#RACHEL THAT IS JUST PURE EVIL

[gendertroublemaker]

I rlly love Pet Semetary.. it’s literally all abt grief I would probably do the same thing Louis did lmao

[genericpuff]

ok listen right

please don't take the implication of what i'm about to say the completely wrong way, there's a point i have to make here

there's this gross thing that happens in LO that's been definitely talked about numerous times (by many people) where fashion is used to label a character's like, "alignment" between "good" "bad" "pure" "tainted" etc. this is something that comes up a lot when discussing Minthe and Persephone because there are a LOAD of double standards in how Minthe was treated and viewed for dressing like a "slut" but then Persephone wears the exact same fit and suddenly she's a queen-

(image courtesy of @anoldplace on Instagram, I'll be showing a couple of their posts in this because they show off a lot of the great - and frankly disturbing - parallels in LO, whether intended by Rachel or not)

-but can we talk about how the "bad ending" version of Persephone where she ends up with Apollo slaps WAY FUCKING HARDER than anything we've seen her dressed in since she got with Hades ??

fucking hello?? where's THAT fit ??

you're telling me this girl is queen of the underworld and the best she can do in the fashion department is looking like a color-swapped version of Hera ???

and I WANNA MAKE THIS PERFECTLY CLEAR, this isn't me trying to say "Persephone would have been way cooler if she got with Apollo", that is FAR from the point, more so just pointing out the pattern of Rachel aligning "bad" with "dresses with more flavor than an extremely out-of-touch conservative boomer". Even when she tries to draw Persephone in more "out there" clothing it just comes across as ... tacky? And only at her own detriment?

Like, how the fuck is this supposed to be Persephone being drawn through a literal male gaze (Apollo):

And THIS is supposed to be Persephone being drawn from a female gaze (her own because she dressed herself):

Like literally how? How does this happen? Especially when the latter is STILL being framed from a male perspective (the green guy behind her, "Jeffrey") but we're supposed to believe it's some "boss babe" moment for Persephone to just be walking down the street while getting oggled inappropriately by a male onlooker? How could these scenes be any more different and yet more alike? She's still being objectified for the characters around her and the audience, but we're supposed to believe the second is better than the first one because... she chose to wear that?

Sure, one could argue that at least she dressed herself and that definitely gives her agency, but it's really Rachel telling on herself where her priorities are in trying to write a "feminist comic" that she had Persephone dress herself and then STILL have its only purpose be for men on the sidelines to stare at and objectify her. When you just know this same outfit would have undoubtedly been used to slut shame characters like Minthe or Thetis or Leuce.

I don't even know, man. The intentions in LO's writing are so confused, contradictory, and ultimately pointless. It's trying so hard to be "feminist" and a "deconstruction of purity culture" but then it turns around and reinforces all that same shit it's claiming to be fighting against anyways. Persephone would be an evil slut if she was with Apollo, look at her outfit! But not here, not the banana purse dress being oggled by strangers on the sidewalk, not now that she settled down with her old rich husband who she only knew for a couple weeks before being separated for 10 years but their love was just so strong and the thirst for dick so real that she and him loyally waited for one another until she was old enough to make it "not be creepy" anymore for them to hook up, but only after marriage. She's definitely not a gold digger like Minthe or a vapid slut like Thetis or a homewrecker like Leuce, nah.

I just wish she'd dress herself, for the love of god. Let her dress herself with her own input and not the influence of the people around her or the tone of the comic's own internalized misogyny that demands "woman must always be objectified for better or for worse, that is The Rule!"

Of course she can't "dress herself" though. She's an extension of Rachel and Rachel herself writes like an out-of-touch boomer who will and has gladly gone about how men are just clamoring at the bit to stare at her and get to her... but then claims she "didn't realize sexism was all that bad" until she started working on LO.

Sorry, this post got very long and very mean, I initially just wanted to make the comparison in a very silly haha "wild how bad ending Persephone has way more visual personality than good ending Persephone" way, but then I thought about it too long and pissed myself off LMAO

And no, I don't want to go back to beating the dead horse of "banana dress bad" because honestly, I think in any other context or comic, sure, it would be very cute to see her walking around in an outfit she chose herself even if it's "objectively" not a great outfit, it shows agency and not caring what other people think which is VERY freeing. But we're not reading that comic, we're reading LO, where a woman's worth and value is only determined by how the men around her react to her and only Persephone is allowed to be empowered by wearing outfits that would otherwise be treated as "slutty" if worn by anyone else.

I don't want the message to be "Persephone looks like a dumbass bimbo" or, on the flipside, "Persephone looks boring and out-of-touch", I want the message to be "Persephone is valid for dressing how she wants, just like how the women around her are valid for dressing how they want regardless of whether or not they're protagonists or antagonists."

Quit using women's fashion as an alignment chart, quit using these "not so sly for a misogynist guy" dogwhistles as a way to "other" the women around the power fantasy main character. Women deserve to dress how they want without shame or objectification - all women, not just the women you like.

[trans-queen-administrator]

I really love how Taylor can either hold a grudge forever or have it disappear alarmingly fast, and it all depends on if she acts on her anger at first. Like she forgives and is willing to work with Sophia after the bullying, Lung after he tried to kill her, Rachel after she tried to fuck her over, Defiant after the everything. Like most people wouldn't forgive all those acts and trust those people afterwards, but she hardly even considers otherwise because she believes that people should work together against unbeatable foes despite their differences and when she fights alongside someone she kind of just forgets the things they've done.

When she acts on something though, when she acts immediately in an irreversible way the people she lashes out against are immediately marked as 100% irredeemable evil bastards in her mind. Alexandria, she doesn't regret the murder in the slightest despite the fact that it had consequences and Alexandria isn't a being of pure evil. Since she killed her she has to convince herself that it was right and just and that she doesn't regret it, which erases any nuance Alexandria had in her mind that would lead to her forgiving her. She does this again a buncha times throughout the book. Against the C53s in the Cauldron raid she thinks about how everyone in the crowd could be innocent, forced to go along with the mob out of fear that they'll be next and with no chance or choice of getting away and being peaceful. But then she dangles a disintegration knife into all their faces to kill Mantellum and suddenly they're all monsters who delighted in torturing innocents and all voluntary members of the mob and none of them deserved any mercy because they're Evil Bad People, so she'll never lose sleep or forgive them.

Aisha points something like this out in 29.5 actually, she says her and Alec had an argument over it because Alec was annoyed at how quickly and easily Taylor stopped being mad at her bullies and didn't want revenge. I think Alec equated Sophia to Heartbreaker in his mind because they caused both their respective triggers, and he can't fathom the idea of someone not wanting to slowly torture and kill their Heartbreaker to make them feel an ounce of the pain he felt, and honestly Alec is the normal one here I think? I think most parahumans would get revenge on the people who caused their triggers in a heartbeat if given an opportunity, and honestly poor Alec imagine trying to understand and make sense of your dulled emotions and Taylor Hebert is there as the worst example ever with her weirdo decisions. Aisha defended Taylor and her choice to not get revenge but she still got revenge for Alec because she hold grudges for herself and other people.

Letting go of hatred to someone isn't something other people can really do like Taylor. Going back to Aisha, she fucking despised Bonesaw during Gold Morning and hated how she got a redemption, but Taylor was fully willing to work with someone who sawed her skull open for the greater good when it would be completely fair for her to never want to get help from her. Idk what my point is here I just think it's really neat that unless someone is her enemy right then and there or unless she already killed that person and sorted them into the Bad Person Category, Taylor is willing to forgive anything and everything to make sure everyone works together.

[winns-stuff]

LO RANT:

Okay I hope this will be quick but I just wanna say how tired I am of seeing these damn panel scenes circling around with characters from the story reciprocating robotic speeches of the criticisms that we give to the story. It’s such a huge eye roll honestly because we get it, you don’t like how much you’re being criticized but handling like this is only damaging your story. Abandoning all of your plots and build ups just to make comebacks at critics and retcon a lot of things we point out that doesn’t make sense in a story you made isn’t the serve you think it is and it’s only slowing down the pace of your story.

I’m sorry if I sound harsh but I don’t know how else to say this honestly. It’s really been annoying the hell out of me and it’s not like this is the first time she’s done this, this has been done multiple times. Each and every time she does it it defeats a key theme in her own story and it’s one of the reasons why the storytelling is going down the drain. You can’t be body positive and make every woman whose bodies aren’t like Persephones’ evil or jealous of how pretty she is. You can’t say that your story is an accurate and respectful depiction of mental illness when you demonize characters who have those symptoms if they aren’t your faves. And you definitely can’t say that virginity shouldn’t be apart of your worth if you’re going to give every woman who is sexually active and experienced a bad ending or punishments for it while the one who “stays pure” gets everything she’s ever wanted in life with no consequences or conflicts.

