#For a silent majority

[pointless-letters]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: for a silent majority they never, ever, ever shut the fuck up.

[dosesofcommonsense]

Soon.

[gingerswagfreckles]

Will literally anybody at all see those murdered kids' faces and start speaking up. Everyone in my life tries to tell me the whole world doesn't hate us, that the "silent majority" is with us. But what fucking use is a silent majority? If literally nothing at all whatsoever can get them to stop being silent?

Babies were murdered and your peers excuse it and celebrate the organization that killed them and held a party as they handed over their corpses. And this "silent majority" won't even reblog a post about it, on the off chance that they get blocked by their violently antisemitic tumblr mutuals on a completely anonymous microblogging website. If that is the extent of the moral backbone of the "silent majority," what fucking use is it? People can bring up every excuse in the world for not taking this or that action or not talking about this or that particular thing, but the fact of the matter is that if you literally never push back against bigotry in any situation at all no matter how low the stakes are, you are completely indistinguishable from a bigot and what's "in your heart" is less than worthless.

What's inside only matters because of what it makes you do. Anything else is a fantasy we tell ourselves to hide from the reality of who we really are.

[louceph]

Silent Hill but nothing bad happens

[never-quite-buried]

All I’m saying is maybe MAYBE if we had voted in Harris we would still be fighting her for things but they would be semi close to reasonable things. Not things like “please don’t annex greenland” or “please don’t mass deport immigrants from sanctuary cities” or “please dont take away no fault divorce”. Shit, if people had showed the fuck up WE COULD’VE SECURED THE HOUSE AND SENATE!

Do you get that? We could’ve had a relatively easy 4 years to actually build a coalition, to get candidates ready for 2026 and 2028 that could challenge our established congress. Public servants that work for us, not for corporations, with all the oversight and scrutiny of a YouTubers Discord mod’s unflinching eye. We could have done that with relative peace while petitioning for normalish things like school lunches and rollback of book bans and common sense gun legislation and stacking the court.

But now we are gonna be running interference for a million fucking shitshows all at once. Demoralization was step one, now we’re onto full destabilization and invasion.

Y’all had one job and it was to fucking vote.

[nonbinary-vents]

I know this is such a doomer kind of attitude but I genuinely cannot stand it when people go around talking about the ‘silent majority’ when it comes to Jew hatred. There’s two main problems I have with this statement

— Sure, these people might support Jews now, but it’s probably safe to say the majority of people in the world have deeply ingrained biases against Jews. Those biases are easily exploited, easily brought out, and easily radicalised into rabid hatred. See: large swaths of leftist spaces, who honestly seemed like sleeper agents with how fast they openly admitted raping Jews is a moral thing. There’s also the issue of a lot of these silent majority people not supporting Hamas or believing in the Aryan race or thinking that Jews have no culture and we’re just stealing it from everyone else, but still tolerating those ideas being held in other people— it shows that these people neither understand nor care about the gravity of these views, which then makes those precious biases much, much easier to show

and

— The entire point of the silent majority is that they are silent. Sure, they might chat with their Jewish friends about how bad things are, they might express sympathy in private, things like that. But when push comes to shove, when Jews are being actively murdered wide scale, they don’t show up. They leave us in the dirt. They watch quietly as the Gestappo drags their neighbours away. They look away politely as their Dhimmi shopkeeper is beaten in the street for walking on the wrong side of the pavement. They close their blinds when their friend is tied to the stake and burned alive

I know it’s comforting to think of this vague concept of the silent majority, but it’s not actually reality. I know it sucks feeling like you need to have your guard up all the time (and you don’t, just be careful), it’s going to suck a whole lot more if you put yourself into a false sense of security. The silent majority are not our friends. The silent majority are not there for us. The silent majority don’t care. We can’t just live in a nebulous idea of people who quietly tut to themselves whenever they see someone saying ‘glory to the resistance’ or ‘Jews are trying to taint the Aryan race’, we need to focus on the tangible reality, and the people who are actually present

