Women are really beating those allegations, huh?
No title available

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
wallacepolsom
dirt enthusiast
AnasAbdin
Acquired Stardust
YOU ARE THE REASON
Keni
One Nice Bug Per Day
Not today Justin
art blog(derogatory)

roma★

PR's Tumblrdome
Cosimo Galluzzi
styofa doing anything
we're not kids anymore.
Stranger Things
Sade Olutola
$LAYYYTER

Kiana Khansmith
seen from Poland

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Slovakia
seen from Canada

seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Côte d’Ivoire

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from Australia

seen from India
seen from United States
@halbdaemon-kite
Women are really beating those allegations, huh?
Wow, op was so brave for that. ✊
George Floyd should have gone on to have a fair trial, not to have died whilst being arrested.
That was a terrible thing to happen.
But if we're about to make comparisons. George Floyd, who we're agreed should not have died.
Had a criminal record and was being arrested again.
George Floyd’s Criminal Record: A Closer Look George Perry Floyd Jr. w
No matter what you think about Charlie Kirk and his beliefs.
When he went to university campuses, as he was doing at Utah. It was purely and simply to have debates with anyone willing to do so.
And that was something that we want more of, not less.
George Floyd shouldn't have died. He should have gone into custody and had a fair trial in keeping with the Law.
That was the tragedy. A man accused of a crime, even for the tenth time, should have the case examined by Law.
Well and truly agreed.
Charlie Kirk was simply at Utah to debate with people who disagreed with him.
George Floyd shouldn't have died, but there was a valid reason for him being arrested.
He was suspected of committing a crime. The arrest was not carried out as it should have been, it appears. That we can say.
But he wasn't being arrested for no reason.
Could someone tell me what Charlie Kirk (who I'm sure would have debated anyone who disagreed with things he'd said) did that meant that it was acceptable for him to be shot?
"Errm, Ackshually, George Floyd was a criminal" 👆 🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓
I also said that George Floyd should not have died.
In simple human terms he and Charlie Kirk were both imperfect beings with the same innate worth. Neither of them should have died the way that they did.
George Floyd should have had a fair trial. He had criminal convictions before, he was not arrested for no reason. He was suspected of having committed another crime.
Charlie Kirk, regardless of whether anyone agreed with his views or not was doing as he always did, opening up to discuss things with anyone who disagreed with him.
You've made it clear that the only thing you cared about George Floyd for was the colour of his skin.
Now please tell me why we all shouldn't be very concerned about the death of a man who no matter what he disagreed about people with was open to talking about it with them.
We Need More People Ready To Do That, Not Less.
Also, there's a slight moral difference between saying a repeat violent criminal was bad for being a repeat violent criminal, and looking at a man murdered by a terrorist, then scrambling for reasons to justify that terrorism and hiding behind "irony".
George Floyd being a scumbag is not the same as saying he deserved to die.
And if someone was wrong to say Floyd deserved to die, why is it right to say Kirk deserved to die? Which countless people are doing without even pretending it's ironic?
George Floyd should not have had a fair trial after that arrest, because he should already have been dead. After he held a gun to a pregnant woman’s belly during a home invasion, he should have been arrested, tried, convicted, executed, and composted.
And once again the left shows that think meany poopy words are worse than violence against women.
It's like Minecraft, but for real
If she can’t afford the like $20 for a geologist hammer, she burns through her allowance too damn fast.
She does.
This is the second time they do this gag.
In the first episode she wants more allowance to buy some pretty gemstone necklace. But she doesn't get any, thus kicking off the plot of the show, where she goes gemstone hunting herself (and meets a geology student, who ends up helping her).
It's a very cute anime. I do recommend.
James Nailed It!!
How did you learn to read? Entirely from a parent Entirely from schooling Mostly from a parent, partially from school Mostly from schooling, partially from a parent Equally from parenting and schooling Something else Nuance I'm Jared, 19
Inspired by a video with a lot of people in the comments blaming students struggling or being unable to both read and comprehend on parents not teaching their kids. That boggles my mind. That's part of the teachers' job?? It's negligent of them to do a poor job? I learned to read at school, not from a parent.
How did you learn to read?