Moral of the story is please stop making your story so hypocritical and start focusing on addressing things that are surrounding your story, not everything needs a response and the way that Rachel is handling these criticisms are ruining her story. Hopefully this isn’t offensive or disrespectful but that’s just how I’ve been feeling, especially since seeing the new episode panels. The shots at the critics are exhausting and I’m sure the fans would love to engage in other plots.

[themoonking]

given how sexually experienced / sexually confident women are potrayed in lore olympus, it would not suprise me if daphne was written in and characterized the way she is specifically as a response to criticism rachel as recieved.

minthe, thetis, and later leuce are all mature women with sexual experience. they're attractive and they're fully aware of it. they specifically try to appear sexy and desireable, and also have casual sex. coincidentally, they are all presented as shallow, jealous, homewrecking, rude at best and outright cruel at worst, delusional, deserving of scorn and ridicule, et cetera.

this is all in contrast to persephone. she is very young, sexually inexperienced, and her "purity" (both in a sexual sense and a general sense) is emphasized. for the vast majority of the comic's run, she expresses little to no sexual desire. she's incredibly attractive but she doesn't know it and definitely doesn't try to look sexy god forbid. instead, she is unwillingly and unknowingly sexualized by the people around her. she's incredibly naive. she's the poster child for the "born sexy yesterday" trope... and she's constantly faced with attempts to tear her down by the eeeevil promiscuous women who are simply jealous of her effortless pure beauty and how much more desirable she is. when persephone begins to show sexual desire or deliberately dress more provacatively, it's for one (1) man in the context of a monogamous relationship.

so im not saying this 100% is how it went but i could definitely see it happening that rachel smythe saw the (very justified) critique of the (very present) misogyny in her work, but instead of actually taking it to heart and perhaps reflecting on beliefs she may have internalized and how they make their way into her art, then improving herself, she writes daphne.

daphne is a woman who also is sexually experienced and confident, also is fully aware of how attractive she is, also makes a conscious effort to appear sexy and desireable, but she is not depicted as an evil homewrecking bitch. in fact, she coincidentally agrees with everything persephone says and sees nothing wrong with anything she does ever even when it is definitely cause for criticism (such as not seeing the clear favoritism at work as a big deal).

however, the inclusion of one (1) singular positive depiction of a sexually experienced and empowered woman doesn't change the ever present misogyny that permeates lore olympus. persephone's "purity", naivete, and inexperience are still romanticized to some extent. she's supposedly the most attractive goddess around, moreso than aphrodite, having been blessed with beauty twice et cetera... and also her body is eternally 19, sending the message that the height of beauty is a body that is just-barely-legal. minthe's "redemption arc", if one could call it that, is somewhat linked to her engaging in more "acceptable" feminine tasks, such as teaching (and, potentially, if it goes this way, becoming a mother). leuce was written after daphne, and while she's not expressly demonized as other characters, she is written as being stupid, delusional, et cetera.

[sonoraswinds]

this is exactly what my face looks like when you say Nathan did nothing wrong, bitches you better be joking, his words in voicemail MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the actions of the adult young intelligent man who kidnapped, drugged, harassed, strangled, s€xually assaulted and, i bet my ass, r@ped young women, this is a total insanity when people saying ”ahh poor boy! dad abused him! he's a victim”, umm, Ted Bundy was abused, Columbiners were abused, all serial killers and r@pists were abused, you can name it, POOR DUDES, Nathan's past does not minimize his responsibility, he's brutal, he has no limits, he's spoiled and cruel, that ain't something like punching your buzzed mate in face, stealing a can of beer from the store or being rude to teachers, when u could have said ”yeah, he's hostile, he's difficult, he has parent issues, but it's not too late”. yeah, I can already hear your protests ”no missy! he was used! it’s not his fault! sure he did bad things but he knows it was a mistake,” save your fucking breath, okay? those things he did, drugging and kidnapping women. that’s not an “oopsie” 🤭, that’s not a “well I messed up but I’ll say sorry and make it better”. this is an inescapable fact about Nathan Joshua Prescott you beloved: he drugged, kidnapped and s€xually assaulted young women. he got them straight to Jefferson and god only knows what Mark actually did to them. nobody! i'll say it again NOBODY pushed him into doing these gruesome atrocities. he did it himself because he wanted to. because lives of these girls mean zero shit for this man. remember that fucking nonchalant tone of ”i'm kinda devastated right now” in Principal Wells' office after Kate's suicide attempt/death. like he's giving a flying fuck...😎

the second Prescott decided it was okay to steal the autonomy of women, to hurt them, to traumatize them for life, he became a fucking devil

OK?

Nathan takes serious antipsychotics? So do millions of people. His meds don't help him? MAYBE BECAUSE HE always MIXES it with ALCOHOL AND DRUGS? hm, dunno. I take ssris, but i don't fucking drink because i'm fucking scared shit of overdosing or a sudden cardiac arrest. you crazy ass if you blame all of this on Jefferson's manipulative behavior, Prescott always knew what he was doing, he has never had an empathy for others

you'll say ”HEY CHIC he has never r@ped girls nobody mentioned that” but dudes🙏🏼 FACE the fucking truth. Prescott is a pure evil, everything he did was about having control over something, he enjoys it, this is the power he has never had before, he knows he is untouchable, he uses this advantage all the time through the game. i'm so scared of people saying this voicemail is a fucking redemption arc for Nate. y'all should apologize to Jesus Christ, i mean it

”i didn't wanna hurt Kate, or Rachel” blah blah, YES, YOU DID, this is exactly what you did, and you fucking knew about consequences, you knew all of your actions traumatized them, you're not dumb, not littlesillycinnamonroll, you're just a real predator. this is unforgivable, and irl y'all would NEVER think about justifying such crimes

[viccharine]

i will defend Snow White until I DIE 🍎

more commentary about my fav princess under the cut (including all the stuff about the live action):

(long post)

i dislike the girlboss-ification of Snow White as much as the next person but omg leave Rachel Zegler ALONE!!!!!!! ppl act like thinking Snow White was “boring and/or anti-feminist” was an unpopular opinion—literally EVERYONE and their mom HATED on Snow White but the MINUTE Rachel Zegler says the SAME THING everyone comes for her????? smells like misogyny. (not even mentioning the fact that maybe PR has something to do with what she’s saying??)

(also, people hating on Rachel Zegler for THE COLOR OF HER SKIN?????? blah blah blah “it’s snow WHITE!!! she has skin as white as SNOW!!”— i think we as a society can move on from the idea that a character’s defining characteristic is the color of her SKIN. it’s just as easy AND ACCURATE to interpret the “Snow White” thing as her being pure of heart/pure as SNOW in order to remove her skin color from being such an important part of her character. don’t act like everyone saying that Rachel Zegler can’t play Snow White because she’s “too tan” isn’t racist/colorist)

more about Snow White as a character: i think she is a wonderful character and not at all “anti-feminist” or boring!!! she’s just a girl!!! while her age isn’t mentioned in the movie, she’s referred to as “little princess” which obviously indicates that she’s pretty young—she’s a young girl who’s been abused for most of her life yet still manages to be kind and empathetic!!! sure, her primary dream is to meet her true love, but MOST YOUNG PEOPLE ALSO WANT THIS!!! there’s nothing wrong with wanting love or with being sweet and kind!! Snow White first and foremost survived abuse and several near-death experiences (INCLUDING TWO ASSASSINATIONS) and managed to come out kind-hearted! she’s silly and kind and a little naive but also optimistic and a romantic!!!!! leave her alone!!!!

and even saying that, sure she’s from 1937 and very stereotypical—so there’s nothing wrong with adding aspects to her character that make her more modern/three-dimensional! it’s ok guys, you can admit that the original Snow White is not necessarily the best representation of women while also acknowledging how game-changing her movie was AND how Snow White is a wonderful character!!

characters can be sweet, kind and gentle but still strong and independent!! they aren’t mutually exclusive!!

as one of the first feature length animated films, of course Snow White isn’t going to have a lot of dimension (NONE of the characters do), and that’s what remakes are for!! stop coming for Rachel Zegler for saying things that aren’t at all wrong. like omg, you guys are acting like she hates all women or something. i would love it if she became a leader and took control of her kingdom!! I would love it if she took more action against the evil queen!! that DOESN’T MEAN Snow White is no longer kind and gentle and pure. Rachel Zegler is NOT demonizing Snow White or changing her character!!! is it so hard to believe that a girl who is kind and gentle and a romantic ALSO wants to be a leader????

also, I think her and the prince are cute!!!! yes he is VERY one-dimensional, so i would love it if the live action Snow White expanded on the prince’s character like the live action “The Little Mermaid” did!! his age is NOT mentioned in the film, there’s no reason to claim that their relationship is predatory. he searched for MONTHS for her, and once he found her “dead” he cried and kissed her goodbye (which is how I personally interpret it!!!)

the kiss can just as easily be changed to a kiss on the cheek/forehead, or removed overall, and the story will still stay the same!! the prince’s love for Snow White is what saved her, and that can be conveyed in a way other than a kiss. for all intents and purposes, they are just two kids in love!!

the prince was not the one who saved her from her evil stepmother—snow white was the one who ran away and made a life for herself, the prince just woke her up and the VERY END of the movie, stop ignoring all of snow’s actions throughout the film for the one (1) thing the prince did at the end.

tldr; Snow White is dated but not necessarily anti-feminist, and Rachel Zegler is justified in how she talks about Snow White and doesn’t deserve all the hate she’s getting.

