#to say that people have to have a complete understanding of the history of the region in order to have an opinion is also just evil

[catboybiologist]

Yay I'm going to get all Political and angry again.

So pretty much every trans American is probably aware of the Sarah McBride situation at this point, but here's the bullet point summary if needed for anyone else:

Sarah McBride gets elected to the House as the first transgender member of Congress in US history.

Republicans predictably flip their shit. They pass internal rules of conduct that prohibit trans people from using bathrooms of their gender and stating that bathroom use is defined by AGAB. It obviously singles out McBride, but I believe there are trans staffers that are also affected.

McBride issues a statement that she will abide by these rules, and pretty much only use the bathroom directly associated with her physical office. She issues a statement saying she "wasn't elected for bathrooms" and will instead fight in issues that matter, with a milquetoast criticism of Republicans for wasting time on this.

Many trans Americans are predictably scared and disappointed by this, especially because this internal house rule is being used as a blueprint for more extensive laws, including a likely ban on trans people in gendered bathrooms in all federal land and buildings (including, notably for me, national parks. Which breaks my heart, but that's a different rant.)

There's been a lot of disappointment and criticism of McBride over this. The general leftist reaction has been criticism. There's lots of people that have expressed disappointment or rage, including Erin Reed, and also more "personality" type people like Vaush and Jessie Gender.

Now.

I'm disappointed too.

But. And please keep reading before chewing me out for being an apologist.

I think we can all understand that McBride is in an impossible situation. If she fights this too hard, then it vindicates the Republican rhetoric that Dems are crazy trans obsessed leftists. But there's a fear that this will only lead to more infringements of rights for trans people. McBride is completely stuck, and is a junior, freshly elected member of Congress who is trying to figure out how to make her voice the most effective.

I am so, so fucking tired of rights being ceded one by one. So I'm disappointed. But yeah, I understand McBride's statement.

But there's just one tiny. Eeny weeny. Minor. Itty Bitty question having over all of this. Just one little concern.

Where.

The fuck.

Are the rest of the Democrats?!?!?!?

There is a PAINFULLY fucking easy solution to all of this. McBride needs backing, solidarity, and other people to speak for her. If she's worried about her voice being effective, and being branded as the crazy trans representative, then step the fucking up, you spineless liberal slimebags.

AOC is the only one that I know of that has expressed any real opposition or anger. Her statements are getting aaallll the airtime.

But the real story is McBride's sentiment being echoed amongst the entire party. This is absolutely some kind of official platform. The fucking grumbling, milquetoast finger waving and "well I don't like this, but there's nothing to be done! Anyways"

Of fucking course minorites are abandoning the left. The message they're sending is "we'll abandon you with the most pathetic of excuses. We don't give a shit." Trimming groups out of their support one by one.

McBride is doing the impossible calculus of trying to be the most effective on the house floor. It's an insane task for a trans woman. And yeah, she got it wrong this time. But where the fuck is the anger for her cis colleagues? Why the fuck aren't people angry and terrified for everyone that let this shit happen?

As much as people love the narrative of the line wolf resistor, resistance takes coordination, effort, and solidarity. Without that, what would McBride raising opposition even be? One representative against the hundreds of others.

And yeah, of course I didn't expect any better from the Democratic party. But you should be disappointed and mad at your representative, not just McBride.

[superbdragoncollection-stuff]

You can say there were good things in American history, yet we must acknowledge the bad things.

Right wingers claim that kids are being brainwashed into hating the United States. In my opinion as a historian, I believe we have the opposite problem. People grew up being told "the nazis were bad, don't worry, no one could EVER be like them". They grew up with that valorization, the complete opposite, and the denial that anyone in the country could fall into a trap like that. And also consequently refuse to explain why people fell into those traps in the first place.

So people don't understand why the southern poor folks would fight for the rich in 1860, as they defend tax cuts for the rich.

So people don't understand how the nazis gained power, as they support politicians who scream 'hyperbole' because of tax cuts or whatever.

"It couldn't happen here" becomes the phrase because of how American history gets taught in many places.

These are my own stray thoughts.

What I struggle with, as a public historian and a US American leftist, is how right wing US Americans can say they love history and call themselves “history buffs,” but get so righteously indignant when it is suggested that we can learn from history, and that it is normal and healthy to discuss the flaws and dark sides of various historical figures.

It’s like a wall which I, speaking as a public historian, wish I knew how to dismantle. Like when someone’s all REMEMBER THE ALAMO, I think the natural response is something along the lines of “certainly, but it’s important remember that one of the things the revolutionaries were fighting for was the freedom to continue their enslavement of other human beings.”

For me, that’s not a political statement. It’s a commitment to view historical events and figures for what they were in all their good and their bad and their complexity. But you say that to someone with right wing US American politics, and it’s like you spat on their mother and pooped on the flag.

I do make political posts here as an angry, frustrated progressive citizen of the USA who is also a historian. But right now, I’m posting as a historian, who happens to be a left wing US American. I don’t want to talk shit, I want to figure out how to fix it.

But then, knowing what I do of MAGA Americans, I don’t think there is a fixing it? Unambiguously valorizing the American past in order to maintain the illusion that this country was at some point Great is kind of their whole Thing.

Idk. Just some stray thoughts.

[pessimisticpigeonsworld]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: I can't fucking stand the double standards of this fandom. Everytime I see someone bitch about how the Targaryens are "colonizers" I want to bash my brains out. And these posts always include the op talking about how great the Starks are and how they do no fucking wrong.

