Pleased to report that after a day of this i am not longer craving caper brine and my mouth is not dry as usual. There's some good suggestions in the notes too that I want to try.
-ancient roman posca: water, red or white wine vinegar, honey, salt, herbs (coriander, mint, thyme)
-switchel: water, ginger, vinegar, sweetener, lemon, salt
I’m getting annoyed with people that are determined to see Garcia as the worst person alive. Like she’s rude yes, but she’s not the devil and I get that she’s mean to our favorite blorbos but genuinely I feel like people need to examine why they feel the need to demonize a black woman so much
i think my favorite thing about trinity santos is how genuinely corny she is. i love how she unironically changes whitaker’s nickname from huckleberry to fuckleberry when she’s upset. i love the exaggerated hand gestures and the way she bows as she makes her dramatic exit saying, “so long, fellow losers”. she is so undeniably cringe that i can’t help but love her
I really enjoy the whitsantos dynamic, and I love the idea of being shown a deeper bond as the series progresses, but I feel that quite often people infantilize Whitaker. Like in my mind those are two capable people supporting each other in day to day life, not an edgy caretaker and her bumbling fool (although bumbling is perhaps a good way to describe at least s1 Whitaker). Like I just saw a post where someone said that Santos doesn’t let him drive to work because he drives like he’s scared(?), which we know is incorrect because we see him willingly drive Amy home at the end of season two. Idk it rubs me the wrong way that people characterize their relationship like this, partly because imo it plays into whitakers canonical issues with masculinity and interacting with male peers and it comes across as the fandom treating him similarly to how we’ve seen he dislikes being viewed. I have thoughts about how this perspective also frames santos in a weird and unnecessary way but this is a Dennis Whitaker ramble
Transphobia is about to be signed into law in the UK. We can fight this.
I am begging the UK trans community and its allies to attend the Mass Lobby at Parliament on June 25th, 11am-4pm, organised by Trans Solidarity Alliance.
Last year we broke the record for an LGBT+ mass lobby of Parliament. Will you help us break it again? Join us on 25th June 2026 to demand be
The new EHRC Code of Practice pushes trans people out of toilets, hospital wards, and community spaces. It normalises gender policing based on appearance and stereotypes. It becomes statutory guidance in the UK by the end of June.
Trans people are now legally their assigned gender at birth and must join gendered spaces accordingly, but if they are perceived as their lived gender, they can also be ejected from those spaces. The guidance says: either break the law, or don’t pass too well.
A mass lobby is where you invite your MP to discuss your concerns with you in-person. Ask your MP to:
Demand full parliamentary scrutiny, debate, and use their free vote on the EHRC Code of Practice.
Support any motions rejecting the EHRC guidance. As of June 4th, Labour MP Nadia Whittome has submitted a prayer motion - Early Day Motion 240.
Write to Bridget Phillipson, the Minister for Women and Equalities about our concerns
Your MP does not have to be an ally, they do not have to respond to your email for you to show up and greencard them (details below the cut.) What matters is that as many people as possible show up.
I cannot stress this enough: Showing up in person matters. It is much more effective than petitions, emails, and letters.
It is a horrible, stressful time, and I am so sorry if you're trans and live in the UK. But I was at last year's mass lobby and the line for greencarding alone stretched around the back gates. It was a record breaking mass lobby and made us impossible to ignore. Let's do even better this time. Details under the cut:
Worried about what to say?
Bring your personal worries about transphobia being signed into law, and trans friends being excluded from public spaces. You are a living person who deserves dignity. Remind your MP of that. You will also get guidance and brochures from Trans Solidarity Alliance that outlines our demands. This is mine from last year.
Money issues?
Trans Solidarity Alliance provides a travel bursary that you can sign up for via the link.
Got a refusal or no response from your MP?
Come anyway! You can request a same-day appointment with your MP through a process called greencarding. They will come and see you if they’re already in Parliament. Even if they don’t, they’re made acutely aware of your cause because you showed up in person. This is my greencard from last year.
