#The issue for Bastion isn’t really that they had sex

[sombruhmoment]

the correct ‘hottest character’ tier list

not actually please dont yell at me

E: Unavailable for ranking

Hammond + Winston; Animals

Bastion + Orisa + Echo; Naive, ‘childlike’ robots that just are not attractive.

D: Hot only to very specific people

Widow; My issue with Widow is she’s basic. I’ve seen this dozens of times. Her hotness is artificial - everything about her to shove in your face her hotness, and unless you’re a very meek lesbian or a weird creepy dude, she just isn’t that hot. She’s a gimmick. If she was more professional and less for show, she’d be higher.

Tracer; Yorkshire terrier. She’d be a great s/o and friend, but she’s not exactly hot. She’s plain jane. Only especially hot to very Jane Austen lesbians and again, weird creepy dudes. 

Mercy; Boring. She doesn’t really have much personality in the media she shows up in beyond ‘angel’ and ‘tired’. The latter is the smallest portion of her character, but the most embraced. This is why she’s only hot in the fan portrayals of her in fic or art. She’s too plain and basic to be more than conventionally attractive.

Junkrat; He just ain’t, dude. Unless he’s your type, he isn’t hot. His personality doesn’t lend to his sex appeal, either. Very specific taste needed.

Mei; Only if you’re a butch lesbian or an even weirder dude. Very plain, but the body shape rep is nice. Her personality is probably only attractive if you’re into the same interests as her, or are familiar with your interests being shut down. This relationship will be a lot of gushing about fun science facts and god dang, you go you funky butch lesbians. Still not hot. 

C: Boring + bad idea

Brig; She has a hotness factor from the muscles. She still is not hot because she is so plain. She is white bread incarnate. Her personality of sweet, ‘girl-next-door’ is appealing for a relationship, but she just isn’t that hot aside from her buffness. 

Sigma; He’s often cited as one of the hotter guys, but is he, or do you just like the idea of cosmic horror? Is he hot, or do you want to be a monsterf*cker without actually commiting? He’s a traumatized Grandpa. He’s like an old, white man Mei. I’d go to the park with him and feed ducks. I would not canoodle.

Ashe; Like Widow, but more professional. She’s still boring, but at least the outfit makes her have some intrigue. Her story has the potential to make her more interesting, but let’s be real, she was only made as an attempt to stop the McHanzo shippers. 

D.va; She’s fine. She’s just a young adult. Nothing much to say. Blizzard really wants you to think she’s hot, though.

Hanzo; Look. This man, no matter when you approach him, is in a crisis. Before meeting Genji, he’s stuck in the past. After, he’s gone full white girl reinvention. I wouldn’t be surprised if your hookup was a rebound. If you canoodle him, there will be strings attached. He will call you afterwards and ask if you happened to find one of his nipple piercings in your sheets. You’ll get text messages asking if you want to smoke a joint. He has no skill in this. Until he goes to therapy, wide berth. He’s hot, but the consequences and implications outweigh the good time. 

B: A lil spice to ‘em

Torb; The personality is there. He’s a dilf. He’s a serious, but not without humor, haunted man who loves his family dearly. He gets made into a joke, but guys, this man would be a fan favorite if he wasn’t short. 

Ana; She’s adopted the Grannie personality, which knocks her down a bit, but Ana is hot even as an older woman. Not my cup ‘a joe, but she oozes sarcasm and confidence. Also, strikes fear into the rich and corrupt? Hot. 

Genji; He’s Hanzo, but after therapy. He’s got his ish together. He’ll treat you right. It’ll be the best relationship you’ve ever had because he’s so good at communication. But this isn’t about relationships. He’s hot because he’s vanilla. He’s a simple guy - and lets face it, a bottom. One of the plainer options, but still has some appeal to him with his maturity.

Zarya; Buff woman. Hot. Her personality isn’t for everyone, and her racism is...ugh...but c’mon. Look at her biceps. Look at them.

Moira; Will experiment on you in more ways than you expect. Androgynous, David Bowie. Not for the faint of heart. You’re definitely a lesbian or a femboy. Hot for her evilness. Not so hot for her nails. Not a good idea. Be careful.

Reinhardt; Big grandpa man. A gentle soul. Very loud. He’s hot for his confidence and voice. But, again, sooner feed ducks with him than anything else.

A: Hot

Sombra; Evil, intelligent, mischievous woman who is always one step ahead? Hot.

Doomfist; You are lying to yourself if you think he isn’t attractive. Jerk? No question. But listen to his voice. He’s classy, humorous, and very nicely muscled. Do not pursue a relationship under any circumstance, but look all you’d like. 

Zen; Like Genji, but hotter because of the inherent controversy of canoodling a monk. 

Soldier; Raspy voice, nice bone structure, haunted past, beefy but not too beefy. Kinda basic, but still appealing. 

Roadhog; Voice. Voice. Voice. This man is hot. You are a coward. Dad bod x 10. 

Lucio; Anarchist, fights corps, very kind and sweet. Lean muscle and fierce. Gentle and plays with kids. Cutie.

S: Hottest

Baptiste; Beefy, has some cake, romantic flirt, will take C A R E of you and make you breakfast. Look at him. Haunted past, muscles, nice voice, you KNOW he takes care of his nails and hygiene. Not just a good night, marry this man. Someone else will if you don’t. Hottest character in Overwatch.

McCree; Voice, dad bod, tanned, probably smells like smoke and sand. He’s a sweetie, but has some edge to him. A nice middle ground between Hot Evil and Hot Cute. Beard is definitely scratchy. 

Pharah; Buff woman with a nice voice, cute sense of humor, and sense of loyalty and responsibility? Like a female Baptiste. Go get the ring. Now. 

Reaper; Haunted past, claws, monster/inhuman, and that voice. Don’t pursue relationship. Casual meetups? Sure. Do not catch feelings, this isn’t a Wattpad story and you are not y/n, you will not change him.

Symmetra; She’s kinda confused but she has a good heart, good voice, and very nice legs. She’s dripping charisma and confidence, look at her. You are below her and that is quite an enjoyable experience. Would be a decent s/o, would have a lot to learn but she’d try her best. 

[okay-victoria]

Status of Women in The Empire

Summary: LN gives some evidence women have a better status than they did in OTL Germany. It gives little to nothing in the way of evidence that we are in post-sexual-revolution territory. It presents little enough evidence generally that you can use this issue in your own story as you wish; however, using how humans actually work as your baseline, it would be a very definite handwave to think that gender equality is much more than marginally better than OTL would have been at the time, or that Tanya wouldn’t be negatively affected by it in some significant ways in daily life. On the other hand, the original story handwaves an eight year old enrolling in a modern military and getting promoted to a mid-ranking officer by age eleven, so as a reader, I’m obviously pretty down for handwaving some realism for the sake of a good story.

Evidence:

V1/C1

“The armed forces have a practical exception in place for just about everything.” <= I think in fanon the entire Empire as seen as this sort of “everything we do is logical” territory where gender discrimination would have had to be eliminated, but in reality it’s presented as the military, and they are making an exception for a rare and incredibly militarily useful type of person to be able to be put to use by them without gender discrimination stopping it.

V1/C4

“But in the far-from-gender-free world of “ladies first,” Tanya with her outwardly girlish appearance is, albeit only relatively, blessed compared to the other students” <= YMMV, but I would not describe modern society as a world of “ladies first”. Do people do/say it to hark back to pre-1960s chivalry? Sure. Is it really the standard we live by anymore? Not so much. Tanya seems to pretty definitely still be living in those days.

“Basically, apart from the mage branch, the army is a man’s world. Actually, even most of the mages are men.” <= this is notable because it is said when Tanya is in War College, at which point the war has been going on for long enough that available mages have been conscripted, so there is no selection bias that men have simply chosen to pursue a career as a mage more often than women. This is actually weirdly important because it either means:

Magic talent is like, an X chromosome trait and men are thus more likely to have it [in which case, it would probably be taken as natural evidence that men are superior and worsen the gender equality situation]; or

There in fact is a Youjo Konki-esque exception for married women and/or mothers. A nation has to still be relatively in the infancy of gender equality if Female Mage #102 has children with Infantryman #1,000,102 and the military decides that since it can’t leave these children parentless, it has to conscript the dude who is substitutable for literally anyone else and not the human weapon.

Tanya has a long-ish reflection on women in the military. Important points are, the rules have only been overhauled recently to make it practical for women to serve in combat. Women in combat didn’t really exist prior to this war, and women in the military were basically limited to noble/imperial families having their daughters serve out nominal duties. Whatever boost women as a whole get from serving in a capacity that people are used to seeing men in, it has not had time to transform society all that much.

V2/C2

“Women administrators are not uncommon, but in the Empire where gender equality still has a ways to go, their qualifications are always questioned.” <= YMMV as to what degree this is meant to be a statement on something that still troubles women in modern times, or something that indicates gender equality is not particularly close to modern.

V2/C5

“After all, now that I’ve been turned into a girl, I’m faced with this annoying military framework where men are superior. Just the thought of my promotions being blocked by an invisible glass ceiling is enough to dampen any desire I might have to act all girlish for propaganda…apart from that, the Empire’s personnel system has adapted extremely meritocratic principles for the war, in a way, so I’m more or less satisfied with it.” <= sort of same as above, YMMV on whether this is just Tanya realizing what life is like for a woman in modern society or meant as a “no, it was worse” point.

However, I will say this: I highly, highly doubt any men chosen for high military honors were photographed doing anything other than looking ultra manly in uniform. Women serving in modern militaries are not forced to put on showy dresses when they get their photos taken, they are treated, at least in photos, with the same respect as their male colleagues. The fact that anyone found it appropriate to only photograph the recipient of the highest military honor in cute girl clothes speaks to some deep discomfort with anyone outside the military seeing women not doing what they’re supposed to.

