The Bowery Presents

β£ Chile in a Photography β£
Noah Kahan
Misplaced Lens Cap

titsay
EXPECTATIONS
ojovivo
noise dept.
πͺΌ

No title available
KIROKAZE
TVSTRANGERTHINGS

gracie abrams

Andulka
we're not kids anymore.
taylor price
$LAYYYTER
I'd rather be in outer space πΈ

@theartofmadeline
Sweet Seals For You, Always

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from South Korea
seen from Canada

seen from Bangladesh
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Brazil
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Brazil
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 States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@jew-flexive
i thought the βthis is the face that launched a thousand ships, although now it would maybe be five-hundred.β line was just an internet joke but apparently that's a line Menelaus actually says in Nolan's Odyssey??
Not only that the language itself sounds straight out of a marvel forcibly funny haha moment, but Menelaus? The Menelaus who all thoughout human history, from Homer, to Sappho, to Euripides, to Virgil, to Shakespeare, to Brooke, to Barth; from Classical vases to Medieval poetry to Reinessance art, has been known as the man whose sword fell from his hands at the sight of his wife after 10 years apart?
"What joy for me to hold my wife" Menelaus?
"He flung the sword away, and kissed her feet" Menelaus?
"I believe all. I understand nothing. I love you" Menelaus?
"I have no fault to find; my wife, he daughter of Zeus and Leda, is mine again, she whom her brothers on their snow-white steeds, whilst torches blazed, made my happy bride, but gods removed her from my home." Menelaus?
The Menelaus who was picked out of the suitors by Helen herself? The Menelaus who couldn't kill a begging Trojan so his brother had to do it for him? The Menelaus who rescued Odysseus and got out Patroclus' body? The Menelaus who volounteered to fight Paris one on one so everybody could go home? Who kept expressing his guilt about himself being the cause of war through every assembly he spoke at in the Iliad? Who after 10 years away at Troy, took his wife through a 7-year long journey at sea back home, where he reinstated her as the queen of Sparta? Who wept like a child in front of Telemachus recalling the war and his brother and all the friends he lost and the only consolation being his wife' gentle hand on his?
You want me to believe that man scarred Helen's face and called her only worth half the ships because of it?
I'm actually physically sick just thinking about it.
hey guysss so unfortunately the rumors are true and im leaving the narrative. Buttt the good news is my absence will create such a gaping hole in your lives that it will become a sort of presence itself, and so in a way it will kind of be like i never left! But i am. Leaving just to be clear.
whenever i see someone lambast a piece of media for portraying a character getting away with bad behavior instead of getting narratively punished, i have to laugh because thatβs literally the hays code. itβs not hays-code-esque or hays-code-coded, itβs just straight up the hays code.
ive been trying for a while to find the right words to articulate the way goys, and especially the current-left goys, treat and talk the holocaust, how they see being a victim of this massive tragedy that destroyed over half a people as a mark of specialness, or privilege, how it grants you martyrdom for the cause of social justice- except when it's jews, of course, because then they're using their victimhood to manipulate people and are acting like it's only about them. and the way they fight over this whole idea of 'who suffered the most during the holocaust [except the jews]', as if the question of who is the biggest victim is a question of who takes the trophy for 'group to be most oppressed'. but anyway i just had the thought that goys seem to treat the holocaust as if it's the golden apple thrown by marx with the inscription 'to the most oppressed' going on. that's the best way i can describe it.
martyrdom is a great way to put it
Including these VERY important tags. Passed peer review.
franz kafkaβs writings are often analyzed in a trans lens the person who wrote that was almost definitely a trans person who related. people who call kafka a trans woman are almost entirely trans women. there is also a huge subset of literature shitposter girls who use kafka and the metamorphosis specifically to talk about their experiences with womanhood. so while i agree that the trope you are talking about is antisemitic i donβt think that applies here. heβs not being called a woman in a disparaging way.
It. Literally. Doesn't. Matter.
Spoiler alert: trans people can be antisemitic!
Franz Kafka was a real person who died not too long ago, and just because a trans person relates to his writings doesn't mean they can claim he's trans. It's not the same as relating to a fictional character. You can't 'headcanon' an actual person. I don't care how much you relate- he wasn't trans, don't call him a woman. He was an actual person, not a fictional character you can project on. An treating Franz Kafka like a fictional character you can project any label onto and separate him from his actual life is dehumanization and *also* antisemitic.