Here is the EHRC Code of Practice in full. It's a tough read, but some highlights are:
Organisations can’t provide trans-inclusive, single-sex services, or they risk being sued for discrimination.
e.g. domestic violence support for women including trans women, men’s rugby group including trans men (12.68).
Trans people will have nowhere safe to pee.
If you’re a trans man, businesses can't allow you to pee in the men's, and you can also be ejected from women’s bathrooms if you’re perceived as a man. Vice versa for trans women. EHRC suggests a ‘third space’ bathroom, which is discriminatory and unworkable for most businesses. (13.130-133)
Sports organisations must exclude trans people from single-sex competitions (13.73).
A women’s only sports competition must exclude trans women because of their biological advantage or face potential lawsuits (13.74), but a trans man who has undergone testosterone treatment can also be excluded based on fairness rules (13.81).
Trans women are stripped of the legal definition of ‘lesbian’, and therefore no longer have legal protections if they’re discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. (2.50, 2.92).
Here is the Good Law Project's better explanation of the EHRC Code.
I have also made a PDF printout of QR codes for the government petition, email your MP tool, and mass lobby link to pass around your communities. DM me and I'll send it to you.
I just wanna point out that it’s nice how The Pitt allows their characters to have experienced several traumas in their lives that aren’t connected to each other. Like I often feel that media likes to give their characters one Big Bad Thing™ that happens to them and if it hadn’t happened their life would be all sunshine and rainbows and that can be nice from a narrative standpoint but that also usually isn’t the human experience. I think this show gives us a really realistic angle. Like how Al Hashimi both struggles with a seizure disorder that developed in childhood AND trauma from experiencing a massacre in a maternity hospital, or how Mel lost first one parent and then another years from each other under different circumstances, or how Robby was abandoned by his mother as a child and later lost his mentor to covid. Idk i like it
mel talked about her parents passing in season one, pretty sure she specified they died separately from each other and Al-Hashimi bonded with Abbott about being veterans and she mentioned working in a specific maternity hospital that experienced a massacre irl, which Abbott expressed his sympathies for
i remember mel mentioning her parents passing (she also said they were departed in s2), but i don't remember any reference to it being separately. i always thought they passed from a tragic accident.
i know al-hashimi worked at a hospital in the middle east during the war, i just wasn't aware of the massacre part of the story.
mel mentions her mother being dead in s1e3 around 30 mins in, and mentions that she had ”a very aggressive, malignant pheochromocytoma” which I assume is the cause of her passing, which leads me to believe her father passed another time.
As for Al-Hashimi the massacre isn’t brought up in the show I just figured it felt very on purpose that they mentioned a specific hospital, so I searched it up!
I just wanna point out that it’s nice how The Pitt allows their characters to have experienced several traumas in their lives that aren’t connected to each other. Like I often feel that media likes to give their characters one Big Bad Thing™ that happens to them and if it hadn’t happened their life would be all sunshine and rainbows and that can be nice from a narrative standpoint but that also usually isn’t the human experience. I think this show gives us a really realistic angle. Like how Al Hashimi both struggles with a seizure disorder that developed in childhood AND trauma from experiencing a massacre in a maternity hospital, or how Mel lost first one parent and then another years from each other under different circumstances, or how Robby was abandoned by his mother as a child and later lost his mentor to covid. Idk i like it
mel talked about her parents passing in season one, pretty sure she specified they died separately from each other and Al-Hashimi bonded with Abbott about being veterans and she mentioned working in a specific maternity hospital that experienced a massacre irl, which Abbott expressed his sympathies for
i remember mel mentioning her parents passing (she also said they were departed in s2), but i don't remember any reference to it being separately. i always thought they passed from a tragic accident.
i know al-hashimi worked at a hospital in the middle east during the war, i just wasn't aware of the massacre part of the story.
mel mentions her mother being dead in s1e3 around 30 mins in, and mentions that she had ”a very aggressive, malignant pheochromocytoma” which I assume is the cause of her passing, which leads me to believe her father passed another time.