[chloe-caulfield94]

Max's nightmare

I've seen players reducing Episode 5 just to the final choice, while dismissing the rest of the episode, especially Max's nightmare, as a "fever dream". But I think the entire episode is important and the nightmare part is crucial for determining what Max's feelings truly are.

The entirety of Max’s nightmare in Episode 5 is designed to sway you towards sacrificing Chloe. The warped journal entry, all the resentful townspeople accusing Max of murder, Evil Chloe making out with other people, Evil Max trying to sow doubt in our Max’s mind. As a general rule, if angry ghosts visiting your nightmares are trying to convince you to do something, it’s a good idea not to do that. I mean, if Max sacrifices Chloe, she capitulates before the same part of her mind that dreamt up Jefferson describing how he dug up Rachel’s corpse for one last “headshot”. That doesn’t sound like the most rational part of Max’s psyche, to put it mildly.

There is an excellent piece of visual story-telling in the nightmare – to leave the Evil Two Whales bathroom, Max must input a code reflected in the mirror. Everything she sees and hears in the nightmare is backwards, opposite to the truth. And at the very beginning of the nightmare, when Max speaks with Jefferson, she comments on the available dialogue choices that she would never say those things. The anger and doubt permeating the nightmare are not how she really feels.

It's Chloe who pulls Max out of the nightmare. When Chloe appears in Evil Two Whales, Max is transported from the warped part of her dream into pure memories and then she wakes up. This ties nicely with how it was Chloe’s touch that pulled Max out of a dark vision she had at the lighthouse at the end of Episode 1. Furthermore, when Max crosses the nightmare version of the junkyard, the only safe haven is a portion of Chloe's hideout. When Max sits there, she's safe from the angry ghosts roaming around. When Max is around Chloe, her ghosts are put to rest. She's the best version of herself.

[bcbdrums]

📂 Go fam HC's?

Thank you for the ask!!!!

First of all, unpopular opinion but I do not headcanon that their names follow the first-letter format. So, no H-name for Hego, no Sh-name for Shego... It's something I just can't stand. I get why people do it, it fits with the KP universe... Still, I just cannot.

But, moving on from that.

This....this is gonna be long. Sorry not sorry. Huge Go fam dissertation under the cut.

Hego (I apologize in advance for the mini-fic you're about to read and that my HC's about the others aren't nearly as broad)

Brendan is his name. I HC a bit of an Incredibles world in his mind from the very beginning of the movie, where he sees all his actions as pure and all "evil" must be stopped no matter what. Has multiple blind spots, and Shego's leaving didn't really do anything to take those away. No, what took those away were his girlfriend... One day he was forced to save a girl from a hit and run without changing into costume, there was no time. And as he was out of costume he had no excuse to vanish. And he didn't want to, seeing this lovely girl with the soft brown hair and kind, inviting eyes that suggested she would hear everything he ever had to say and happily. So he started dating Sarah and eventually told her the truth. He cared enough about her to reveal his secret identity. But the hero world still had its hold on him, and he could never say the L-word to her. And she knew... She knew that he was trapped in that world. So when she went away to college they didn't officially break up, but she just...stopped returning calls or answering letters. And he knew too, after the first few weeks, but he didn't want to admit it to himself... And over time, he found that missing Sarah not only distracted him from hero-work... But it was more important to him. He really, REALLY struggles to wrap his mind around this. His solution however is just to take Shego's parting advice to him... To go to college. So he finally, secretly and sheepishly, enrolls in a university and hopes he'll one day be able to work through whatever it is that he is... Less for himself... And more for the hope that Sarah might still be there when he can make himself worthy of her someday. (This story of Sarah is a WIP I've never finished btw lol maybe I'll be inspired now or maybe I'll be satisfied since I tossed it out into the public finally after like four years.)

Shego

Her name is Rachel. I could have honestly gone with Rhonda or Roxanne, and even now I lean toward Rhonda the most strongly. But Rachel is what I wrote into fic, so that's what I'll stick with. She's possibly the most tragic of the siblings. The only girl in a family of boys who are all so extremely boy. And then the comet... Family falls apart... They're put under the custody and rule of Global Justice, as weapons to be used at their whims. Not all of this is revealed to the children really, but Shego knows. No mother to help her in anything growing up, no real life at all... She wanted to be a cheerleader. She really, really, wanted to be part of that crowd. To do her hair and makeup and nails and wear the uniform and stand on top of the pyramid, to feel like she was flying, but even more to feel that support of the people holding her up--friends who she knew would have her, both in that moment and metaphorically... People she could invite in and trust. But she couldn't have that. She had to have a secret identity. And she had to go out on missions instead of to high school football games. So it was a dream never realized. She finally DID leave though, went to college, chose teaching mostly because the only worlds she knew were GJ hero-work and...going to school. Nothing else existed in her life. She tried to get custody of her younger brothers, but it never worked out. And the teaching... She was simply a fish out of water. She tried. She genuinely, truly, tried to be a normal person for about a year out of college. But she had no skills, no support, and didn't know how to ask for help and even if she did...wouldn't have known what to ask. So she left. She gave on on hero work and gave up on being normal. The only freedom at all was in a blue-skinned man who didn't know her name when she walked into the room. She wasn't the celebrity. She was a stranger to him, and finally for the first time in her life had a fully clean slate. She could finally find and make herself, and did so at the side of another person who life had done dirty, and who never, ever judged her for anything at all. It was the first thing about Drakken that made her look at him more closely, and she learned how to be a friend, an enemy, a family, and a life partner through him.

Mego

His name is Brody. I just see tall wiry guys with that name. Maybe cuz of Adrien Brody lol I only just realized that connection, that's exactly the reason. Anyway. Uh. Actually... I got nothing. I had zero feelings for this character when watching the show and anything I have right now is just whatever is in my fic "Forget the Days Gone By" which I don't remember and I'm too lazy to link sorry and...yeah this is just not a character I care about. The one who cares about him is @gothicthundra and anything I could try to say about him here would just be her fantastic headcanons, sooooooo ask her haha.

Wego

Names are Dylan and Alex. Dylan after one of the Sprouse brothers and Alex after one of the twin bro characters on Full House. Yeah that's it for these two as well. I got nothing. Except well...I guess since they were given their powers and sucked into being heroes at infancy, they'd be the most deluded and have the most to gain from escaping it all someday. And I headcanon that Shego adores them and wants to take them away but she never could, Hego and GJ (the evil overlords responsible for Team Go in my headcanon) would never allow it... Yeah sorry I am just into into them.

All right I'm not as lazy as I thought. Here is my Team Go backstory/Shego backstory fic, Forget the Days Gone By. Sorry this lost steam halfway through. I'm just not into Team Go.

[mercurytrinemoon]

More venus retrograde thoughts about love and relationships because I'm annoyed or smth

I've seen the latest comments from Rachel Zegler about Snow White and I'm just tired. Her rude attitude doesn't help either.

Keep in mind I'm writing this as someone who never dreamt of a wedding nor having a husband (actually my childhood dream for the future was living together with my friends, such an Aquarius + 11th house stellium thing to do), I was also never actively looking for love and often kinda cringed at the thought of being in a relationship. I was always quite the tomboy and I grew up loving strong female characters who can kick some proper ass (Lara Croft was my ultimate hero). But I also loved stories about princesses who fall in love, because, idk, one needs a healthy balance.

Also I'm invested cause I was once the Evil Queen in a school play lol.

Listen, Snow White is ultimately about having a pure heart and rising beyond the surface level, whether it's someone's "beauty" (Snow White) or "quirks" (dwarfs), so just, like, don't be vain and be kind, that's the point. It's not even a love story, per se, as Snow White spends majority of time figuring herself out, being resilient and minding her own business. In both the og fairy tale, as well as the animated movie, Prince is just a convenient plot point. But as usual it ends with finding "true love" cause that is just the universal way of saying that love conquers evil. And so you can have a victory in a full package fashion of self-fullfilment and a romantic partner.

So like, saying things like "the story is outdated" and "ugh @ true love and prince" is just??? I can't find an eloquent way to say it, so let's just go with: stupid.

My mom just told me the other day about her friend, who called off her wedding because she felt "too ugly for the pretty guy". Years later she met someone else and she married the dude because he treated her good and that's it. They have a daughter and don't really even live together now. My sister, on the other hand, has a friend who's in a relationship and she's not really that much into her boyfriend but he has a lot of money and so it's a convenient situation for her.