V6/C6

“The Imperial Army has already tapped all the population pools that can be mobilized, but it still has two options. One is to begin the general conscription of women. That said, they’ve already been mobilized in the industrial sector.” <= YMMV, again, on how willing a modern country would be to conscript women to fight a world war, but if you are as deep into a world war as the Empire is and no one’s trying it, at the least we can say the Empire is not the bastion of cold logic it fanonically is outside the military. Also, it pretty much seems like women working in large numbers has only become a thing because all the guys are off fighting, which very much sticks us in pre-1950s territory.

V8/C1

Andrew reacts surprised to see a female reporter from the Federation, and reflects that they are quite liberal in some ways <= while this is a non-Imperial guy, given his familiarity with the Empire, it would seem weird that if the Empire was particularly more advanced than his country that he would still be so surprised.

Other Working Knowledge Your Author Has On This Subject:

Women serving in the military, while certainly helpful to the cause of gender equality, by itself is not going to create a broad-based transformation in society. That sounds a bit like saying: As we all know, the US dropped any racist laws or regulations as soon as we started allowing non-white units in the military. After Elizabeth I serving as the Ruler of England, a very manly role that her tiny woman-brain didn’t fuck up too bad, the people who thought women were naturally stupider than men were quickly relegated to the margins and gender discrimination mostly became more of an annoyance than a real hindrance to the average woman’s goals. It just doesn’t work that way. And I’m not here to say that the US is a post-gender paradise, but the US, which has never had a woman president and is pretty slow about expanding military opportunities for women, nonetheless is a lot better on the gender equality front than some countries that have had women leaders and allow women a fuller range of military opportunities. There’s a lot more complexity to it than: My country respects military => military allows women => guess I’m going to stop being sexist

The same goes for something that isn’t about gender equality at large but how it relates to Tanya: The view that while gender equality may be non-advanced, Tanya specifically is exempt from dealing with it because she is “one of the boys”. It Does Not Work Like That. At All. And the further you go back in time, the less it worked like that. Within the military specifically Tanya will probably be alright, but society at large punishes men & women that break gender roles as brazenly as she does more than it rewards them. This is an entire essay unto itself, Google is your friend.

This is going to sound silly and facetious but I’m being dead serious, from what little we know of fashion in the YS world, it matches what would have been the case in the real world in the WW1 era. If society at large was really that different, that wouldn’t be the case.

There is no canon evidence that magic has made any scientific advancements outside the military sphere of influence. Before the advent of things like dishwashers, vacuums, microwaves, especially refrigerators, and especially laundry machines being common household items, the ideal family model was: one person makes money outside home, one person takes care of house. There wasn’t enough time in the day to work and run a household. Many women in poor households had to work, generally at the expense of being able to keep their own household running smoothly, and even then they often worked in capacities that allowed them to be at home or ones that allowed them the flexibility to take care of some of this stuff. It really just isn’t possible to have a society remotely approaching equality when one gender is automatically assigned to home unless necessary.

Same goes for something else - contraception. Women having access to a contraceptive device that they control is a major component of setting a society on a path towards equality. Birth control pills didn’t become widely available until the 1960s. Without being unable to at least kind of balance the outcome of sex (even between married couples) between men and women, women as a class have a hard time escaping from the housewife-mother archetype.

Not to get too political here, but the Empire matches OTL Germanic-Prussianness too much to ignore. Living under a military-worshipping, religiously-inclined traditional monarchy has not, in any real life example I’m aware of, gone hand-in-hand with anything other than a fairly conservative and patriarchal society, and I feel like the burden of proof is on the other side to explain why that isn’t the case in the Empire, and our original author makes approximately zero effort to do this.

Being X turns Tanya into a woman for the purpose of making her life worse. It seems simply illogical [although I guess Being X’s decision-making skills are questionable] that he would then drop her into a world that had undergone broad-based gender reform instead of a world that was just barely tweaked from our own in such a way that it would allow Tanya to serve in the military.

My conclusion: the most likely option is that gender equality is exactly enough better as it needs to be to allow the military to convince the lawmakers that they should be able to use a very rare & dangerous ability to be part of their arsenal without respect to gender, or age, and no more. That difference is not likely to make life for women significantly better than it was in the equivalent OTL time period.

[sapphixxx]

so whats up with your poly stuff now? i get the feeling that you're not into it anymore

I’m not really into it anymore. I don’t have any judgment against it, I think it’s a perfectly fine and legitimate way of approaching relationships. But in my relationships and in a lot of the relationships I saw while I was into the community, I noticed a lot of issues that come up in polyamory that don’t often get addressed very well. None of these issues are unique to polyamory, but they do express themselves in unique ways in poly relationships. And because of the insular nature of the community, a lot of the time it gets written off as “oh well they’re just doing it wrong” without addressing how certain attitudes and behaviors are really widespread and not contained to just certain individuals.

Like, let’s talk about “one penis policies”, where a man restricts his girlfriend from dating anyone with a penis because he finds it too threatening to his sense of ownership over her. Or the general widespread biphobia where it’s always assumed that a person’s m/f partnership must always take priority as the most important and legitimate, and any gay relationships either partner might partake in are purely playing around and hold no weight. Even in Seattle, the supposed queer feminist bastion of the PNW, I repeatedly encountered these attitudes. It got to the point where I just stopped trying to date women who were in relationships with men, because inevitably the man would try and sabotage our relationship. 

Even outside of particularly egregious examples like that, though, I found a lot of things that led to unhealthy relationships are really common. Like, there’s this trap that a lot of people fall into where they’re in a relationship that doesn’t make them happy, but why break up? After all, you can always just date another person to get all the things you’ve been wanting, so you get the best of both worlds! But relationships aren’t like equipment in an MMO, they’re not something you can mix and match to maximize benefits from. Treating them that way does a disservice to everyone involved. Like, a really common example I saw were married couples whose sex life had more or less died, so one of them started dating other people to have sex with. Which inevitably led to one of two conclusions. Either the new partner was purely seen as a sex dispenser and didn’t receive the full respect and commitment that you’d expect from an equitable partnership, or the person got really attached to the new partner and started devoting more time and energy into that relationship than their marriage. Either way someone was getting shafted and disrespected.

A lot of this comes down to the fact that you can’t intellectualize sex or break it off entirely from an emotional connection. Even if you just have a casual sexual relationship with someone, you’re still devoting emotional energy towards fostering trust between the two of you, and are building at least a level of trust and companionship that you feel comfortable making yourself vulnerable with them. It may not necessarily be a romantic partnership, but it’s still a relationship that takes commitment and energy. If your partner is running off to have sex with someone else, that is necessarily an act of them putting their commitment and energy elsewhere. That is a value neutral statement. It is neither good nor bad. It’s just something to be grappled with, and the fact of the matter is, most couples I’ve met do not possess the level of emotional intelligence and communication skills necessary to balance those commitments and areas of energy expenditure in an equitable way that leaves everyone feeling well cared for.

For example, when I was dating one of my exes, she was dating three or four other women at the same time. That alone did not bother me. What did bother me was feeling like an afterthought compared to these other women, and knowing she wouldn’t ever fully commit to me. I never felt like her girlfriend, I was just someone she fucked around with when she wanted some excitement. She was clearly distracted by the number of people she was dating, and didn’t have the space in her calendar necessary to devote time and attention to us equally. Then when she got overwhelmed and wanted to be single again, she broke it off with me over email.

Unfortunately, many people pursue polyamory because they have a habitual inability to commit. They see this as a way to have their cake and eat it too--to be able to keep a partner in reserve for when they want them, but to also be free to enjoy the thrill and chase of dating new people.

We have wants and needs that need to be addressed by our partner. If a partner isn’t responsive to those things, the way to fix it isn’t to date another person. The only way that gets fixed is by doing some hard work to make your existing relationship into something mutually satisfying, or to seriously consider breaking up. Polyamory works best when it’s pursued by people who are already in stable, healthy relationships where everyone’s needs are getting met. Trying to balance multiple dysfunctional relationships just magnifies those dysfunctions.

And again I’ll reiterate, none of this is unique to polyamory. Polyamory didn’t cause any of these problems. Polyamory is value neutral. For those who can make it work, it’s very good, and I’m glad for them. I have many friends who have multiple partners where everyone is a source of joy and support for each other. For those who can’t make it work, however, it just magnifies problems and ends up hurting multiple people at once. As a whole I think most people aren’t well suited to making it work. But, take my opinion with a healthy grain of salt. I’ve had a lot of bad experiences that have left me very cynical about relationships in general.

[swampgallows]

i know people are criticizing the medium article but im gonna say that the weird detectable undercurrent of sexual energy throughout stebebn univernse is 90% of the reason i absolutely could not get into it. i thought i was probably being too hypervigilant or sensitive or whatever but im kind of relieved that someone else said something about it. i mean, i know i AM more sensitive to it because im so staunchly ambivalent-to-repulsed by sexual media, but part of the reason for that is also because i have been so virulently exposed to a deluge of it as a preteen/teenager and throughout my life that i am trained to see where it is slipped in. 

ive borne witness countless times to the exact methodology rule34 creators use to ride the line between fetish and fan art or to infuse sinister messages into childrens media. having been groomed as a child, i am the end product of what happens when people are allowed to unleash these experiments. i see the threads where they groupthink together how to circumvent censors while also, for lack of a better word, dogwhistling their exact intentions in their ‘work’. shit like “she looks 10 but she’s actually 10,000 years old!” is just the tip of the iceberg.

i dont mind cartoons or media that look into exploring difficult or mature themes, especially if they revolve around consent or awkwardness with the subject or ‘not being ready’ or anything like that, and it’s okay (and imperative in fact) that kids be aware of that but 1. the emphasis on the inevitability and pleasure of ‘going through with it’ is terrifying and 2. why do they have to literally be prepubescent and 3. if youre gonna be super mature cool progressive cartoon then be upfront about it and call it what it is, or be more direct, instead of hiding it behind these subtle-but-not allusions that altogether just become more confusing than helpful. and i know this is hard to get past the censors, but im not just referring to sex stuff

i’m not even involved in estebans universario and i still remember the fucking shitload of discourse surrounding lapis??? and jasper, and how people couldnt decide whether or not the relationship was abusive, couldnt decide whether or not the decisions made were correct, who was manipulating who, and shit like that. and to me if your fans, especially adult fans, have zero concrete takeaway from you “tackling” those subjects, then how the fuck are children supposed to interpret it in a helpful way? 

