#BORIS BLANK | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

rubin-therubix-loverofblorbos · 2 months

Text

CARMEN SANDIEGO INCORRECT QUOTES

Shadowsan: Goddamn it, the printer broke while printing out Carmen's birthday invitations. Ivy: Well, what are they supposed to say? Shadowsan: "Carmen's birthday". Ivy: So, what do they say instead? Shadowsan: "Carmen’s bi". Ivy: Ivy: Works out either way.

-----

Player: I’ve never asked someone out. How do you even do it? Ivy: Oh, what I do is, I look them up and down and I say: “Hey… how you doin’?” Carmen, scoffing: Oh, please. Ivy, to Carmen: Hey, how you doin’? Carmen: Carmen: giggles and blushes

-----

Zack: That’s the longest worm I’ve ever seen. Player: That’s a snake.

-----

Ivy: I love them both, but how do I propose to two people? Shadowsan: Two different restaurants, one person at each restaurant. Twice the dessert, twice the applause. Ivy: Won’t people think it’s weird if there is a third person just sitting there, though? Shadowsan: I saw someone feed their pet peacock crème brûlée from their mouth at the French place on the corner last week: I think faux third-wheeling at an engagement is the least of your worries.

-----

Vlad: To be honest, I'm kinda pissed that I'm not asleep in bed next to the love of my life in a cottage with no obligations other than watering my vegetable garden.

-----

{I really need someone to clarify whether they're brothers or two deadpan Russians that Just Look Like That. Because they give such Gay Stone-Faced Lovers but idk. hm. [Looks at the To Steal Or Not To Steal Dip™️*] oh okay}

Boris: Do you want to explain the text you sent me last night? Vlad: It was autocorrect. Boris: Autocorrect wrote "You're so hot. Please step on me."? Vlad: Yes.

-----

Boris: I want to be with you for the rest of my life. Vlad: Damn, that sounds like a marriage proposal. Boris, getting down on one knee: That's 'cause it is.

-----

Boris: We should be partners. Vlad: You mean like, partners in crime? Boris: Yeah… that’s precisely what I meant.

------

Dr. Bellum: There are 20 letters in the alphabet, right? Cleo: Nope, there's 26. Dr. Bellum: Ah, I must have forgotten U, R, A, Q, T. Cleo: Aww, that's cute, but you're still missing one. Dr. Bellum: You'll get the D later ;).

------

Cleo: The stars are so beautiful… Dr. Bellum: They're just giant balls of gas. Cleo: You know what, if you're just going to ruin this, then- Dr. Bellum: And yet none of them are as huge as my love for you. Cleo: Oh…

-------

Chase: I just wanted to say that over the years, I have come to regard you as… people I met.

---------

Chase: What’s up? I’m back. Zack: I literally saw you die. You died. You were dead Chase: Death is a social construct.

---------

The squad's reaction to being told they're the chosen one Chase: I will not let you down. Ivy: Sounds fun. Zack: K. Julia: No, I'm fucking not. Carmen: Do I have to be? Shadowsan: Please god, I am so tired.

----------

Shadowsan: Wanna hear some dark humor. Ivy: Yeah, I love dark humor. Shadowsan: Alright. Shadowsan: Turns off the lights Shadowsan: Knock knock. Ivy: Turn the damn lights back on.

------------

Zack, washing the dishes: Who the fuck used this pan?? Zack: Wait. I the fuck used this pan… Ivy: It was you the fuck. Zack: It was I the fuck… Shadowsan: Who cooks rice in a pan? Ivy: They the fuck.

-------------

Carmen: trying to buy a Father's Day card at Hallmark Carmen: Excuse me, do you have any that just say "You are my dad?" Associate: Well, I- Carmen: How about "You witnessed the murder of my actual dad?" Associate: No…Wait, wha- Carmen: You know what, I'll just get a blank one. Carmen: writes You are a father. This is a day. Here is a card.