Entirely from a parent
Entirely from schooling
Mostly from a parent, partially from school
Mostly from schooling, partially from a parent
Equally from parenting and schooling
Something else
Nuance
Inspired by a video with a lot of people in the comments blaming students struggling or being unable to both read and comprehend on parents not teaching their kids. That boggles my mind. That's part of the teachers' job?? It's negligent of them to do a poor job? I learned to read at school, not from a parent.
Nuance because my parent was my teacher?
Also, my opinion regarding that is you cannot just send a fully illiterate 6 year old to first grade, that is irresponsible. You have to start teaching them to read before that, literacy starts at like 4 if you want them to be good at it.
Nuance: my older sister volunteered to teach me to read when I was preschool age. So my parents left her to the task. Then teachers helped improve my reading as I got older.
Not entirely sure when and how I learned to read, but my mother knew that I knew how when I was about three years old. So definitely well before I started school.
I could read print, but not cursive, when I started school.
And my teacher absolutely hated me for it. 🙃
Welcome to Marvel, where we make our Strong Empowered Black Women selfish jackasses who use their powers to steal from others for their own gain and then expect you to see them as heroes.
Have the almighty writers hand her as many unearned moments as you want. You'll never come close to what Tony managed to do in a cave, with a box of scraps.
The problem is she's right, and men hate that. (Im a Tony fan before you come at me) Tony wouldn't have BEEN in that cave if he didn't have his company or his money!
Riri is a GREAT example of the sexist and racist fans that Marvel has.
You just keep telling yourself that while Marvel sets Disney's money on fire. It's not that they stopped telling good stories, it's that everyone who doesn't like them is a bigot. It's the audience's fault for not liking what the megacorp says they're supposed to like, just like with video games.
Like i said last time, Riri and the Ironheart show is a great example of racist and sexist fans that Marvel has. "Oh no things are woke!" No marvels ALWAYS been 'woke' Thats WHY the Xmen were created. Do I like the way Disney does things with Marvel or Star Wars? Not always but like im not hating it for it being a woman or a black person!
Leave it to someone who misses the point of Tony's big moment(it was his own skills and intellect that got him out of that cave in the world's first suit of armor, but you tried to write it off as just money) to not be able to understand criticism of a character beyond "you said a bad thing about a black woman, so you're a racist and a sexist!" The reason Marvel's bleeding money is that they made slop like The Marvels for people like you, who are very vocal online but make up a rather small fraction of the moveigoing audience, and for you only. Hope it was worth it.
Yup. It doesn't matter WHY Tony is in that cave. IN THAT CAVE, his money, his corporate connections, none of that means anything. All he has is in that cave is his intellect (and the aid of his fellow prisoner, whom Tony, at least, if not all the viewers, knows damn well helped make his escape possible) and the tools at hand.
That he had a fully-equipped, cutting-edge lab back in New York was irrelevant.
And in any case, Tony CREATED the Mk I Iron Man suit. At best, Riri duplicated it...years later...in a well-funded university lab environment...without the time pressure or threats of death...when other people had been working with it for years before her trying to replicate the tech.
From what I've gathered about Williams:
She feels she's being oppressed and held back at her (free ride?) Ivy League school with her own lab, as (I think) an undergrad. This entitled attitude finally gets her kicked from the program.
She stole what was likely a multimillion dollar piece of equipment from her university on her way out.
She talks about how her tech could help people... But doesn't actually help anyone but herself with it when she has it unfettered.
Makes a deal with a crime boss to get money, instead of... literally anything else. She's apparently a genius, and her best idea is 'sell services to a thief.'
Makes a deal with satan to power up her suit.
Did I miss something there? Does she ever actually save anyone? Do anything positive for society? Or is it all just 'fuck you, got mine' bullshit?
Wait, that's actually what happens??
Guys, turns out Iron Heart is a great show if you view it as a tragedy/cautionary tale.
That, or as an allegory for the BLM founders.