I think this is also why I, and so many other Jews, absolutely love non-Jewish allies. There’s something so indescribably amazing to see people in this world that’s been so horrible to us standing up for us, listening to us, helping us. Allies go through a lot of shit from others because they care about us, I’ve seen it so much— they’ll get vicious hate for just associating with Jews. And they still do it. They still stick with us. Because they care, and it’s just so wonderful

Spread the love to non-Jewish allies, you are so amazing. And to the silent majority, I hope you can become the help that we desperately need

[serpentface]

Ibrija scoring at the post-bullfight New Maize festivities

You can be a gay Wardi guy openly bagging dudes in public and be having an okay time with things with near-complete social acceptance AS LONG AS you're a top + otherwise gender conforming, like the twink build, aren't too interested in commitment, and have a likable enough personality that no one is motivated to dig for excuses to question your masculinity and/or virtue about it.

[parasocial-paradox]

Rebrand Trailer Screenplay Pitch

Throwing my proverbial prophecy-hat into the ring here in the buildup to the imminent rebrand! Considering how much fun they had with the first one, it seems pretty likely that we might get a trailer similar to the absolute cinema that was the gaming channel's revival announcement. With that in mind, i had my own stupid ideas for what this might look like, so i put a little screenplay together. Here’s what i’m squinking:

Something something. Parasocial subversion of expectations-themed "wedding", plus the wedding itself looking like it was plonked on top of the funeral set to represent parting with the past and embracing something new. There's symbolism here I swear

[thatweirdtranny]

i personally love losing followers when i post about leftist antisemitism lol the trash taking itself out

[strunmah-mah]

Does anyone else get annoyed by the constant need to Constantine in everything Zatanna appears in? Like he can appear without her, so why can't it work the other way around?

[nippihead]

If you’re still doing requests can you do Jay and Silent Bob from Clerks as Brad and Janet? Thankss

yes! drew them as both cuz i didn’t know who would be who

[moretheta]

part 3/3: kurapika workshop/ silent majority whodunnit

( <- prev )

[anghraine]

I'm trying to redirect my political thoughts from my fandom escape blog again, but I found something interesting enough that I thought I'd talk a little about it.

Occasionally I choose suffering (looking at the more granular 2024 exit poll breakdowns rather than the summaries that I mostly don't trust much at this point). Anyway, I did find something intriguing, if not particularly surprising, in the CNN exit polls, which were done in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin with a sample size of 22,914 voters.

(I mention the specific states forming the sample because this pretty notably excludes any blue states while including some reliably Republican ones.)

Anyway, most exit polls including CNN's let respondents identify their place on the US political spectrum: conservative, moderate, or liberal (reminder that "liberal" in US usage can be a pejorative for "less leftist than me" but also a shorthand for "radical leftist" but also for "anyone who doesn't seek a cishet white Christian ethnostate", but also can be a more neutral synonym for progressives and/or leftists and is often used that way, as here). So you can look at the election results for each of these ideological factions and what share of the overall sample size they represent.

The interesting thing: this "liberal" category accounted for very similar proportions to 2020 of the overall vote in the sample (24% in 2020, 23% in 2024—a difference well within the margin of error of exit polling). There is no need to explain liberals/leftists staying home in 2024: at least in terms of proportions of the overall electorate, they didn't. Just under 1/4 of voters in 2024 were liberals or leftists, just as in 2020.

Okay, if the most leftwards faction of the US political spectrum actually formed a similar proportion of the electorate, then who did they vote for?

Harris. In CNN's own exit polls from 2020, 89% of this faction voted for Biden, and (surprisingly!) a full 10% voted for Trump. God knows what motivated that 10% Trump share after four years of his hellscape of an administration at the height of COVID, but in any case, that support cratered in 2024. 91% of this group voted for Harris and only 4% for Trump. It's an estimate, but it looks like these very peculiar Trump voters had enough of him in 2024 and around half either voted third party this time or for Harris.

So which faction is Trump's victory coming from? Further consolidation of the far right?

