRULY thought he deserved death then why didn't he. idk. throw himself on the fire. push claudia away and take the sun himself? even just fucking leave them alone? at the very least, why did he continue with the sham trial? why is he still alive in 1973? does reid really believe that? I just don't think anything else in the interview matters as much as these things since they're so damaging

it's a perspective that allows lestat all the humanity and grace and compassion and synpathy and benefit of the doubt, but reid isn't actually taking into account lestat's cruelty or impact on others outside of how sad it made HIM feel.

I also think its worth remembering celebrities aren't your friends and you (probably) don't actually know them or their real views no matter how personable or friendly they seem in interviews. like I love his performance obviously but I wouldn't refer to anyone in their cast by their first name bc I think it encourages thinking of them as friends and not as public figures who can and do have flaws.

and like I said I'm not able to respond more thoroughly rn bc of the internet issue so instead of trying to engage in a one-sided anonymous discussion with me (probably not very productive as it won't change my mind and I'm not the best person to ask anyway) I'd suggest looking into what black bloggers and other users of color have to say about how racism and victim-blaming in the fandom is encouraged by high-profile figures like reid. it's nice that he's apparently advocating for trigger warnings but the things he's quoted as saying in that interview are really alarming and I don't think it's an overreaction to be worried about how an already racist fanbase will take it and run when if they aee him as an authority on the character

when we talk about safety, it's not just about the experience of watching the show, it's about the experience of being involved in the commentary as well. the original blog the ask was sent to is even dedicated to documenting racism in the fandom - personally I think it's really valuable as a white fan to engage with that content and educate myself. here's the original post - it has better insight than I could provide

https://www.tumblr.com/ca-suffit/754187901426958336/no-offense-to-sam-but-the-way-hes-been-talking?source=share

[butchsophiewalten]

are you able to post screenshots for the new findjackwalten? im on mobile and the website haaaaates it

So i was WAY too tired to to this last night, so to make up for it now I'm going to give a little walkthrough of everything that changed

Obviously the main page is entirely different. It's extremely distorted on desktop and actually looks way nicer on mobile, because this entire website is designed specifically for mobile viewing.

(Desktop View)

(Mobile View)

(This page used to also be redirected to through findjackwalten/the-future-of-technology, but it seems that redirect is now findjackwalten/cyberfuntech82)

On mobile, the correctly-aligned text reads as follows: '"THE BON'S BURGERS PROJECT" written by: Kant Tenessee Since the 1960s, Businessmen Felix A. Kranken and Jack Walten have been setting up an all-new entertaintment center in Brighton, MI. "The Most Advanced Animated Show in Livingston County" is what CyberFun Tech, head company of manufacturing Bon's Burgers' magical entertaintment, said to define this brand new place. Bon's Burgers is set to open on June 1st, promising quality service and custom shows for families and birthdays. "It is a miracle in the making" said Susan Woodings, Cyberfu"

This last paragraph is overlaid partially by upside-down text that reads: ""A SMALL SETBACK IN AN OTHERWISE BRILLIANT PROJECT" BON'S BURGERS OPENING DELAYED OVER UNKNOWN INCONVENIENCE. written by: allison gunn The now "famous" Bon's Burgers restaurant, set to open in June 1st, has been now set to open it's doors on June 28th. Public is confused. It was a disappointing scene of June 1st, when a big crowd stayed hours awaiting the opening of "Livingston County's most advanced entertaintment center". It was about 6 PM on June 1st where Felix A. Kranken, co-founder, said the following words: "It is a shame to announce that the long-awaited opening of the restaurant will have to be delayed, due to multiple inconveniences in the process of getting everything ready for this event. Many unfortunate news have caused work to be in hiatus and delayed. We're looking foward to open this place on a few weeks from now: July 28th, 10 AM. We apologize for the inconvenience and for wasting people's time, however, we believe this is just a minor setback in an otherwise brilliant project, stay tuned for more ne"

which itself its overlaid by several variations of the phrase "A minor setback?" which repeat down the length of the page. This text is copy/pasted directly from the site, so any grammatical errors (ie; "entertaintment", or "foward" instead of 'forward') are authentic to the text of the website. It also might be worth noting that at the beginning of the second article the delayed opening date is listed as "June 28th", which we know to be accurate, but is later written as "July 28th" when quoted from Felix. I'm not sure if that's a genuine typo or if there's any kind of information to be gleaned from that mistake.