Like where are these people's media comprehension???? Do they know the basic definitions of things? Add to that the fact that most of these people also constantly call Dany a "white savior". Like literally read a dictionary and try actually reading the books!

I just saw a post where someone was saying that they hate the idea of Dany being the Prince that was Promised because her ancestors were colonizers and she's a white savior.

Instead, they wanted Jon Snow, who, you know, doesn't have any colonizer ancestry. Because the Starks were perfect angels, who took control of the North by asking nicely. And the First Men were gifted Westeros by the Children of the Forest when they arrived because they were all such good friends.

Literally anyone who read ASOIAF (and has the smallest bit of media comprehension) knows that that's the farthest thing from the truth.

The First Men were colonizers who waged outright war with the CotF for thousands of years and desecrated their sacred places. Yes, eventually they made the Pact, but that only resulted in the CotF being slowly pushed out of Westeros completely and they were eventually fully walled out of their ancestral land. They're literally dying out now, as Leaf explains to Bran in ADWD.

Now, doesn't that sound familiar? To me, that sounds an awful lot like what the European colonies did to the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Of course it's similar, GRRM is heavily inspired by history.

The Targaryens are conquerors, not colonizers. By the time of the Conquest, they have lived in Westeros for hundreds of years. The Conquerors, their parents, and grandparents were all born and raised on Dragonstone in Westeros.

The Targaryens are a Westerosi house, just like the Starks, Martells, and Hightowers. The only difference between all these houses is the timing of their arrival in Westeros. What exactly are the implications of this belief?

And obviously Dany isn't a white savior. Essos is a very diverse continent, so is their slave system. It's class based, not race based. A large portion of the Essosi slaves looked like Dany because they were of Valyrian descent. The slaves span every ethnicity, why is that so difficult to understand? Not only do the books themselves describe the ethnicity of many of the slaves, GRRM himself came out and debunked this interpretation!

I understand not being comfortable with this kind of story to an extent. The concept of liberation efforts has been tainted by the white savior trope. However, one's personal preferences don't equal the actual content of the story!

I think the thing that pisses me off the most about people who take these stances in the ASOIAF fandom is their pseudo-intellectualism.

Each person who writes these posts believes they have better media comprehension and even superior morality than everyone else. They misapply definitions of extremely damaging ideas so smugly. They believe they are correcting the views of other readers and GRRM himself, and as such, refuse to see how gravely mistaken they are. It's as concerning as it is infuriating.

[gayferrari]

okay i am coming to you as carlos fan who loves charles to my core (he is my soul sister!!!) but only ever roots for him for ferrari reasons, trying to see this from charles fans pov how is anything that happened tonight carlos’s fault and not just ferrari’s fault… like i try to be critical and i love to shit on carlos when he is stupid (bc he is stupid a lot) (for example spain24 i fear i am not on his side there) but ferrari fucked carlos over so bad today with his pit stop like i truly believe the thing that happened with charles was more of a fuck you to ferrari and not anything to do with charles at all so like i get why charles fans are upset but… i don’t know again would like to hear your thoughts on tonight

DISCLAIMER VIEWS MY OWN (as in. I don't speak for all Charles fans and probably not even a majority of them about this. and I enjoy it when athletes are petty and angry and grudgy and let out their ugly sides)

my first takeaway is that it's truly not that deep. Like, yeah, it's race day emotions are running high but so are the emotions of the guys in those cars. they're gonna get out of the car, calm down, shower, go on with their lives, and not think half as hard about this stuff as fans do, and some fans will remain upset for far longer than their blorbos will ever remember this. I think it is good to keep in mind before getting worked up

what happened: [regardless of garage 55 brainfart moment] Charles was ahead before the pit stops. At the pit exit, Bryan told Charles that Carlos had been told not to fight him and he should just focus on tyre temp instead of defending; Carlos went ahead and overtook him anyway. (That's when Charles said "Next time tell him in Spanish") Later, when Max was right behind Carlos and Charles was trying to overtake Max, Carlos was really slow. Like, there's speculation on reddit that he was feeding Max DRS <- not saying it happened (WE will never know) BUT he was slow enough that other people went "Wait this is weird," and his frustrated teammate would have noticed. If EYE was fighting for the wcc and I even suspected my teammate put someone else between the two of us (costing the team points) to protect his individual race, I would also go off about it. Regardless of whether it's true. Again! Not saying this is what happened and we will never know, but earlier in the race Carlos was definitely told not to overtake, and did it, and between the two of them he's the one with a history of ignoring team orders.

EYE (tumblr user gayferrari) have my own opinions. nuance button. I don't think you should get a gold star for being a "good teammate" or that following team orders is always the right thing. But CHARLES clearly values it, and in the past he's actually put his money where his mouth is and pulled his weight even when it cost him individual points, and I can understand he'd go on a heated tirade for 4 seconds when he's high on adrenaline. I don't think any of this should be a big tell about Charles's personality, team dynamics, his relationship with Carlos or whatever. I think he just spoke without a filter for a couple seconds, and I believe in taking these kinds of radio moments with a big pinch of salt. I'm gonna RPFy the shit out of this because I am on f1blr to have fun not to get angry. But I don't agree Charles was mad at the team, it was a very much "other side of the garage" kinda moment.