It's no different than queer people co-opting Anne Frank's memory and erasing her story to just herald her as a "bi icon" when she never had the chance to live long enough to label herself. Queer gentiles need to stop dehumanizing Jewish people and turning them into blank slates they can project onto.
Kafka's Metamorphosis and writings about his depression are from the viewpoint of a disabled Jewish man who was watching as antisemitism was slowly escalating around him and Jews were becoming insects in the minds of society. And "he's not being called a woman in a disparaging way" is the dumbest excuse ever- antisemitism is antisemitism. I've seen trans people infantilize Jewish men, calling them "different breed of man" or "scrunkly" and then insist they meant it positively. Intent doesn't matter. Calling a Jewish man, who never ever indicated having any gender identity otherwise, a woman, or implying he's somehow not a full man, is antisemitic.
I hope I'm not derailing here (please tell me if I am and I'll delete this), but I'd like to especially call attention to this line (which I love, btw):
I don't care how much you relate- he wasn't trans, don't call him a woman.
At some point relatively recently, people seem to have come to the conclusion that you can't empathize with a character (or real fucking person, in this case, and I cannot stress how gross that is) unless you're just like them. "Oh, I, a nonbinary person can identify with this cishet man? He must actually be nonbinary!" "Oh, I, an autistic person, can identify with this Ambiguously Quirkyβ’ person? She must actually be autistic!"
Being able to relate to a person--real or fictional--who isn't just like you is a good thing. It's good that you see yourself in the writings of a cisgender man! Maybe it will teach you that cis people aren't the enemy. It's good that an autistic character resonates with NT people! Maybe they'll gain new insight into their autistic friends and family!
It's called empathy, and it's so important to understand that you are going to see your experiences reflected in people who are unlike you. Those connections are important. Deciding that Kafka must be a trans woman because you're a trans woman is missing the entire fucking point. It means that you do, in fact, have some things in common with a cisgender man, and conversely, it means that cisgender men have things in common with you. To flatten them out so they're just like you is missing out on so much of what they have to say.
People are beautiful and rich and layered and the fact that we can connect with other people and share experiences despite how different we are? That's the whole fucking point. That's what makes life worth living.
OP, I'm sorry I only spoke on being transgender and autistic. Those are the only two points that I could speak on from experience. Talking about real people like they're fictional pisses me off, and I sort of... got off on a thing.
I'm not OP, but one thing that's frightening about this from a Jewish perspective (especially in the context of discussing someone who was alive in the interwar period) is the recurring idea that Jews only matter as lenses for other people's stories. That we can be empathized with, but only if our narratives can be twisted to someone else's.
Because we've seen that before. We see it very often because it's a fundamental premise of some incredibly antisemitic forms of Christianity, and when it turns out that we're real people with real opinions and real beliefs and real feelings who don't just exist to validate someone else's perception of who and how we could be, people don't just abandon their pretense at allyship, they get violent.
It's also a common failing in how the Holocaust is taught. People like to present this lens of "it was random violence that came out of nowhere and could've happened to anyone. It could've happened to you! Imagine if you'd been one of the victims! That would've been a tragedy wouldn't it?" And the thing is, that's bullshit. If you were just a random German citizen at the time? You would've been one of the perpetrators. And it was a tragedy in and of itself; it doesn't become a tragedy by imaging a scenario in which people who were perfectly safe would've actually been potentially in danger (never killed, of course, because Holocaust education is also commonly sanitized, which is a different rant).
Edited to take out a rant that was in drafts and got added to this by mistake, but. Well, the Tl;dr, since that's been reblogged
Well. I'm a cis woman. GNC, perhaps, but cis. And I get misgendered (and degendered) a lot because of how people read Jewish features. And... when friends insist that any discomfort I have with feminine stuff is because I'm an egg... I get that they're trying to be helpful for a journey of self-discovery. But I've done that introspection. I check in with myself periodically just in case. And "oh, you're really nonbinary/a trans man because you're [insert list of stereotypically Jewish features//personality traits commonly ascribed to Jews [whether or not I have them]" -it hurts. Because not only are they minimizing my actual identity and my self-knowledge, and deciding that they're the experts on my life, rather than me, they're doing it in a way that's constantly used to hurt me.