These are just examples but my point is, there's plentyyyy of relationships like that these days. I think the world actually NEEDS true love and a reminder that you can have your own fairy tale, like stop being so pragmatic about life.

Meanwhile the approach that's represented by Rachel is not only being way too pragmatic (because, apparently, everything revolves only around work and building empires and no one really needs a good support system and emotional intimacy with the other *read with sarcasm*) but also it's villanizing love and villanizing men. We'll never be equal if we won't stop putting one above the other.

Also? Side note, I was a fan of Maleficent and how they got rid of the Prince there, I think they've done it in a clever way. I liked The Huntsman, that was an interesting twist on Snow White. I liked Once Upon a Time's version of Snow as well. Mirror Mirror flipped the script as well. So I don't think we have to forcibly prove the same thing over again. And if they want, they can come up with a new story or reach for another fairy tale that has the female protagonist saving the day (there's a few, just do a quick google). But obviously Disney won't come up with anything new because it's easier to sell something that's already familiar, that's why they're making those remakes.

(And like, so disrespectful to hate on the first ever full-length animated movie, like wtf.)

[cherrytea556]

Is it just me or is the hate of rachel zelger grew way out of proportion? Like okay, i understand that shes clearly misinformed about the movie (because the prince clearly didn't stalk snow white) and people have their right not to like her although are we really gonna say shes like the evil queen than snow white? Pardon me? Shes neither of them, especially when the characters are clearly symbols (snow white representing goodness which is often associated with kindness, pureness, innocence and the evil queen representing evilness by her jealously as envy is a part of the 7 rings of sin), meant to represent the moral of the story than explore the characters fully (which makes sense because it was originally a fairy tale) and if were going off the implications of that and the assumption that she hates the snow white movie from the 30s, why would she be jealous of it? Like genuinely the evil queen doesn't have much of a character besides being envious and evil so if were going off characterization, how tf does she fit into it?

And with the misinformation thing, keep this in mind that while its still misinfo, she is not a director nor a writer for the movie, she is merely an leading actress for snow white who from the interview, seems to be hyping up the movie (for money, for genuine appreciation, who knows). The actual head director of the movie is marc webb, which means out of everyone in the production, he should be the one who knows about the 30s movie (or at least the 1812 fairy tale that their apparently adapting by), what the actress says is not related to the head director and just because she may not get the movie doesnt mean its the same for the head director. Now does that mean the movie would be good? Idk, i predict it wouldnt bebecause of the live action remakes having a reputation of being the renaissance of the Disney sequel era where they would produce cheap films related to their previous work for a quick buck but if were going to blame anyone for the issues people have with the movie, you might as well blame the head director or corporation rather than a worker of the film just doing their job (and yes, i argue hyping up the film is somewhat part of it given how we've seen actresses do it before regardless of what their actual stance on the movie/media that their in is/what the movie/media quality is for audiences). And while you can argue that how shes hyping it up didn't work because it didn't and i do see how people can dislike her (and i don't even know her until people were talking about what she said about the 30s movie), I personally think its an overreaction that we should just go seek out actual modern retellings of stories that put in effort or even create our own retellings instead.

Although if i'm seriously wrong here, please let me know. I would like to have a discussion about this.

[reelvibes91]

The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes Review

In terms of big IPs, you could not escape the 10s without having atleast been exposed to The Hunger Games franchise. Now we get a prequel that focuses on Coriolanus Snow and what made him into the man he becomes.

There is a lot this film does right so let's begin the journey with that. The first 2/3s of the movie were top notch character building and introduction to the new necessary characters for this story. Lucy Gray Baird is probably my favorite character in the Hunger Games franchise after viewing this movie. They did a good job of presenting a lead who is not heroic and relied on the help of her mentor to survive. Lucy's talented was in the field of music and the film really allowed Rachel Zegler to shine. She has a tremendous singing voice and it helped build her character.

Her chemistry with Tom Blyth was crucial to the films success. You could easily buy into them being from different worlds but also the bond the formed as things progressed. They both had a lot at stake and grew closer through grasping the straws of humanity and not letting themselves go to far. It was an incredibly well structured story.

As great as the first two acts were the final one definitely felt rushed. Which is very odd given the film runs at 2hrs38mins and definitely had the room to create a much more subtle ending. This story takes place 64 years before the events of the Hunger Games films and the story of Katniss Everdeen. By the end of this movie we didn't need that nice little bow tied ending. 64 years is an incredibly long time for things to happen to a person. It's odd to think a man would have the definitive personality of his life time for that amount of time with no growth happening through out. It would have been nice to see smaller cracks in the foundation so we are teased of the man he becomes. We know that man is pure evil but we also know it takes a lot to make a person that way.

After a tremendous start it just lost all momentum because they gave you reason to care about Snow and Lucy but threw it all away in the final act. We know Lucy is not in the main franchise and by the end of the film out of Snows life. We didn't need to see a full reason why. Sometimes interpretation is good in story. Sometimes neatly wrapped endings ruin a story because we know life does not work that way a lot of the time.

The Hunger Games franchise is one I do enjoy and this one is definitely enjoyable if you look past the rushed ending. The first two acts have incredible pacing and chemistry among the talent involved. The cast is phenomenal all the way through. As mentioned Zegler and Blyth as well Peter Dinklage, Viola Davis and others. Had the ending been a little better constructed I would safely say this would have been the best in the franchise. After this movie that title still belongs to Mockingjay.

[youremyonlyhope]

The Star Beast

Am I excited for the 60th? Eh... I'm just glad to have Doctor Who to watch after a year of nothing.

Why in the world were my Disney+ subtitles set to Chinese?

Donna my girl. You are the only reason for me to be excited. This whole post has a lot of salt throughout.

Also, I don't know how I feel about the exposition to the camera thing. Twelve did it better. Interesting opening sequence. And I think I have said I like the retro logo. Ok Rachel Talalay directed. That's promising. Those robots in the background felt cyberman-esque. Ughhhhh I have so many thoughts about the choice to have Donna name her daughter Rose. Ugh. I like that the running gag of Donna not seeing the chaos for random mundane reasons continues. Glad she's still roasting him. Ok if this is supposed to be a NEW Doctor, I don't like him saying Allons-y. Please. New catchphrase. The same face doesn't have to mean the same personality. Plus I don't know French but isn't saying "Let's - Allons-y!" redundant? Ok shoutout to Nerys that's fun. Shaun's a good man. I'm very glad we get to see more of him now since he was a bit of a non-character in End of Time. OH GOOD UNIT IS REALLY BACK PROPERLY. Wait do I remember seeing pictures of Kate in promos... I was about to ask why the ship was right side up if it crashed. Ok. It landed. God I've forgotten Donna's mom's name but I'm really glad to see she listened to the Doctor and shows Donna appreciation now. I was just about to ask how long it'd been. Because End of Time aired in 2009/10 but the whole timeline of the RTD era was messed up. So does that mean that Journey's End was technically 2008? God let me not try to make sense of this right now. God I hate this Meep thing with a passion. I hate its eyes. So much. Ah. Nightmare fuel. I don't like the sonic reverting back to be so similar to Nine/Ten's either. It would have been funner if he was using Thirteen's. Plus he should have been in Thirteen's outfit but I've already complained about that for a year. Cowards. "Off you pop" I wonder if that's a reference to Clara in the 50th. What is that the Time Vortex or something? Does Rose crochet these toys? Love that. (For the record I got nothing against Rose at all I'm just mad she was named Rose for pure fan pandering purposes.) Ok now I see why it was hiding in toys in the promo. Sylvia you are totally right to be angry at the Doctor this time around. "Oh wow he's so cute" no, it's nightmare fuel. GOOD JOB SYLVIA. He deserves that slap. Oh poor Shaun. He's such a good man though. Sees the chaos, sees a literal monster, and decides to compliment his mother-in-law's cooking. Good job. "I loved that man." Aw. Me too. "He's not dead." "You idiot." Love it. Kate came in to help take care of Wilf? Oh. Ohhh. My heart. "You've got two hearts? So do I." "You've got what." Oh Donna. Hmm so the hypnotized soldiers are not on the same side as the Wrath... I don't know how I feel about this sonic force field thing but ok. Resonating concrete. I'll accept that reference because it's about Nine. "Or we've got things very, very wrong." Yep I agree that Meep is probably evil and as nightmarish as the Meep looks. A living sun. I'll accept that reference because it's about Martha. Please RTD, reference something OTHER than your era though for this 60th anniversary of the whole show. SEE I TOLD YOU IT WAS A NIGHTMARE CREATURE. "With your weird child." Ah so Beep the Meep is a transphobe too. SEE. SEEEEEE. I WAS RIGHT TO HATE THIS THING. "I'm just passing by" Ok I always liked that line. God I hate this thing. SHE SAID THE DOCTOR. Ok these random Winter Soldier trigger words would have meant more had they actually be put into the show at some point prior to this. Because I have absolutely no memory of any of this besides the repeated "binary binary binary." Donna Noble is descending. Fixing up all the burning caverns like that is nonsense. OK ROSE. OK.