-------------

Shadowsan: What must it be like to live in your head? Are there happy ponies in there? It’s really something how utterly delusional your optimism is. If I didn’t hate you so much, I might even be impressed. Chase: Huzzah! I got a heavily qualified and slightly sarcastic compliment from Shadowsan!

-------------

Ivy: Its hard to resist, I'm really sorry- I mean, considering your approach so far, you had us tied here for- what? Hours? And you haven’t even had us confirm what exactly we are! Chase: What are you then? Ivy: I'm a Virgo!

--------------

Zack: I once tried to play a pirated copy of Garfield Kart, when Garfield jumped out of my PC! We are currently married with three beautiful children and a summer house in Lisbon.

--------------

*The Dip from To Steal or Not to Steal {no seriously they slayed. Those little gay boys served every bit of cunt within the timespan of three and a half seconds}

ALSO, The Entire Video, which is fucking amazing. Masterpiece.

#rubin report #carmen sandiego #ivy carmen sandiego #zack carmen sandiego #shadowsan #vile faculty #dr bellum #countess cleo #professor maelstrom #chase devineaux #julia argent #the cleaners

48 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 4 months

Text

The Times has a rather odd piece today about Radek Sikorski, the new Polish foreign minister. Headlined “Why Poland’s new foreign minister reminds people of Boris Johnson,” it points out that Radek, like Johnson and indeed David Cameron, went to Oxford and joined the Bullingdon Club.

Well, yes, he did, and thank you for reminding us, but we should not hold that against him because there is one glaring and obvious difference between Boris Johnson and Radek Sikorski. Unlike so many Conservatives and Republicans, Sikorski did not succumb to populism. His return to power in Poland is an optimistic moment as it came as part of the regime change that drove the crank right law and justice party from power.

Sikorski fell out with Johnson over Brexit. He knew perfectly well that Johnson did not believe in leaving the EU because had Johnson had told him as much. But then 2016 rolled along and Johnson realised that Brexit was the cause that could propel him to power.

The story of their relationship is told by Sikorski’s wife Anne Applebaum in her memoir Twilight of Democracy: The Failure of Politics and the Parting of Friends, one of the best accounts of the rise of the new right in Europe, the UK and the US I have read.

When I gave it a glowing review in the Observer, a few readers complained. Why was I praising a conservative? I pointed out that her background meant that she understood the extent of the right’s betrayal of free markets and free societies better than any leftist. Give me a compromised insider over a purist outsider any day. The insiders know where the bodies are buried.

Here is what I wrote

Anne Applebaum can look at the wreck of democratic politics and understand it with a completeness few contemporary writers can match. When she asks who sent Britain into the unending Brexit crisis, or inflicted the Trump administration on America, or turned Poland and Hungary into one-party states, she does not need to search press cuttings. Her friends did it, she replies. Or, rather, her former friends. For if they are now embarrassed to have once known her, the feeling is reciprocated.

Applebaum’s latest book, Twilight of Democracy: The Failure of Politics and the Parting of Friends, opens with a scene a novelist could steal. On 31 December 1999, Applebaum and her husband, Radosław Sikorski, a minister in Poland’s then centre-right government, threw a party. It was a Millennium Eve housewarming for a manor house in the western Poland they had helped rebuild from ruins. The company of Poles, Brits, Americans and Russians could say that they had rebuilt a ruined world. Unlike the bulk of the left of the age, they had stood up against the Soviet empire and played a part in the fall of a cruel and suffocating tyranny. They had supported free markets, free elections, the rule of law and democracies sticking together in the EU and Nato, because these causes – surely – were the best ways for nations to help their people lead better lives as they faced Russian and Chinese power, Islamism and climate change.

They were young and happy. History’s winners. “At about three in the morning,” Applebaum recalls, “one of the wackier Polish guests pulled a pistol from her handbag and shot blanks into the air out of sheer exuberance.”