another thing! Jewish men are (pretty often) seen as feminine/unmasculine and like they could never be 'true men'. In a lot of media they're the awkward nerds, the virgins, the weirdos. Point is this is not just misgendering anybody (which would be awful enough), this is misgendering a group that's known to be seen as less masculine than a white man for example
*this is a bit of derailing but it reminds me of how black men face the opposite issue of being seen as hyper masculine & in turn hyper violent. None of us can win in this racist ass society my g-d
I agree with all this but I don't think anyone ever said kafka was a trans woman, more that they interpreted Gregor samsa as one.
Nope. I have personally seen people call Franz Kafka a trans woman and refer to him in feminine terms.
Okay well that's just weird. I didn't think anyone would actually come to that consensus since it's just not true??
Antisemitism is a hell of a drug
@historysweeth3art Trigger warning: antisemitism via the feminization of a Jewish cis male.
And these are just what I got by using the tumblr search feature. Imagine if I used something that worked.
I don't want to take away from @terulakimban's excellent point centering actual empathy. That is a BIG trend I see when taking about anything Jewish in popular culture (I cannot tell you how many times as a theater person I've heard "Fiddler on the Roof is a story about all of us, tradition vs modernization" NO! IT IS ABOUT A JEWISH COMMUNITY IN VERY ANTISEMITIC RUSSIA AT A TIME WHEN POGROMS WE'RE SO COMMON PLACE 250,000-300,000 JEWS FLED OR WE'RE KICKED OUT over the course of 40 years. The tradition aspect is uniquely Jewish - how do we maintain our identity when we keep getting scattered and settled elsewhere? It lasted this long but HOW do we keep doing it? Can it continue?)
But in the Kafka conversation there is an element I think so many non-Jews just straight up refuse to understand. That is the fact that Jews have our own culture.
The societal gender ideals non-Jews in the West grow up with ... Aren't really in Jewish communities the same way. (Though cultural osmosis means we've picked up a lot along the way).
ALL our masculine role models, the ones we're told to admire, are shepherds. That's important bc shepherds lead the heard from behind, not in front. It speaks to a different leadership mindset. Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Solomon, etc. we're soft spoken, humble, slow to action, intellectually inclined. Even when they have tempers or are warriors, those aspects are critiqued or minimized. (It's why when Jews depict King David, he's playing his harp or herding sheep. When non-Jews depict him, he's fighting Goliath.)
Compared to the very Roman/Western ideal of masculine power might-makes-right, Jewish masculinity is inherently softer.
That's not to say we DON'T value male strength. But it's just one factor and mostly understood that physical prowess has a time and place. It's not the ultimate standard for our masculinity.
Especially when you consider femininity in Jewish communities. Our matriarchs were all outspoken, all defied their husbands/men at key moments without punishment (some were even rewarded by God.) Some were prophets, judges and leaders (Miriam, Judith, Devorah, Hannah) in their own rights. Jewish women certainly do not fit the mold of a Roman/Western quiet, docile, submissive woman.
And don't forget, while there very much is misogyny in Jewish communities, our traditions often challenge it. Men are expected to praise their wives every Friday night in front of the family (Eshet Chail), men are halacically responsible for their wives' physical pleasure, Rabbis have denounced marital rape as a sin far longer than it's been illegal in MOST modern nations and women are excempt from time based religious obligations as they are considered closer to God (though that comes with it own problems).
In short, religious or not, Kafka would have grown up with that different understanding of gender norms and what it means to perform gender. He would have understood gender completely different to how a modern non-Jew in the West would.
To erase his Jewishness from the conversation - to ignore the cultural difference between how you see gender and how he likely would have - is a pretty severe historical distortion. And makes this weird history AU even more problematic.
Its exactly why historians always say "there's evidence of this type of attraction/relationship/behavior but we cannot assign an identity to a dead person who would not have had our cultural understanding." We need to bring that back.
Is now a good time to point out that the "Uwu Progressive One of the Good TRVE women" is just straight up centuries-old demasculizing antisemitism practically from bigoted christian sources? But it's ok when it's benevolently oriented towards Jews right? Especially dead Jews they like and want to claim, right?