i know irl shit isnt always so cut and dry, but that’s exactly why you see ten bajillion posts on here of people setting very basic standards of things like “IF THEY HIT YOU, LEAVE.” it’s a non-negotiable parameter. as an adult things can get complicated, and relationships always are, but when you have these clearly defined red flags it’s how you avoid situations that deliberately construct themselves in a way to break down your boundaries and control you. whether through sex or emotional manipulation or other avenues of abuse, that’s why you need these messages, especially targeted to children, to be loud and CLEAR

now like i said i never finished the show, i barely got into it and i was not entertained for the near two seasons i watched so im not inviting discussion of shit i havent watched or “well actually this and that happened in the episode so--” im saying that i saw the reception of it and it was completely bonkers ass shit. the response wasnt about whether or not the discussion was appropriate for a kids show; it was that nobody had a clear perception of what the resolution was even supposed to be

i dunno man the huge fucking inundation of porn every which fucking way is a HUGE deterrent for me getting into the art or animation industry. like it has actively repelled me from making art or honing my craft or whatever the fuck because the blatant expectation for me to make porn is so suffocating. if you offer commissions and dont make nsfw and you are an adult, people look at you like you’re crazy. people tell you you’re making a mistake, that it’s a ‘bad business model’ to not accept porn commissions, and that you aren’t a REAL artist if you havent drawn some porn on the side. and i sincerely feel like that isn’t an issue in any other creative field; that youre not a REAL actor if you havent been in at least a couple of porn films; that youre not a REAL musician if you havent scored porn; that you arent a REAL sculptor if you havent made at least one dildo, or some shit like that. i understand that illustration is the most expedited delivery of porn, but i dont want to be part of a community where everybody is glib about paying their bills with porn of kids cartoons and are okay with it and then go on to CREATE kids cartoons where they can give wink wink nudge nudges to their fellow porn artists.

i think this is the exact same fucking thing as ‘fandom’ having issues with ‘purity culture’; that they dont realize (or dont want to admit) that theyre bedfellows with “real” pedophiles and are providing them the shelter and the fuel they need to operate. sure a storyboard artist making some nsfw ‘on the side’ isn’t the same as chris savino or john lasseter or john k’s real tangible sexual misconduct, but it does provide the basis by which everybody who has been wink-wink nudge-nudging enforces the dissolution of boundaries and escalates these people to the top. if you form a coalition of people who all make childrens cartoons while winking (actually we are masturbating to this), you will attract the people who are winking (actually i am doing this). 

having been abused for years by people cut from this cloth im sensitive to this obviously and my thoughts are scattered but ultimately like i dont really think it’s a non-progressive thing to shame people for making porn of kids cartoons. the internet is no longer a secret clubhouse where the hustler mags are hidden in one of the loose bricks. it’s extremely fucking public and i feel like the LEAST these people can do is have a separate alias for this bullshit and to draw distinct lines in the sand for the kind of talent they hire. the problem is, too, that a lot of artists make their living by doing porn or are just drawn toward porn in general. but essentially the clincher is like... sure, go ahead and draw porn but... child porn? a dude makes porn of your teenage cartoon characters and you hire him????

“What kind of culture should industry figures encourage around the kids’ cartoons they work on? And where is the line drawn when artists with backgrounds like ZONE’s — an animator who has worked on Jones-Quartey’s own series — cross over into mainstream children’s entertainment? 

[...]

The public flirtation of children’s media with artists like these doesn’t just risk exposing kids to porn — it normalizes the entire idea of hypersexuality being present in children’s spaces, often in its most extreme forms. [...] It’s a systemic problem that will only grow if it’s left unaddressed.“

it’s a corporate level, systemic problem. i hate the culture and the community that’s allowing this to happen, and i hate that there are slowly becoming fewer and fewer bastions of endearing, safe, quality environments for children to thrive and develop without a thousand subliminal tendrils permeating cute characters and fun stories

[agent-yolk]

Do multiples of 3 for the ask post?

Oh no...math...my greatest weakness

03: Do you regret anything? 

I regret a lot of missed opportunities, but it can’t be changed now.

06: How do you want to die?

Ideally in my sleep after living a long life...for some reason, I don’t think it’ll happen that way

09: Do you bite your nails?

Of course. It’s a bad habit, not to mention it makes me hungry afterward.

12: Have you ever stayed up 48 hours?

Nope, but I have stayed up for a little over 24 hours

15: Have any pets?

I have one gorgeous black cat! I can’t wait to be home for AnimeNYC and smooch her again

18: Are you scared of spiders?

Eh, a little bit. Who isn’t a little scared of spiders?

21: What are your plans for this weekend?

Probably going to stay in bed all day if not grinding on Overwatch for that Bastion skin

24: What is/are/were your best subject(s)?

Science, History, and English.

27: Have you ever broken someone’s heart?

I probably have, but I will never know

30: What’s irritating you right now?

The fact that I have 0 proper time management skills

33: Do you have trust issues?

Oh for sure

36: Do you give out second chances too easily?

It really depends on a case by case basis, really. I don’t really do most of the time.

39: How old were you when you had your first kiss?

I have yet to find out

(the 40′s are MIA for some reason)

51: Favourite food?

Nigiri sushi! They’re so good!

54: Is cheating ever okay?

Never.

57: Do you believe in true love?

Every now and then when I’m Yearning(tm)

60: Do you wanna get married?

I don’t know...maybe? Maybe not? I haven’t really been in a relationship ever so what do I know.

63: Would you change your name?

I’m fine with 

66: Do you have a friend of the opposite sex who you can act your complete self around?

I think I do, but I’ll have to give it some time.

69: Do you believe in soulmates?

Oh absolutely! Hope to find mine some day

[confrontingbabble-on]

“On a Sunday afternoon, humanist chaplain Greg Epstein stands in front of about 90 people in an MIT auditorium. It’s an eclectic group, with young kids and college students, thirty-something parents and gray-hairs all attending because of a shared disbelief—no one here has faith in God.

“People who don’t happen to believe in a god, or affiliate with a traditional religion, still want to support one another in living out our positive values.”

”Religion isn’t just fading from campus, though—all throughout the city, faith is dying out. It’s a notion that once seemed unthinkable. Not so long ago, religious institutions permeated city life, forming communal centers for the pious and the profane alike; they simply were the community. Increasingly, though, religion’s power is giving way to the church of scientific inquiry. Religion’s importance in people’s lives is on the decline across the country, but the Bay State is on the trend’s leading edge, tied with New Hampshire for the official title of least religious state, according to the Pew Research Center. Massachusetts is tied for third in what statisticians call “religious nones,” people who say they’re not affiliated with any religion, at 32 percent of residents. Compare that to the 33 percent who said religion is “very important” in their lives. Or the 40 percent who told Pew in 2014 that they’re “absolutely certain” they believe in God—the lowest among the 50 states. Or the scant 23 percent who attend a religious service every week.The result of all of this is that Boston—the cradle of Puritanism in Colonial America, known as the most Catholic city in the nation during the 20th century—has become a secular town in the 21st. Many people, young and old, are concluding that religion doesn’t fit their ethics or their lives. They judge religion for the times it’s created conflict rather than bridging divisions. They believe in equality for women and LGBTQ people, and they won’t join patriarchal or anti-gay religions. New belief systems now dominate the city: higher education’s critical thinking, science’s demand for evidence, technology’s drive for results, liberal politics’ notions of progress and social justice. Some of this is a reaction to national politics—an expression of Boston’s sense of itself as a besieged liberal bastion—but it’s also a rejection of the Old Boston, the Irish-Catholic city on a hill.

“Prior to 2002,” ...“the archbishop of Boston had a direct line to any Massachusetts politician he wanted to talk to.” That time is long gone, says Margaret Roylance, vice president of Voice of the Faithful, a group of lay Catholics formed in 2002 to press for church reforms. “I don’t think the church is the 800-pound gorilla that it was. Politicians are not afraid to support something the church opposes...”

There was a time, of course, when religion and the church taught Bostonians morals and how to treat one another. Scripture, from the Bible to the Koran, provided foundational guidelines for humanity and social justice, not to mention the basis for the Golden Rule. Church leaders also taught us the value of hard work and kept us in line. Not so much anymore. “Catholic church leaders used to have a kind of moral force in Massachusetts,” says Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University. Big civic debates in Boston, such as whether to host the Olympics, would have included the Catholic leadership’s opinions. Now they don’t.

“In the olden days, you’d always go to Catholic leadership,” Prothero says. “Nowadays, I just don’t see why you would. They used to matter. I just don’t think they matter anymore. I think the moral capital has been spent.”

Even many Catholics who’ve stayed in the church don’t much care what the leadership thinks anymore. “Catholics, whether on the progressive or conservative end of the scale, none of them really trust the bishops to do the right thing,” Roylance says. The sex-abuse cover-up “made us look at them differently...”

The sex-abuse scandal may have hurt all churches in Boston, not just Catholic ones, says Stephen Kendrick, senior minister at First Church Boston, a Unitarian Universalist congregation. He recalls talking about Catholic clergy sex abuse in one of his first services after taking over First Church in 2001. “I said it’s going to affect us, because it makes a whole generation of people feel distrustful of authority and particularly religious authority,” he says. “I think that’s a particular challenge in Boston. That is a wound that is not healed. And it affects every religious institution in this city.”

As shattering as the sex-abuse scandal has been, it’s hardly the only reason people are leaving Catholicism—in one national survey, only 32 percent of former Catholics named the scandal as one of the reasons they left. In fact, among the religiously unaffiliated in general, 60 percent said they left their childhood faith because they simply stopped believing in the religion’s teachings.