Ok no wait now I'm mad again. At first when the show was in promotions the assumption was that Donna named Rose subconsciously. Because we weren't sure if Yasmin was playing a trans character or not. Then when this episode started I was like "Ok so Rose picked the name Rose by random when she transitioned and it's a coincidence. Fine I'll accept that." but didn't actually put it in the post. And now NO. SHE HAS SOME OF THE METACRISIS IN HER. SO SHE NAMED HERSELF AFTER ROSE. I'm mad all over again. Just let it go RTD2!

Ok the Keep Out on the shed might be a reference to Twelve's sign on his Tardis. Fine. Fine. I'll take that. Glad they didn't zoom in on the Adipose before that. that would have been too obvious. Because the toy is just straight up an Adipose. Also happy 10th birthday to Owen the Adipose plushie I crocheted around this same time. "We're binary." "She's not." "Because the Doctor's male" "And female" "And neither. And more." Ok ok confirmation of the Doctor being non-binary ok. This has been a rollercoaster of me being angry and me being happy. "My father would be impressed, I have no higher compliment" That is VERY true there is not a higher compliment than that. Oh is the episode going to be dedicated to Bernard... Oh and we're getting that Toymaker dude later right? And Rose makes toys. Ok I see why this random Old Who villain is relevant to this story. "Shame you're not a woman anymore, cause she would have understood." True. So they can just... let the time lord energy go... sure I guess? OK THE SIGN BY THE ROBOT THINGS SAYS CYBERDOG. I DIDN'T SEE THAT BEFORE. THEY WERE MEANT TO LOOK LIKE CYBERMEN. I do like Ten being insulted by Shaun saying "But not him." since I do somewhat headcanon Ten as being a bit in love with Donna.

Ok at this point I realized that Tumblr had stopped autosaving this draft around when we saw the Adipose. So let's see if I can even post this last half.

I don't mind this Tardis design. Kind of like One's mixed with Eleven's. Ok the set itself is actually impressive. I like it. Oh Donna. Ew I do not like the breathy Doctor Who theme nope.

No dedication to Bernard at the end. Did we already get something dedicated to him? Or maybe they'll just dedicate the episode he's actually in.

As an episode, it was cute and fun. I think RTD2 needs to take some of his own advice and let it go, specifically the Rose thing.

As a 60th anniversary special... Ok I was glad this episode wasn't just purely RTD era callbacks every other moment. But still, it's an anniversary special. Give me more about all 60 years. Or at least the very least more about the Moffat and Chibnall eras. I guess we'll have to see since all 3 episodes are supposed to be anniversary specials. But for the episode airing closest to the anniversary, I'm disappointed that it didn't feel like an anniversary episode.

Edit: I went to check the cast and at the time it had a 9.2 on IMDB and was above Blink as highest rated episode. It's now down to 8.2 which is more reasonable. But god I'm annoyed at the way some fans have just eaten up all this pandering.

[darephi]

@sunderdust : ❝ can't we just pick flowers and make friendship bracelets? ❞

rachel angles a side-glance at him so dry, it sucks all the moisture out of the air around them. ❝ sure, and after that, why don't we go get our faces painted and all fall asleep in a big cuddle puddle together? ❞ she snorts at the very idea. though she's not seen eye to eye with everyone in their party at one time or another –– hells, the first time she met astarion, he'd suggested killing her to tav –– it's different with inara. perhaps because the aasimar is made of a pure, concentrated evil that has nothing to do with her bhaalist lineage and everything to do with the rotted lump of coal she calls a heart.

and prophecies aside, rachel doesn't need her gift to divine that one way or another, solomon will be left with his broken. she wishes she could scrounge up the appropriate anger on his behalf, but her ire has turned to a weary resignation. how exhausting it is seeing the future before it has even arrived. how tiring to know his choices are all his own, not hers to command –– something his winged lover will never understand.

❝ I don't think so. I can play nice for now, but you'll have to excuse me if I don't want to rub elbows with your gleefully murderous girlfriend, vega. ❞

LIGHTNING THIEF STARTERS : accepting.

[winns-stuff]

LO RANT:

This is from the fastpass preview that I stumbled across but genuinely nobody gives a flying fuck about Hades. Out of everything that this comic has disrespected Leuce with the most insulting out of all of them has to be her lowering her standards for an absolute man child like Hades, there’s nothing inherently attractive about him and the only reason Persephone is so infatuated with him is because of the fact that she’s literally 19 FOREVER and her brain is too underdeveloped to get better taste. But to sit up here and say that Leuce is just so incredibly desperate for Hades of all people when she’s so desired and sought after that the king of all gods deemed her worthy of marrying his brother is absolutely incredibly insulting. If this was realistic no one would be scared of Persephone’s pick me ass, I’m so sick and tired of Lore Olympus making every woman make an absolute fool of themselves over someone as low as Hades, literally any guy would be more worthy than fucking Hades like come on man are you serious?

Anyways, I’m just so over the mistreatment of the nymphs and I’m over people calling this a girl boss move. The fans love to sit up here and say that this is women supporting women but brutalizing women of a lower class and making fun of their mistreatment isn’t something we should deem feminist worthy. Like genuinely why the fuck is anyone applauding this shit? The fact that nymphs are at the gods’ mercy and they’re constantly being degraded, insulted, and abused by the upper class just for existing is sick. I can’t even say that it’s because of greek mythology since the nymphs were at least respected, like you knew the difference between them and their power but they weren’t treated like disposable waste like the nymphs in LO are. The nymphs have to be the only characters in the comic who deserve nothing but love and support from everyone since every chapter seems like a dig at them and it’s getting really awful to watch.

Another thing is the title of the episode. Are you fucking delirious? Leuce is a homewrecker?? How?? Homewrecking is blaming someone for a breakup of either a marriage or relationship because they engaged into an AFFAIR or other things in that matter with the member of the relationship. Unless Rachel is saying that because of Leuce they’re finally breaking up I don’t ever wanna hear about homewrecking ever from Lore Olympus trying to describe a character like that. Quite literally the only legitimate homewrecker in this entire series is Persephone’s ass and no one gives a fuck because the way she did it was “cute” and “pure”, she’s your little cinnamon roll while everyone else who does the exact same thing are evil witches. Which brings up my main point, Leuce barely poses a damn threat this woman is as small as a mouse and not up to anything nefarious, instead of focusing on KRONOS possibly coming back and taking over your ENTIRE kingdom that you’ve only ruled over for a few days you’re worried about some poor confused woman who got led on by your cheating ass husband while you were away. The major reaction is cringe and laughable, you don’t feel angry towards people disrespecting you or stomping on your values but as soon as it’s something with Hades you’re suddenly the biggest bad guy ever, give me a damn tissue. It’s truly sad that this is giving me more of a reason to believe that Persephone has no personality outside of being a “soft wife”, like where are your morals? What the hell do you stand for if you allow shit like this to happen.

This is why I get so angry and upset with Lore Olympus as a whole it’s upsetting seeing this insufferable main character do the most hypocritical shit that another character got dragged through the mud over yet we’re all supposed to clap our hands and put them on the highest pedestals. The fans don’t make it any better either because they survive off of stuff like that, that’s quite literally all they do all the damn time. They just eat up every little thing Persephone or any of the main cast does and enables this shitty behavior to continue because I swear if there was a time where Rachel decided to do something in her story that a massive amount of the fans hated she would never implement it into her story again, but since everyone absolutely loves these two women idiotically fighting over a pathetic man she keeps this stereotype around every other season.

Moral of the story is stop taking the dignity of these women and stop using them as some sort of cover up for your main character being incredibly boring and bland because I know the only reason for Lore Olympus’ demonization of Leuce is because they needed to prove how “much better” Persephone is. How about Persephone takes her red eyes and shove it in the faces of those who actually fucking deserve it instead of acting cowardly and only using it against nymphs because “they’re beneath you” since I have yet to see her have an actual backbone towards anyone deserving of this shit.

[debunkingtherightwing]

Drowning in the Pool; Debunking the December 6th, 2023 Edition of the Tim Pool Daily Show.

From what I know about Tim Pool, he is a generally great source for completely ridiculous and inane takes. Despite seeing people talking about how dumb most of the crap he says is on YouTube, this is my first time listening to the entirety of one of his shows....yay?

I would say that Tim is a step above the Daily Wire on the path to alt-rightness. While he is still alt-lite, as most of the guys we cover on here are are, Tim does things that the Daily Wire wouldn't dare do if only to avoid complete and total embarrassment. He has interviewed Alex Jones, which the Knowledge Fight podcast did an excellent episode on, and regularly spews alt-right talking points...that is when he isn't blatantly contradicting himself.