The Jews in Western Europe during the middle ages were often perceived as distinct from other people not only in their religion, but also by virtue of peculiar physical characteristics. Male Jews were circumcised, which made them physically distinct in the sexual realm. They were believed to have a flux of blood due to hemorrhoids that was thought to more abound in Jews because they consumed salty foods and gross undigested blood, and were melancholic. By the late medieval and early modern periods, the male menstruation motif had become closely connected to the theory of the four humors and the balance between bodily fluids. Men in general were thought of as emitting extra heat, whereas women were considered to be physically cooler. While most men were generally able to reduce their heat naturally, there was a perception that womanish Jewish males were unable to do so, and thereby required βmenstruationβ (i.e. a literal discharge of blood) in order to achieve bodily equilibrium. The Jewish male image as having menses due to bleeding hemorrhoids was an anti-Semitic claim that had a religious explanation: Jews menstruated because they had been beaten in their hindquarters for having crucified Jesus Christ. This reflection is one of the first biological-racial motifs that were used by the Christians. Preceding this, anti-Semitic rationalizations were mostly religious. However, once these Christians mixed anti-Semitism with science, by emphasizing the metaphorical moral impurity of Jews, the subsequent belief that Jewish men βmenstruatedβ developedβa belief that would have dire historical consequences for the Jewish communities of Europe until even the mid-twentieth century. This topic has direct applicability to current medical practice. The anti-Semitic perspective of Jewish male menstruation would never have taken hold if the medical community had not ignored the facts, and if the population in general had had a knowledge of the facts. In the same way, it is important for present-day scientists and healthcare professionals to understand thoroughly a topic and not to deliberately ignore the facts, which can affect professional and public thought, thereby leading to incorrect and at times immoral conclusions.
The Jews in Western Europe during the middle ages were often perceived as distinct from other people not only in their religion, but also by
Wow you're so progressive congratulations. Fandom-tier dumbfucks like this will believe anything. Including debunked racial pseudoscience. Anything to feel closer to the fandom blorbo-dolls they've constructed from real historical figures except actually being normal about Jews.
I'm surprised they didn't do a Miku-binder Kafka, but that's about 5 levels above the level of moral and intellectual rigor I expect from these idiots.
reading this deposition that just got dropped where someone sued musk and ohhhh my god it is this funniest thing ever . i can see why his lawyer tried to keep this confidential . theyβre both maybe the biggest idiots . this is like ace attorney
Musk is being sued for falsely suggesting a 22-year-old Jewish man was part of a neo-Nazi brawl.
Elon Musk was deposed in a recent lawsuit for falsely linking a 22-year-old Jewish man to a neo-Nazi brawl. Musk, who attempted to keep the
PLEASE read this
bankston is my HERO heβs tearing these people apart
damn
HE LEFT
????
oh my god
KILL HIM
he is DONE.
HELP ME .
wow. ok.
genuinely first two pages he says that he thinks benβs lawyer is the one who is actually suing him and admits he has no clue what the lawsuit is about .
doing a reread now this is so cunty
goddamn .
fun fact: the Mr. Bankston here is Mark Bankston, the same lawyer who absolutely ruined Alex Jones during the Sandy Hook trial.
how in the fuck did the muskrat's attorney pass the bar
Mark Bankston is gonna make me fucking SWOON.
I don't think Mark can ever top "INDEED, MR. JONES, INDEED" and "AND THAT IS HOW I KNOW YOU LIED TO ME" from the first Sandy Hook trial in Texas (not to be confused with Chris Mattei, the attorney in the Connecticut trial), but this part
MR. SPIRO: Do you give these lectures at all of your depositions? MR. BANKSTON: I do, and you can watch them.
is ESPECIALLY hilarious to me having listened to multiple depositions Mark has had to take in the Sandy Hook case, where he has needed to lecture EVERY. SINGLE. ATTORNEY. at some point in the case about how they're violating Texas Rule XYZ, because they all, to a one, did something seriously ethically questionable during the deposition.
like, YOU CAN WATCH/LISTEN TO HIS DEPOS. HE DOES HAVE TO GIVE THOSE LECTURES EVERY TIME. IT'S NOT EVEN A JOKE.
For all that the 1800s etiquette guides are--obviously--derangedly sexist from a modern perspective? They're also mindblowing in how casually they will assert things that MODERN DAY CONSERVATIVES would scream and cry and shit their pants about.