Friday night comes as a time to relax instead of attend Shabbat services, and Sunday brunch beckons the family instead of a 9 a.m. service. In other words, Kendrick says, “What happened to the Catholic Church in the last 20 years didn’t just happen to the Catholic Church.”

They’ve seen the surveys that show the number of religious nones exploding and the number of professed Catholics declining. “The power of the Catholic Church to move a civic agenda or political agenda is much reduced...”

From...https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2018/12/11/boston-given-up-on-god/

[stevedonnellyfaith-blog]

A Reluctant Reprise (Post 95) 7-1-15

I had planned a special essay that I was looking forward to writing.  The idea came to me almost as soon as I queued up last week’s message into the send firing line at Constant Contact.  I was very excited as I often worry through the weekend about whether I will discover an appropriate subject for my editorial rant in time to distill it into coherence by Tuesday evening.  Some weeks the writing goes better than other weeks. I was hoping things would flow along swimmingly and I would be able to have everything wrapped up by Sunday afternoon. My hopeful plan seemed to obliterate itself in spectacular fashion during my usual Friday afternoon promenade through my Facebook account.  It seemed that either a third of my Facebook friends had either developed a contagious hankering for Skittles or something was up in the Gay Community.

Evidently, the Supreme Court decision came in like a tsunami wave that peaked high enough that it reached the great bastion of news ignorance on which I have currently perched my psyche.  At first I planned to ignore the issue in my column because I have already covered the topic recently, but the young priest at the parish where the Stephen, Nick, Natalie and I attend mass, addressed the issue very well on Sunday at the Life Teen Mass which we frequent.  They also are covering the topic in some fireside talks that the teens attend on Thursday with a sizable group of seminarians that are currently in the pipeline from Saint Mary’s Parish in Hudson, Ohio who will one day pepper the pulpits throughout the Diocese of Cleveland.  The Life Teen group does a lot with Steubenville; this is definitely not the lukewarm flock that Pam and I used to visit on our trips back home from Fort Wayne a decade ago.

Anyway, not saying something about the Supreme Court Decision in a column that is intended to cover the gamut of Catholic Family Life this week would seem to be an act of willful incompetence.  I address it here without having done a great deal of research into the juris prudence either for or against. I am sure that a convincing secular argument has been built in both the affirming and dissenting opinions. Neither Constitutional arguments before or against make a hill of garbanzo beans to me.  My perspective exists only through the prism of a world in which God exists and of which He is the Creator.  I have come to know that the God truly Is, and so He is the standard by which I try to fashion my own opinions.

There is much that isn’t clear to me:  why people are same-sex attracted, what the spiritual consequences are for engaging in homosexual acts or any other mortal sin, and how any of us can overcome our sinfulness and make it into heaven to begin with.  I do know that there is a Way to salvation and that His name is Jesus; all of that has been told to us.  How any one of us, or how I, in particular, will get my golden ticket punched, hopefully, is very mysterious to me.  I want to make it to heaven, yet I do not want to change my identity.  

I am sure thoughtful Catholic men and women, who self-identify themselves as gay, contemplate a similar line of reasoning. Is the sinful part of our personality a necessary ingredient to our identify?  If I extinguish my rage against my brother, am I still Stephen? If I subordinate my lust for women and override that desire with my love of Jesus, is that immolation enough or must I burn away that impurity entirely in a living sacrifice like a wasting illness here on Earth to avoid purgation after death?  A mortal sin is a mortal sin after all.  I pity professed gay persons their attachment to the flesh, while I worry about my own impurity which I must deal with in my limited remaining time in the Pilgrim Church.

The resolution of this divisive issues seems much easier for true atheists.  Those who deny that there is a creator ought to gladly travel the crocket path through the secular wickets as Judge Kennedy has lain them out from societal acceptance of contraception through abortion to Same-Sex Marriage just as the last four or five Popes told us that the ball would be tapped progressively.  Polygamy is the next wicket and some truly disgusting ones will soon follow.  By then we will have grown used to the current innovation as we have each and every previous wicket.  Our morality is the proverbial frog in the pot being gently heated to the boil.

Logically, if we are all just the decedents of once green slimy smears that crawled out of the primordial ooze as a statistical happenstance, then the path of debasing our culture is really as good a road as any other. Trumping piety with niceness makes sense unless the rules of the game include God as the Creator.  In a world where One Being has created all of us and the whole shooting match, it doesn’t make much sense to vote, arrive at consensus or parse the penumbras of preceding juris prudence.  God does exist, and that is a supremely vexing quandary for those of us who would like to create Him in their own image.  He is real and He is no relation to Gumby.  Our opinion of Him matters only in that it controls our actions which determine whether we cooperate with our salvation. He is beyond our comprehension, but luckily we are not beyond His love.

Anyway, a good portion of Americans have decided to defy what can logically be known about God in the interest of being nice.  The majority of Supreme Court Justices have jumped on the rainbow bandwagon headed for a pride celebration.  Several are likely to be well-meaning atheists; others are misguided Catholics.  How does this change our lives?  In the short-term very little.  Soon there will probably soon be same-sex Catholic couples suing The Church for refusing to Sacrementalize their unions.  Photographers, wedding cake bakers and pizza joints will continue to be targeted.  One of my priest friends went rainbow on Facebook, so I assume that there will be clandestine Catholic gay marriages.  The polygamists, pedophiles and pan-sexuals (I’m not sure what that is, but I understand that Miley Cyrus is one) are certainly warming up in the litigation bullpen.  Cable News will surely be feasting on rare societal meat throughout this whole lolling off-cycle summer.

I don’t plan to talk much about this issue to anyone, because to have a sober conversation about anything requires the conversants to discuss the same subject.  Two drunk people can have an extended dicourse or debate about two entirely different topics and coherence or rationality need not really be part of the entire transaction.  They may even resolve their deranged discussion amicably. 

When I talk about marriage, I only have an interest in discussing the sacramental kind that Pam and I shared, a union that I believe was spiritually blessed by God.  By the estimation of any rational Christian the Supreme Court decision can have no impact whatsoever on the sacramental nature of a marriage, regardless of any perceived rights of the parties seeking to enter a covenantal relationship with each other.  God’s blessing cannot be legislated, dictated or fabricated.  

When marriage is of a non-sacramental variety, it is truly a superficial construct not worth discussing or debating.  If we closely observe, most of the ersatz unions that imitate sacramental marriage rupture, dissolve or whither around us.  Only the Living Water of Jesus is sufficient to germinate and cultivate the healthy and lasting relationships that are so sought after in our progressively loveless but nice culture.

[flowisk]

hey i'm here to talk about claptrap again. i love him. anyway what i wanted to ask is why so many people in fandom infantilize him so much? (i once saw someone said "claptrap don't swear you're a baby!") like :/? i mean he.. often talks about mature stuff, but idk (i actually know, that's because he is autistic but still)

man i know i had some debates with myself at first with claptrap, bc like, he’s like, 7 (prob 8 now?) and robot age is weird (and i was interested in the thought of ‘upsettingly mature kids’) but. I don’t see much critical thought/actual debate about that aspect of his character. I had a debate with myself early on bc it’s like… I was mostly thinking about robot ages/how they would line up in comparison to human ones.

Anyway, it seems to me he is definitely intended to be an adult (you wouldn’t make the kind of fucked up sex + booze jokes we get about claptrap otherwise) +  (interestingly, we have a section of Claptastic Voyage that is sort of devoted to his ‘childhood’ and earliest memories, which is just…. super interesting development wise). He’s older than LB and Gortys too, and is the oldest robot we know in series. Actually, since Gortys’ age is confusing (’older than she looks’), I think LB might be the youngest of prominent robots in the series. So if we were going to talk about the robots based on age alone, LB is the ‘babiest’ but isn’t the kind of character who gets infantilized even though I have read some interesting nd meta on him too. (I think this is personally interesting as someone who loves LB tho… Loader bots probably don’t get to live very long and develop, and that’s part of why their ranks have been cut down in the past by Hyperion - that’s another topic for another day)

I feel people really infantilize Claptrap… no matter what you can’t really view him as a baby, and we kind of get two variations of Claptrap… either he’s a baby or he’s annoying and not worth attention. Tbqh I’m happy when people say ‘anything’ positive about him but there’s a lot of… infantilization and… underestimation? of Claptrap as a character, or just… assumptions the dude is happy with whatever when he has clear topics he’s irritated about. Like, even less than an infant, I sometimes feel people go the (bad bastion meta) route and treat him like a dog… Like there’ll be posts about how Claptraps could be great support for people. Like support animals. and it’s like… well. Claptraps are people so… that’s super uncomfortable.

I do feel Claptrap actively has some kind of insecurities as someone who… doesn’t have many close figures in his life. So in BLTPS, with a younger Claptrap, we kind of get some maternal moments with Athena or Janey (even tho he’ll also call Athena hot) bc like… Claptrap doesn’t have people in his life, and is I guess, comparatively younger than them. We also definitely get this abusive parental lean to his relationship with Jack because there’s a few comments about Jack being his dad or Jack referring to himself as Claptrap’s ‘daddy’ and belittling him. None of this makes him younger (Angel is belittled by Jack and treated as a child despite being a young adult), but I do wonder if Claptrap seeking out comforting/nurturing relationships makes him more prone to infantilization… Think there’s a high chance of that being true. He seeks out a parental attention he lacked in his development, which is, something he does as a mentally ill adult in canon I think. (since claptrap has other things going on aside from being autistic there too… definitely a big recurrent theme of neglect in claptrap’s life)I think probably, there’s an in-game issue with infantilizing Claptrap too, and that heavily contributes to it… the game itself does some… hm. kind of weird childish imagery with claptrap at times and… I think it’s because borderlands as a series doesn’t take him too seriously tbqh ._. So even in canon, we sometimes get the… ‘these traits = childish’. So I guess it’s ultimately a combination of … people don’t think very in depth about Claptrap + take some elements at surface value + the game handles him a bit unevenly sometimes.also thanks to @necromin who helped me w some thoughts + contributed some.

