sharing a wikipedia page is romantic
my favorites
$LAYYYTER

Origami Around
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

@theartofmadeline
occasionally subtle

#extradirty
Sade Olutola
I'd rather be in outer space šø
official daine visual archive
Today's Document

oozey mess
YOU ARE THE REASON
RMH
Interview Vampire Daily
No title available

PR's Tumblrdome
No title available

Product Placement
h

romaā

seen from T1
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Indonesia
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany

seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from Uruguay

seen from Iraq
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Belarus

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
@a-perfectly-reasonable-username
sharing a wikipedia page is romantic
my favorites
"the Epstein pedophile class" look i know bourgeoisie is hard to spell but like "the ruling class" "the 1%" "kyriarchy" we have so many pre-established options for how to talk about the class that owns the means of production that don't make you sound like your favorite book is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. why are we wasting the opportunity to push people towards socialist explanations for societal suffering and exploitation by talking like fucking Alex Jones. get your shit together
Calling people ābourgeoisieā is not impactful to the āaverageā american voter. Pointing out that the ruling class is basically all complicit in the child sex trafficking ring run by a Mossad agent is more effective agit prop. It shouldnāt be the ONLY thing you do, but the phrase has utility
note how i also included "the 1%" which was popularized by the Occupy movement and is a pretty simple and accessible way of describing the ruling class in a way the """"average american voter""" can immediately get. note how literally the first sentence of this post is [joke about the word bourgeoisie being inaccessible] [pointing out that there are other words that we can use]
i really do not think the utility of the phrase is worth it. it is entirely about going "aren't the ruling class evil disgusting satanic sex freaks??? isnt the reason rich people are bad is because they are gross (Jewish) inhuman monsters totally unlike NORMAL people???" not about anything to do with the actual reason there is a ruling class or how the ruling class actually functions. its a disgust-based approach that i do not think is conducive to actually building a productive political awareness. and i cannot fucking stress enough how this is the exact language that antisemites use, and so using this language means that antisemitic conspiracies can flourish far easier in leftist spaces and can be further normalized.
the point of this post is that there are many ways we can talk about the ruling class that doesn't make you sound like you are in fucking QAnon. we are allowed to have a backbone and not take the easy road when we know there are better options available.
Idk comrade I think its pretty fucking disingenuous to suggest that using a reference to the very recent and ongoing sex trafficking ring that large portions of the ruling class at LEAST turned a blind eye to, if not actively participated in, is ādisgust based.ā I think itās moral outrage based. When monstrous behavior occurs itās normal to be outraged and righteously angry. Itās also pretty wild to insinuate that talking about Epsteinās sex trafficking ring or his connections to Mossad is in any way antisemitic. Like⦠people should know if their politicians are possibly being blackmailed by a foreign government
Its not that talking about the sex trafficking ring is antisemitic. Its the phrasing of the ruling class as "the pedophile class" when antisemitism has long depicted the source of societal problems as a shadowy Jewish ruling class which preys on innocent children. and also that defining the ruling class around pedophilia is simply not conducive to getting people to understand how capitalist patriarchy is directly responsible for this.
i'm not saying don't talk about Epstein or the sex trafficking or Mossad. i'm saying don't call the ruling class the "Epstein pedophile class" out of concern for leftist causes being co-opted to promote blood libel and that distracting from what should be our actual goals. it is such a small decision we can make to ensure that we can talk about the ruling class without contributing to antisemitism and creating opportunities for antisemitism to hide behind plausible deniability and become normalized.
additionally, we really do need to be careful with how we talk about Epstein because people do focus more on the disgust reaction of "these individuals are perverted monsters" instead of the social causes of sex trafficking and child abuse and the exploitation of society at large. people have been making this criticism for a while. that's part of my problem with this language as well: "Epstein pedophile class" communicates very little about the actual power structures at hand, compared to "ruling class" or "the rich" which at least point more in that direction, instead of pointing at "pedophile" when "pedophiles" have long been used as a vague boogeyman that distracts from talking about real issues. this was exactly what happened in the Satanic Panic; while the feminists of the 60s had pushed for child sexual abuse to be understood in a social context of patriarchal family dynamics and emphasized that abuse came from within "normal" families, the Panic emphasized foreign, evil pedophiles who attacked "normal" families from the outside.