"People back then always married young it's natural!!!" Every single 1800s guide I've ever met casually mentions that, of course, you really shouldn't get married before you're at least 20, and waiting until 25 is usually better.
Or, like. Okay here's a long segment:
Just firmly going "it is crazy sexist to blame The Wife for overspending when thirty seconds of asking questions will immediately establish that her husband was outright lying to her about how much money they had. Talk to your wife like a normal person."
Or--okay, here. A section on being honest and not writing love letters in secret, because that's usually a good sign that there's something untoward going on....
....except that he then immediately acknowledges that sometimes, the reason you're hiding this from your parents is that your parents suck. That there are parents who frankly have not earned the right to approve or disapprove of your partner.
(I realize the phrasing there sounds a lot less strong than my summary, but--trust me on this. When you're familiar with the narrative voice of these kinds of books, this passage is downright radical. The mere acknowledgement that if you treat your kids badly, it's your own damn fault when they don't talk to you? I've genuinely never seen that before in this genre. Don't freak out over "properly trained", either. It's just a linguistic shift--at the time, "training" was used the way we would say "raising" a child today. )
"Delete all the nudes and sexts after a breakup or you're a piece of shit" has been the standard expectation since EIGHT. TEEN. EIGHTY. FIVE.
"Men and women being friends with each other is literally normal. Don't be a controlling freak."
Anyway I was wrong the publishing date is actually 1882 so like.
"If you have to abuse a child to keep order in your classroom then you're a bad teacher."
So like @ the modern Republican party, are the "traditional family values" in the fucking room with us right now--
do you guys ever think about how the early descriptions of armand in tvl contrast with what we learn about him later in the series? like how we get lestat and gabrielle and marius framing him as a uniquely uncreative and childlike and limited by the scope of the biases of his century, a sort of empty force animated by whatever personality of ideology he's following at the time.
we get passages like this and that's, like, at the point of the book where lestat is on the most friendly terms with him that he's gonna get. lestat seems to hold himself apart from armand -- he's a modern man, he's an atheist, he's clever and skeptical enough to challenge things, armand is a primitive little boy from the middle ages who can't and won't question things and doesn't even have the imagination to come up with a tall blond guy.
and then naturally marius refers to him as a lost cause and a tragedy, someone simply too young and too helpless for the blood, as his marius' mistake and marius' moral consequence.
(thanks, marius, glad to hear your fledgeling being forced to choke on the ashes of his brothers, getting tortured/brainwashed and spending centuries in an existence consisting of basically nothing but despair and violence was suuuper fucking hard for you, that seems so difficult, glad you're keeping the focus where it belongs)
and then you get to actually hear his story in full through the later books and it's like. oh, he'd been an artist. oh, he'd repeatedly and specifically questioned marius and pushed back against his moral philosophies and choices despite, you know, being fucking 15-17 talking to a 1500 year old guy (and the explicit physical and sexual abuse in that relationship). oh, it took several months of torture for him to embrace the children of darkness. hey Lestat girlie pop i don't actually think that this amounts to you being built different. just sayin,
I love show!Lestat dearly despite the monster he is in his cruelty and feel for him for the abuses he suffered but Louis and more importantly Claudia had every right to resent him in Nola because he was an older white vampire who had racial and ancient vampiric powers over the both of them. People keep harping on how Lestat would never kill Louis but Louis could be persuaded to kill Lestat (something he didn't do mind you, has no one watched 1.07???) and how that is a short coming Louis should make up for but Louis never did anything to Lestat that would warrant an overreaction of that sort till Mardi Gras and Mardi Gras was a direct response to Lestat's abusive actions. Louis was extremely depressed, coping poorly with vampirism, and trying to reconcile with the fact that being a vampire had little impact on his identity as a gay black man in the south. The worst thing he did to Lestat specifically (he failed Claudia plenty) was failing to understand Lestat's point of view and show enough interest in him as a partner to understand that Lestat was also struggling (made nights miserable for him because he was also suffering). In comparison Lestat dropped Louis from the fucking sky, paralyzed him for months because of the fact and cheated on him for the entirety of their relationship. Not to speak of the humiliation of acting as a servant for your lover and the systemic racism bleeding into their relationship in the form of differences in liberties afforded to the both of them which also became gendered with Claudia's addition. Louis admits that he was contemplating a walk in the sun the night Claudia left on the train, meaning Lestat did break him enough to contemplate death. The gothic aspect of the show, at least for me, is derived from Louis' almost unnatural (preternatural) love for Lestat despite the fact that he broke him and that love making him choose Lestat over and over again despite all circumstances.