Next is /jackwalten . which is just EXTREMELY COOL

This is just so genuinely chilling to me i love this one. It is so thoroughly unsettling, this imagery is incredible.

Worth noting that the image of the mounted buck's head appears to have a title? Which is notable on account of most other images on the site being Untitled (or "Sin Título", Literally meaning "No Title", this is the default file name if your system's default/native language is Spanish. I have seen some people be confused by this.)

It looks like it reads "s-l300", but I can't actually copy/paste the original text to see if what looks like a lowercase L is actually a capital I because of the way Wix, which this site is built with, stores images.

A cursory google search tells me a Motorola SL300 is a two-way radio/walkie talkie, which seems relevant? But i'm not sure if it's too recent of a model to be congruent timeline-wise. S-I300 (capital I) gives me... a caulking gun? which seems less relevant.

Maybe worth noting that the "l300" text reads a little like the word "BOO" which, if nothing else, is very cute.

/rosemarywalten is entirely empty except for this text

To me this reads like wedding vows, it seems to connect to the "I can love" text on Jack's page?

/sophiewalten has the same image of Edd & Molly it's had the entire time it's existed, as well as this text.

Important thing with this text, highlighting it shows you this!

"Do I know what I'm getting myself into?" I've already seen it theorized that the text on this page is Sophie like, chewing out Felix? In what's meant to be an empowering moment for her? Which I cannot agree with, especially considering the hidden word

It introduces uncertainty, stands back and says "No, she doesn't know what she's getting herself into," and in that completely defangs it. It cannot be empowering for her under that context.

/poker appears to be the only Anthony page to have changed. Here's the old text vs the new text, since they form a continuous thought.

/anticlimactic is the last page to receive a significant update. If you remember, the old page had hidden text you could only see by highlighting, much like the /sophiewalten page does now.

On the new /anticlimactic, we have new text:

And if you highlight:

Every other known findjackwalten page has either remained identical or has become a blank webpage.

[mittensmorgul]

I don't understand, jack is back but dean is fine with him but he will be at odds with cas because he blames him for his mom's death? I'm trying to make sense of this, after all jack was the killer

Hi there! I’m assuming (since sdcc was like a month ago) that you’re referring to one of the garbage clickbait articles going around in the last few weeks pretending to be new “interviews.” I’ve seen a couple of them, not linking here because I refuse to drive traffic to any of those sites. That’s what those sites exist for-- to post clickbaity articles that will get people worked up enough to talk about incessantly and profiting off ad revenue.

They’re a mishmosh of out of context quotes slightly reworked from other journalists’ SDCC Roundtable Q&A sessions. So not only are the quotes worthless out of context, they’re also nearly a month old. It’s stale news, even for the bits that actually come out sounding even remotely accurate.

This particular comment was made by Robert Singer at sdcc... but for CONTEXT, please have SEVERAL different tables (and remember these interviews run about 5 minutes per table, with multiple reporters at each table who are all basically asking the same questions that these guys literally are not allowed to answer honestly...) enjoy this bit of tap dancing:

1. In this video, the question is posed about how the season starts (at approximately 2:05), and at about 2:45 he mentions that there’s “a bit of housekeeping” to be done in Dean and Cas’s relationship. He doesn’t say the CAUSE, which is not “Mary’s Death,” but the actual fallout of 14.20 where DEAN WAS LITERALLY ABOUT TO MURDER JACK, and Cas had LITERALLY PUT HIMSELF BETWEEN DEAN AND JACK TO STOP HIM. They’re not still stuck back in 14.18 here...