[bluedino15]

One last thing on the issue of using the word Retard

Okay, sorry I’ve made so many comments, put down so many questions, and already made a post less than an hour ago, but I’m getting tired of this and want to get my last point out before I stop bothering with this.

I am a fan of the series Glitchtale and @camilaart. The effort she puts in is super impressive, from drawing and time, to thought and detail. Nothing I am about to say is intended to devalue anything Camila has made or continued to make, (heck, why would I still be subscribed to her on twitch (as BlueYoshi15) and give her money if I hated her?) and I will continue to be a fan of her unless she did something actually evil like murder.

I understand that you’ve been going through a pretty shitty Month. You have to deal with stupid asks every day, people rushing your work despite being told not to, and people who just insult you because they don’t like your series on a daily basis. In addition, you had someone upload your work without permission and in defiance of your requests, and then said person ended up getting your video taken down because YouTube doesn’t work. Your main source of revenue was practically taken away from you, which would drive anyone to a nervous wreck. People acted like the guy did nothing wrong even after you made several videos and posts explaining how terrible things were. You’ve probably gotten anxious because you have lost the motivation to animate for a while, which means no progress on episode 4 (unless it happens off stream). So I totally understand why you would not be in the mood to have someone get angry at you when you said a word that you know as being a standard insult.

The problem is that I think that anger has clouded your judgement. And I can’t exactly blame you for being angry beforehand, or for being angry or annoyed when some people go too far in their responses (such as that “lovely” fellow who responded to Jakei).

But there are some things I want to address. To counter some points I’ve seen put forth by yourself or others.

1) “other people On the internet like Markiplier or Pewdiepie say stuff like shit and fuck all the time and they get away with it”: the thing is that retard isn’t just a nasty curse word. It’s been morphed into a slur (more on that later), something which those you tubers generally stay away from (and if I recall, people lost their shit way more when PewDiePie made those anti-Semitic remarks, and have hated him for some of his older, vulgar rape jokes). If you said something like “shitfucktitscocksblowjobhellcrapinanashole” it’d definitely not be child friendly, but it would also be just be average cursing. The problem is that retard is seen as a semi-slur

2) “it’s the internet, I can say what I want”: I won’t deny that. But if you can say what you want, we at least have the right to try and request that you not, along with some reasons why. Is asking more than once too much? Maybe, but it can also sometime help clarify our point.

3) “what gives you guys the right to curse at me”: again, a slur is seen differently from a curse. Though that said, I think those guys who have no patience and act high and mighty compared to you, or the ones that just say stuff like "wow Cami, way to be a real class fucking act" are being self-righteous assholes.

4) “what’s so bad about the word “retard” if I just use it to mean someone of below average intelligence and direct it at someone specific”: as I’ll get into the next point, that word has a different connotation. Yes, the literal definition just means someone who isn’t as smart as the average person, and that kid certainly wasn’t smart. But in America, the word has an additional emotional attachment that has transformed it into a slur for people with mental disabilities. To Americans, Using it like an insult is like unironically using gay as an insult; it implies that it is “wrong” to be retarded even though that can’t be controlled. Some Americans today see it as targeting people with a mental condition instead of calling someone dumb. To make an extreme comparison, it would be like using Oriental. Technically, it means someone of Asian decent. Culturally, it’s been associated as a word meant to make Asians seem like a lower race of beings. Because of the ugly emotional attachment of the word “retard,” it can’t be taken easily be taken lightly even in your given context. I know how you meant for it to be used, but it won’t come off that way to everyone.

5) “Americans and/or SJW’s need to grow up and learn not everything needs to be how they want it.” I fully agree that The USA is terrible about imposing it’s culture on others. I also think that there are SJW’s who overreact to certain issues. But if being Chilean means the word means nothing to you and you shouldn’t be blamed for using it, then being American can mean the words means a lot to us and we can get upset. Do you have to take our view? No. But it feels rude when you give the impression that my country is stupid for having a culture that believes that word is offensive (though maybe I’m reading too deep). As for SJW’s, just be careful with that term. There’s a thin line between someone who’s overzealous and someone who has legitiment grievances with problems, such as people who might, say, try for equal race and sex representation in gaming

6) “I see people with autism who say they don’t mind at all that I used retard, so others should just grow thick skin, especially considering I wasn’t insulting them anyway”:Yes, I understand that you did not intent to insult people with mental disabilities at any point and that you hold no Ill views against them. But there are people who have been hurt by that word. I should know pretty damn well considering how kids in my troop made fun of me for having aspergers. Having a mental condition is horrible when there are people who do make fun of you for it with words like “retard.” So that word cannot be taken easily by everyone who's been bullied for it. Make a TRIGGERED joke if you like, but it really can be like that.

7) “that kid make my life hell and I need to apologize for using a word?”: no. That kid deserves jack-shit for what he tried to pull. It’s not that we’re worried about how he feels about being called a retard. It’s the casual use of the word that’s the issue for most. And also the fact that you defend using that word casually and seemingly haven’t shown any consideration for the points people who take issue make. But if you deserve maybe some explanatory words, he deserves a kick to the balls.

8) “If you knew the context, you would understand”: yes, you used the word to call a single kid dumb. But, as I detailed above, there are people who are uncomfortable that you used the word outside of it the manner it is considered acceptable (someone who clinically is proven to have a mental problem). I admit that I suspect that guy had a problem, but to call him retarded without knowing if he truly is clinically retarded or not seems wrong.

9) “apparently I need to be some bastion of perfection or else I suck.”: no, that’s not it. I don’t think any sensible person expects you to be perfect. But if they are uncomfortable with you using a word, they do have the right to ask you stop using that word because they don't like anyone, either a star or a random joe using the word like that. Whether or not you listen is up to you, but I don’t think it’s too high of an expectation

10) “You guys get angry at me for using a slur when there’s so much worse in the world? You have crappy priorities”: Pardon, but i don’t see how being offended by word use means I don’t worry about anything else. Heck, I’m a liberal American. I have a contractual obligation to get pissed at my government and country every day. But taking some time to write a post or response does not mean ignoring the rest of the world’s problems (though I personally have probably spent way more time on this then I should).

That’s my lengthy post. I probably assumed a lot of wrong stuff here, accused you of saying things you didn’t and gave some people who disagreed with you more credit than they deserved. I know that there are dicks who didn’t bother to try being tactful or diplomatic. And I also Don’t blame you for initially using the term, as you would have no idea of what it meant when you never heard of it’s reputation before. In addition, it was wrong of people to jump down your throats as if you intentionally wanted to insult others. I get that you wouldn’t be in a good mood to listen to them when some of them acted like assholes. I guess I just felt slightly bothered that you acted like people who disagreed with you had no reason to do so.

Also, while I don’t think you would need to scrub the word retard from you vocabulary, I do have to ask why being asked to use a different word in the future (such as dumbass) would be that bad. But I also understand that it would be annoying to have to subconsciously think of that every time you speak/type.

Look, I really don’t want to be rude or cause stress. it’s just that I see people who are acting as if you’re 100% right, and I can’t help but argue if I disagree.

TL;DR I feel like Cami acted as if there was absolutely no reason to even be a bit miffed, which I disagree with. That doesn’t mean she’s entirely wrong, but I want to try illustrating that there are reasons to not agree with her on this issue.

[lexxikitty-blog1]

The Princess and the Prix by Nell Stark Series: Princess Affair: #2 Read: January 2016 Rating: 4.75 Stars

My second book by Stark, and second in this series.

I was both eager and somewhat hesitant to read this book.  I had liked the first book I had read, despite some of the negative reviews I had read, and everything about the second one seemed to make it something that would interest me.  Some of the initial reviews of this specific book here were quite negative.  Then I started to see some positive ones, but all these reviews were coming in while the book was still not available to me. So by the time the book actually came out, I still took . . . hmm, almost three months to try it. Wait, three months? I didn’t have access to it in November.  Hmm. Maybe I did? Bah, whatever, not important.

The book features Princess Pommelina Alix Canella of Monaco, the middle child, and Thalia d’Angelis, a race car driver of mixed US and UK birth.  Despite being a princess of Monaco, Alix cares nothing for the Monaco Grand Prix, motorsports, and potentially sports in general (I forget if this attitude extended to other sports; Alix gets called Pomme, Pommelina, and Alix in the book, she prefers Alix).  Instead she is more concerned for helping others, like women in Africa.  When that specific bit of information came to light, I was vaguely disappointed in one specific way – I don’t particularly like reading about people of privilege who are quite disdainful of their own privilege and/or if not disdainful, then they are ashamed of it and wish to do everything they can to work tirelessly for others.  It is somewhat tiring to read a book with such a character. Luckily, while Alix does have a certain amount of . . . maybe not shame, but something approaching that, and while she does have desire to help others, she isn’t the annoying/tiring type.   She is the bookish middle child who has a certain amount of introversion and prefers not to be in crowds but can ‘turn it on’ when she has to (by turn it on – be the good princess/hostess/etc.).  

In an effort to figure out how to go about setting up a foundation, Alix takes an opportunity presented to her to go be the Monaco representative at a royal wedding in England. The wedding of Princess Sasha and Kerry Donovan – the two lead characters from the prior book.  She takes the opportunity because she wishes to talk with the Princess of Wales, who set up a foundation of her own (Ashleigh – the wife of Sasha’s brother Arthur).  She does make a connection, and this does become a theme that continues throughout the book. Well, not the connection specifically to Ashleigh, but the setting up and then opening a foundation.  At the same event, Alix meets Thalia.   Up to this moment Alix was, for the most part, asexual. As in, didn’t care about sex, developing a sex life, or romance in general.  Thalia, on the other hand, well, we will get to Thalia.

I’m not sure why I started with Alix first, since Thalia’s point of view opens the book. No matter.