As for Al-Hashimi the massacre isn’t brought up in the show I just figured it felt very on purpose that they mentioned a specific hospital, so I searched it up!
I just wanna point out that it’s nice how The Pitt allows their characters to have experienced several traumas in their lives that aren’t connected to each other. Like I often feel that media likes to give their characters one Big Bad Thing™ that happens to them and if it hadn’t happened their life would be all sunshine and rainbows and that can be nice from a narrative standpoint but that also usually isn’t the human experience. I think this show gives us a really realistic angle. Like how Al Hashimi both struggles with a seizure disorder that developed in childhood AND trauma from experiencing a massacre in a maternity hospital, or how Mel lost first one parent and then another years from each other under different circumstances, or how Robby was abandoned by his mother as a child and later lost his mentor to covid. Idk i like it
mel talked about her parents passing in season one, pretty sure she specified they died separately from each other and Al-Hashimi bonded with Abbott about being veterans and she mentioned working in a specific maternity hospital that experienced a massacre irl, which Abbott expressed his sympathies for
I just wanna point out that it’s nice how The Pitt allows their characters to have experienced several traumas in their lives that aren’t connected to each other. Like I often feel that media likes to give their characters one Big Bad Thing™ that happens to them and if it hadn’t happened their life would be all sunshine and rainbows and that can be nice from a narrative standpoint but that also usually isn’t the human experience. I think this show gives us a really realistic angle. Like how Al Hashimi both struggles with a seizure disorder that developed in childhood AND trauma from experiencing a massacre in a maternity hospital, or how Mel lost first one parent and then another years from each other under different circumstances, or how Robby was abandoned by his mother as a child and later lost his mentor to covid. Idk i like it
If you use Firefox, you can go to the about:config page, search for "media.mediasource.enabled" and double click on it to set it to false. After you restart Firefox, all youtube videos will load entirely even when paused! This also affects other streaming websites :)
go to About:config
find media.mediasource.enabled and toggle it to false
find media.cache_readahead_limit and change it to 9999
find media.cache_resume_threshold and change it to 9999
additionally if you'd prefer mp4 to webm
also in about:config, find:
media.encoder.webm.enabled
media.mediasource.webm.audio.enabled
media.mediasource.webm.enabled
media.webm.enabled
and toggle them all to false
note!
this will limit video to 1080p
and use https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dont-accept-webp/ to kill WebP
Fuck Google
Okay I had a brain blast about Buddie last night and thought about it for a day and had to vomit it out so here you go, its long and I don't know how to do the "below the cut" thing, sorry for the long scroll.
Buck wants to be needed, not just wanted. When Buck was created it was because his body was needed, Buck himself wasn't wanted. After that need was unsuccessfully fulfilled, he wasn’t wanted or needed by his parents. Eventually, he found that he was wanted… but for his body yet again. Still, he worked with that, with meaningless moments of physical intimacy, of being wanted, but never needed. Even after his experiences in season 1 prompted him to morph into Buck 2.0, to seek out actual relationships with meaning and commitment and wanting to be someone that his partner could lean on, that his partner needed, he kept on ending up in relationships and flings where he was wanted (yet again for his body primarily) but not really ever needed. Literally every single relationship. Abby wanted Buck because he was hot and cute and kind, but ultimately needed to find herself and didn't need Buck for that. The relationship with Ali ended too fast for anything deeper to develop. Taylor's her own beast and their relationship changed over time but even when she arguably could have been percieved to have needed Buck, during the time when her father got put up for parole, she handles it on her own and kinda accepts Bucks emotional support but clearly doesn't need it. Natalia wants Buck because she finds him interesting, she doesn't need him. In his relationship with Tommy it's really more Buck who leans on Tommy as he adjusts to his newly discovered bisexuality, but it was more because Tommy's a guy and not because the guy was Tommy. Even though the relationship lasted several months, they never developed the kind of partnership where they leaned on each other (let's be real, that's because Buck already has that kind of relationship with Eddie). In other words... Tommy didn't need Buck. It's heartbreaking honestly, watching this cycle happen again and again given that we've known since season 1 exactly what Buck wants which is a real relationship where his partner truly sees him and trusts him and respects him and needs him, he literally just wants to be a husband so bad.