Applebaum was at the centre of the overlapping circles of guests. For the Americans, she was a child of the Republican establishment. Her father was a lawyer in Washington DC and she was educated at Yale and Oxford universities. Now her Republican friends are divided between a principled minority, who know that defeating Trump is the only way to save the American constitution, and the rest, who have, to use a word she repeats often, “collaborated” as surely as the east Europeans she studied as a historian collaborated with the invading Soviet forces after 1945.

Even when she was young, you could see the signs of the inquiring spirit that has made her a great historian. She went to work as a freelance journalist in eastern Europe while it was still under Soviet occupation and too drab and secretive a posting for most young reporters. She then made a standard career move and joined the Economist. But it was too dull for her liking and she moved to the Spectator in the early 1990s. The dilettante style of English conservatism charmed her. “These people don’t take themselves seriously and could never do serious harm,” she thought, as she watched Simon Heffer and his colleagues compete to see who could deliver the best Enoch Powell impersonation. She came to know the conservative philosopher Roger Scruton and Margaret Thatcher’s speechwriter John O’Sullivan, figures taken with unwarranted seriousness at the time. They had helped east European dissidents struggling against Soviet power in the 1980s and appeared to believe in democracy. Why would she doubt it? How could she foresee that Scruton and O’Sullivan would one day accept honours from Viktor Orbán, as he established a dictatorship in Hungary, whose rigged elections and state-controlled judiciary and media are now not so far away from the communists’ one-party state.

What was life in the English right like then, I asked in a call to her Polish lockdown in that restored manor house in the countryside between Warsaw and the German border. “It was fun,” she said.

It isn’t now.

Her husband knew Boris Johnson. They were both members of the Bullingdon Club at Oxford. She assumed that he was as much a liberal internationalist as Sikorski was. When the couple met Johnson for dinner in 2014, she noted his laziness and “all-consuming narcissism”, as well as the undoubted charisma that was to seduce and then ruin his country. In those days, Johnson appeared friendly. He was alarmed by the global challenge to democracy, he told them, and wanted to defend “the culture of freedom and openness and tolerance”. They asked about Europe. “No one serious wants to leave the EU,” he replied, which was true enough as Johnson was to prove when he came out for Brexit.

As for the Poles at the party, they knew Applebaum as a friend who had co-authored a Polish cookbook, and published histories of communism, which never forgot its victims.

Today she is a heretical figure across the right in Europe and America. Many of her guests would damage their careers if they admitted to their new masters they had once broken bread at her table.

Heretics make the best writers. They understand a movement better than outsiders, and can relate its faults because they have seen them close up. Religions can tolerate pagans. They are mere unbelievers who have never known the way, the truth and the light. The heretic has the advantages of the inside trader. She can use her knowledge to expose and betray the faithful. One question always hangs in the air, however: who is betraying whom? Although Applebaum has left the right, and stopped voting Conservative in Britain in 2015 and Republican in the US in 2008, she can make a convincing case that the right betrayed her.

In person, Applebaum combines intense concentration with an exuberant delight in human folly. You can be in the middle of a deadly serious conversation and suddenly she will break into a grin as the memory of a politician’s hypocrisy or an incomprehensible stupidity hits her. As the western crisis has deepened, the intensity has come to dominate her writing as she provides urgently needed insights.

You can read thousands of discussions of the “root causes” of what we insipidly call “populism”. The academic studies aren’t all wrong, although too many are suspiciously partial. The left says austerity and inequality caused Brexit and Trump, proving they had always been right to oppose austerity and inequality. The right blames woke politics and excessive immigration, and again you can hear the self-satisfaction in the explanation.

Applebaum offers an overdue corrective. She knows the personal behind the political. She understands that the nationalist counter-revolution did not just happen. Politicians hungry for office, plutocrats wanting the world to obey their commands, second-rate journalists sniffing a chance of recognition after years of obscurity, and Twitter mob-raisers and fake news fraudsters, who find a sadist’s pleasure in humiliating their opponents, propelled causes that would satisfy them.