Ironheart is a great villain origin story but it doesn't understand that's what it is. Riri is a terrible person. All her problems are self-inflicted but she never has a moment where she realizes that and changes for the better. Instead she just whines about how everyone is against her and immediately turns to crime the moments he starts facing any consequences for her actions. God, the introduction to her character is all about how she sells final projects to other students to fund her Iron Man suit, thinks her grant money is hers by right instead of something she was given to do a specific job, which she didn't do, refuses to even consider a high paying tech job because she's better than that, gets expelled and turns to theft so she can steal thousands of dollars at a time instead of selling any of her inventions for millions. The narrative is constantly telling you how great she is and the biggest obstacle she faces in her life is that not everyone realizes it. Typical MCU female character, except she's worse because she's black and black female characters have to have even less flaws than the usual MCU woman.
This has been the pattern from the very first Disney Marvel shows (and continues in the Daredevil abomination they hijacked from Netflix). I went into the first shows, Falcon & the Winter Soldier, and Wandavision (I don't drink coffee or use amphetamines, so I was unable to make it through an episode of Loki) in good faith, liking all four title characters.
Wandavision had Wanda enslave a town full of innocent bystanders, compelling them to live out supporting roles in her fantasy life of being married to Jarvis and raising kids. When a government agent tried to investigate why the town stopped answering its phones, she was briefly engulfed in the mind control, before Wanda caught on and expelled her at high velocity in such a fashion as would result in fatal or paralyzing injuries, had the writers a better comprehension of combat and physics than your typical middle-aged spinster Lit or Drama major. In the end, Wanda gave up her delusion, including her imaginary children, and quailing at the stares of the townspeople who had been aware the whole time (at one point, one of them pleads with Wanda to let their children, at least go free), she is comforted by the government agent (black, female, BTW) who tells her "they'll never know what you sacrificed for them." The show really believes that Wanda was justified, and that her surrendering the pretend life which was built on the ongoing mind-rape of dozens, if not hundreds, of innocent bystanders, was actually a noble sacrifice. At one point, another government agent, inexplicably depicted as a villain (guess what skin color & sex that agent is, uniquely among all the LEOs shown investigating this phenomenon), is confronting Wanda with tactical team, and justifies his "belligerent" posture by pointing out that she has taken a town hostage, to which our hero snaps "You're the one with the guns." And this is treated as a legit smackdown by the narrative.
Falcon & the Winter Soldier, had the government appoint a new Captain America and give him Steve's shield, after Sam decided he did not want it (this US military veteran thinks it was offensive of Steve to ask him, as a black man, to carry a shield representing America, and Bucky apologizes for agreeing with Steve and supporting his bequest at the time). This new guy, John Walker, is a military hero and three time Medal of Honor winner. He is portrayed as respectful of Steve, and deferential to Sam & Bucky, and grappling with his inadequacy to follow in Steve's footsteps, despite winning three more Medals of Honor, and almost certainly serving for longer than the 3 years America fought in the ETO of WW2, much of which Steve spent fundraising with showgirls. Eventually, despite the risks, he takes the serum which was used to give Steve his powers, and which has now been replicated.
Throughout the show, Sam and Bucky's attitude to the new Captain America ranges from dismissive to contemptuous to hostile, as he and his best friend & partner, Lamar, repeatedly ask for their help fighting a terrorist group. It culminates with the terrorists, who were similarly enhanced by the serum (John got his dose by confiscating it from them), murdering Lamar, and John chasing them down. He catches one, who smashes a concrete planter on the shield, before John kills him in a scene staged to recall Steve's final fight with Tony in Civil War. Except the terrorist has superhuman strength, instead of a suit of armor that can be disabled by smashing the glowing target in his chest, so John's blows with the edge of the shield to his chest have to kill the terrorist before he stops. A crowd films it on their cell phones, there are dramatic shots of the shield "stained" with blood, and John is subsequently branded a murderer. He killed a multiple murderer in the heat of combat, who was still struggling and could not be restrained or safely taken into custody. The narrative & Disney shills try to argue that the terrorist was surrendering, since his hands were "up" but only because he was lying on his back, flailing at the opponent on top of him, much as Tony's hands were up when Steve was on top of him, pounding the same shield into his chest.