2. In this video, he’s asked about the relationship between Sam, Dean, and Cas in the final episodes of s14, (at approximately 5.10), with the reporter asking about how their relationship “became fractured because of Jack,” asking about how CAS felt betrayed that Dean could’ve killed Jack... and you can see in the video (sorry for the angle in this one, you can’t really see the confusion on Singer’s face here...), and then he starts freaking waffling like mad...

“Well, conflict makes drama,” and “it’s gonna take a while for that rift to heal,” and “they will come together.” Mentioning it’s one of the goals of the first part of the season.

(reminder that earlier in these videos, he mentioned they only had the first six scripts at this point, so “a while” to him happens at some point during those episodes).

Let’s also be clear here, that the out of context articles have taken his quotes out of context, that in these interviews he’s SPECIFICALLY referring to the rift caused in 14.20 (which I might remind everyone they ended literally standing back to back, i.e. UNITED TOGETHER with zero evidence of any sort of “rift.”) And yet... when journalists repeatedly ask him about this... part of the job of PR is to... shuffle and answer with SOMETHING. If the audience thinks there’s emotional drama, as he said, Conflict Makes Drama. 

*HEAVY SIGHING*

This is like 9 things I hate all mixed up in a big pot: 

PR is not Showrunning. 

these interviews are FUN but they’re in no way SPOILERS for the season.

if you listen to all six roundtable interviews (well, there’s video of five for Singer specifically), you can hear him answering half a dozen similar questions in ways that he attempts to make sound slightly different without changing the underlying meaning of what he said. That’s how this weird form of PR works, and it’s a really interesting exercise in understanding what is actually the concrete truth IN CONTEXT.

here go try it for yourselves have a complete list of interviews from sdcc... https://mittensmorgul.tumblr.com/post/186598314405/sdcc-2019-spn-roundtables

oh right, people don’t actually watch them all because it would literally take HOURS (something just shy of five hours total, I believe? delivered in 5-10 minute snippets for each of the 9 participants being interviewed across six different tables) and it gets BORING watching the same people answer the same questions over and over again...

spoiler alert: I watched them all, which is how I knew these new “interviews” being published this week were garbage clickbait because they read like someone put all these videos in a blender.

When you remove the CONTEXT for a reply (i.e. the question asked, and often the question asked BEFORE the question that led to it, and often the FOLLOW UP) you can make it sound like the people being interviewed said ANYTHING THAT SUITS YOUR AGENDA!

the agenda of these clickbait sites IS TO GET YOUR CLICK! to get you worked up enough to talk about their article enough to link back to it and drive OTHER people to click their link. That’s the point of clickbait. They don’t care if what they’re presenting is HONEST, just that you CLICK. That’s how they get PAID.

Go back and read the actual articles written by the actual journalists who conducted these interviews in the first place immediately after SDCC, and you can see ACTUAL CONTEXT!

Wow I think that’s at least 10 things that irk me about this situation.

As a fandom can we PLEASE stop falling for this BS? Have we already forgotten s14 canon? Is that why people are willing to believe this garbage?

After 14.20 aired (and heck, even after 14.18 aired), I was writing about how Dean and Cas may have had some conflict there, but in the language of the show, the rift between Dean and Cas is already on the road to healing. If it wasn’t, Cas wouldn’t have been standing by their side in that final scene of 14.18. Dean wouldn’t have admitted he did the EXACT SAME THING to Sam, of failing to express his concerns about Jack to either Sam or Cas more clearly.

Did they have a big heart to heart conversation about it on screen? NO! BECAUSE WHEN DO THEY EVER?! And yet... they all continue to work together as if they had come to an understanding, and we-the-audience are supposed to understand that they are not actually “dead to me.” In an episode where we spend like 2/3 of it being reminded that things happen offscreen (sometimes MAJOR things, via the flashbacks to Mary’s life) and where the beginning and ending are mirrored like bookends with Dean’s line about what they’re going to do now (evolving from “get her back” to “let her go” over the course of the episode), we’re given to understand that Dean and Cas are finally able to “let it go.”