In part, yes! 90% of conservatives voted for Trump in 2024, vs 85% in 2020—likely, some conservatives who voted third party or even for Biden in 2020 came "home" this year. However, conservative turnout was actually a little down in 2024, proportionally speaking: conservatives dropped from 38% of the sample in 2020 to 34% in 2024.

But there's one more major faction in all this: "moderates" or centrists. To be clear, we're talking about the US version of centrism, given that this is a US organization polling US voters about US politicians, not "Bernie would be center-right in Denmark" or whatever. This moderate faction jumped from 38% of the overall sample in 2020 to 42% in 2024, and they swung hard towards Trump, though Harris still won a plurality of them. In 2020, 64% of moderates voted for Biden vs 34% for Trump. In 2024, 57% of them voted for Harris vs 40% for Trump—that is, the Democratic lead among centrists dropped precipitously from +30 to +17.

Tl;dr—ideologically speaking, this data suggests that Trump owes his victory to gains among both right-wing and centrist voters rather than some faction of would-be leftists or progressives apathetically staying home or voting third-party or otherwise deserting Democrats (because they're insufficiently radical or for any other reason).

Oh, and if you're curious as to how this compares to CNN's 2016 exit polls, I also checked those! Harris's 84-point lead among the most leftwards faction is a significant improvement from HRC's 74-point lead in 2016. Trump also got 10% of that group in 2016, as in 2020, so it's this campaign—not Hillary's or Biden's—that managed to eat into whatever the hell is going on with that group.

Harris's +17 with moderates is actually a slight improvement on Hillary's +12 in 2016. Biden's jump to a +30 lead among centrists in 2020 represented either a backlash against Trump from centrists, or Biden's own rapport with that group, or some mysterious issue some of those voters had with both HRC and Harris (I wonder what it could be!!), or some combination thereof. Regardless, there are a lot of actual ideologically centrist voters in the USA and not just would-be leftists who haven't heard the good news of Marx yet. And Trump has an iron grip on the right wing at this point: he beat Hillary with conservatives by +65 in 2016, then beat Biden with an even larger margin of +71, then leapt to a 81-point lead over Harris with right-wing voters this year.

[l-in-the-light]

The Otherworlds merging... or is it something else? (spoilers for Silent Hill 2!)

Remember when James said this line to Eddie? Kinda ironic, considering the scene below...

Remember what he did just before he killed Mary? He tucked her in bed, kissed her goodnight (on the forehead), and then stared into her eyes for a good moment... turned his eyes away, then back again to hers, and he snapped immediately after.

"You can't just kill someone cause of the way they looked at you..."

"You see it too? For me, it's always like this"

Why is James able to feel the heat of Angela's Otherworld and the coldness of Eddie's? Why is he fighting Angela's monster? Why does Angela mistake him for her mother?

I don't think their Otherworlds are merging just because they have spend a lot of time with each other (they really didn't, it was like three meetings each in the original). They definitely couldn't have bonded to the point that James can understand Angela's pain and see her trauma personified.

Nobody can understand another person's pain and suffering, we're all different people with different experiences. Understanding that is the first step towards showing true empathy for someone.

If Abstract Daddy/Ideal Father looks the way he looks because we see him through James's eyes and through his life experiences/trauma, then why is it also Angela's monster and why are we fighting it? Does it suggest that James and Angela share similar (but not the same, it can never be the same) experiences in this particular case? Does James have traumatic memories related to his own father, Frank Sunderland?

Of course James also just wants to help Angela, to save her. James seems to have a saviour complex, which might be the result of Mary's illness (he wanted to save her but couldn't, because the disease was untreatable and fatal, there was no way to cure Mary and he could only watch her dying. He failed her).

But there's another side to this, if we consider that Silent Hill is a reflection of character's own personal traumas and creatures might represent personal triggers...

"Even my mama said it. I deserved what happened"

"You fat, disgusting piece of shit! You make me sick!"