The showrunners trying to trivialise the domestic violence by way of not addressing it with enough reverence in the third season (big bad wolf, Lestat's various snide comments on Louis etc.) in order to make Lestat more likeable (which ??? Lestat is a popular character) is actively undermining the beautiful nuance of the show. Lestat should be able to exist in the context of the show both as a victim of domestic violence as well as a preparator who couldn't break out of the cycle. So far in this season, as a viewer, the writers have tried to soft retcon the worst of the abuse he committed by repeatedly bringing up the most irrelevant things that Louis supposedly lied about and providing very little information on the stuff he didn't make up. This kind of writing leaves enough room for the audience to wonder whether Louis was just a bitter ex who is lying on Lestat who was emotionally neglected by Louis and whether it was some kind of "mutual abuse" (not a real thing) when in reality the violence in season 1 was largely racialized and gendered. The most egregious instance of this ambiguity in writing was in the 5th episode when they showed the flashback to the drop from the sky while Lestat was talking about his corrupt blood. The editing is ambiguous enough to make it seem like the drop could be a result of the effect Akasha's blood has on Lestat (and I've seen many people arrive at that conclusion). This could be a subjective take but this kind of writing is disrespectful to the intelligence of the audience and takes a lot away from Lestat as a character. If they wanted Lestat to be a defanged monster, they should've never made Louis a black man in the 1910s suffering racial violence or made Lestat drop Louis from the sky in a very clear act of domestic violence in the first place. Because of the systemic racial hierarchy present in our society, Lestat's mere existance as a white French man of considerable means in the American south of early 20th C itself positions him as someone who will have a predatory influence over Louis even without the vampirism. Adding ambiguity to that kind of inherent violence to soften Lestat's image is simply not nuanced writing.
This problem doesn't exist in the books because Louis is not a black man in the books. While Lestat is violent towards Louis and Louis airs out his grievances about Lestat prompting Lestat to be unabashedly bitter about Louis' portrayal of him, the blow is softened by the fact that Lestat and Louis are sort of equals in terms of the racial privileges they enjoy. There is no systemic violence and the conflict is primarily guided by the supernatural violence of vampirism. However, Anne Rice is never weighed down by trivial concerns of morality or desirability of her monsters and embraces the violence and depravity to the fullest. The show chose to do the race swap for key characters and for a time it truly did feel like the greatest thing they could've done, not for any "woke" reasons but for the added nuance to the story. But now I go on the internet and have to hear takes from their racist ass audience on why Louis, who is in his own right a perfectly exploitative monster who has made many mistakes, is a complete liar who retroactively deserved the violent abuse (part of which was explicitly racial) done to him because of a book that he never wanted published which documents both his abuse as well as the love he holds for his abuser. I cannot believe that I used to love the show more than the books and now I'm filling out my Anne Rice apology form because at least she wasn't a cowardly little bitch who couldn't handle her monsters being morally reprehensible. I do not know if the show will address the stuff Louis was not lying about in the two remaining episodes but I have very little confidence in the showrunners to bring in any sort of nuance to that discussion considering the writing choices that went into the directionless portrayal of parental abuse in the form of incest they've provided all season (again for a character she never cared for, Anne Rice cooked hard with Gabrielle and the showrunners burnt down the kitchen).
the vampire armand + imperfect victimhood.
mysterious skin (2004) / the vampire armand / my dark vanessa / lestat: the musical / my dark vanessa / amc's interview with the vampire / may december (2023) / my dark vanessa / amc's interview with the vampire / the vampire armand / lolita / the palace perspective: nanami kiryuu at the heart of the world / lolita / the vampire armand / lolita (1997) / the vampire lestat / first love/late spring - mitski / the vampire armand
can we stop with the "epstein class" bullshit. if you mean billionaires say billionaires. if you mean child predators say child predators. if you mean corrupt men in power say corrupt men in power. you sound like an edgy 13yo who just discovered communism trying to sound more politically educated than they actually are
Yahhh I have to build Rome. Yup itβs due tomorrow.. noo I havenβt started yet haha is that bad?