its not that the Panic wasn't "moral outrage based." there was obviously moral outrage. moral outrage and disgust are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they often go together. the reason i say it centers disgust is because it puts the emphasis on the idea of "pedophile" as this dangerous, deviant Other that people have a visceral disgust response to, rather than putting the emphasis on the systems which allow this violence to occur and thinking critically about how the normal, comfortable, familiar status quo directly led to and justified the sex trafficking, rather than it arising from the intrinsic evil of these select perverted individuals.
back on antisemitism, see this article:
In the many emails between Epstein and his Jewish friends, we see them swap chauvinistic myths about Jewish superiority alongside intimate secrets, corrupt favors, and advice on finding Jewish lawyers to help navigate sexual misconduct allegations. The emails can read like an antisemiteās fever dream, seeming to validate their most sinister fantasies about the financial influence, depravity, and insularity of the Elders of Zion. The fallout has been hard to ignore; one popular social media account has dubbed Epstein āpart of the satanic global elite that pull the strings from the shadows,ā while the right-wing influencer Candace Owens tweeted that āwe are ruled by satanic pedophiles who work for Israelā and, in case anyone missed the point, added āThis is the synagogue of Satan we are up against.ā For all the moral panic about resurgent antisemitism over the past several years, much of it aimed at Palestine solidarity activists on the left, nothing has encouraged the real thing quite like the Epstein files.
^ this is what i'm concerned about. this is what you sound like when you talk about - and in contexts that aren't even directly about Epstein! - the "Epstein pedophile class" instead of just fucking saying "the ruling class."
they go on to say:
Faced with this old antisemitic trope of a wealthy, sexually perverse Jewish cabal that controls the interlocking worlds of finance, media, academia, and politics, we can bring a corrective clarity by pointing instead to capitalism itself as the conspiracy; we can also locate Epstein within a much broader and not distinctly Jewish elite network that is bound together not by a shared identity but by a deep misogyny and desire to protect powerful men from accountability for sexual misconduct and crimes. [...]
& in this podcast:
[T]his is where conspiracies are always useful: to protect capitalism, and to protect rage from going up and looking at systems. When a multi-ethnic, multiracial working class alliance is forming, one of the most effective ways you can blow it apart is with an antisemitic conspiracy theory. [...] You know, Iām seeing this everywhere, and I guess what I just want to put a flag down for in this conversation is the fact that our job on the left, on the Jewish left, for the last couple years, has basically been to turn the volume down on the antisemitism discourse. To basically say: The things that you think are antisemitism are not antisemitism. Jews are relatively safe. Being pro-Palestine is not antisemitic, being anti-Zionist is not antisemitic, blah, blah, blah. And now, we are in this totally new reality where there is just an explosion of anti-Jewish sentiment, such that I have never seen in my lifetime, coming from all over, that is connecting to things that I donāt think are being interpreted correctly, but they also have some basis in reality.
this is what i am talking about when i say we are missing an opportunity. this is such a crucial moment to push people further towards socialism and building a socialist political consciousness. people are already more willing than ever in the US to openly criticize capitalism! "capitalism bad" is not a super fringe point to make! we can do so much better than "Epstein pedophile class" while still talking about Epstein, while still talking about Israel! i am just asking for you to be a little bit more concerned with how easily and readily this discussion is co-opted by antisemitism, and to simply not to use that phrase. we do NOT need to use it in order to talk to Americans about capitalism and the ruling class, and we particularly don't need to use it in already leftist spaces like this website.
i wish people in fandom spaces wouldn't couch the (alleged) crimes of creators in such vague terms. "Gaiman is controversial right now" NO, Gaiman has been accused of rape by several women. "DC probably won't reprint a lot of 90s green lantern because Gerard Jones is problematic." NO, Gerard Jones was convicted of possession of child pornography. "controversial" and "problematic" do not accurately convey what is going on remotely and if anything play down what these people have done.
image comics just announced a new book by noted serial sexual abuser warren ellis, who has over 100 alleged victims. 60 of these victims worked together to generously lay out a clear restorative justice process for ellis; ellis refused to engage with it, and to this day has not taken accountability for his long history of sexual predation within the industry. i'm kind of shaking with rage. all these fucking scumbag piece of shit abusers rewarded over and over again. propelled to the peak of the industry on the backs of the women and nonbinary people they have victimized for decades with no real consequences. this fucking piece of shit industry. holy fuck