"Well, what are you looking at? Get the hell out of here!" / "I was so angry, I struck out at everyone I loved. Especially you"

Angela, Eddie and James. They all share one theme in common in those lines above: being on the receiving end of emotional/verbal abuse.

When we look at the design of James's monsters, they share something in common: emphasis on the mouth area. Lying Figures early design had a very distinguishable mouth, the final design instead sprays "vomit" on you, which is said to represent Mary lashing out verbally at James. Bubble Head Nurse has a red square covering her mouth, like to seal it shut. Flesh Lips is the boss that is a lump of flesh with detailed pair of lips. Abstract Daddy actually follows this design trope as well.

It's James's monster, it represents him suffocating Mary, the memory he repressed. The monster wouldn't look this way if it was Angela's. Abstract Daddy doesn't represent what you think it does! It would look completely different if we saw it through Angela's eyes and it would look most likely like her father, not two people having intercourse on a bed. In other words, it was never depicting intercourse. It's supposed to be surreal representation, not *literal*, and if you think it's intercourse then you're going for the most literal interpretation ever, not symbolic. The "James suffocating Mary" might not even be the final interpretation of it either.

Why did they all met in Silent Hill in the first place?

Angela wanted someone to save her but also wanted to find her mom, Eddie had enough of the abuse but was a coward, they don't seem to have much in common, besides this: they both experienced lifelong abuse, lasting ever since their childhood, and at least big part of it was emotional/verbal abuse. If the story in Silent Hill 2 is told through parallels, then it suggests Mary wasn't the first time James experienced abuse either.

It makes sense. That's the reason why he couldn't bring himself to visit Mary in the hospital. She lashed out at him, it triggered him, but he didn't understand why he's reacting like that, why he has such a hard time going back to visit her, why he starts to hate her. Finally, he succumbed to alcohol to deal with the anxiety of resurfacing past trauma. Eddie btw did a similar thing, but he was overeating instead to deal with his triggers. Food calmed him down, even though it also made him gain weight and caused the bullying to intensify (most likely).

James forgot what he did to Mary. He shows signs of dissociating in many moments of the game (especially in the remake, like when he first cries after Maria died and then leaves her behind emotionlessly). His behaviour fits behaviour of someone used to being verbally abused as well: his quiet withdrawn behaviour, him shutting up immediately after someone lashes out at him (for example when Eddie screamed at him), never defending himself (Angela calling him names and he was just standing there quietly). James seems to remind Angela of her mother. In a family with history of abuse it rarely affects only one person. Her father was probably abusive towards the mother as well and if he lashed out at her often, she was probably a very withdrawn person, never defending herself, speaking in low quiet voice etc. This might be exactly the part which reminded Angela of her mother when she saw James, because that's how he always behaves as well.

He thought Mary died three years ago, because that's when Mary's disease started, and with it the verbal abuse as well. Maybe it wasn't even his first blackout experience either. When Laura locks him in the room, he has a really strong reaction, even begs her to let him out (despite not wanting to beg at first), and after Flesh Lips fight we have this weird sequence of staring at the ceilling, hallucinating Mary's voice, and James wakes up in a completely different place, doesn't know how he got out of that locked room. My guess is that was yet another of his dissociative blackouts.

You didn't want her around anymore. Admit it!

No...

You probably found someone else!

NO!

(this is literally the only moment in the game in which James assertively stands up for himself. Through the rest of the story he simply lets Maria, Laura and Eddie trashtalk him)

I wanted you out of the way. The truth is, I hated you *shakes head*. I wanted my life back.

If that's true...

Despite saying it so clearly before that he wouldn't want Mary out of his life and searching so desperately for her (I just want Mary back, I can't go on without you anymore), at the end he admits Angela was right... or was she? She didn't actually know him much. Mary, on the other hand, knew him probably the best in the world, and she claimed that what he said is not true. But if it's not true then why did James say that?