After Sam & Bucky break John's arm to take the shield away (conveniently forgetting all the men Steve killed with it, most of them ordinary humans without powers or enhancements, and in at least one case, staggering dazed by gas) John is fired as Captain America and stripped of his military pension. He makes himself a new shield, and attaches his medals to the inside, to remind himself of them while in combat, and goes after the terrorists. At the climax of the final episode, with several politicians who are the terrorists' target trapped in a paddywagon, the lead terrorist drives it to the edge of a precipice and bails out. Bucky is below (safely & responsibly, unlike John, beating on a terrorist with an I-beam) and can only look up as the van starts to slide over the edge toward him, when suddenly it stops as John's battered homemade shield comes tumbling down. John threw aside the shield with his medals, to save the van full of victims (who were also his political persecutors), rather than pursue his revenge against his partner's killers, and while he is struggling to pull it back, the terrorists attack him, forcing him to try fighting them off with one hand, until they pull him off by tackling him over the edge. The van continues to teeter over the edge until Sam flies up in a new, patriotically-painted Falcon armor suit with advanced Wakandan technology (three guesses whether or not they would ever give John what they gave Sam, and why) and catches the forward bumper and starts pushing it up. The music is stirring and triumphant as Sam groans and bellows like he is overcoming gravity through sheer willpower, and his actual body or muscles are doing this, instead of the propulsion system of his backpack. The gathering crowd of black people cheer as they film this with cell phones. Bucky give a big, beaming smile, where he merely observed, stone-faced, John's initial effort to save the same people.
The villains on that show are called "The Flag Smashers". They are a group of young Eurotrash, who came of age in the lustrum after Thanos turned half the population to dust. Raised by electronic devices, these empathy-deprived children grew up thinking everything was theirs for the taking, looting the possessions of the dead people and squatting in their homes. But now that the Avengers have restored them to life, these scavengers are being turfed out and their stolen property returned to their rightful owners. The politicians in charge of sorting everything out and making provisions for the trespassers now-displaced Blip survivors are not moving with sufficient alacrity, so they turned to terrorism, using the Captain America serum and attacking the international relief efforts, including blowing up buildings, and the political commission in charge of it. Those political figures were the people who were in the van John and Sam saved (they were also the committee who fired John for some reason).
The leading terrorist is named Karli and is played by Erin Kellyman, a mixed race actor Disney has been pushing on the world since she reached adulthood. She first appeared in "Solo" as the leader of the thieves who were constantly harassing Han Solo & Woody Harrelson, stealing their take and inciting the anger of the mob boss for whom Han & co were compelled to carry out jobs, and causing the death of Woody's wife and his pilot buddy. In the confrontation near the climax, she dramatically pulls off her mask to reveal her pale, freckly, African-featured face like that, and that alone was supposed to inform our opinions about her. Like, up to that point, we view her as an antagonist and a bad guy because of all the death and mortal danger she is causing the character we came to the movie to see, but when we see she is a young woman, possibly when we see she is not strictly white, we are supposed to suddenly change our minds and sympathize? It's fucking Star Wars, not the deep South! There is no reason to assume IRL racial politics apply. Pre-Disney, the most prominent black people in Star Wars were the guy in charge of Bespin, the top military officer(s) of Naboo, and the highest-ranking Master in the Jedi Order. Are we supposed to assume that African features mean Enfys Nest is automatically oppressed and worthy of support? After F&tWS, Kellyman also had a prominent role in "Willow" before Disney memory-holed that show, and I can only assume scheduling conflicts kept her from appearing in the last Indiana Jones movie to complete the set of Disney IP defilements.
Like with Solo, the Disney authorities are so enthralled with Kellyman that they expect audiences to automatically take her character's side, regardless of the violence, murders and the-more-you-know-the-less-you-like cause she espouses. After she and her fellow terrorists are blown up by Zemo, Falcon, in full robo-winged regalia, carries her body Pieta-style to the politicians, an angel confronting the indifferent or apathetic with the corpse of a martyr to make them face the consequences of their failure, and he proceeds to reprimand them for calling Karli & her ilk terrorists, blame them for her crimes, and talks over or dismisses their points that the whole situation and the disputes are complicated, by pointing out how much power they have, and they should just give everyone whatever they ask for, demand that they "do better" and cloaks his ignorance of the specifics by pointing out that he is Black.