I just walked out if my partners place holding my favourite stuffy. I had bought him after a truly awful verbal altercation I had with my previous roomate/ best friend. For a while afterward I used to carry him around under my shirt around the house, holding it and petting it. Iād place it by the door so it was waiting for me when I came home from work. Iād feel anxious and jumpy when I didnāt have him. Today I got to hold him while my partners and I watched a movie, and then while we were having sex, and then while we were napping. And then I find myself walking to my car afterwards saying ālook at us, look how far weāve come.ā Just one of those moments.
sigh. Having thoughts about something I canāt articulate in a good way. I feel like with how often Batman and Robin 2009 is referenced in fanon (or at least, like, the concept of Dick and Damianās dynamic in that period) the fact that people get so shocked and appalled when you call Jason sexually violent is like. Sure the average ādisregard canonā user doesnāt know about it in the first place, but thatās because several people in the information chain before them decided to leave it out. And for some of them it was because they like Jason and for some of them it was because they just thought it was too icky and some of them didnāt see it as particularly violent at all just bc Jason wasnāt getting pleasure out of it. whereās that one post. Fandom loves to excise SA from a narrative when itās from a long running and beloved male character and not a niche woman they can call a bitch and write angst fics about
And itās not even that I consider the stripping Dick and Damian thing to be like, his worst crime. Obviously. Heās killed people. But I do find that more often there is at least a passing acknowledgement of āoh yeah he used to use gunsā in fanon than an acknowledgement of what he did with the livestream, and that again feels like a lot of people making decisions. The SA makes him Irredeemable so it needs to be scrubbed away so he can be a Good Happy Family with the bats where no one has lingering resentment to him and if they do heās the victim. No one ask what it says about the personhood of SA victims that itās considered more unforgivable to assault someone than to be a serial killer
good post.. sa is seen as so uniquely and intensely evil and as carrying such a fundamental taint that it can't exist in our understanding of character or narrative without it utterly damning the perpetrator (and the victim; see how often people reject nightwing #93 explicitly because it "ruins" dick's heroic character). sheepishmasectomy talked about this recently re: bruce as perpetrator of violating and controlling behavior towards women and that's another example where i think the fandom collectively pretends it didn't happen or "didn't count" and people deliberately choose to leave it out of the info chain.
and idk what to do about it beyond continuing to talk frankly about sa irl and in fiction. we have got to be able to talk about scenes that happened in the comic books without people seeing it as #Character Hate #Anti The Character. we have got to be able to talk about forms of sa that don't line up with people's sense that sa is The Evil Ultracrime without people reflexively defending it as "not bad enough to be sa" because they can't risk the character immediately becoming irredeemable.
when bruce called dick "full of grace" it was because dick is literally the virgin mary
thinking about how as of modern day comics dick's parents falling to their deaths would have been recorded by a million phones and posted on every social medias he would never be able to escape it it's entirely watchable for the entire world all the time and his memories of actually being there and seeing it getting mix-mashed with these recordings that a few hundred people in the audience put online with captions about how it is the worst thing they've ever seen and how traumatized they are etc etc
When Jason first finds out Dick Grayson is his pseudo brother and he has seen the footage and never says anything out loud but he knows he knows he knows
I cannot believe degendering pregnancy is a controversial topic. idk how it is in the west, but when I went to a doctor, told her that I'm pregnant and I needed to do blood tests and many other things she laughed at me and said smth like: "you a 180cm grownass man pregnant??? honey, pregnancy is for those who are women. if you're a mentally ill trans then you can visit a psychologist instead", and I told her that I'm intersex but she was like "not pregnant, *h slurs* are sterile and can't get pregnant, especially if they're a man like you are." I saw 6 different doctors and I was mocked by all of them, until my partner somehow made one of them listen, and she saw that I really was pregnant and being intersex didn't make me "sterile." if pregnancy was degendered and was replaced with neutral language I'd have easier time accessing healthcare. and now that I did, the doctors are still confused and they're like "yeahhh, they never taught us how to treat defects like you so let us treat you like we would treat *normal pregnancy.*" first of all why are you calling a human being a defect, and secondly, do you treat EVERY pregnant woman you see the same way? there are different kinds of pregnancies. not every pregnancy is the same. different people have different complications and needs. why do you treat intersex pregnancy as something impossible that cannot be helped and monitored. especially for pregnant intersex men (or phenotypical "man", idk how to say it). the medical system makes you feel horrible for being intersex and pregnant intersex man. they'll either deny your healthcare or they'll abuse you and force you into womanhood even when you never lived it.