We saw them talk about Cas’s trip to Heaven, how he’d begged to be allowed to resurrect Mary and was told no, because he saw her at peace in her own Heaven. Dean knows he tried... and knows that Mary’s happy at last. In ShowSpeak, there is no conflict there anymore. Dean’s anger is at the situation, and not at Cas. Do you see the difference? Because he’s about to have a REAL target for what’s ACTUALLY behind ALL of this suffering...

By 14.20, Dean-- out of his own personal sense of guilt, and not any sort of anger with Cas-- believes he has no choice but to kill Jack himself using Chuck’s horrific weapon. Cas goes to Jack directly in his frustration, hoping he can convince Jack of what Mary failed to-- that there is something very dangerously wrong with him. Jack finally agrees, and acknowledges that he doesn’t feel anymore. And Cas is literally trying to save BOTH of their lives, because if Dean uses that magic gun on Jack, they will both be dead...

Cas’s anger isn’t at Dean, it’s at CHUCK, for refusing to fix this problem and healing Jack, despite clearly having the power to do so. Dean isn’t angry at Jack, because in the end he can’t bring himself to shoot Jack-- not even when Chuck shows up and eggs him on, and Jack kneels down perfectly willing to accept his fate. Not even when Chuck offers to resurrect Mary as a reward...

WHERE THE HECK IS THIS NOTION OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THEM COMING FROM?!

I mean, any more so than like... the “conflict” between them at the beginning of s11? Which also devolved into this same sort of scenario with them both feeling guilty while neither blamed the other, and their nonpology involved Dean refusing to let Cas heal him for a few episodes so he could wallow in his own guilt a little longer. The acknowledgement of their mutual guilt served as their “apology,” and the fact they both kept standing by each other throughout it proves their relationship was never actually in trouble in the first place. This is the language of the show.

I don’t blame Singer for this one, I blame the reporters who asked those questions and made those implications, that he then scrambled to answer with a bit of tap dancing.

CAN WE ALL PLEASE COLLECTIVELY CHILL NOW?!

[stonesofinfinity]

Hi. I'm interested in joining your group, but I'm curious as to how you handle it when actors are accused/found guilty of various offenses to our community. I know that Chris Pratt has attended a homophobic church for years, and while there's no proof of him being homophobic just yet, that's something that makes a lot of marvel fans uncomfortable. Another such actor is Benedryl Cummerbund, who has proved time and time again that he's classist, ableist, and autistiphobic with his commentary 1/2

interviews. Lastly, I would like to address RDJ’s touchy history with both black and yellow face. How open is this group to banning problematic fc’s like the above when these histories come to light? 2/2

Hello,

Thanks for your ask.

We'd like to take this opportunity to clarify SOI's position on a number of issues since this follows on the heels of a similar discussion on Discord, and to provide further context to our response below.

First, we’d like to make SOI’s position on discrimination clear - we are an inclusive group, and we have a zero tolerance policy towards homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism, ableism, and any other form of discrimination. We are also firmly against pedophilia and any form of exploitation of minors or other vulnerable persons. Members who are in breach of this will be asked to leave.

Second, how does this translate to FCs?

In order to address that, it is first important to understand why an FC should be banned. Since actors do not derive income from use of their FCs in an RP scenario, the banning of FCs is predominantly to take a stand within the RP community against discrimination, and to ensure a place that's comfortable for our members.

In order to understand how banning an FC equates to taking a stand, it is important to remember that banning an FC does not directly address issues of discrimination unless there is clear and incontrovertible proof that an actor is homophobic, transphobic, racist, etc - only then would an FC ban send a clear message that certain conduct is not tolerated.