We are talking about the Daily Show Podcast here as "TimCast IRL" is mostly just him interviewing people and I want to see how Pool stands on his own without anyone else.

Turns out, not so good. While I want to save my full rant for the conclusion, Tim was such a complete and utter dipstick not just from an opinions standpoint but from a journalistic one that he makes the Daily Wire look like the New York Freaking Times. So let's get into it shall we?

01:19: "Last night, Donald Trump spoke with Sean Hannity and there was this tremendous exchange which has the Democrats losing their minds. When asked if he would abuse his power to go after his enemies, Trump said 'Only on day one. After that I'm not a dictator.'"

Ah yes, the "Dictator for a day" remark. I didn't hear Michael Knowles talk about it on his Wednesday show but I'd imagine that Ben Shapiro probably did since he's the guy who usually spends his entire show talking about pure politics instead of culture war drivel like porn turning your kids gay.

Trump has been hinting at abusing his power by getting revenge on his perceived "enemies" for a while now. He recently referred to his political enemies as "vermin", a pretty clear attempt at dehumanizing them in the eyes of his followers. Tim seems to think all this is pretty cool, I'd imagine if Biden said that he'd devote fourteen episodes and three interviews on TimCast to talking about the "evil Democrats".

01:52: "But Hannity was asking Trump 'Will you go after your enemies to get revenge?' and Donald Trump kinda dodged the question but I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that he dodged in just that Trump does what Trump does, I don't view it the same way."

This is the joy of listening to Tim Pool, half the time you cannot understand what the hell he is talking about and to be fair I don't think he does either. So Trump dodged the question but wait, he didn't actually dodge the question because Trump is Trump. What the hell is going on here?!

02:12: "Now, it's important, because a few months ago Rachel Maddow made the claim that Trump literally wants to kill her."

Hey guys, ignore this flagrantly dictator-y claim from Trump, look at this thing Rachel Maddow said!

Rachel Maddow did say that Trump wants to put MSNBC on trial for treason and "execute us". However if you watch the clip, it's clear that she isn't exactly serious about this claim. She says it in a pretty sarcastic and offhand tone as opposed to the cowering and insane woman that Tim is trying to portray.

Also, it wouldn't be shocking if Trump tried to engage in some form of retribution against NBC, he's threatened it before.

04:30: "This is a fundamental problem in the culture war. The right will interpret and translate for Democrats, stop doing that, use their words. It really is annoying, Joe Biden will come out and go (Tim then says gibberish) and people will be like 'We know what he's saying, he was trying to imply this' and it's like, just use his words."

So, according to Tim, every single time a politician makes a verbal gaff we should just take what they say on face value instead of trying to comprehend what they are saying? How does that make any sense?!

And what's more, Tim literally just brushed off Trump's comments about being a dictator for a day as just "Oh that Trump, getting all excited!". What happened to just taking words at face value? Oh wait, I forgot, the rules don't apply to Tim's team. Silly me!

04:55: "But what we're seeing now is that Taylor Swift doesn't like Donald Trump, or at least that's the assumption. So when she said quote 'if she doesn't win at least I tried' they are like 'Aha she hates Trump' and I'm like that statement implies she's trying to help him win, at least."

A): Why are we talking about Taylor Swift?! This has zero to do with the topic at hand. Focus Tim, focus. You're supposedly a journalist so you should know not to mix up two stories.

B): She wasn't even talking about Donald Trump in that clip! It came from a documentary made in 2020 called Miss Americana and the "he" was the democrat running against Senator Marsha Blackburn, meaning she wanted a Democrat to win in the context of this clip and more importantly wasn't even talking about Trump.

So to recap, god-tier journalist Tim Pool just grabbed a clip off the internet without fact-checking it first and just rolled with it on his show.

06:31: "I gotta be honest, if Sean Hannity said 'Would you abuse power?' Trump can be like 'I'm not going to abuse power because I don't need to. I'm going to instruct my attorney general to immediately seek out criminal charges for the people who have committed crimes'. That's not an abuse of power, that is the appropriate use of power, and that is upholding the law. That's what I'd love to hear."

WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE?! I'm not even pissed, I find this hilarious in a depressing way. Not just because Tim is parroting long debunked election denial conspiracy theories and saying that Trump should throw people he thinks helped steal the election in jail, which is terrifying, but because this is awful from a pure journalistic standpoint.

We went from Tim introducing the topic, to Tim talking about the "culture war", to Tim talking about Taylor Swift, and now Tim is basically ranting about his stupid Donald Trump fanfiction. There is absolutely zero focus. At least with the Daily Wire the hosts can focus on one piece of hateful bile at a time. Oh yeah, and at least the Daily Wire pretends to do competent reporting and use rock solid sources. Tim's sources on the other hand are "I saw this video of Taylor Swift on Twitter!"

08:04: "In what world has anyone ever entertained the possibility that Donald Trump wants to put Rachel Maddow on trial for treason, which implies she's aiding and abetting a foreign adversary at a time of war."

First of all, I obviously think that putting journalists on trial for treason is disgusting and, like I said before, Maddow was being facetious.

But...does Tim not know what treason is? Treason isn't just "aiding and abetting a foreign adversary at a time of war", otherwise American's could betray their country during times of peace and get away with it because it isn't a time of war.

The official definition of treason is; “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

So for instance, leaking documents could be viewed as betraying the country. So could trying to overthrow the government, and Tim would know a lot about that since he likes to run cover for insurrectionists.

So either Tim doesn't know what he's talking about or he's misinterpreted the definition of treason, either one is painful to think about when you remember that people take this guy seriously as a news source.

08:56: "Donald Trump getting elected and going after criminals, liars, manipulators, and the corrupt is exactly what we need."

Ignoring the crimes Donald Trump has personally committed, Trump better start going after his own supporters!

Roger Stone is a pretty good example of a corrupt Trump associate, making false statements to congress and threatening Randy Credico with the removal of his service dog. Or how about George Santos, who's lies were so insane that he ended up recently getting thrown out of Congress.

09:07: "Look man, we have a Constitution-"

And judging by your idea of how treason works, you have read none of it.

09:51: "You see, Rachel Maddow is scared, because she knows she's one of the demons."

In between reading the constitution, Tim might have stumbled across this thing called the "First Amendment" that protects the freedom of the press.

We've gone down this road before. OAN tried to sue Maddow for comments she made about them on her show but the court ruled it was just opinion. Thanks to free speech and the freedom of the press, Rachel Maddow is free to express her opinion in the same way Tim Pool is. He's also allowed to criticize her just like how I am allowed to criticize him.

But Trump throwing her in jail for practicing journalism, that's a bridge too far.

13:13: "There are government actors who are working with media outlets. How many pundits for these cable channels are former intelligence officials or worked in the intelligence sector? A lot of them!"

Yeah, citation needed there buddy. You can't just drop "All left wing pundits used to work for the CIA" and not elaborate any further. And no, Tim doesn't give an example with proof of any pundits previously working in the intelligence sector.

I actually think this tops the Michael Knowles blackface episode for sheer ridiculousness. At least Michael did basic-ass shit like citing your sources when you make a claim and managing to keep track of the topic he was talking about. This episode is unintentionally hilarious. It feels like a parody of Tim Pool instead of the real thing.

Hey guys, remember when this was about the Trump dictator comments? I barely do. I was too blindsided by Tim saying that every anti-Trump pundit secretly works for the CI fucking A!

15:02: "I do believe that Trump lost 2020."

What?! Then what was all that crap about how Rachel Maddow is secretly a CIA Agent who intentionally spread misinfo about Trump and how Trump should go after all the "criminals" who helped take the election away from him? Tim is the most election truther-ish believer that Trump lost in human history.

But fine, I agree, Trump did lose 2020. I will take whatever win I can get here.

Tim then talks about how mail in voting messed up the election, so I guess he does believe the election was stolen. Whatever.

19:33: "Young people even saying they're more likely to vote for Trump now, at least in some polls. We're getting some new polls showing that it's actually going towards Biden, but these are different pollsters so we shall see."

Alright, so young people are inclined to vote for Trump, but actually they aren't. Even as pure right-wing propaganda this sucks. Tim contradicted himself and thus undermined his entire argument that the youth are swinging towards Trump in the span of two sentences.

21:13: "I think one thing we should do is remove party affiliation from ballots."

Wait what?!

I literally had to rewind that to make sure I was hearing that correctly and then promptly burst out laughing when I realized my hearing was correct.

But there's more, Tim tries to back this galaxy brained take up.

21:14: "Explain to me why we put party affiliation on ballots in the first place. Seriously, I mean it, comment, let me know. Because I think if you don't know who you're voting for, you shouldn't vote for them."

Well, since Tim wants an explanation, I'll give it to him.