Later, in the Thunderbolts movie, John's backstory is summed up as "you killed an innocent man" and his defense is a tacit concession as he replies "define innocent." He is called "a piece of shit" by the main character in a context of her telling him a harsh truth, and the nadir of his personal failure is that with his child in a crib literally a foot away from him, and perfectly fine, he was looking at his phone, thereby being an abusively neglectful father, causing his wife to leave him. She's totally not abandoning him because life is less fun when your husband is no longer a celebrity and is sad about his best friend's murder.
John Walker is a selfless hero, who is treated by the narrative like a violent, hateful thug, shamed for non-existent crimes, that not even his critics claim had any selfish motive or evil intent, accusing him of being vengeful (over the murder minutes before, of his best friend, in the same ongoing combat operation) or afflicted by drugs (he took to succeed in his mission).
Wait I'm sorry back the fuck up a moment.
This new guy, John Walker, is a military hero and three time Medal of Honor winner.
No one in real life has won the MOH three times. No one has won more than one in over a century. It's technically possible but in practice any subsequent action which would award one is typically downgraded to a Distinguished Service Cross (or equivalent Cross for the other branches).
This is preposterous levels of valor for the modern day. Fuck Captain America, this guy should by rights have spawned off his own entire hero persona from nothing except contemporary military and veteran groups.
The idea that someone this decorated would be cancelled and branded a murderer over a fatal combat encounter would be laughed out of any writer's room which actually had combat veterans in it.
And if any marvel property should have veterans in the room, it's Captain America.
The idea that someone this decorated would be cancelled and branded a murderer over a fatal combat encounter would be laughed out of any writer's room which actually had combat veterans in it.
Well yeah, but you forget that he was acting as Captain America and Captain America never had blood on his shield, except for all the people Steve killed since he was, you know, a soldier.
The only good thing to come out of that show was John Walker and the John Walker Effect.
That makes it even more darkly funny, to be honest. Barnes and Rogers were both born in the late 20s, early 30s. Them having any sort of compunction about permanently ending their enemies would have to be drilled into them in the 2010s when they woke up, and even then it's highly unlikely it would have stuck.
Unless Steve Rogers is like Alvin York, but then he'd never have volunteered in the first place.
In the end, Wanda gave up her delusion, including her imaginary children, and quailing at the stares of the townspeople who had been aware the whole time (at one point, one of them pleads with Wanda to let their children, at least go free), she is comforted by the government agent (black, female, BTW) who tells her "they'll never know what you sacrificed for them." The show really believes that Wanda was justified,
"Dozens of people Wanda hurt were rightly mad at her, one (blatantly biased) person sympathized, and Wanda herself still felt guilty. Also, centuries-old-witch Agatha was terrified of Wanda's massive power. Clearly Wanda's supposed to be unquestionably in the right."
Huh?
I mean, you're doing better than most people who ignore the context of the glares entirely, but you still arrived at the wrong conclusion.
At one point, another government agent, inexplicably depicted as a villain (guess what skin color & sex that agent is, uniquely among all the LEOs shown investigating this phenomenon), is confronting Wanda with tactical team, and justifies his "belligerent" posture by pointing out that she has taken a town hostage, to which our hero snaps "You're the one with the guns." And this is treated as a legit smackdown by the narrative.
It's treated as just another rationalization, especially when she ends the sentence "but you're the one in control".
Right after she told them to leave her alone, or else, and then nearly made the agents shoot Howard. Which shows that the men with guns aren't really a threat to her.
Especially when this scene takes place after she stopped a drone strike.
Howard is portrayed as wrong because he wants to exploit Vision's corpse and also Wanda's power. Not just for wanting to stop Wanda at all.
A crowd films it on their cell phones, there are dramatic shots of the shield "stained" with blood, and John is subsequently branded a murderer.
It's almost as if the show was referencing actual "police brutality" controversies where lots of people jumped to conclusions based on surface appearances, and the accused cop got fired over it.
Especially controversies about cops shooting unarmed people, even when the unarmed person tried to get the cop's gun.
John is fired as Captain America and stripped of his military pension.
And in the process, he gets a big speech calling out his bosses for throwing him out with the trash the second it was inconvenient.