ππͺ β π¨ππ π’π, π£π€π© π©ππ§π€πͺππ π’π;
π±π°π³π΅π³π’πͺπ΅ π°π§ π§π³πΊπ₯π¦π³πΊπ¬ πͺπ― π΄π©πͺπ§π΅πͺπ―π¨ ππͺπ¨π©π΅ β π³πͺπ€π©π’π³π₯ π΄πͺπ¬π¦π―;
[Project Hail Mary spoilers]
Eva Stratt who insisted on being the first to be tested for the comatose gene
Eva Stratt who made sure the ship computer knew the crew's exact coffee orders, even Grace, down to the most precise measurements
Eva Stratt who illegally acquired thousands of video games for the hail mary crew, despite the fact they'd be in a coma for the majority of the trip
Eva Stratt who sent a school teacher into space because she knew he was a fundamentally good man
Eva Stratt who would betray the closest thing she had to a friend because she knew there was no other choice
Eva Stratt who would do anything to save the Earth, no matter the cost
Eva Stratt who desperately wished she could be the one to make the sacrifice instead
Eva Stratt who couldn't, no matter how much she wanted to
Eva Stratt who studied history, and had seen the way the world would become
Eva Stratt who was terrified by it
Eva Stratt who knew she would would go without credit
Eva Stratt who knew no statues would be built of her
Eva Stratt who knew she would never be a hero
Eva Stratt who did it all anyway
Eva Stratt who had to
Party On
I don't have much to say about the latest Graham Platner allegations. Of course he should drop out.Β Of course he's being extra-selfish in trying to extort concessions from the state party in exchange for dropping outΒ (Rep .Sean Casten brings the heat). "I'm not taking no for an answer until you let me impose my will on this process" is a hell of a hill for Platner to die on. β Sean Casten (@seancasten.bsky.social) July 7, 2026 at 6:19 PM Of course there were plenty of red flags before the latest one, though I'll continue to assert that Platner's Nazi tattoo was unfortunately part of what attracted people to him and that we need to reflect on what that means. Everyone's got their I-told-you-so on this, and it will surprise no one that mine is "when you pick candidates based solely on an aesthetic of 'I'm a fighter and I hate the establishment' and nothing else, bad things happen." And of course, right now everyone is running away from Platner and acting like it was only other people who supported him. Victory has a thousand fathers and defeat is an orphan, after all. But perhaps related to that last point: the particular iteration of buck-passing that's getting my ire up the most comes from those who somehow blame "the Party" for not waylaying Platner in the first place. How could the Democrats not found a better candidate than Platner (where Mills doesn't count as "better" because she reminds us of our mom or something)? Platner was clearly and unambiguously a vanguard of the anti-establishment wing of the party, but it's still really the establishment's fault for not stopping us. This drives me nuts. We have endured years upon years of conspiratorial sour grapes whining about "the Party establishment" supposedly "rigging" primary elections in favor of its preferred candidates. But now, in a situation where there can be no question that "the establishment" took its hands off the rudder and let the process play out (not that I concede they were "rigging" other races), we get a novel round of whining that they didn't interfere enough? Spare me. Or better yet, learn a lesson. The folks in "the establishment" -- however you define that -- are by no means perfect. But they are in fact not just a bunch of fat cat idiots cashing checks to dole out plum candidate nominations to their buddies and nepo babies. They in fact perform a valuable service vetting people, and head off potential disasters ahead of time. The purpose isn't to ensure onlyΒ "smoothgroined" androids get a shot. The purpose is to ensure that a guy with Nazi tattoos and a history of sexual predation doesn't storm to a swing seat nomination because a bunch of podcasters think his beard is manly in all the right ways. Politics is a job, and not an easy one. It is not the case that any idiot with a working class affect who yells in the right tone can win an election, and it's even less of the case that said idiot will be an effective legislator. The vetting process exists for a reason. Dismiss it at your peril. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/inpBjvR
"omg i LOVE it when love between characters is so strong it overrides the boundaries of flesh and selfhood, merging them into some sort of (un)holy chimera" β person who's uncomfortable with the idea of permanently sharing a bedroom with someone else