We would also highlight another important principle of law that is overlooked in the modern day world - the law requires that people are innocent until proven guilty. This is why the legal process is rigorous and demands a clear process of submission of evidence, allowing both sides to present their side of matters, and for professionals to consider the issue. This is important because it is easy to launch allegations at people, including malicious ones, but an allegation itself is not proof of an offence.

This ask has assumed that these actors are problematic enough to warrant banning, which requires a more in-depth consideration of the specific issues and allegations concerning them.

Taking the example of Chris Pratt first - the allegation against him was made by one person, but this has essentially been taken as fact. In response, Pratt issued a public statement setting out his position, excerpts of which may be read here [x]

The article also lends further context to the original allegation.

In particular, Pratt's response stated, "We need less hate in this world, not more. I am a man who believes that everyone is entitled to love who they want free from the judgement of their fellow man." which reads as LGBTQ supportive.

To ban someone regardless of their personal beliefs, even where there is a clear statement in support of LGBTQ rights, does more damage than good.

Realistically, a vast majority of Christian churches are still on the record as being anti-LGBTQ. There are other religions which are or which have members that are anti-LGBTQ. If we start banning FCs on the basis of membership or affiliation with an organisation, taking this further – should we ban everyone who voted for Trump? Everyone who is a Republican? Everyone who is an in way shape or form associated with an organisation, state, or country that is shown to be intolerant?

As LGBT rights activists and advocates in the real world, a major problem that we face nowadays is witchhunting and policing from within the community. This disrupts the very work that advocates and allies are trying to do.

To use hearsay to wrongfully accuse someone is in itself extremely harmful - it alienates potential allies, it causes infighting, it requires time and effort to resolve - time and effort which is far better spent doing actual, concrete advocacy. Furthermore, it creates a wedge between us and fractures allies, which is the very effect that opponents are aiming to cause.

Furthermore, banning FCs is an all or nothing, zero sum game. There is no grey about it. There is no “this person is an ally but has made some mistakes" nuance to it. As such, bans come with a cost that needs to be considered in making a decision whether to utilise them.

For instance, in the case of RDJ, the issues of black face and yellow face are not issues of racism when taken in their broader context that goes beyond just "an actor played the role of a person of colour". In the first place, it was clear in both instances that he was playing a role within a role. Tropic Thunder was clearly stated to be a satire - a mockery at the ridiculousness of the very lengths that actors will go to in method acting. Furthermore, if there is harm (however unintended), the fault arguably lies with the scriptwriters, the producers, and the director rather than the actor. On the other hand, RDJ has done the LGB community a service by being active in gay roles even before this became mainstream. In this situation, and others like this, an FC ban not only doesn’t achieves nothing for persons of colour, it downplays and even destroys the good that he has done for the LGB community (and that is speaking as a person of colour personally).

Finally, in the case of Benedict Cumberbatch, many of the allegations about him are accusations that have erupted into full blown witchhunts. Some of those quotes, taken without further context, are troublesome. But again, taken within their intended context, they take on completely different meanings.

To truly progress from simple mudslinging to actually being an effective ally, it is necessary to move beyond just cherry picking lines from interview quotes. Unfortunately, far too many people are not willing to invest the time and research into understanding an issue before going straight to the accusation stage, making it difficult to decipher what is actually the truth.

Banning an FC is not the same as denying an actor a job or firing them. It does not hold them accountable. It does not send any message to them. It barely sends any message to the RP community when grey and remote and unproven allegations are pulled up to use against a person. Rather, it ends up in a mess where most if not all FCs are banned – which is a natural consequence when we use the ban stick against any tiny perceived slight.

Society itself is evolving and learning. Things that were tolerated ten years ago are not tolerable now. Is there transphobia in early Marvel films? Yes there is. Should we ban all the actors who appeared in them? Should we ban all Marvel films written by those teams? That wouldn’t help gender nonconforming people today. Actors too, are people, and they are learning along with the rest of us. In fact, we need to recognise that the entirety of Hollywood and perhaps the entire film industry globally is homophobic, transphobic, sexist and racist. Majority of the world out there is as such. Even within the ally community, allies still require time and opportunities to learn how to be better allies.