(*) note also that Carlos was told to swap with Charles earlier and DID do that, but after a few laps / because he was struggling with pace + very early on, when Charles dropped P2 -> P4, he was the one who spontaneously brought up letting Carlos pass because he knew he was struggling. So they both had moments where they were collaborating this race. I'm bringing this up for completion's sake, like, yeah Carlos swapped when asked even if late! But he also overtook when told not to

I hope this clears it up! Again, it's MY view that it's not that serious because we all choose how to enjoy sports and I'd much rather get angry about other things I feel matter more, and leave the petty drama as RPF fodder. But everyone enjoys sports differently so I can't speak for others

[pepprs]

acnl is a superior game to acnh in almost every way except the graphics. it’s actually making me mad

[butchvamp]

ohhh my god i need to get off this website

[mishtershpock]

.

[ileftherbackhome]

it does NOT surprise me that there are SO MANY tabloid movies coming out being labelled as "documentaries" filled with "friend of a friend of a friend" claims or like heavily, heavily, heavily biased with a clear narrative the filmmaker wanted to push from the beginning that tells only one possible explanation of the truth.

usually if a documentary is trying really, really, really, really hard to make you think a certain way, it's a propaganda piece. you shouldn't have to force feed your audience the "right" opinion to take away from the film evidence. you should present the full story as accurately as possible with real historical evidence to back up the storyline and the audience will walk away with the right idea.

documentaries should not have an overly persuasive tone to them because you should be able to follow the facts to get to the right answer yourself. if you find yourself walking away from a documentary feeling nothing but "wow this proves exactly what i suspected to be true why arent more people angry about niche radicalizing viewpoint that most people find to be inaccurate" you should recognize that as the first step to being indoctrinated into extremist behaviors and thoughts.

[lesbianlanval]

“Victorians were way more misogynistic than medieval people” have you considered misogyny as like an expression of power dynamics within the context of a period and not just a simple sliding scale of Less or More or is nuance like. entirely dead

[carpathxanridge]

some of u guys r just going full mask off zionist huh

[s-soulwriter]

Things Real People Do in Dialogue (For Your Next Story)

Okay, let’s be real—dialogue can make or break a scene. You want your characters to sound natural, like actual humans talking, not robots reading a script. So, how do you write dialogue that feels real without it turning into a mess of awkward pauses and “ums”? Here’s a little cheat sheet of what real people actually do when they talk (and you can totally steal these for your next story):

1. People Interrupt Each Other All the Time In real conversations, nobody waits for the perfect moment to speak. We interrupt, cut each other off, and finish each other's sentences. Throw in some overlaps or interruptions in your dialogue to make it feel more dynamic and less like a rehearsed play.

2. They Don’t Always Say What They Mean Real people are masters of dodging. They’ll say one thing but mean something totally different (hello, passive-aggressive banter). Or they’ll just avoid the question entirely. Let your characters be vague, sarcastic, or just plain evasive sometimes—it makes their conversations feel more layered.

3. People Trail Off... We don’t always finish our sentences. Sometimes we just... stop talking because we assume the other person gets what we’re trying to say. Use that in your dialogue! Let a sentence trail off into nothing. It adds realism and shows the comfort (or awkwardness) between characters.

4. Repeating Words Is Normal In real life, people repeat words when they’re excited, nervous, or trying to make a point. It’s not a sign of bad writing—it’s how we talk. Let your characters get a little repetitive now and then. It adds a rhythm to their speech that feels more genuine.

5. Fillers Are Your Friends People say "um," "uh," "like," "you know," all the time. Not every character needs to sound polished or poetic. Sprinkle in some filler words where it makes sense, especially if the character is nervous or thinking on their feet.

6. Not Everyone Speaks in Complete Sentences Sometimes, people just throw out fragments instead of complete sentences, especially when emotions are high. Short, choppy dialogue can convey tension or excitement. Instead of saying “I really think we need to talk about this,” try “We need to talk. Now.”

7. Body Language Is Part of the Conversation Real people don’t just communicate with words; they use facial expressions, gestures, and body language. When your characters are talking, think about what they’re doing—are they fidgeting? Smiling? Crossing their arms? Those little actions can add a lot of subtext to the dialogue without needing extra words.

8. Awkward Silences Are Golden People don’t talk non-stop. Sometimes, they stop mid-conversation to think, or because things just got weird. Don’t be afraid to add a beat of awkward silence, a long pause, or a meaningful look between characters. It can say more than words.

9. People Talk Over Themselves When They're Nervous When we’re anxious, we tend to talk too fast, go back to rephrase what we just said, or add unnecessary details. If your character’s nervous, let them ramble a bit or correct themselves. It’s a great way to show their internal state through dialogue.

10. Inside Jokes and Shared History Real people have history. Sometimes they reference something that happened off-page, or they share an inside joke only they get. This makes your dialogue feel lived-in and shows that your characters have a life beyond the scene. Throw in a callback to something earlier, or a joke only two characters understand.

11. No One Explains Everything People leave stuff out. We assume the person we’re talking to knows what we’re talking about, so we skip over background details. Instead of having your character explain everything for the reader’s benefit, let some things go unsaid. It’ll feel more natural—and trust your reader to keep up!

12. Characters Have Different Voices Real people don’t all talk the same way. Your characters shouldn’t either! Pay attention to their unique quirks—does one character use slang? Does another speak more formally? Maybe someone’s always cutting people off while another is super polite. Give them different voices and patterns of speech so their dialogue feels authentic to them.