Applebaum let out a snort that must have been heard for miles around her Polish home when I mentioned the journalist and author David Goodhart’s pro-Brexit formulation that we are living through an uprising by the “people from somewhere” against the “people from nowhere” – a modern variant on the old communist condemnations of “rootless cosmopolitans”, incidentally. It’s a war of one part of the elite against another part of the elite, she says. Brexit was an elite project. “The game was to get everyone to go along with it”. Were all the southern Tories who voted for it a part of the oppressed masses? “And who do you think funded the campaign?”

She is as wary of the commonplace view that supporters of Trump, say, are conformists, who have been brainwashed online or by Fox News. They may be now in some part, but brainwashing does not explain how populist movements begin. Their leaders weren’t from small towns full of abandoned shops and drug-ridden streets. They were metropolitans, with degrees from Oxford in the case of Johnson and Dominic Cummings. The men and women Applebaum knew were not loyal drones but filled with a dark restlessness. They may pose as the tribunes of the common people now but they were members of the intellectual and educated elite willing to launch a war on the rest of the intellectual and educated elite.

Populist activists are outsiders only in that they feel insufficiently rewarded. And their opponents should never underestimate what their self-pitying vanity can make them do.

One of Applebaum’s closest Polish friends, the godmother of one of her children, and a guest at the 1999 party, provided her with the most striking example. She moved from being a comfortable but obscure figure to become a celebrated Warsaw hostess and a confidante to Poland’s new rulers. She signalled her break and opened her prospects for advancement with a call to Applebaum within days of the Smolensk air crash of April 2010. She let her know she was adopting a conspiracy theory that would make future friendship impossible.

Outsiders need to take a deep breath before trying to understand it. Among the dead was Lech Kaczyński, the president of Poland, who controlled the rightwing populist party Law and Justice with his twin brother, Jarosław Kaczyński. The party has grown to dominate Polish politics, and the supposedly independent courts, media and civil service. The flight recorder showed that the pilot had come in too low in thick fog, and that was an end to it. Jarosław Kaczyński and his underlings insist that the Russians were behind the crash, or that political rivals in Warsaw, including Applebaum’s husband, allowed the president to fly in a faulty plane, or that it was an assassination. Repeating the lie was the price of admission to Law and Justice’s ruling circles and the public sector jobs they controlled. As Applebaum noted in the Atlantic magazine: “Sometimes the point isn’t to make people believe a lie – it’s to make people fear the liar.” Acknowledge the liar’s power, and your career takes off without the need to pass exams or to display an elementary level of competence.

Other friends from the party showed their fealty to the new order by promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories. The darker their fantasies became, the more airtime Polish state broadcasters gave them. “They had not suffered or been ‘left behind’ in any way,” Applebaum says. Yet they happily worked for propaganda sites that targeted her family. Because she is married to a political opponent of Law and Justice, and because she writes critical pieces in the international press, Applebaum, who had faced no racism in Poland until Law and Justice came to power, was turned by the regime’s creatures into the clandestine Jewish coordinator of “anti-Polish activity”.

I once believed you should never let politics destroy a friendship. But that maxim depends on politics not turning into a danger to you and those you love. Applebaum could not stay friends with women who would not protest as the state they supported went for her and husband.

The Anglo-Saxon world is not so different from Poland and Hungary. Britain has handled Covid-19 so disastrously because only servile nobodies, willing to pretend that a no-deal Brexit would not harm the country, could gain admittance to Boris Johnson’s cabinet. As Johnson politicises the public sector, showing “fear of the liar” looks like becoming the best way to secure a job in the higher ranks of the civil service as well. American Republicans have had to go along with every lie Trump has told since his birther slur on Barack Obama. As for breaking friendships, British Jews broke theirs when they watched friends in Labour cheer on Jeremy Corbyn and thought: “If they ever came for me and my family, you would stand by, wouldn’t you?”