The solution, therefore, doesn’t lie in banning everyone and dismantling Hollywood. Speaking as a professional – the times that we see real change is when we sit down and engage in dialogue and education, not in drawing lines in the sand.

Are there FCs that we would ban? Yes – examples include 1) situations where there has been a conviction and no sign of change, 2) where there is clear evidence of e.g. homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism etc on public record in the actor’s own capacity (and not saying lines that are written by a script writer), and which are verifiable by independent sources, and again, where the actor has not provided a retraction or apology and/or 3) where is clear consensus between the players and the admin team that an actor is problematic and should not be tolerated. We would state for the record that the named examples in this ask do not fall within any of these categories.

In addition, we have asked, and continue to ask, that regardless of personal opinions, players be respectful of the persons they are talking about. Corruption of a person’s name in the context of making allegations about their personal character is disrespectful, because it is construed as mockery rather than a joke in good fun. It is entirely possible to have a civil discourse about the flaws of a person without resorting to mockery. Again, true change does not come through name calling and putting others down - it comes from raising up the ones who have been sidelined by society.

Finally, a personal appeal to persons reading this – if you are passionate about issues of civil and human rights, there are massive fires out there that need to be fought. The advocacy community is horribly overwhelmed and always in need of volunteers. You can make a real difference by getting involved.

[moonlitdetective]

Did you just skim through? Yes, I did read them. I'm not as idiotic to provide evidence and not read it thoroughly. Here, I'll quote directly from the article to show the benefit to the program.

"Modern security measures have effectively blocked terrorists from infiltrating secure areas. In desperation, terrorists have responded by attacking the public areas just outside of them. The threat has mutated and evolved."

Therefore proving how security checks have a use, it's unreasonable to expect them to catch dangerous weapons outside of the security area.

Any attack thwarted is worth it, I apologize the lives saved weren't enough for you in the situations in which they prevented deaths. Even if some did slip through, it is expected of human error. The one's that don't slip through save lives, and that's enough to warrant security checks existence.

If anyone is strawmanning it's you, here's the definition of stawman for your convenience.

Strawman argument- an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Your proposition is that we should get rid of baggage checks, and the DHS, correct? As they largely are ineffective.

My refutation was an example in how the DHS is effective, a direct argument to yours. Not a strawman. Good try in your attempt to be condescending though, maybe next time you should learn what your insult means.

Now, I'll explain why your argument is a true example of strawmanning.

"The United States Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet department of the U.S. federal government with responsibilities in public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries."

The key here is interior, aka, not other countries. Afganistan? Another country. The war in Afghanistan is not the problem of the DHS, maybe if you knew what it was actually responsible for, you wouldn't be so eager to destroy it. You're barking up the wrong tree.

So, you basically gave an response that was unrelated to the DHS, or our argument. In an attempt to "win." You know what that is? Strawmanning.

About your metal dector argument, you do understand they had those even in 2001, right? Obviously they were ineffective, as 9/11 happened. With the ramped up security, another case of that sort of terror attack hasn't happened. It shows a clear case of why these extra barriers should be around.

About your murder point...The DHS only covers America, so we can exclude war in other countries. Last time I checked, murder is illegal in America. In every single state in fact. So it isn't being used as some excuse to murder people, take your conspiracy somewhere else.

it was also supposed to be temporary 

[mittensmorgul]

what makes me sad though is that if you read what jensen said and the direction the nerrative is going so far, we will be seeing sam's mental health being dealt with but not deans. i'm worried that the thing with cas will also be resolved by dean apologising and being painted as repressed-emotions-so-he-lashes-out kinda guy again that suddenly gets better but we won't actually get him dealing with all this

Yeah, I did read what Jensen said. Which is what he said before they started filming s15. Before he’d seen a single other script, or knew any of the other plot points of the season. He was told what the planned ending would be, and it... shocked him.