13. People Change the Subject In real life, conversations don’t always stay on track. People get sidetracked, jump to random topics, or avoid certain subjects altogether. If your characters are uncomfortable or trying to dodge a question, let them awkwardly change the subject or ramble to fill the space.

14. Reactions Aren’t Always Immediate People don’t always respond right away. They pause, they think, they hesitate. Sometimes they don’t know what to say, and that delay can speak volumes. Give your characters a moment to process before they respond—it’ll make the conversation feel more natural.

Important note: Please don’t use all of these tips in one dialogue at once.

[nyasialiveshere]

These longpost are special to me but i'm very opinionated but polite..will put little bits of info for clarification ==Mini Exo fandom analysis pt 1

lmao at people who actually thought the exo vocalists were at Zayn's caliber. Even Zayn "Bradford" Malik

has to work hard to maintain his level of talent, touring is no joke and wears your vocals out that being said you should be able to get a clear grasp on somebody's best and their average

I used zayn cause honestly I am trying to be fair and use a modern example and not people way back in the day. Also I remember this

jk jk. Girl I've never fan voted in my entire life, but I remember this happening though.

But using 1d and using the same standards some Exo supporters use when talking to fans of other kpop group

: do you really think people who aren't true artists of the craft can actually outdo people who can sing a soulful rnb song in their sleep? No, way too much association game being played. Just because s.m entertainment got a leg up from Quincy Jones

and got a bunch of his songwriters and associates and producers

(no this literally isn't even half of it lmao)

to help exo make 'black music'. "Popular music' "We can rock with this music'

Don't mean they are on that level like that. Please note the people that own this music and who own a lot of the music s.m used they all in some way go back to uptown

or motown

In some way, shape or form, because the black music industry was kept separate from the white for a long time, there's a very small crew and circle of people involved in the black music scene. A lot of it has merged into sub labels of larger companies like Universal or Sony. A lot of these songwriters of pretty much indentured and must continue to churn out these 'hits' and it doesn't necessarily matter where in the world it goes so long as it's sold.

They are classically trained singers and can do just as much as a classically trained singer around the world can. But they aren't blowing anyone outside of the average chaebol kid who don't even really care about performing out of the water. S.m taught them well but not nearly well enough for the ego their fans have developed.

Smtown entertainment was built off the foundation of motown, to be the korean version of motown. It's talent is mediocre compared to the original talent the company was based off of, but I suppose compared to the copy of a copy of a copy that exists in Kpop now it's something.

Personally they struggle to outdo Japanese acts artistically as well. In their heyday they created their own genres so unique japanese energy in and of itself was a movement, so I don't understand the superiority.

To be fair Japanese entertainment was on one back in the day from the 80s to early 2000s they ruled even American pop culture

Japan had a longer history with allowing it's citizens and artists freedom of expression, they were able to show out for a good while and gain respect slowly but surely in the international arts realm.

Korea tried to make up for decades of artistic freedom in like a single decade. They are still very rigid with their approach and of course adhere to the strict controlling method of the idol culture model, set by Japan who honestly was way loser even back in the day and even more now.

They critiqued obsessed idol fans back in the day with movies like perfect blue. Of course it still happened but trust when the modern culture shames something and the rest of the world is watching it does effect how people act. Imagine if their was an Hbo show that was about the kpop industry and obsessed kpop fans it definitely would make people tone down. People act differently when people really know what's going on in a situation.

Perfect blue is a mirror to fan culture at it's roots. It's fanatical, a bit unhinged but it's socially acceptable all the same.

A film I believe is necessary for anyone stuck in the idol worship process. It's 'these people don't know you' but artsy.

Even Lee Soo man sent Boa to japan to solidify her career back in the day.

They've had their gender wars, yaoi shotacon era, weird asf eras, religious guilt era, smooth jazz, blues, rap, kawaii, wannabe hood, what's our place in the universe era etc etc as a culture as a society. So their idol industry had a chance to grow slowly, rise up and simmer down naturally. Whereas Kpop just kind of had 20 or so years to boom and the artists have little more growth and development as a disney channel show after 3 seasons.

Boa of course went with the techno chic style that ruled Japan in the early 90s and she did very well.

America however is an entirely different beast, the talent in america is on a different level. Hybrid vigour going 1...2

but that's just a theory. Point is America's a different playground

(I was seven when I first watched her mv on mtv)

this is why most kpop gets their sound from abroad

(Boa's debut single eat you up was made by european producers I guess they were going for a more fusion Backstreet boys style american debut but there is a remix with Flo Rida)

(I may do a breakdown on this later, but it's just the way sm approached the whole thing. They wanted to create an urbanized Boa. That's such a dumb way to go about it. No concern for what actually fit her. That's sm's biggest mistake not letting their artists make their own decisions and be their own people. I watched an interview of her in La back in 2008/9 and she seemed like she was being shuffled around. This producer to that producer, now having to just become a whole new person. It didn't fit. Particularly because she wasn't american, it's not second nature or something she was at all used to.)

For s.m the superiority must be because the korean government is backing them up so they know they cannot fail. Now they feel superior to all of other asian talent and many go to korea to have a chance at becoming globally famous. That's fine.