Eddie on the other hand needs to be wanted, not needed. Eddie’s sisters and mom and dad needed him to step up and “be the man of the house”. Honestly, based on how his parents treat him as an adult, I doubt that he ever felt wanted as a kid. He did step up, did what he needed to do for the people that needed him, but he’s not admired or respected for it by the people he did it for. Helena especially is ever critical of him. So, not only was Eddie needed, he was needed and told that he was failing at it. This theme is repeated with Shannon. We don’t get to see their early romance/relationship, and of course there must have been attraction and connection, but their relationship became defined by the pregnancy. Once again, at 19, Eddie is needed. He needs to be a man, a father, a husband, to provide, to support his wife and child. And yet again, he fails or at least believes that he does. He isn’t a good partner to Shannon even if he’s giving his all to meeting her and Christopher’s financial needs. For the first years of Chris’s life, he’s not really the father Chris needs him to be because he’s not there. Then there’s the failure of his and Shannon’s marriage which means he’s not being who and what Catholic culture needs him to be, a husband. And the nail in the coffin, years later after everything with Shannon and his grief and Kim, he hurts Chris and Chris doesn’t want him to be his dad anymore. Eventually, Eddie is able to bridge that gap with his son but only partly, only because he steps in to be Chris’s father again (not that he ever really stopped of course) because Chris needs him to. His whole life, in all the most important aspects, Eddie is defined by people needing him. His parents/sisters, Shannon, Chris, soldiers, the people he saves as a firefighter. Eddie is defined by his service and his failures. I think what he needs is to allow himself to have his own needs for once. And I think he needs to be wanted for who he is by someone who sees him beyond what he can do.
And the thing is, Buck and Eddie already are these things for each other. Naturally and easily, Eddie allows Buck into his and Chris’s life as a pillar of support. Eddie needs Bucks help, and honestly to be his partner (examples include Buck connecting him with Carla, asking for Buck’s help multiple times in communicating with or raising Christopher, Eddie being so pissed off with Buck during the lawsuit because Buck wasn’t there to support him when he needed him, Chris calling Buck for help when Eddie breaks down, Buck saving Eddie’s life when he’s shot, so on and so forth). And Buck, fuck does he want Eddie. On so many levels and in so many different ways. Of course there’s all the little hints that Buck wants Eddie like that but I don’t even really want to count them here because he’s clearly repressing it so hard it doesn’t feel like concrete evidence at this point in canon for their actual relationship (except I do have to make the honorable mention of “I don’t have to want to sleep with everyone I have feelings for” like okay you don’t have to but DO YOU??). Instead let’s just highlight that Buck always wants Eddie around, like there’s a million examples of this from “I’m in” for that gross drink Eddie described, being jealous over other people taking Eddie’s time/attention, getting excited when he thinks that Eddie broke up with Marisol because yay more hanging out time for Buck, and a bajillion other examples. And, crucially, Buck doesn’t actually need Eddie. He just wants Eddie so bad it seems like he does. We’ve seen Buck without Eddie and he’s clearly miserable but its not because he needs Eddie, needs Eddie to be of service, it's because Buck just wants him around all the time forever. I think the only real exceptions to this are like, life or death situations like 9x13 or Bucks recovery when he needed everyone’s support.
Anyways, they fit together like perfect puzzle pieces and I just think it would be so much more gratifying if they were able to recognize these things within themselves and each other and to allow themselves to be there for each other completely as partners who also kiss and say I love you.
Also final note I have to make honorable mentions about Maddie, Tia Pepa, and Abuela and their roles as the people who didn’t directly raise Buck or Eddie who did love them unconditionally, who didn’t contribute to these core wounds.