I wasn't originally planning to add anything, but I need to add more
I'm his partner. I'm also intersex. and my face looks "too feminine", so let me tell you, the medical system doesn't take any of us seriously. while he was being abused for being a pregnant man and they called him a "mentally ill trans", I was getting laughed at for having long hair and for "not looking manly enough." we had doctors telling us to abort the fetus because we would fail being parents. they said that the child needs traditional mother and father, not "mentally ill defected anomaly parents who will make the child ashamed of being born." doctors did everything to make us feel awful about ourselves, however we know how bad intersexism, transphobia and queerphobic in general is in our country and we decided to ignore them. we're getting a lot of hate from people, mainly medical system and they're trying to "fix" us so that the child can have traditional mother and father. Gatsi would become a mother and woman, and I'd be a father and a man. people find it too hard to be normal about male pregnancy, and it's even worse if you're intersex because they'll tell you to abort your baby to your face because "you're a defect who will birth a defected child like you." (and there's additional transphobia because they immediately assume you that you're a "mentally ill trans", and while we both identify as agender it's still sickening how they treat him)
As the person teaching my sister to drive, I have taken it upon myself to create helpful educational material for her.
āPOV trapā is a frequent feature in bad faith readings of jaime where ppl use the concept of an āunreliable narratorā to suggest things that are never even suggested in the text might nonetheless be true because they think they ought to be. and this is frequently used to suggest Jaime may have ultimately killed Aerys purely for his own sake and his fatherās, and never had any moral or altruistic motive.
the reason I am now going to be shoving TMK in ur face forever is that 1) itās a GRRM-approved script that goes out of its way to show Jaime did it for the right reasons and was in fact the only (male) moral actor in the fucking red keep throughout the Rebellion and 2) the POV trap does not apply here. it cannot apply. we are no more in Jaimeās head than we are anyone elseās in any given scene, and so if the playwright needed to indicate that Jaime killed Aerys for Tywin, or for his own skin, he wouldāve had to find SOME way of externalising that thought process.
except he doesnāt. Jaime tells Aerys himself there are 500k ppl in the city when Aerys reveals his wildfire plot, and he personally tells Aerys not to let Tywin into the city, bc he knows Tywin would sack it. Jaime actually stands to benefit from Tywin entering KL! but his advice in both the books and the play is not to fucking let him in lol. we also have jaime being physically threatened multiple times by the KG for even voicing dissent, so if they wanted to indicate Jaimeās supposed self-interest then having him repeatedly put his life on the line just to SAY something is. not a great way to do that
so readings that argue jaime did what he did for selfish reasons are basically just illegitimate and unfounded, and we are gonna keep telling you so. you have no evidence in the books, and the one adaptation that shouldāve helped you make ur point has actually strenuously made the opposite. and sorry if that ruins ur mental image of the character but for MY part I have been absolutely exhausted by the contrarian readings that have proliferated for YEARS and I am quite happy to have something to shove in ur faces now since the books were apparently not enough š¤šš¤
ya being kafkaesque isnāt about turning into a bug itās about how if you turned into a bug your boss would still be like āok but weāre short staffed can u still come inā
while i understand that this is meant to be a joke about hellish capitalism, again, we cannot erase an important dimension to his work: franz kafka was a jew. he and his families were jews during a time period where traditional, religiously-based jew hatred was being replaced with a new pseudoscientific belief that jews were to be hated and oppressed because they were a subhuman race. this transition to race-based hatred of jews meant that even assimilated jews- who considered themselves citizens of states before they were ever jews- were now being irrationally targeted and hunted.
the termĀ āanti-Semitismā was created specifically to name this new racial hatred of Jews. it was coined in 1879- 4 years before Kafka was born.Ā
inĀ āthe metamorphosisā,Ā Gregor Samsa wakes up one morning to find himself transformed into a "monstrous vermin". in kafkaās real world, jews woke up one morning, in their country that they were told was now enlightened and accepting of all people, and found out that they were now consideredĀ āmonstrous verminā. and then 6 million jews of his generation were exterminated.Ā
i am giving the simplest analysis to this right now, but we need to understand that you cannot just blanketly universalize his work. you cannot remove the context of kafkaās jewishness or that he lived at a time when antisemitism became fervently racial. yes, discuss how his work comments on capitalism, society, etc. but to only use ONLY these lenses and to ONLY universalize his work is dishonest, whitewashes his work and life, and further exhibits how little non-jews know or care about the jewish history and how antisemitism has impacted jews for over 2000 years.