Even fans of vocal deities don't go around disrespecting everyone like their fans do. Just because they made a point to imitate black singers and use their demos early in their career don't mean they are more elite than anybody else. I never see adele fans do this, it's giving insecurity. You don't have to keep repeating something everybody knows. I feel like as more time goes on the lack of originality is making their remakes more forgettable.

To use a comparison again, in one direction it was almost annoying how obsessed they were about songwriting, they were always in the studio trying to out do one another with the songs they made. Back in the day I thought it was pointless and I felt like Exo was more fun because they focused more on their bond and spending time together.

Now that I'm older it's woven all throughout the music that they had personal deep connections to what they were writing. This is why there are performances where the lyrics actually emotionally effect them, life, death, relationships, breakups, things the fans knew about things we didn't. That's what makes an artist.

Apparently a few members had writing credits on Kokobop and I read about what they said concerning it,

I will say that the group has added to a lot of their songs but I don't believe the craft for songwriting and composing becomes them. In Kpop I noticed many songs created lack a certain spark of life and personal touch

The fine details are also important, this isn't an exposing of the group simply clarification on things that aren't delved into. Many of the songs are remade and have a previous demo.

Knowing the background of the songwriting trio the stereotypes creating hits like Justin Bieber's somebody to love, Tomboy by Destiny Rodgers, Rocketeer by Far East Movement, they have quite a track record and their work is well known. I believe the average fan would give all the credit to Chanyeol because he 'worked on it'.

A very easy thing to find out but when people see an Exo members name on it many ignore anything else about it.

Especially with how they've regarded the black community in general. You truly wouldn't know the impact the black music industry had on kpop or sm unless you were american and it was just obvious to you already, or you researched and figured it out.

I bring this up to say the main compliment I see regarding exo's superior vocals is when members sing high notes and whatnot, which is fine. I love all types of vocals some of my favorite bands of all time is the fray and onerepublic, I purposely mention them because they are grown people music and not for immature 'stans' I hate whenever I bring up an artist that stan culture doesn't like and people bring up streams or who they dated as a drag. It's so immature and petty. So I use them because their music and vocals are not pass out but they are people who have mastered their own voice. It's unique, soulful and not trying to be anybody else. Personally to me this is when I know someone is a true master of their craft whenever they put their soul into their music when they sing.

In my personal opinion I always felt like I couldn't talk years ago, there was no room for oh yeah this artist kind of sings a bit better--if they didn't have stats, weren't popular it didn't matter. Yet, when people in the kpop fandom talked about their favorite artist they were top tier best in the industry and they had the numbers to prove it.

Now years later because the numbers aren't as good as people in the fandom may want it to be; they put other groups or artists down because they aren't real 'singers'. Then show clips of what is love/what if or some other obvious 90s rnb demo or a 90s japanese style pompeii style epic .

I just rarely see commentary about the obvious influences that were used to create the group that Exo's mythos/style/clothing and setup were based off of.

Which they can do because their leader/owner made friends with the right people and opened up a world of connections for them. Because many other groups have been cancelled for jacking theme's and concepts but that never happens with exo because sm owns/CALLS IN FAVORS/ with the media.

So those convo's are never had, so besides the average fanwar, most people can freely live in the world that exo is original and super duper talented above all others. Whenever someone wants to have a convo about this and actually know info about exo and can't just be deemed stupid and uneducated then 'it's not that important'

I tend not to bother or even talk about things that don't really irk me, but I can't lie sometimes I'm a bit irked. The false narratives truly do get to me, I remember a lot of stuff that many fans just weren't there for. I pass in on certain artists every now and then with Exo and Shinee being the only kpop boy groups I really listened to album after album, I keep wondering why I don't randomly get the urge to listen to them.

It could be a lot of reasons, bad memories, or I just am not into them as people. But celeb gossip to me means nothing. I don't care about rumors or someone's bad reputation if their music is good. It's not even the fandom cause some fandoms make me question humanity but when the beat drop I honestly don't really care

With Exo, honestly the music is something I have a hard time returning to. I once agreed with people that it was indeed better than other K-pop but now I'm starting to think that's a poor comparison. We are all equal, maybe not in ability but we all have the ability to put our heart and soul in what we do and if the music is good it should come off as right. There's little excuse when there are kids with youtube channels around the world who sound literally amazing, and they are no different than anybody, just singing to their heart's content. Passion, soul, drive. I believe that will always come off to others. It's what helped the civil rights cause for blacks back in the day, how they sang and danced. People just couldn't believe it.

Now we have an open market for talent so the competition is fierce but there is still people who blow listeners away. Every now and then I'll find a song that's good regardless of the singing style, they could be whispering or just humming and it sounds perfect, because they are doing what's for them.

Kpop is extremely manufactured to the point where this authenticity is very rare, few people truly sing with their heart and soul, it's mainly singing to impress and following a stiff formula. The problem with Exo mainly is the excellent catalogue they had access to, that lee soo man had access to. To me that was their ticket to stardom and a big reason not only for their success but the success of S.m entertainment as a whole. Many fans are less concerned with the details of how their artists and their work came to be and mainly are into the parasocial nature and competitive attitude of fandom for which the overall music and art suffers in my opinion.

The group finds little reason to give content and work very hard on their artistic ventures because honestly, who really cares. It's quite sad and the complete opposite of the music industry decades ago.

So most of the focus is just giving the group a concept, album or good song and the special touch the members give is next to none. The songs and albums could of been for anybody and deep down they know that which may lead to them being disconnected with their music.