That's because he doesn't understand why he did what he did. He killed her most likely while experiencing a blackout or he snapped after reaching his breaking point, while triggered, and only later experienced a blackout. The only thing he remembers is the feelings he felt for Mary after she lashed out at him (hatred, helplessness, self-loathing), which weren't his feelings for Mary, but his reaction to the verbal abuse he experienced. But he couldn't seperate the past traumatic event from the trigger he was experiencing in the present. Vivid flashbacks and feeling like re-living a past trauma in the present moment are all signs of PTSD. As the result, a person might avoid meeting other people or situations that can even remotely remind them of their traumatic experience. Sounds like James avoiding to visit Mary in the hospital, to me. He of course didn't understand why he is behaving like that or why he feels so overwhelmed, so he ended up blaming himself and thought he is a bad partner as the result, as many people suffering from PTSD would, even though what they're going through isn't their fault.

I'm not saying that what James did was good (it definitely wasn't, and that's not the point I was trying to make at all). I'm just trying to point out that James shows signs of PTSD, just like Angela and Eddie do as well (is it a good depiction of PTSD? Definitely not perfect, but not too bad either. Could be better without the murder plotline). Silent Hill 2's story at the heart of it is actually a tragedy, not a murder story.

I wish we could know more about James and his past...

[dosesofcommonsense]

[dcdreamblog]

I have a couple of questions for Uncle Sam,

Did you know General Gloryvand if you did how much of his comic book was accurate recounting of events?

Are you familiar with the super team The Force of July? They were created by a corrupt US politician and they're controversial enough I'm almost hesitant to call them superheroes. Some people think they were willing collaborators with their boss. Others think their ideology left them blind to actual reasons for his actions

US: Glory was the sad result of the US government trying to have a mystery man of their own they could keep under wraps. Me: We recently talked on my blog about something along similar lines with the Creature Commandos US: Something like that, yes. The rift between the US Government establishment and the Squadron was always larger than we let on to the public Me: Hoover specifically went to his grave frustrated on his total inability to dig up dirt on any of you. US: It was an understanding we had as comrades. We all trusted on another to the hilt, even if we never spoke as individuals. If you were Squadron, it made you blood, no questions asked. Me: No wonder they kept Glory under the radar US: Same reason they kept all their other "enhanced assets" under our radar. The moment we would have found out, we would have planted our feet and placed them under Squadron protection. As it was, Glory ended up getting batted around at the whims of the military command structure. Me: His missions were rather less...glorious than his comic books made them seem, from what I've read. US: It was a lot of skulking about on the western front, giving the hotfoot to nazi administration in France or the Low Countries. A lot of snapping necks in the dark. Me: Not exactly banner material US: And then after the war they all but brainwashed him and tossed him to the wolves. By the time he remembered who he was he was so jumbled in the head all he could do was make speeches. Me: He died of a heart attack not long after his reawakening US: Not many of us mystery men had the luck to be born immortal

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

US: I...recognize that the young men and women who called themselves the Force of July BELIEVED they were doing good. Me: Wow, I have seen cannons less loaded than that sentence. US: They operated under a spook organization called the American Security Agency. Me: One of those black cape organizations US: You could say it again, yes. The ASA was one of many secret projects meant to create superhuman agents under government control. Their motives were, as with any such group, ultimately jackbooted. Me: They wanted to launch a satellite into space that could spy on people's homes through their TV screens. They straight up called it Project Orwell US: Which was made by government agents ultimately above the Force of July's heads. That being said their unwillingness to question the motives of their handlers is a red flag by itself. Me: When they were directed against an outfit like the original Outsiders... US: That clinched it for all time in my mind Me: Oh yea? US: It's like I was saying before, an understanding in the community. If you're one of us, you get the benefit of the doubt. There's some layers of separation between me and them but I vouch for them on principle unless I know something untoward is going on. Me: Only some layers? US: Founded by Batman, Batman trained under Wildcat, I served with Wildcat. Me: Wow...Batman trained under Wildcat? US: *shrugs* Neither here nor there. Either way, the Force of July was a lot of very easily misled young people being sent out to do damage for an American establishment masquerading as an American ideal Me: Should have joined the military in that case US: No comment.