Which is the most like Steve he actually acts in the whole series.
It also pretty obviously references how America (and other nations) treat vets and soldiers, in the eyes of many.
John is definitely supposed to be sympathetic. I don't know where the myth he wasn't came from.
Maybe because we were initially seeing him from Sam and Buck's biased POVs.
Sam flies up in a new, patriotically-painted Falcon armor suit with advanced Wakandan technology (three guesses whether or not they would ever give John what they gave Sam, and why)
John's not actually friends with anyone in Wakanda. Also, Wakanda is supposed to be racist and bigoted.
In and out of universe.
Even in the show, the Dora Milaje brag that their jurisdiction is "anywhere [we] happen to be". And then attack John for no good reason, even when he tries to de-escalate the situation and be friendly.
>John is definitely supposed to be sympathetic. I don’t know where the myth he wasn’t came from.
Because our two main heroes treat him like shit and at no point in the show are the ever portayed as being in the wrong about it.
The scene where they break his arm and steal government property is framed as him being in the wrong and Sam in the right. Especially with Sam wiping off the blood all upset. And them never being questioned about having stolen government property.
In the scene, where the Wakanda cringe squad tries to murder him for existing, Bucky and Sam laugh in the background and only decide to help after several near misses and Bucky gets immediately called out for helping, which the show portays as the correct and justified reaction of the cringe squad leader.
He only gets sorta kinda acknowledged a bit at the end by Bucky and even there he's more treated like "yeah you're cringe, but I guess I can have you help me".
Sam shows more consideration for the terrorists than him. And again the show portrays him crying over the terror bitch as good.
He comes off as sympathetic in all of those scenes to you, because you're normal. But he wasn't intended to be. The show's writing wasn't subtle enough for that to be intentional. Bucky's emotional "arc" in that show is a pretty good benchmark for how subtle the show is. They are very blatant with exposition and background music.
A good comparison to show that off are the scene in the beginning of the show, where Sam murders a bunch of mooks vs. the John kills the terrorist scene. Both scenes have Flag Smashers dying and yet only one makes people think that what happened was bad. Because of music and framing.
He just wasn't meant to be a villain, which is why he got that little sort of redemption arc at the end. And they do throw him the occasional bone, when he's in a scene independent of the two main characters. But in the scenes where the protagonists shit on him, he is very much supposed to be the bad guy.
>John's not actually friends with anyone in Wakanda. Also, Wakanda is supposed to be racist and bigoted.
>In and out of universe.
They're really not.
Their evil colonizer line is framed like an epic girlboss one liner. If it was supposed to be bad, then another character had objected to it.
And the official Marvel twitter account posted that line specifically to show off how epic and amazing the Wakanda cringe squad is.
They just appear racist to you, because you're normal and they oboviously are. But this show is written by people that think black people can't be racist.
Because our two main heroes treat him like shit and at no point in the show are the ever portayed as being in the wrong about it.
"The show doesn't directly condemn their behavior, therefore it is endorsing it."
…No? The audience sees how they're wrong.
The scene where they break his arm and steal government property is framed as him being in the wrong and Sam in the right. Especially with Sam wiping off the blood all upset. And them never being questioned about having stolen government property.
That doesn't justify their earlier, less harsh treatment of him, when they were just being petty dicks.
In the scene, where the Wakanda cringe squad tries to murder him for existing, Bucky and Sam laugh in the background and only decide to help after several near misses and Bucky gets immediately called out for helping, which the show portays as the correct and justified reaction of the cringe squad leader.
A recurring theme about Wakanda throughout the MCU is that they're often arrogant racist xenophobes, and I think that's deliberate writing.
Again, the Dora leader claims they have jurisdiction wherever they are, which is presumably a mirror to how John himself acted.
…Except John actually had, y'know, legal authority to hunt down terrorists and bad guys. The Wakandans don't.
He comes off as sympathetic in all of those scenes to you, because you're normal. But he wasn't intended to be. The show's writing wasn't subtle enough for that to be intentional.
"He wasn't written to be sympathetic because the writing isn't subtle enough to write him sympathetically."
…That's circular logic.
I don't exactly call a scene where John talks with his best friend about getting rewarded for the most traumatic day of his life particularly subtle.