Careerism is too glib an explanation for selling out, and Applebaum is too good a historian to offer it. Likewise, bigotry and racial prejudice were never enough on their own to move her friends away from liberal democracy. Among Applebaum’s acquaintances is one of Orbán’s greatest cheerleaders. She has a gay son, but that has not stopped her espousing the cause of a homophobic regime. Laura Ingraham, a Fox News presenter, became one of the earliest supporters of Trump, despite the fact that she has adopted three immigrant children.

Rather than grab at standard explanations, Applebaum understands that a society based on merit may sound fine if you want to live in a country run by talented people. But what if you are not yourself talented? Since the 1950s, criticisms of meritocracy have become so commonplace they have passed into cliche. Not one I have read or indeed written stops to consider how one-party states represent the anti-meritocratic society in its purest form. Among her friends who became the servants of authoritarian movements, Applebaum sees the consequences of the lust for status among resentful men and women, who believe the old world never gave them their due.

They were privileged by normal standards but nowhere near as privileged as they expected to be. Talking to Applebaum, I imagined a British government abolishing press freedom and the independence of the judiciary and the civil service. I didn’t doubt for a moment that there would be thousands of mediocre journalists, broadcasters, lawyers and administrators who would happily work for the new regime if it pandered to their vanity by giving them the jobs they could never have taken on merit. Hannah Arendt wrote of the communists and fascists that they replaced “first-rate talents” with “crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity” was the best guarantee of their loyalty. She might have been talking about contemporary Poland, Britain and America.

“Given the right conditions any society can turn against democracy,” Applebaum says, and explains why better than any modern writer I know. To the political consequences of offended vanity – Why am I not more important? Why does the BBC never call? – a sense of despair is vital. If you believe, like the American right, that godless enemies want to destroy your Christian country, and prove their malice by not giving you the rewards you deserve, or think, like Scruton and the Telegraph crowd of the 1990s, that English culture and history is being thrown in the bin, and you are being chucked away with it, or agree with the supporters of the new tyrants of eastern Europe that a liberal elite is plotting to extinguish your culture by importing Muslim immigrants, and proving its contempt for all that is decent by laughing at you, then any swine will do as long as the swine can stop it. You will pay any price and abandon any principle in the struggle against a demonic enemy.

Shouldn’t she have seen it coming, I ask her. Shouldn’t she have realised that the world she inhabited included authoritarians, who would turn on her and everything she believed in. Typically, instead of huffing, puffing, and trying to pretend she has never been in the wrong, she laughs and admits that she probably should have asked harder questions sooner of her former friends.

Readers should be glad she bided her time. Applebaum can bring a candle into the darkness of the populist right precisely because she stayed on the right for so long. She does not know whether it can be beaten. She’s a journalist not a soothsayer. But I know that if you want to fight it, her writing is an arsenal that stores the sharpest weapons to hand.

44 notes · View notes

metabolizemotions · 5 days

Text

The timeline is broken 😭

The structure both worked n didn’t work? I think it’s really more for Tully than Vic, cos Vic already has sufficient backstory, n buildup -only a trigger is nec. Esp that late into the last season when we’re eager to see where the characters r going, not where they’ve gone or rehash some things? 704-5 worked well cos there was a balanced focus on the main not guest characters. Also imo flashbacks work better when anchored by familiar events, not vague period of multiple timeframes while jumping back and forth to the present?

I think due to the time crunch they want to condense the indiv arcs into single episodes. Like 703 for Travis with his dad, 706 for Vic & Tully with Morris, 707 for Maya with Mason.