Thalia D’Angelis is an accomplished race car driver who dominates the (a?) lower Formula One like race circuit – GB2 I think she kept calling it.  She’s put up with the male misogynistic nature of the sport for several years, but finally breaks after winning the first race of the season and gets asked, yet again, how she feels about her teammate, her lesser teammate (and everyone is lesser, since Thalia had been last year’s champion) got promoted over her to the Formula One Ferrari team.  She’s 26. She’s a proven champion. She bit her lips and ‘took’ everyone’s advice to ‘be patient’, while the men around her were pushed to stretch and go for their goals. But, while being interviewed after the race, she lets loose about her real thoughts.

Thalia returns to her home in London assuming that she’s now out of a job, and probably blackballed from racing.  Picks up a woman to play with, and goes back to her place.  Yeah, I said I’d get to Thalia – she doesn’t believe in relationships, at least not deep relationships. She’s more of a causal type, not necessarily one and done, but close to that.  Well, while humping, literally in the middle of ‘sexing up’ a hot young woman, Thalia phone rings.  She ignores it but eventually takes it after the third interruption.  A Formula One team wants to hire her.  So, her life isn’t actually over, and instead, her dream is about to become true.

Somewhere in between winning the first race in that under-circuit, getting hired by a Formula One team, and the first Formula One race, Thalia attends a wedding. The one I already mentioned above.  While there she spots Alix.  Well, they spot each other.  At the wedding itself, Thalia is gazing about, people watching. Spots a woman pop in starring up.  Then walking into the ‘royal’ only part of the church, then realizes that she was watching a royal, a princess.  Later, at the reception/after party/whatever they called it; Alix is at her table, by herself, while everyone else dances. She people watches.  Thalia suddenly is next to her, and they talk, briefly.  Then some guy named, I think, Sebastian shows up and drapes himself over Alix.  Alix doesn’t want anything to do with Sebastian but can’t get him to leave her alone.  Sebastian tells her they will dance, and then leaves to take a call. Thalia, somehow or another, decides to teach Alix how to dance. Right there and then.  I’ve mentioned all of this to get to this part – the fact that Alix and Thalia meet, interact, and some connection develops.  Plus, this leads Thalia to invite Alix to watch the Formula One race, since Lady [insert name here – the wife of the guy who owns Thalia’s Formula One team] will be there and is big into charity work.

So, that’s the first part of the book.  Thalia and Alix have a vaguely friend/acquaintance/what-the-heck-are-we thing going on.  Thalia races. Alix watches, while mostly attempting to set up her foundation.  Alix has feelings she didn’t expect to have.  Ones she has certain issues with. She, being a scientist, knows that humans are not the only species that have homosexual relationships, but she is from one of the last bastions of conservativism in Europe. And while she doesn’t believe in the same things her parents do, regarding religion/sexual orientation/etc., she still spends most of the book trying to figure out if she is homophobic, and whether or not some of the feelings she is having might have some connection to that.  So you have that ‘blocking/slowing’ things on one side of the potential relationship; while you have someone who can’t allow themselves to be in a deeper, less than shallow relationship on the other – one with a bad reputation splashed across the newspapers.

I’ve read many sports books in my time. They tend to go one of three ways.  One – one of the people involved in the book, most of the time the main character, is an athlete in some sport.  While the book might include aspects of that part of the character’s life, most of the action takes place outside the actual ‘field/pitch/track/etc.’ It’s just that person’s job.  Two – see above, stop at ‘most of the action’, change to ‘most of the action takes place on the field . . .’  Three – one of the main characters is an athlete or an ex athlete.  The book has nothing to do with that aspect of their lives, for the most part, but with their . . . amazing amateur investigative skills (I’ve read a lot of mysteries in my day).  The difference between one and three mostly deals with the specific character – the character in one is an active professional; the one in the third ‘way’, mostly, is an ex-professional athlete.  This book goes a way I haven’t really seen before. I don’t mean that it is super original, for all I know it is/or isn’t.  No, it’s the part where there are more than one point of view, while everything I’ve read for 1-3 above have mostly only one point of view. So this is a mixture of one and two.  There is extensive action that takes place outside the sport, and a lot of action in the sport.

That was very wordy. Let me try again.  Sports books go two ways. They have detailed descriptions of the sport (the game/race/match/etc.), or they don’t. This book includes detailed descriptions, though not every race has the same level of detail.  Some occur ‘off the page’.  None follow a complete race from start to finish; that would probably add about a thousand pages.  The race activity was actually quite thrilling, exciting to read.  I really felt like I was inside the car.  Oh, right, I was going to mention this ‘realness’ elsewhere.  So, yes, the races felt real.

As do the characters.  I had the strong feeling that Alix and Thalia were real. And I was reading about full-bodied three dimensional people. They are the focus, so they felt the most real,

So, long and short, I loved the book.  You do not have to have read the prior book to read this one, nor should you refrain from reading the prior book if you skipped right to this one.  The characters from the prior book pop up in this one, but their trials and tribulations are not discussed, at least not in detail, in this book.  So you won’t be ‘spoiled’, again for the most part if you read the second before the first.  

Hmm, for the purposes of the prior paragraph, I just reread my review for the first book.  I’d forgotten certain issues I had had, ones that I was able to get past, somewhat easily, but which were there. I mention because some of those issues actually pop up in this one. And I didn’t even have a single problem with them. Mostly because of the nature of the people involved in this book.  I’m being vague.  Mostly because I realize that if I am specific, then I might actually fall into accidentally spoiling the first book. So I’ll refrain. And depart.

Review Written: January 6 2016

[ramialkarmi]

'Bro culture' might be insidious, but it's not unavoidable

This week, Uber temporarily lost its CEO, saw a board member leave after making a sexist comment, and was sued by a rape victim who alleges the company improperly gained access to her medical records.

This isn't the ride-hailing giant's first tangle with controversy.

It's been under a cloud since February, when former Uber engineer Susan Fowler published allegations about the company's culture of harassment on her blog. Fowler's bombshell mentions a supervisor who propositioned her for sex, an HR department reluctant to look into her complaints, and a workplace that appeared hostile to women.

This prompted several investigations at Uber, including one headed by former Attorney General Eric Holder, which led to the recent firing of more than 20 employees.

The company pledged to make changes as a result of the investigation's findings. These steps include revamping its institutional values, prioritizing measures that promote diversity and inclusion, and cleaning up its hard-partying reputation, as Business Insider's Biz Carson reported. Now Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has taken a leave of absence from the company.

With headlines like these, it can seem like the workplace has gone to the bros.

In a New York Times piece, Dan Lyons portrays an average bro as a hustling, amoral young man who places "winning" above all else in business. "Bro culture" is what ensues when those typically inexperienced men take over the C-suite and allow their obnoxiousness to seep into the rest of the company.

The resulting "bro culture" tends to prioritize young men over all other employees, creating an environment that's ripe for toxic behaviors like excessive partying and systemic harassment of colleagues.

Many are blaming Uber's woes on the rise of bro culture. But is there a cure for this toxicity? And can it be prevented?

SEE ALSO: 'Training doesn't stop harassment': After a stunning string of blows, experts weigh in on how Uber can recover

DON'T MISS: The 24 tech companies losing top talent at an astonishing rate

'Do not use the stairwells to smoke, drink, eat, or have sex'

While it presently dominates headlines, Uber is hardly the only company that's been accused of fostering such a bro-centric culture.

HR-software startup Zenefits attracted criticism over its "rambunctious, frat-like office culture," Business Insider's Eugene Kim reported.

After one raucous bash, employees received an email warning them not to ditch cigarettes, alcohol, or used condoms in the office's stairwell: "Yes, you read that right. Do not use the stairwells to smoke, drink, eat, or have sex," the email said, as The Wall Street Journal reported.

New York Magazine reported on alleged harassment at Thinx, an underwear and feminine-hygiene startup. A former employee filed a complaint with the City of New York Commission on Human Rights, as Business Insider reported. The employee alleged that CEO Miki Agrawal groped an employee, frequently changed clothes in the office, and conducted video conferences while naked, according to New York Magazine.

While bro culture is typically defined as being led and dominated by men, in the case of Thinx, the complaint alleged that the "only two employees who negotiated higher salaries at Thinx were men," according to The New York Times.

And it's not as if bro-ish behaviors are new to the business world. As Newsweek reported, energy and commodities company Enron threw parties with strippers and pricey champagne. Employees often celebrated with "cocktails poured over a block of ice straight into their mouths."

While it might be tempting to declare that the issue of bro culture is getting worse, this isn't a new problem. What's more, as with anything, the disasters tend to attract more ink than the companies that play by the rules. That said, when it comes to bro culture, we don't have a lot of data to look at. Most of the data on workplace harassment tends to look at harassment in general, instead of harassment that occurs within companies that could be considered bastions of "bro culture."

"Let's be honest. Stories about healthy and inclusive cultures are boring," Raleigh, North Carolina-based human-resources consultant Laurie Ruettimann tells Business Insider. "I think bro cultures are still rare. Most people go to work and suffer from working with people who are too nice for their own good and never say anything controversial or meaningful. Or they work in passive-aggressive cultures where people are nice to their faces but stab them in the back on anonymous employee-engagement surveys."

'Building the right culture means paying attention to it from day one'

So how does a company become infected with bro culture, and why does it seem to plague startups the most?

Part of it boils down to representation. The lack of women in leadership roles in certain male-dominated fields is a "chicken or the egg" problem. A lack of female leadership in some fields leads to fewer female mentors and fewer companies where women have a position at the upper echelons of the organization, which it turn results in fewer women entering that industry and becoming leaders themselves.

It's a vicious cycle. Only 6% of investing partners at venture-capital companies were women as of 2014. This marks a drop from 10% in 1999, according to the Diana Project at Babson College. Meanwhile, as CNBC reported, only 9% of senior IT employees are women, according to the 2017 Harvey Nash/KPMG CIO survey.

In a fast-paced entrepreneurial environment, successful startups can scale rapidly. If concrete measures to encourage values such as inclusion and fairness aren't planted in the beginning, they tend to get lost in the growth.