But in the scenes where the protagonists shit on him, he is very much supposed to be the bad guy.
From their biased perspective, yes.
Their evil colonizer line is framed like an epic girlboss one liner. If it was supposed to be bad, then another character had objected to it.
I'm sorry, for someone who talked about subtlety, you're arguing that a work's moral stances have to be explicitly explained to exist, instead of letting the viewer infer things.
Which is ironic, because you also keep making assumptions about what was supposedly implied.
I really feel like you're just rationalizing what you already believe here. And hand-waving away my counterpoints as minor and irrelevant.
And the official Marvel twitter account posted that line specifically to show off how epic and amazing the Wakanda cringe squad is.
Show writers, producers, and directors rarely run official Twitter accounts.
>That's circular logic.
I really don't see how assuming the blatantness and shittyness of the writing to be consistent is circular logic.
But then again, there were like 5 chucklefucks writing that thing. So I guess it is quite silly of me to expect consistency.
>I'm sorry, for someone who talked about subtlety, you're arguing that a work's moral stances have to be explicitly explained to exist, instead of letting the viewer infer things.
And I'm sorry that in a franchise, with a history of giving the person who's supposed to be in the right the last word, I assume the person who got the last word is supposed to be the correct one, until told otherwise.
I haven't watched it in years, maybe I'm just misrembering and this is actually the one show that actually has a bunch of scenes, where the person, who's supposed to be in the wrong gets a one-liner with no counter argument.
>Show writers, producers, and directors rarely run official Twitter accounts.
Maybe, but I don't see any marketing posts praising the other villains for their morals. Don't think they did one for Thanos going "As he should 😍".
Unless we're going by the argument that the marketing team doesn't actually watch the shit they promote, which is plausible, I give you that.
Top Charlie Kirk hater is actually more civilized than the Leftist ghouls.
Never thought I'd agree with the little gay nazi. Yet here we are.
if he was loved and admired by all he probably wouldn’t have gotten shot in the neck
Yes maybe he should have made himself beloved by putting a gun to a pregnant woman’s stomach during a home invasion, like George Floyd did.
Guess MLK wasn't all that beloved either. ¯\_(ヅ)_/¯
The time to talk was ten years ago.
2015. Trump announced he'd run for president. It feels like forever ago, doesn't it? A lifelong democrat driven out of the party, now running with what had been his opposition for his entire life. For many, it felt like a new start to the conservative movement, a breakaway from the arthritic and fat GOP of yesteryear.
He said the same things Obama and Hillary had, once upon a time. The same ideas they once espoused now came from him.
And you called him a Nazi and fascist.
And you called us Nazis and fascists.
And you started saying "punch a Nazi".
At the time, we didn't know what you were doing with that. Maybe some of you didn't know then, either. But we do now. I don't know if we could've done anything, or if it was too late even then.
The time to talk was ten years ago.
2015. Before a decade of hammering it into every skull that conservative = fascist = Nazi = it's good to punch them. "You don't need to cry for them," you said. "Their fascists. They're Nazis."
Do you even know the meaning of those words? For people who claim that "speech is violence", you're rather flippant with your use of language.
You equated talk to gunshots. A debate was no different in your minds to a shooting.
At the time, we didn't know what you were doing with that. Maybe some of you didn't know then, either. But we do now. I don't know if we could've done anything, or if it was too late even then.
The time to talk was ten years ago.
2015. Before you radicalized the party and yourselves so far left that there was no room left for other opinions. Trump was one of you, once. Kennedy was one of you, once. Gabbard was one of you, once. Is everyone slightly to the right of you a "fascist Nazi"?
Don't answer that. We already know enough from how you reacted on Wednesday. Extreme right, moderate right, center right, center left — they're all the same to you.
At the time, we didn't know what you were doing with that. Maybe some of you didn't know then, either. But we do now. I don't know if we could've done anything, or if it was too late even then.
The time to talk was ten years ago.
Charlie tried anyway.
Perhaps it was a naïve sense of hope that the unreasonable could be reasoned with. Perhaps it was faith in humanity, that everyone is a son or daughter of God, that everyone can recognize truth and right.