The non-linear structure did allow for building a sense of history with Morris n the emotional impact that came after. It was a better way to incorporate the story of the guest actors, and it allowed for the inclusion of as many of the main cast as possible. The team hasn’t been really like a team since Maya was captain. There hasn't been any sort of real, shared n lasting experiences.

Imagine if we had a format like that that tied a season together, instead of the captainship n political drama, n tonally different n sometimes inconsequential scenes strung together to make up episodes, which went on to make up seasons. 704-6 r better than 701-3 imo, in an already better season, despite some issues. Sadly only upon cancellation r they focusing their resources n efforts to make it more dynamic n cohesive... n we didn't get more much-needed fresh takes from new writers n directors sooner...

We got to see the progression of how Vic came into her own as the leader for Crisis One. How it led to her emotional burnout n compassion fatigue - she truly cared for people, taking on their pain, while not being able to release her own unresolved pain or seek help when she needed it. A reality of mental health professionals, of women, esp woc.

The Travic scenes are the best scenes in a while now. It resonates the most when the writing felt true to the characters. Underneath the goofiness, they tell each other brutally honest truths. Like how they fought over their way to cope with trauma - Travis feeling the full brunt of the grief over Michael's death n struggling to really move on. While Vic quickly tried to move on after Ripley cos to let herself feel the pain fully was impossible. Or when they talked about the blatant racism/ homophobia or microaggressions each faced n how they buried instead of dealing with the pain.

Their friendship is my fav of the show and it took a backseat for a long time. Barrett n Jay have great chemistry n they always crushed it in their scenes - the emotional ones, the funny ones... But Travis hasn't been Travis, Vic hasn't been Vic, n Travic hasn't been Travic. The show tends to put relationships on hold and isolate characters n shoehorn their actions to fit the multiple new storylines they start, but don't always follow thru. A waste of the talent of the actors. When given good material like this, see them shine, case in point - Barrett here.

In a way it also felt like part damage control.

Tully thru Boris's eyes...

A rose-tinted look at a relationship built on conflicts which the show is working around instead of facing head on? Just like how OOC Vic was written in s6 when it came to Maya. It's like they realized they went too far, n now they are retconning instead of ever addressing their attitudes n actions towards Maya.

Filling in some blanks to substantiate their relationship in the lead-up to their wedding? It's valid for the shortened season - to some extent. They had been writing them as very selfish n egoistic people. Now they want to show their better sides to make people like them as a couple ... so the show can end in a big celebration of them? But just showing their good side doesn't work for me if they don't also acknowledge their darker sides.

Basically a chief n a captain ganged up to haze a junior colleague for months. An ex-battalion chief watched on n mocked - the same person who rallied the team behind him n gave him a job when he had none; the same person whose job he tried to steal. But after the extended saga, only Maya should apologize repeatedly?

I find it hard to root for Tully as a couple. The same reason why I don't find Beckett's arc fully earned. If they want to move on, yet keep making Maya be the only one addressing her own actions directly after she faced devastating consequences. While finding other ways to justify/ explain away/ minimize/ ignore/ retcon etc the actions of the others... It just makes for a very conflicting watch.

// b/w the new mayor n Ross? Also is it considered her growth? Since the brief Maya's "sit-down" of immediately shutting her down and calling her insubordinate... To when she later reconsidered and praised Andy about the "mutiny" which she jumped to conclusions to reprimand with no context... To now being okay with insubordination towards her boss cos she thought she was fighting for the right reasons... ?

Is that subtle subtext again? Is it me or is the writing for her confusing? Or is she a conflicted person who's not very self-aware?

#i like merle n boris #but they have better comedic than romantic chemistry?#their 704 coffee scene was gold #the comedy would prob win me over #more than #either declaring undying love for each other #or extended sexy time or kisses #it's more of a love that created chaos all around #than a love despite all odds?#again not angry #kind of tired with the narrative #of “strong female ch”#just given plot armors #instead of acknowledging their complexities as humans #got long again #station 19 comments #station 19

9 notes · View notes