"Now the reality is if that bro culture isn't acknowledged and intentionally corrected, you end up in a situation where you've created something that's incredibly valuable that all of a sudden has extreme risk surrounding it, because of that culture," Ken Ziegler, CEO of cloud-computing company LogicWorks, tells Business Insider.

"If leadership doesn't have an intense focus on both building and sustaining the right culture for your business and the people you want to attract, it's very easy for a toxic one to take over," CEO of HR tech platform YouEarnedIt Autumn Manning tells Business Insider. "Building the right culture means paying attention to it from day one."

'I kind of felt like I had been looking into a crystal ball'

As Fowler described in her blog post, the consequences of bro culture can be incredibly damaging. Former Uber engineer Keala Lusk also shared her experience in a Medium post, alleging a persistent, toxic culture at the ride-hailing company.

"In my time there, I saw malicious fights for power, interns repeatedly putting in over 100 hours a week but only getting paid for 40, discrimination against women, and prejudice against the transgender community," she wrote.

Plenty of other Uber employees, including Aimee Lucido and employees who responded to a Quora thread on the matter, have responded that they never saw such behavior.

But in institutions lacking the structure for dealing with issues like harassment, smaller instances of problematic behavior can bloom into something far worse.

Harry Campbell, a part-time Uber and Lyft driver who blogs as The Rideshare Guy, says that he wasn't shocked when Fowler's allegations came out.

"I kind of felt like I had been looking into a crystal ball," he tells Business Insider.

Uber drivers are not employees of the company; they are legally independent contractors. But Campbell says that drivers share some of the concerns that Uber employees have — namely, a culture that is more focused on results than on people.

For drivers, Campbell says this manifests itself in a feeling of expandability and a lack of structural recourse when dealing with dishonest reviews or comments from passengers, while employees like Fowler alleged that Uber's HR bungled her harassment claims.

"When we started to see some of these issues pop up on the employee side, I think, for a lot of drivers, this wasn't necessarily news," says Campbell.

"If the company culture shows lower levels of respect toward independent contractors there's really no reason that the culture's going to be any different toward employees over the long run and that's sort of what we saw with Uber. The human element is the thing that gets lost."

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

[icenav57]

New Study Says Sex Sells

 Got your attention? Amazing isn’t it how a headline grabs you and makes you click on a news item, whatever the social or news media source. The headline may have very little to do with the actual content of the article itself, such as in this case. But it grabs you and can subconsciously be registered as “fact”.  When a reader clicks on the headline, that simple click on a smart phone, a computer or a tablet, not only links you forever to the story behind the headline, it registers another statistical click for the source.  That’s why they use sensational headlines, to gain clicks, to prove readership.  

 What continues to frustrate me is that sensational headlines often have little to do with the story underneath.  That’s not too bad if we take the time to actually read the article and find out the true story, but in this rapid paced world, we are more apt to either click and speed read through the accompanying article not catching the irrelevance of the headline, or more egregiously, our eyes pop wide and we “share” the story, shocked by the headline.  After all, others have to know.  The story continues to be reposted and begins to build a false sense of accuracy as others grab hold and redistribute.

 OK, so why am on this one again?  It was another series of blog/RSS/internet media posts that yet again headlined the “coming conflict in the Arctic” due to global climate change.  Of course, the story beneath the headline had almost nothing to do with “conflict”, in fact buried deep within the article was a short sentence saying that the 5 Arctic coastal nations of Canada, Greenland/Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States have in fact, been working collaboratively on many issues and that UNCLOS was slowly taking care of the marine “borders” that were as yet undecided (not, I hasten to say “disputed”, as the few borders that are undecided are cooperatively dealt with, with no antagonism between parties.

 In this topic specifically, the facts are quite different than the recurring headlines frighteningly warning of Polar war to come.  Regardless of the headlines and the occasional misinterpretations of “border disputes”, all five Arctic coastal states are committed to peaceful resolution. Far different than the imagined conflict, is the level of cooperation that exists as neighbouring Arctic nations have often worked together to gather and share the data each collects individually or multilaterally with other nations as they move towards their Arctic Ocean claims under UNLCOS.  Science will prove the claims, not bluster, rhetoric or force of arms.  Though as yet not signatory to UNCLOS, even the United States has been collecting bathymetric and geological data to bolster a future UNLOS claim.

 Let’s not make too much about headlines that claim Russia is militarizing their Arctic in advance of some nefarious plan of world dominance.  They are doing nothing more than any of the other Arctic nations (including the not coastal states which additional include Finland, Sweden and Iceland) rebuilding infrastructure abandoned at the fall of Soviet Russia or putting in place small defensive bastions as bases for support to border protection as well as support to commercial shipping.  They have the right to put in place facilities and personnel to protect their vast Arctic coastline, described by many, including myself as here to fore lacking of infrastructure to support the slow growth in Arctic shipping.  They are not alone.  Though proceeding at a less than frenetic pace, Canada for example has increased military presence in it’s Arctic zone, building an Arctic training centre in Resolute, as well as a half dozen ice strengthened Naval patrol ships, not necessarily due to perceived threat, but to be better able to police the vast Canadian Arctic Archipelago.  Canada, United States and Denmark just completed a complex search and rescue exercise involving military as well as civilian agencies, personnel and equipment. Are these activities militarily provocative and indications of grand schemes of world domination?  I think not.  They are signs of each nation’s slow recognition of their previous lack of attention on their northern coastlines, and the resultant movement to put in place infrastructure and capability to show sovereignty, to provide support to increased shipping and to enforce national rule of law upon their rightful territory.

 I get it, sex sells, conflict sells, fear sells.  All of them can even get governments elected.  I am a realist of sorts so I know that the headline writers won’t read this, won’t suddenly see the sad error of their ways and change.  So that those of us that DO see the erroneous headlines, and sadly, even erroneous stories that perpetuate in the world of internet fast news, should try our best to set the records straight.  Read before you repost or share.  Verify what is in the body of the piece, and even do your part to tell the real story.  Really, the world can become a better place.

[wbwest]

New Post has been published on WilliamBruceWest.com

New Post has been published on http://www.williambrucewest.com/2017/06/02/west-week-ever-pop-culture-review-6217/

West Week Ever: Pop Culture In Review - 6/2/17

Whoo boy! This is gonna be a controversial one this week, but I’ve got some stuff to get off my chest.

First up, there was controversy surrounding the new Wonder Woman film (in theaters now!). Theater chain Alamo Drafthouse announced women-only screenings for the film, where proceeds would go to women’s charities, including Planned Parenthood. Originally planned to be 5 screenings at the Austin and Brooklyn locations, tickets sold out instantly and more screenings were added. According to Alamo, the screenings were meant to be a celebration of “Girl Power”, and were only open to those who identified as women. Now, this isn’t the first time Alamo has done special screenings, as they have screenings for active military members, as well as for children with special sensory needs.  I’ve also heard other explanations, like the screenings give women a safe space to watch the film without having it mansplained to them the entire time. But, of course, the social media shitstorm started. A lot of folks who might be considered Men’s Rights Activists felt that this was discrimination, and that they should retaliate with all-male screenings of the next Star Wars movie.

As Twitter was dead over the holiday weekend, I tweeted that the backlash to the screening was stupid, but the screening itself is also kinda stupid. Now, hear me out: I see both sides of the issue here. Alamo wanted to make a fun exclusive event to celebrate the release of a movie starring a female superhero. That doesn’t happen every day, so it was a cause to celebrate. I’m not “butthurt” over the idea. That said, Alamo had to know they’d get this kind of reaction, as this kind of thing is somewhat of a slippery slope. “How is it a slippery slope, Will?” So glad you asked! Let’s, for a moment, propose a different kind of screening. Let’s say it was a Black Only screening of Get Out. I mean, it had a similar pedigree in that it was a Black horror/suspense film from a Black director – something that also doesn’t happen every day. You’d better believe people would have a problem with that! Sure, it could be spun as a celebration “for the culture”, meant to foster community and whatnot, but White people would shit ALL the bricks! So, as this has been great publicity for both Wonder Woman and Alamo Drafthouse, they knew exactly what they were doing when they set out to do this. In the long run, this isn’t gonna hurt Alamo or Wonder Woman one bit, but let’s not act like this was some kind of altruistic celebration of sisterhood. This was Shrewd Marketing 101.

See? I toldja this would be a controversial one, and I’m just getting started!

Let’s visit the world where Hollywood and politics intersect. You see, comedienne Kathy Griffin posted a photo of herself holding what was meant to be Donald Trump’s severed head. AND PEOPLE LOST THEIR MINDS! Trump, himself, even took time off from golfing and nudging his way to the front of photo ops to tweet about it, saying that it had affected his 11 year-old son, Barron, who apparently thought the photo was real. The backlash was strong against Griffin, who apologized hours later, but still ending up losing her Squatty Potty endorsement, as well as her CNN New Year’s Eve gig with Anderson Cooper. A lot of people seem to be in agreement of the backlash, but I’m gonna take a different approach: I don’t think the photo was that bad.

There are so many things to unpack here, so bear with me as I try to navigate through all of it. Societies have a history of burning politicians in effigy as a form of protest so, while extreme, how is this any different? Had she actually decapitated the man, and was brandishing his severed head on social media as some sort of trophy, that would’ve been too far. Like it or not, this was “art”, and you don’t really get to judge art. It can make you uncomfortable but at least it triggered some sort of opinion or emotion, which means it did its job.

I also feel like this is a situation where folks are more upset by the messenger than the message. Kathy Griffin isn’t taken seriously. We’ve put her in this box along with Andy Dick and several other unpredictable, slightly unstable comedians who at one time did a stint on an NBC sitcom. We don’t expect anything “deep” from her, because we’ve already written her off. She knows this, as she’s in on the joke. I mean, her reality series was called My Life On The D-List, so she knows she’s not a top-tier celebrity. Still, she has a team behind her, as everyone in Hollywood does, and they all decided that this was something she was going to do. Maybe she felt it’d just blow over because of her lessened celebrity status, or maybe it’s doing just what she thought it would. A friend and I were talking about it the other night, and he’s the one who made me realize it was the messenger we were blaming here. After all, if Samantha Bee had done this, liberals would be creaming their jeans about how daring and smart it was. Why? Because that’s what people expect of her. Griffin made the simple mistake of veering out of her lane, and that’s how we got to where we are now.