Regardless as someone who watched many Untold stories about the black music industry, black artists were done bad, very badly, treated like dirt.

To see their music get new life is bittersweet because of the context in which it's happening, it seems ironic that people who care nothing for the cultural, political or even spiritual reasons for this music existing get to profit off of it. But that's just life. To get back into the talent aspect the singing in general all these years later I can hear now what my young ears couldn't. The vocal technique is mediocre and there is no attempt to fix it

Not only that fans who don't really care about vocal technique are going out of their way to claim not only is Exo superior to Kpop vocals which sure why not, but it's like a disrespectful attitude towards the black musicians and their 'versions'. As in the black musicians talent is ok but it couldn't compare to their Oppa's.

Many in kpop are guilty of this, but heavy is the head that wears the crown even after it's taken off. They are the kings of Kpop, no? Then they are responsible for inspiring the current generation more than anybody. If they are on the wrong path they are only following the example Exo set for them. They have called a lot of attention to their talent but I've yet to see them truly shine brighter than other's on their level. I believe there's a reason they stayed out of America. There is no such thing as constant popularity in the west. They don't just demand showing up and looking good and performing on a basic level. They want everything. Singing, dancing, choreography, artistry, political opinions etc etc.

Artists like Taylor Swift have written a majority of their music whether partially or fully. Hits and misses. It's a learning curve, but improvement is expected in the west. The more personal the better. Haley Williams also writes a majority of her music with her bandmates as well

Haley often talks first hand about her source of inspiration and always goes very deep when creating her music with her team.

constant artistic evolution is never easy there are blips and missteps but the point is an artist is responsible for putting their soul and passion into their work without concern of judgement.

Their hit Ain't it fun was unlike anything they'd done before fit with a gospel choir and all, it wasn't a sure hit but they went for it. A group can be an old group yet still keep it kicking artistically

weird and wacky can definitely work.

To keep going with the boyband contrasts Louis, and the other members, didn't just write one off songs he helped create songs that really had an impact on the group as well. This also helps with creativity because it must be discouraging to an artist to be an artist and have everything handed to them. How can they truly speak.

I put this in here because those boys really did work hard, they had a good run and they truly contributed to the music world despite having the most cookie cutter starting point.

End of Pt one

[sophiamcdougall]

You're a reasonably informed person on the internet. You've experienced things like no longer being able to get files off an old storage device, media you've downloaded suddenly going poof, sites and forums with troves full of people's thoughts and ideas vanishing forever. You've heard of cybercrime. You've read articles about lost media. You have at least a basic understanding that digital data is vulnerable, is what I'm saying. I'm guessing that you're also aware that history is, you know... important? And that it's an ongoing study, requiring ... data about how people live? And that it's not just about stanning celebrities that happen to be dead? Congratulations, you are significantly better-informed than the British government! So they're currently like "Oh hai can we destroy all these historical documents pls? To save money? Because we'll digitise them first so it's fine! That'll be easy, cheap and reliable -- right? These wills from the 1850s will totally be fine for another 170 years as a PNG or whatever, yeah? We didn't need to do an impact assesment about this because it's clearly win-win! We'd keep the physical wills of Famous People™ though because Famous People™ actually matter, unlike you plebs. We don't think there are any equalities implications about this, either! Also the only examples of Famous People™ we can think of are all white and rich, only one is a woman and she got famous because of the guy she married. Kisses!"

Yes, this is the same Government that's like "Oh no removing a statue of slave trader is erasing history :(" You have, however, until 23 February 2024 to politely inquire of them what the fuck they are smoking. And they will have to publish a summary of the responses they receive. And it will look kind of bad if the feedback is well-argued, informative and overwhelmingly negative and they go ahead and do it anyway. I currently edit documents including responses to consultations like (but significantly less insane) than this one. Responses do actually matter. I would particularly encourage British people/people based in the UK to do this, but as far as I can see it doesn't say you have to be either. If you are, say, a historian or an archivist, or someone who specialises in digital data do say so and draw on your expertise in your answers. This isn't a question of filling out a form. You have to manually compose an email answering the 12 questions in the consultation paper at the link above. I'll put my own answers under the fold. Note -- I never know if I'm being too rude in these sorts of things. You probably shouldn't be ruder than I have been.

Please do not copy and paste any of this: that would defeat the purpose. This isn't a petition, they need to see a range of individual responses. But it may give you a jumping-off point.

Question 1: Should the current law providing for the inspection of wills be preserved?

Yes. Our ability to understand our shared past is a fundamental aspect of our heritage. It is not possible for any authority to know in advance what future insights they are supporting or impeding by their treatment of material evidence. Safeguarding the historical record for future generations should be considered an extremely important duty.

Question 2: Are there any reforms you would suggest to the current law enabling wills to be inspected?

No.

Question 3: Are there any reasons why the High Court should store original paper will documents on a permanent basis, as opposed to just retaining a digitised copy of that material?