As we all know, Dick has religious OCD but the religion is Batman. This is why there should be more AUs where Bruce is a preacher and Dick is the kid heās abusing. It just makes sense you see
Alright if you insist. Iām personally imagining Bruce/the church as vaguely Baptist BUT. Dick is Catholic. They wouldnāt go to the same church, you say! Well they would, because Dickās parents died when he was eight, still. Heās in foster care, and recently he was placed with a family in the small town of Gotham, Georgia.
Dick has religious OCD, that was dramatically worsened after his parentās death- a major fixation of his is his parents looking down from heaven at him and judging his actions. Part of this is he has a compulsion to show up for church every Sunday, no matter what, and if the only church in town is Baptist then heās going to have a crisis about being a heretic and go anyway.
Bruce is similarly afflicted, on his part, and specifically the reason that I make Dick Catholic is because I think that a large part of his and Dickās relationship is about them trying to manage their scrupulosity, and the major secret-keeping element is that Bruce is taking Dickās confession. Bruce recognizes what Dickās going through, he understands what it feels like, and he cares about the kid. The thing is, he never learned to manage his own OCD in any way except living a stricter and stricter life in accordance to his compulsions which only feeds them and gives them more to pick apart, and so⦠his idea of helping is to give Dick the resources to satisfy his compulsions. Dick needs to confess, so Bruce will bolt a board of plywood to the shed and let him confess. And first itās just every Sunday. And then Dick is coming by the church during the week when he feels like he needs to. And then soon enough, itās every day, and then Dick is coming to his house. Itās this all-consuming thing, and it spirals around Bruce. He needs Bruce. Bruce is the only one who can help him, he has to please Bruce or his parents will know heās a bad Christian and a horrible son and and and-
And on Bruceās end⦠heās been denying himself so much for so long. Itās kind of heady, to have someone who understands and someone who needs him so badly. Dick is so earnest, and yeah heās Catholic but Bruce feels like he really understands what it means to be Christian and⦠Dick will stay at his house, a lot, after confessing. They hang out. Theyāre friends, why would they not be? And Bruce⦠he decides to do something selfish. Iām not sure how he rationalizes it- itās love, maybe. Maybe that Dickās been alone for so long and he needs someone to take care of him. Maybe some twisted scripture. I think he ends up telling Dick that masturbatingās a sin, so if he wants help overcoming⦠something like that.
I think Bruce ends up re-baptizing Dick in any case
breaking news: š¢ fan of a series based on greek/roman god pantheons, questioning why batcest blog ships incestā¼ļø
the fact that gods dont have dna doesn't negate the fact percy is dating his niececousin btw, since we're in the topic of establishing that family bonds are still legitimate!! you're right!! i do ship the brothers that is jaytimdickdami+ but can u say the same? nico dating his nephewcousin? dont pull word of god on me with uncle rick here, use your basic analysis.
ofc ur a greek myths fan and ofc ur also an epic the musical fan.
this is the funniest fucking thing ive ever, ever seen.
I don't think we talk enough about the constant slut shaming some parents get up to in the name of protecting their kids innocence or modesty or whatever. we do not treat it like sexual abuse but it absolutely is. like the degree to which some parents always have something to say about how short your shorts are or how visible your cleavage or your bra is a form of fucking sexual harassment. like it just is. the constant commenting on your body parts is a form of sexualization that everybody should see as downright weird and abnormal.
One important thing to know about me is that I will never give up on Dick Grayson being 8 years old when Bruce Wayne found him.
For one, itās funny to imagine baby Dick Grayson beating up bad guys while making bad puns.
For two, Dick and Bruce being orphaned at the same age is an important parallel between them.
For three, making Dick older than 8 at the beginning of his Robin career decreases the time he and Bruce spent together as Batman and Robin and we need every minute of it to explain whatever the fuck those two have going on.
Also, there is no good reason to change it.
āIt makes Bruce seem more reasonable.ā
Really? I admit, putting an 8 year old in a costume to take him crime fighting is a bit unhinged by real world standards. But if the kid is 10 or 12, thatās no different. Still insane. So sorry, I donāt buy that reason.
āThe timelineā¦ā
The timeline is broken beyond repair anyway. Fiddling with Dick Graysonās age is like putting a bandaid on a gushing stab wound - a dirty bandaid that also gives the patient an infection.
āIt explains his skills better.ā
They donāt need explaining. He is the boy wonder, not the boy midfest, because he was extraordinary smart, fast and athletic, even at a very young age.
So the benefits of making him older are not worth destroying the parallels between Dick and Bruce. I dare say the benefits are nonexistent.
Do we think Dolores Haze is a fan of Batman and Robin. Guys