Now this article in question was published by TVGuide on November 7. We don’t know when Jensen gave this interview, but from the sounds of the sorts of “upcoming issues” they’re going to be facing, it feels like at the VERY earliest, this interview was from during the filming in 15.05, since the “spoilers” he talks about a situation we have not yet seen happen in canon:

"We start seeing Chuck slowly disable the Winchesters' mojo and it's heavy. It's hard for them to operate in that world because they're so not used to having to live in a normal world. Is it because Chuck has written them as the hero and so they don't deal with that kind of small stuff, or is it just then we just have never seen it?" Ackles added. "All of that cool is kind of gone now and they're trying to figure out how to deal in a world where they need that mojo. They need to be able to know that they can go up against a nest of vampires and be able to take out six or seven each, but if they can't even take out one, then that's gonna be a big problem."

I think being sad about any of this is inventing problems for yourself. I’m curious though about your interpretation of “the direction the narrative is going so far.” Because it’s clearly laying out that both Sam and Dean’s mental health is under scrutiny here. Sam’s “visions” that are a direct result of the Equalizer wound seem to be more immediately affecting them physically, in reality, though, but assuming that because the focus is on that right now means they are not going to address Dean’s situation (or Cas’s situation) is inventing problems that do not exist, you know? The narrative has pretty blatantly stated that This Is A Problem, and outlined that problem with crime scene tape. They’re not gonna just... do nothing or brush it off with a contrived apology. They can’t, because of how the narrative has consistently framed this problem.

Since we don’t know *when* Jensen actually gave this interview, yet we believe he hasn’t really spoilered us for anything beyond 15.05, as far as we know, we don’t even know if *HE* knew what was coming up after that at the time he answered these questions. So really, truly, I am begging people, please don’t keep reading more into what is said in interviews (and framed by the questions asked AND the journalist’s interpretations and framing of quotes we don’t have that sort of context for).

Because it’s pointless to get all hopeless and sad over a 20 chapter novel when it seems like things are kinda dismal after chapter FOUR. Don’t assume that the main characters’ issues will be completely ignored for the next 16 chapters, just because they haven’t been specifically addressed it yet. That’s not how stories work.

I mean, please, think back to, for example, s13. The beginning of the season HEAVILY focused on Dean’s mental issues, right? And only tangentially focused on Sam’s issues (sure, Sam’s issues were poked at a bit in 13.04, but even his feelings of loss for Mary were framed as secondary to Dean’s “yelling in Sam’s face” feelings about Cas’s death) until what... 13.09, when they got proof that Mary might be alive in the AU? I mean... do you feel that Sam’s feelings were given short shrift because the bulk of the early part of the season dealt more directly with Dean’s feelings? Not that Sam’s feelings were dismissed (just as Dean’s feelings are not being dismissed in s15), but Sam’s feelings *now* and his mental health issues *now* are literally connected directly to the A Plot. They are The Urgent Thing they need to realize, which will put all the rest of their thoughts and feelings into an entirely new light. Chuck is NOT gone, Dean’s currently holding himself together based entirely on the believe that he IS gone. So do you see how coming to this realization will COMPLETELY shift Dean’s entire perspective on his own issues?

I am so not worried that it will be dealt with in due time. Dean’s “backburnered” his own issues for the time being, because he HAS to, because that’s the only thing getting him through life right now, and it’s obviously an untenable situation, you know? And when he crashes back into reality, he’s in for a SUPER bumpy landing, right? THEN and only then will he actually be able to see his issues clearly, and gain a proper perspective to even begin addressing them.

And since we’ve already been told that he’s gonna be having this sort of metaphorical come to Jesus moment in 15.09, I’m perfectly content with the direction the narrative is taking, and will patiently await future developments.