Yes. I am amazed that the recent cyber attack on the British Library, which has effectively paralysed it completely, not been sufficient to answer this question for you.  I also refer you to the fate of the Domesday Project. Digital storage is useful and can help more people access information; however, it is also inherently fragile. Malice, accident, or eventual inevitable obsolescence not merely might occur, but absolutely should be expected. It is ludicrously naive and reflects a truly unpardonable ignorance to assume that information preserved only in digital form is somehow inviolable and safe, or that a physical document once digitised, never need be digitised again..At absolute minimum, it should be understood as certain that at least some of any digital-only archive will eventually be permanently lost. It is not remotely implausible that all of it would be. Preserving the physical documents provides a crucial failsafe. It also allows any errors in reproduction -- also inevitable-- to be, eventually, seen and corrected. Note that maintaining, upgrading and replacing digital infrastructure is not free, easy or reliable. Over the long term, risks to the data concerned can only accumulate.

"Unlike the methods for preserving analog documents that have been honed over millennia, there is no deep precedence to look to regarding the management of digital records. As such, the processing, long-term storage, and distribution potential of archival digital data are highly unresolved issues. [..] the more digital data is migrated, translated, and re-compressed into new formats, the more room there is for information to be lost, be it at the microbit-level of preservation. Any failure to contend with the instability of digital storage mediums, hardware obsolescence, and software obsolescence thus meets a terminal end—the definitive loss of information. The common belief that digital data is safe so long as it is backed up according to the 3-2-1 rule (3 copies on 2 different formats with 1 copy saved off site) belies the fact that it is fundamentally unclear how long digital information can or will remain intact. What is certain is that its unique vulnerabilities do become more pertinent with age."  -- James Boyda, On Loss in the 21st Century: Digital Decay and the Archive, Introduction.

Question 4: Do you agree that after a certain time original paper documents (from 1858 onwards) may be destroyed (other than for famous individuals)? Are there any alternatives, involving the public or private sector, you can suggest to their being destroyed?

Absolutely not. And I would have hoped we were past the "great man" theory of history. Firstly, you do not know which figures will still be considered "famous" in the future and which currently obscure individuals may deserve and eventually receive greater attention. I note that of the three figures you mention here as notable enough to have their wills preserved, all are white, the majority are male (the one woman having achieved fame through marriage) and all were wealthy at the time of their death. Any such approach will certainly cull evidence of the lives of women, people of colour and the poor from the historical record, and send a clear message about whose lives you consider worth remembering.

Secondly, the famous and successsful are only a small part of our history. Understanding the realities that shaped our past and continue to mould our present requires evidence of the lives of so-called "ordinary people"!

Did you even speak to any historians before coming up with this idea?

Entrusting the documents to the private sector would be similarly disastrous. What happens when a private company goes bust or decides that preserving this material is no longer profitable? What reasonable person, confronted with our crumbling privatised water infrastructure, would willingly consign any part of our heritage to a similar fate?

Question 5: Do you agree that there is equivalence between paper and digital copies of wills so that the ECA 2000 can be used?

No. And it raises serious questions about the skill and knowledge base within HMCTS and the government that the very basic concepts of data loss and the digital dark age appear to be unknown to you. I also refer you to the Domesday Project.

Question 6: Are there any other matters directly related to the retention of digital or paper wills that are not covered by the proposed exercise of the powers in the ECA 2000 that you consider are necessary?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 7: If the Government pursues preserving permanently only a digital copy of a will document, should it seek to reform the primary legislation by introducing a Bill or do so under the ECA 2000?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 8: If the Government moves to digital only copies of original will documents, what do you think the retention period for the original paper wills should be? Please give reasons and state what you believe the minimum retention period should be and whether you consider the Government’s suggestion of 25 years to be reasonable.

There is no good version of this plan. The physical documents should be preserved.

Question 9: Do you agree with the principle that wills of famous people should be preserved in the original paper form for historic interest?

This question betrays deep ignorance of what "historic interest" actually is. The study of history is not simply glorified celebrity gossip. If anything, the physical wills of currently famous people could be considered more expendable as it is likely that their contents are so widely diffused as to be relatively "safe", whereas the wills of so-called "ordinary people" will, especially in aggregate, provide insights that have not yet been explored.

Question 10: Do you have any initial suggestions on the criteria which should be adopted for identifying famous/historic figures whose original paper will document should be preserved permanently?

Abandon this entire lamentable plan. As previously discussed, you do not and cannot know who will be considered "famous" in the future, and fame is a profoundly flawed criterion of historical significance.

Question 11: Do you agree that the Probate Registries should only permanently retain wills and codicils from the documents submitted in support of a probate application? Please explain, if setting out the case for retention of any other documents.

No, all the documents should be preserved indefinitely.

Question 12: Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range and extent of the equalities impacts under each of these proposals set out in this consultation? Please give reasons and supply evidence of further equalities impacts as appropriate.

No. You appear to have neglected equalities impacts entirely. As discussed, in your drive to prioritise "famous people", your plan will certainly prioritise the white, wealthy and mostly the male, as your "Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin and Princess Diana" examples amply indicate. This plan will create a two-tier system where evidence of the lives of the privileged is carefully preserved while information regarding people of colour, women, the working class and other disadvantaged groups is disproportionately abandoned to digital decay and eventual loss. Current and future historians from, or specialising in the history of minority groups will be especially impoverished by this.  

[gingerswagfreckles]

I think people need to understand that when someone says the situation in Israel/Palestine is complicated they are not necessarily saying that the discussion of who the oppressor vs oppressed is complicated. The Israeli government has been oppressing the Palestinians for a very long time, that is clear, and it is not complicated to understand that at least since the 80s they have had dramatically more financial and military power to keep control of the territory in the way they like.