Parties generally hold a certain set of values that voters identify with. For example; Democrats might push for more gun control whereas Republican's might push for less gun control. By putting party affiliation on ballots, it simplifies the voting process and allows people to vote for a candidate that they know will represent their ideals.

While I agree that people should look into their elected officials instead of just blindly checking the box beside their name, their party affiliation also helps give voters a general idea of what they stand for.

Also, if you took party affiliation off of the ballots, chances are people would just look up which party the candidate represents and vote partisanly anyway.

22:02: "If that was the case, people would actually be voting for who they thought should win and other people would vote randomly. Some might argue that whoevers on top would win because people would just vote for the first person. OK, the ballots can randomly align the names. I think this would result in Republicans winning."

So....people wouldn't be voting for who they think should win, they would vote randomly. But don't worry, that's ok because they can just scatter the names on the ballots and that will somehow lead to Republican's winning forever.

...

WHAT ARE WE-

22:27: "Because Democrat voters don't know anything and it's the ballot harvesting where they're like 'fill this out and vote for this person.' Now they could certainly do that still but a lot of this stuff is vote Democrat, vote Democrat, imagine if they had to refine this message and say 'Vote John Doe, Jane Doe, Jack Doe' in every district.

So essentially Tim's point is that Democrats will vote randomly because they don't know anything but voting Democrat. However I can think of a bunch of people who would be inclined to vote Democrat for really good reasons.

LGBTQ+ people would be inclined to vote Democrat because the Democrats have a more progressive stance on LGBTQ rights. Women who are concerned about their reproductive rights and abortion would be inclined to vote for the Democrats because they are firmly pro-choice. People who are concerned about gun safety would be inclined to vote Democrat because the Democrats want to reduce gun violence.

Also, does Tim want party affiliation to be removed during elections period and then when the person is elected they go "Surprise! Here's my affiliation"? Because it sure sounds like he does.

Even if party affiliation is taken off the ballots, it stands to reason that politicians would still campaign as Democrats instead of focusing it on "voting for Jack Doe" or whatever. And again, that info would still be up on the internet for anyone to find.

This makes absolutely no sense.

23:25: "But, for the time being lets stay focused on whether or not Trump is going to execute Rachel Maddow."

Tim is so insanely lost in the weeds here. The Maddow stuff was a sub-topic of Trump's dictator for a day comments which is supposedly what this segment is about and is also what the episode is titled after.

Make like a Ford and focus!

The segment ends about 30 seconds later, but the Tim Pool Daily Show podcast is an hour and a half of Tim's YouTube videos stitched together into one Frankenstein's monster of a show.

That first segment as we established was pretty damn bad. Tim was all over the place, contradicted himself a couple times, said batshit crazy things like that all left-wing political pundits used to work at the CIA, grabbed random misinformation from Twitter and reported it as news, and got some hilariously stupid takes about the election.

But hey, we've still got an hour left. Maybe Tim Pool was just having a bad day when he made that video, maybe Tim will swoop in and blow me away with his ingenious political takes in the next segment. After all, he is viewed as a valid source of news for the 1.35M people who subscribe to him, surely there must be some merit to what he says...right?

25:08: "When it comes to the issues that we're seeing at Harvard, UPen, and MIT where Elise Stefanik asked these representatives at these universities if calling for the genocide of Jews warranted bullying and harassment."

So, this story is making shockwaves through the right-wing grifter-sphere and all of them are misrepresenting the question, most likely just how Stefanik intended. The question was as follows;

"Dr. Kornbluth, at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT’s code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment? Yes or no?"

The answer was as follows;

"If targeted at individuals not making public statements."

This is a loaded question. The universities bullying and harassment policies and really the general definition of harassment are that the act must be targeted at a specific person. This isn't about what their opinions are, this is about what the policy says!

Also, while I don't doubt that there have been instances of antisemitism on campus, portraying every single protestor as calling for the genocide of Jews is completely loaded. If Stefanik can give an example of an entire protest group calling for the genocide of Jews, I would love to see it! They are also ignoring that if such a group did exist they would be violating a litany of other rules and policies, just not this specific one that Stefanik has cherrypicked to create outrage.

By the way, considering that Stefanik is a big fan of Donald Trump who has a long history of antisemitism, she has zero right to call anyone else antisemetic.

27:04: "However, the woke left made the argument that they should be allowed to censor anyone and this brings us to the story and what I view as a major strike into the heart of the hypocrisy of wokeness."

First of all, Tim isn't being censored, he just isn't. I have yet to see one of these guy realize the total irony of them going onto their large platforms with millions of viewers and whine about being "censored".

Secondly, does Tim even know what the word "woke" means anymore? It's kind of just became his catch-all term for the political left to the point where it has lost all of it's meaning outside of "Left bad, get angry".

At the end of the day, Tim has boiled the conflict in the Middle East down to another piece of his culture war bullshit, and that's pretty ghoulish behavior.

28:48: "These other universities, they will silence the moderate opinions of, say, conservatives, they will ban people from speaking, they will shut you down and then when it comes to people attacking quite literally someone for being Jewish they will say it's 'context dependent'."

Conservatives really aren't being censored at universities. How about the multiple speaking engagements that Ben Shapiro and Co at the Daily Wire do at universities where they perform speeches and then "destroy" college kids who aren't prepared to handle their rhetoric? Same thing with Turning Point USA.

Also, for the last time, the protestors aren't calling for the death of all Jews.

30:26: "They're fascistic, they believe there's no truth but power, they want to impose their view through authoritarian means."

When Trump says he literally wants to be a dictator it's "Trump being Trump", when students exercise their right to protest "Oh my God, look at how fascist they are." Tim is a complete and utter hypocrite.

Also, might I remind you that Tim pals around with Matt Walsh who is literally a self proclaimed theocratic fascist and an old favorite to debunk here at Talking Points USA.

30:50: "So I read an academic paper about the economics of Nazi Germany and guess what they used to enforce their economic plan; cancel culture. That's it."

The Nazi's blacklisting, killing, and shunning people for not supporting a literal genocide is extremely different from people getting criticism over saying slurs and general bad behavior. Also, again, why are we talking about cancel culture now? Weren't we supposed to be talking about what is going on at universities?

I can't figure out if this is some sort of strategy Tim uses to distract his viewers from how flimsy his points are or if he is just naturally that rambly.

30:56: "What would happen is if you are a steel mill and you wanted to produce steel for cars or something you would get people coming to you like 'Hey man, I heard you aren't helping the war effort' and then they would ostracize you, shun you, and cancel you. Nobody would wanna work with you, nobody would wanna buy your product, you'd be forced to bend the knee and produce and produce the product they wanted you to produce. Kind of like what we see with DEI movies."

So we have producing tanks and producing slightly more inclusive movies. I kind of think that the stakes with one are higher than the other.

I don't see how a film company interpreting a film differently for more modern audiences is such a big deal. The original Snow White cartoon was radically different from the original Grimm Fairytale because THAT audience probably wouldn't want to see cannibalism and a woman dancing in red hot slippers until she died a brutal death. How is changing it now any different?

Tim then plays the MIT bullying and harassment clip. I honestly came so close to forgetting that this was what Tim Pool was talking about. We already talked about this so there's not much need to repeat ourselves. Tim then waxes poetic for two minutes about the nature of free speech, nothing particularly important there, just Tim saying a whole lot of nothing. Then this happens;

41:24: "Most Conservatives and most Liberals would agree on certain things that cross the line into targeting someone with harassment and it's not just calling someone a name, it's typically-well I shouldn't say the left-"

If you think I am misinterpreting that quote, go to the time stamp I provided and hear it for yourself....oops. In case you aren't following along; Tim accidentally admitted that he knows the left knows what crosses the line into harassment then proceeded to backtrack and correct himself on air then proceed to just run with it as if it never happened.

And he doesn't go any further on "well I shouldn't say the left", he just goes on with his sentence! I suppose if you aren't listening to this show critically, which most of Tim Pools fanbase probably isn't because otherwise they would have turned it off during the ballot affiliation nonsense, it is easy to miss. But it is both hilarious and telling if you do catch it.

Considering that Tim's show is mostly YouTube, he could easily cut embarrassing shit like this out and save himself the face of looking like a complete doofus. And yet here we are.

43:08: "I think shining a light on this speech is the most important way to combat it."

If that's the case, I'd like to see the video of the hoards of university students calling for the death to all Jews.

46:46: "I had this conversation with someone recently and I said this, listen. People talk about white privilege, let's talk about white privilege."

I am so exasperated right now. So, Tim's point is essentially that white privilege doesn't exist (which might I add follows up three minutes of him basically saying that he isn't a racist in twelve different ways) and he goes about explaining why this is by telling this anecdote about him telling someone else an anecdote and *sigh*, let's just let Tim explain it.