Charlie tried to talk long past the time it became a vain endeavor. He tried, and tried, and tried.
And you shot him as he was talking.
Words and bullets are all the same to you, I suppose. Is that why you try so hard to rid us of the right to both?
These politicians and media personalities, they try to disavow it despite being the very ones who turned on the stove. "Violence has no place in politics," they say. "It's time to talk."
The time to was ten years ago.
Charlie's bright red blood on spotless white speaks enough. His widow and fatherless children speak enough. Not just for America, but in Canada, and the United Kingdom, Germany and Australia and South Korea.
You murdered the one man who still tried to reason with you.
We never wanted it to come to this. We never wanted words to become bullets. But they're all the same to you, aren't they? You've drilled that much into every one of your heads.
At the time, we didn't know what you were doing with that. Maybe some of you didn't know then, either. But we do now. I don't know if we could've done anything, or if it was too late even then.
The time to talk was ten years ago.
We will not attack — we are not like you. We do not fear you — we fear only God.
But we are done talking.
I didn't want to post this on my blog because, even and especially now, I'm terrified of the creatures that lurk on Tumblr. But I wanted someone to read this, at least. You don't have to upload this if you don't want to. I just needed to share this with someone.
This was great. You're absolutely right and there's no way I'm not posting this.
Okay I've been swept up in the narrative of Charlie Kirk and his killer being a sign of leftist extremism. Even if the killer were so some of the actions taken in the name of "decency and safety" are terrible.
But it seems misinformation is abounding or at least grotesque simplification for fitting a narrative and facts are falliny.
I want to thank Sophie Labelle's comics on BlueSky for pumping the brakes and emphasizing the sensationalism and inaccuracy and I'm sorry for perpetuating it myself. So sharing their comics AND linking to their account
@takashi0 damn I feel so dumb being swept up by misinformation. Some rhetoric I felt to hold back on but never thought so utterly off base on the killer's romantic life and the possible engravings and how complicated it all got.
My brother in christ I'm pretty sure this is the same bitch who models questionable fetish art based on actual photos of actual children, maybe take her words with a dead sea's worth of salt
And honestly it doesn't even matter what affiliation the shooter themselves was, look at how the left is approving it. The bloodlust is naked on display regardless!
That is true but people are losing their jobs and the narrative of radicalized leftist is taking root like crazy trump-hat with trans shooter last month nearly did.
If shitlibs didn't want to lose their jobs based on their edgy opinions, maybe they should've listened to us when we told them "Don't normalize a culture of making people lose their jobs over edgy opinions because one day it'll be used against you." Like I'm sorry, I don't give a fuck. The shooter doesn't matter, they made the bed and they don't have the right to complain about being forced to sleep in it.
yeah isn't OP of the comic a pedophile with a diaper furry fetish?
The Governor of Utah: The shooter was a leftist.
The shooters friends and family: The shooter was a leftist.
The shooter: *is in leftist spaces online and is dating a man who might be transgender*
Some rando sex pest on the Left Wing Misinformation Site: Actually the shooter is a right wing Nick Fuentes fan. Here's a shitty web comic drew about it.
OP: Oh wow! I can't believe the shooter was right wing all along! Thank Obama for that shitty web comic!
oh ffs what's today's imaginary dog whistle
How do these people even breathe with out having an anxiety attack?
I guess they don't...
Funny how so many of these dogwhistles end up being items or foods or traditions that are overwhelmingly White/European in origin/practice/enjoyment.
Milk, Blueberries...what's next? Apple pie? Meatloaf?
If you hear a dog whistle, you're the dog.
Almost literal “Hitler ate sugar”.
These are the same people that will call you an insane conspiracy theorist for saying "8647" means "kill Trump".
I don't think that showing people that Republicans have principles even during a tragedy is the BAD thing you think it is.
I don’t think using the Newspeak autofellatio of saying “gun safety” when you mean “civilian disarmament” helps much either.
Also are even leftists dumb enough to fall for “We just murdered someone we disagree with: let us disarm you”?
"We murdered one of you, now we will put the victim's name on our demands, to remind you of what will happen to you, your children and your loved ones, if you dare to say 'no, I do not consent'."
Absolute subhuman behaviour.