However, it is reductive and dismissive to insist that there is no complexity in the potential ways to move forward to bring peace to the region. Despite what people on tumblr.edu like to believe, "Israel should never have been created" is not a practical solution to an incredibly heated geopolitical situation in the present day. Israel was created and it does exist. 10 million people live there. 74% of the population is native born and the country has existed for 75 years. Hand waving these fact away with the opinion that "they should move back to where they came from" may make you feel good about being a Radical Leftist, but it does not give anyone a road map for how exactly millions of people without dual citizenship are supposed to just up and evaporate. Nor does it acknowledge the reality that 21% of Israelis are Arabs, the very people you are claiming to want to give the land back to.

Insisting that there's nothing complicated about expecting an entire country's population to willingly dissappear with no consequences is not a productive way to think about this conflict. It ignores the many massive superpowers that have an interest in proping up different states in the region, the power dynamics involved in any land back movements, and the inevitably negative consequences of totally dissolving an established state without a plan. It is also completely and almost comically unrealistic, so much so that it makes it hard to believe that anyone who's opinion starts and ends with this idea really gives a shit about anyone who lives in the area as much as they care about their online leftist clout.

There's nothing complicated in understanding that the Israeli government is and has been maintaining an oppressive apartheid state for decades. It is, however, very complicated to come up with a realistic way to resolve some of the most intricately entangled land disputes on the planet without plunging the region into total chaos. Not everyone has to be deeply educated on every geopolitical situation, but it is very hard to take people seriously when they know nothing about the politics or history of a region and yet insist that there is nothing complicated about it at all.

There's a lot of people on this website who are getting dangerously smug about their own ignorance, and are starting to go down Qanon type anti-intellectual paths in the name of being sufficiently radical. Not knowing the details of a very convoluted land dispute isn't something to brag about online as you call for intentionally reductive solutions. You can support the Palestinian cause and be aware of the oppression they have faced while also holding off on calling people trying to do real analysis and de-escalation work bootlickers. We need to get control of the urge to fit every global issue into a simplistic YA novel narrative structure that appeals to Western revolutionary fantasies.

[kanansdume]

It's not actually misogynistic to watch a trailer that is actively attempting to trick you into thinking a character might be an antagonist and come away thinking said character might be an antagonist, especially if they've been an antagonist in prior media in the franchise. Yes, even if the character in question is female.

And even if the trailer in question WASN'T doing that, it's not misogynistic to watch a character say something rude and assume they're probably doing so unprovoked when being insensitive and rude to people unprovoked is a known aspect of their personality as set up by multiple prior TV shows they've been in. Yes, even if the character in question is female.

I love that we all heard Bo-Katan say "Your cult fractured Mandalore, where were you" in the trailer and immediately went "wow what a bitch" and the reality of the scene was that Din started it by sitting there calling her a coward and a loser to try to goad her into coming with him to Mandalore so he could regain his honor.

AND she admits that there were MULTIPLE factions that helped fracture Mandalore, not JUST the Children of the Watch. While she doesn't name those other factions, this is the closest we've gotten to Bo-Katan admitting her own involvement in fracturing Mandalore by being part of Death Watch.

So not quite as much of a bitch as she was advertised to be.

[fairuzfan]

the reason i shared my great-grandmother's story on here a few months ago is not for sympathy or anything, its to illustrate to you just how deeply, deeply anti-Palestinian the idea of zionism is.

i remember my grandmother, the one who watched her mother die in her home, she called us with a plain tone of voice, and she said "she asked to be buried in [her village] but of course the the zionists wouldn't let that happen." the thing that will not leave my head was the way my grandmother said it, the way it just seemed so natural and so obvious to her. my grandmother is *not* a quiet woman, she yells everything she ever says, whether happy or sad but this she said softly. like she was resigned to this, she expected this.

this woman was exiled once from her village, then again from Palestine, then again and again and again and eventually forced to live in poverty in a refugee camp, she knows the 'israeli' state more intimately than anyone i know, she knows what it will and won't allow in its genocidal apparatus and to her it was obvious that they would not respect her mother's body or last wishes. she knew that.

and i always go back to it when i see discussions on here or on twitter or in academia, like you guys (the moderates, the apologists) have never ever spoken to a nakba survivor or a naksa survivor. you don't know just how deeply its affected our families.

so when we ask you to completely reject zionism, when we demand it from allies, we aren't saying this to be stubborn or nonsensical, we're saying it because we know where zionism will lead us. we've been through the "we just want peace" and the "we need to just talk it out" phases already, how can you not think we've been through those phases after 75 years. we've had our meet and greets and our appeals and now we're at literally the worst stage of genocide against our people and you're still insisting on "talking it out" or some variation of it.

the truth of the matter is that we don't have patience for zionism anymore because look where it got us. look where we're at. even soft zionists, you need to stamp those people out from pretending they've got good points, or that you need to build community with them or whatever. we are literally at the worst part of Palestinian history ever, we need to stop pretending there are grey zones to this. Zionist apologists and the like are creating ambiguity that literally gets our families killed under the guise of "complication". I'm sick and tired of watching these same discussions over and over again about how "Israel is a result of antisemitism" when it very much is not. I'm sick of seeing people who know NOTHING about colonization push their own agendas and provide cover for zionists to do whatever they want. Just stop talking about things you don't understand because I promise you, you're directly contributing to the violence you claim to abhor.