46:53: "Let's say you go to a job interview and you wanna get a job at a bank and you show up wearing a dago tee and baggy jeans and sneakers and you walk in, you've got a sideways cap and you're like 'Yo whatsup dude. I think I could work your bank pretty good man' (Tim says this in what I think was his attempt at a stereotypical black accent) they're gonna be like 'I don't know if that's the right job for you', right. The people in the banks, they wear suits."

Ok, pause for a minute. What exactly do you think the likelihood is that anyone, minority or otherwise, would wear a dago tee and sneakers to a bank and proceed to say "I think I could work your bank pretty good man" to the manager?! I guarantee you that has never happened once, people are smart enough to know to dress up if you're going to try and apply to work at a bank.

I mean yeah, in this strawman universe Tim has constructed for his audience it would make sense for the bank manager to turn this hypothetical guy down. However what Tim is implying here is that all minorities stroll into job interviews poorly dressed and speak in stereotypical "hood" lingo and that's why the system tends to exclude minorities, if they just learned to act more polished (read; White) they'd be fine!

What Tim is ignoring is that even when minorities do try, the data shows that they still aren't getting ahead compared to whites. Here is a really interesting study about discrimination if you want to read further.

47:49: "It's not about race, it's not about language, it's about 'are you here to work with us? Are you gonna be a good worker? Are you gonna be able to help and cooperate and be part of a team?' Those things matter and culture matters. So when that guy walks in slouching (and) wearing street clothes, it doesn't matter what your race is."

Well, if you look at the numbers it clearly does. For example, the study I mentioned found that African Americans are twice as likely to be unemployed as whites.

Tim then switches to his next segment, it's about the border tensions between Venezuela and Guyana. Most of the beginning portion is just Tim reading about what the situation is so we can comfortably skip over that. Tim thinks this will lead to WW3 because if war breaks out and the US gets involved the USA will be involved in three wars. Given all the wars in the middle east America has gotten involved in, by Tim's logic we would have been in WW3 a long time ago.

Warning for this next part: Tim decides to (surprise, surprise) be a massive transphobic bully in this next segment. I you're not comfortable with that, I totally get you, I barely am either. Feel free to click off and I'll see you in the next one!

1:00:03: "Dylan Mulvaney recently spoke at Penn State and nobody showed up."

Absolutely nobody outside of these reactionary media outlets that want to mock Dylan because she is transgender is talking about this because who cares?

A speaker didn't draw a huge crowd, so what? She's still getting paid at the end of the day and it looks like the folks who did come had fun.

Also, it's exam season! I would imagine that part of the reason why there weren't very many people is because most students are studying for or writing finals.

1:00:29: "This is exemplified by Bud Light sales continuing to decline."

We're still talking about this stupid story huh? If you haven't heard of this story, it essentially boils down to Bud Light hiring Dylan Mulvaney to do a promotion and the entire right wing collectively throwing a bigoted tantrum over it because Dylan is trans and boycotting the brand.

Eagle eyed viewers might be thinking to themselves "Wait, didn't Tim decry this exact thing earlier in the episode?" Well, just to refresh everyone's memory, here is exactly what Tim said!

"What would happen is if you are a steel mill and you wanted to produce steel for cars or something you would get people coming to you like 'Hey man, I heard you aren't helping the war effort' and then they would ostracize you, shun you, and cancel you. Nobody would wanna work with you, nobody would wanna buy your product, you'd be forced to bend the knee and produce and produce the product they wanted you to produce"

What Tim claims to hate is exactly what he is doing here. Cancelling a company because they dared to have a transgender person in their ads. And yet apparently it's the woke left ™ who is doing all the cancelling. This story is a great example of how painfully hypocritical guys like Matt Walsh, Tim Pool, and Steven Crowder are. One minute they are all about the free market and how they hate cancel culture but the second a company decides to act more excepting towards a marginalized group that they don't like they become everything they claim to hate, a bunch of whiny snowflakes whining about a commercial that doesn't even effect their lives.

01:01:28: "But I think what we are looking at is a warning to the American people and to parents about what these machines will do."

Oh, heaven forbid we have a transgender person on the internet with a sizeable following. It can't be because of her content, it's got to be the algorithm! Seriously, do these guys just think about trans people 24/7?! I have trans friends who I guarantee you think about trans people less than these guys do.

01:01:50: "What we are looking at with Dylan Mulvaney is the story of an individual desperate for attention and the machine plugged Dylan Mulvaney in, that's it. Then you've got sideshow gawkers, carnival goers, who wanted to egg on an individual who was influenceable and suffering, and that's what they did."

I highly HIGHLY object to Tim's indirect comparison of transgender people to circus freaks. Also, this is obviously not true. I went on Instagram and looked at the comments on her most recent post and most were really positive and supportive.

01:02:24: "I don't believe Dylan Mulvaney is trans, I believe Dylan Mulvaney is getting surgeries that make Dylan Mulvaney fit a cast or a character."

First of all, downplaying somebodies sexuality by saying they are just "playing a character" is a nasty thing to do.

Second of all, what the hell is up with Tim using Dylan's full name all the time? Just say "she", come on, it's not that hard.

Tim then rants about how he has "more influence" than Dylan does and how his events sell out more, just basic immature "I'm bigger than you, nyanyanyanya." shit. Then he drops this gem.

01:07:16: "What if, there actually are no followers? What if the reality is that Dylan Mulvaney is mostly followed by bots and they're not real people?"

So a majority of 10 million people are bots?! She's clearly met a lot of her fans in person, a fair amount of them have posted about meeting her, hell three of my friends who I know in person follow her and one regularly comments. Plus she has a reasonable amount of merch which her fans have posted pictures of them wearing!

Do I sense a twinge of jealousy in Tim regarding followers? "Yeah, I have 9 million less followers than you but guess what?! Your followers are all BOTS while mine are real, ha!"

01:09:00: "We take a look at the average turnaround, or conversion, for a view on other shows compared to ours."

Careful throwing the c-word around Tim. Michael Knowles might accuse you of planting subliminal messages in TimCast to turn people gay.

01:11:21: "AOC makes shocking claim that all schoolgirls will be forced to undergo genital examinations if biological men are barred from woman's sports."

This quote is being taken out of context by Tim Pool and other reactionaries on the right. What actually happened was that she responded to Goss Graves who said "It's terrible, in some states any individual can challenge whether someone is a girl enough to play. In some states, it requires actual genital verification, it's shocking."

AOC responded by saying "Under the guise of not only trying to further marginalize trans women and girls, we are talking about opening up all women and girls to genital examinations when they are underage, potentially just because someone can point to someone and say, ‘I don’t think you’re a girl."

So right out of the gate, this isn't some unprompted thing that came completely out of left field like Tim is saying. AOC was responding to something Graves said.

It's not like what she is saying isn't without merit either. Ohio attempted to advance a trans sports ban with genital examinations, thankfully the genital examinations were later removed (although the bill itself is still transphobic and discriminatory so not too thankfully).

01:12:21: "I would like to introduce Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to something called a physical."

Again, she was responding to what Graves said about genital examinations and pointing out the slippery slope that trans sports bans can lead up to. Physicals weren't a part of the initial conversation, the conversation was about genital examinations.

Also, if it's a trans female who is suspected of being a "biological male", a physical could turn into a genital examination really quickly.

01:14:18: "So there are trans people, children, who are getting their birth certificates changed."

Yes, you can amend your gender to your preferred one on a birth certificate. I don't see how this is a bad thing, unless you're like Tim Pool and don't believe that trans people actually exist (and even if they do they are completely invalid and undeserving of the right to have their sexuality respected).

This is also only tenuously related to the topic at hand which is that out of context AOC quote. I am slowly coming to the realization that Tim's general lack of focus is probably a conscious decision. Blindside your audience by hopping from topic to topic in order to distract them from how completely without merit what you are saying is.

01:17:15: "AOC is claiming that trans people are criminals. That's right, that's what she's saying. She's saying that if we say that males should not be on female sports that the males will lie and cheat anyway."

Or, that more masculine females would be subject to genital investigations because the authorities would suspect them of being transgender. Castor Semenya is a prime example of this.

01:19:51: "Democrats are evil."

Can't get much more hatemonger-ey than calling an entire political affiliation evil just because of some quote on politician said that is being taken out of context. Isn't this guy supposed to be a centrist or something?

Conclusion:

Well, that was...an episode of a podcast. Ignoring allll the other dumb stuff that happened in this podcast, this was some of the most genuinely terrible journalism I have seen ever. From reporting on tweets with blatant misinfo in them to painful lack of focus to some of the dumbest takes I have covered for this blog so far this was one of the most painful yet fascinating things I have covered here.

I am both excited and dreading to cover more Tim Pool but other people and things need our attention first. We'll be dipping our toes into a new soon to be recurring grift-er-character on this blog next.

Until then, if you have any other suggestions for a right wing figure who you would like to see debunked/made fun of on the blog, I'd love to hear it.

Cheers and I'll see you in the next one.