Now, let’s look at the photographer, Tyler Shields, whose work tends to push boundaries like this. For him, this was just another Tuesday photoshoot, and this isn’t the first time that Griffin has worked with him. I mean, just look at some of his work above. He likes weird shit, but again, it’s art and we don’t really get to police it.

Meanwhile, there’s the whole thing about Barron thinking the photo was real. That poor, poor boy. To quote Hank Hill, “That boy ain’t right”, and the family either refuses to acknowledge it or is dealing with it in secret. On the one hand, I guess I have to commend the fact that we’ve “grown” to the point of saying “Kids are off limits”, but I find it convenient that we’re adopting that stance now. Where was that when comedians were calling little Chelsea Clinton a “dog” every chance they got? Where was that when Sasha and Malia had to see the stuff folks said about them and their family? It’s a shame that Barron doesn’t know the difference between a photo and reality but, as one Tweeter put it, it wouldn’t be an issue if Donald actually lived with his son. But I digress. I think this whole thing has been blown way out of proportion to dominate the news cycle. After all, last weekend it was looking like Jared Kushner was in the hot seat, and then next thing you know, it’s Kathy Griffin this, and covfefe that.

Where to next? Oh yeah, remember Mary Kay Letourneau? She was one of the first stories of teachers sleeping with their students to hit the news. Back in the late 90s, Letourneau fell in love with her student, 12 year old Vili Fualaau, and ended up getting impregnate by him. She was convicted of child rape, served 3 months in jail, and THEN got caught having sex with Fualaau in her car just two weeks after her release. And she got pregnant again. She served 6 years that time, but married Fualaau when she got out. And they lived happily ever after…until May 9th of this year, when Fualaau filed for legal separation from Letourneau. Now 33, perhaps Letourneau simply got too old for him at 55. But the plot thickens! Yesterday, that bastion of journalistic integrity, The New York Post, reported that the separation was really just something of a scam. You see, Fualaau wants to get a license to sell pot, but he knows they’ll do a background check before granting it to him, and it wouldn’t look good to be married to a registered sex offender. He claims they’re still in love and this is just a business arrangement. So, while he awaits his pot license, he’s working as a DJ in Washington state. Too bad she couldn’t fuck some ambition into him all those years ago! Fun fact: one of Letourneau’s brothers is a foreign policy adviser to the president. He’s clearly been doing a heck of a job lately!

Still here? OK, then let’s talk about some pop culture stuff. Someone at NBC must’ve read my Upfronts post, as they just announced changes that perfectly mirror my suggestions. This Is Us will no longer be moving to Thursday, and will stay put on Tuesday nights. Meanwhile, the comedies planned for Tuesday, Superstore and The Good Place, are moving to Thursday to join Will & Grace and Great News for a 2-hour comedy block. This is how it alway should’ve been, and I’m not quite sure what’s going on at NBC. From the cancellation/uncancellation of Timeless to this new schedule scramble, it makes you wonder who’s at the wheel over there. Still, I think these are smart moves, so hopefully they’ll work out in the long run.

The hardest working man in Hollywood, Ryan Seacrest, is developing a new show. Best.Cover.Ever. will air on YouTube and will feature people singing cover songs, vying for the chance to sing a duet with the original artist of the song they sang. Hosted by Ludacris, the show will feature Demi Lovato, Jason Derulo, and Backstreet Boys to start out. Contestants are asked to upload videos of covers of “Trumpets”, “Confident”, and “As Long As You Love Me”. The artists will each choose two finalists, who will be the contestants actually featured on the show. The winner gets to duet with the original artist for an exclusive YouTube performance. It’s an interesting concept, and it requires a partnership with a streaming service to work, but I’m still not sure it’s going to be successful. I’m also surprised that it’s not on YouTube Red, where they can charge for it. After all, nobody really talks about the offerings on YouTube Red, but this is the kind of thing that could get folks talking and maybe boost subscriptions. I’m a sucker for “As Long As You Love Me”, so I’ll be keeping tabs on this just to see how it fares.

Major news in the world of pop music this morning, as will.i.am confirmed that Fergie has left the Black Eyed Peas to focus on her solo career. The news isn’t exactly a surprise, as last week it was announced that she was leaving the band’s label, Interscope, to start her own label, Duchess Music, over at BMG. It’s still a pretty big deal, though, as she’s been with the band for the past 15 years. Still, I feel like their time has come and gone. They showed up, gave the world a suitable soundtrack replacement for Jock Jams, and left their mark. However, will.i.am says they’re still together, recording new music to celebrate their 20th anniversary as a band. To be honest, I thought they were gonna be done in 2008, when they released The E.N.D., but it proved successful enough, with the hits “Boom Boom Pow” and “I Gotta Feeling”, that they just kept trucking along. Now there are rumors swirling that Nicole Scherzinger might replace Fergie in the group, which would be her third time in a group, after Eden’s Crush and The Pussycat Dolls. I swear, Scherzinger must have a tail or something, because there’s some sort of defect that’s preventing a label from being able to package her as a solo act. Always a bridesmaid…Anyway, let’s pour one out for The Duchess and her tenure with Your Grandma’s Favorite Rap Group.

Netflix founder and CEO Reed Hastings recently said that he felt Netflix should be canceling more shows. In his mind, they have too many hits, which results in creators taking fewer chances and not “swinging for the fences”. The successful shows are basically taking real estate from potential new hits. Now, it being the internet, there’s no “real estate”, per se, but it’s still marketing dollars, bandwidth, etc. It used to be that you could count on a Netflix series getting at least 2 seasons, but they just killed that with the cancellation of The Get Down after its first season. Yesterday, they followed the trend and canceled the sci fi series Sense8 after its second season just debuted last month. If the axe is swinging, I’m worried about the shows that aren’t generating a ton of buzz right now, like F is for Family and the adaptation of Dear White People. Kind of a weird problem to have, though: too much success might be making them complacent. It’ll be interesting to see how this affects the Marvel shows, as well as the Netflix perennials like House of Cards and Orange is the New Black.

There was a scary moment last weekend at Phoenix Comicon, when police arrested a man who reportedly had three handguns, a shotgun, knives, pepper spray, and throwing stars, and had a reminder on his phone that said “Kill JDF.” That’s right, folks – his plan was to kill the Greatest Power Ranger of All Time, Jason David Frank, as well as some police officers. Sidebar: can you imagine being so absentminded that you need to set a phone reminder to make sure you remember to murder your target?! Anyway, the reason police were able to capture 31 year old Mathew Sterling was because he had told his plan to some chick on social media, who then tipped off the police. Anyway, JDF continued with the convention as if nothing had happened, claiming that he wasn’t going to let fear govern his life. Meanwhile, the convention cracked down on prop weapons and banned them from the show. In fact, if you were getting your Saba or Dragon Dagger swords signed by JDF that weekend, he was posting on social media that you would have to leave them in their boxes. This has caused other conventions to look at their own weapons policies, so look for some changes coming up on the con circuit.

Song of the Week

This week, I give you “You Look Good”, but Lady Antebellum. This is just such a funky song, and could’ve been a contender for Song of the Summer had they waited a bit longer to release it. Anyway, it’s like the 2017 offspring of Santana and Rob Thomas’s “Smooth”. I really dig it, and I think you will, too.

Things You Might Have Missed This Week

Hailee Steinfeld is in talks to star in the Transformers spinoff, Bumblebee

After 14 years off the air, MTV is bringing back the MTV Beach House this summer

WGN America has canceled slavery drama Underground after 2 seasons

There are reports that Steven Spielberg is gearing up for an Animaniacs reboot

Fresh off the recently canceled Powerless, Vanessa Hudgens was announced as a judge on the upcoming season of So You Think You Can Dance

Scott Pelley is out as the anchor of CBS Evening News, and will return to 60 Minutes in a full-time capacity

A Sin City TV series is in the works

Universal is reportedly interested in Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson for the role of The Wolfman in their Dark Universe franchise

Speaking of Dark Universe, I called it last week: Warner Bros may sue Universal over the Dark Universe title. According to official documents, however, it appears Universal may have had the name first.

Charlie Heaton, of Stranger Things fame, is reportedly up for the role of Cannonball in the X-Men spinoff, New Mutants – which is now supposedly going to be a straight horror movie. Um, OK…

Speaking of New Mutants, Fox continues to mine Netflix shows, as 13 Reasons Why‘s Henry Zaga has been cast as Sunspot

Ben Stiller and Christine Taylor have split after 18 years together

The Ludacris-hosted Fear Factor reboot premiered on MTV this week

Tiger Woods was arrested for a DUI, even though he had no alcohol in his system and was found passed out in his car. He says it was the result of mixing prescription drugs, but the whole thing sound fishy

Sharknado 5: Global Swarming will premiere August 6th on SyFy, guest starring Charo, Fabio, Tony Hawk, and Chris Kattan. This thing is one Ted Lange appearance away from becoming a Love Boat reboot

Thanks to an article on Slate, we now know to pronounce the “T” in Gal Gadot’s name.

I had absolutely no desire to see Wonder Woman. While she was my favorite part of of Dawn of Justice, I just wasn’t jazzed about the idea of her starring in a World War I period piece. I mean, we already got that movie, and it was called Captain America: The First Avenger (before you history buffs come out of the woodworks, I know that movie was set in WWII: War Harder). I wasn’t looking forward to DC’s lackluster attempt at a retread of that. So, imagine my surprise when I found myself in the theater on opening night. And then imagine my surprise when the movie ended, and I realized that I LOVED it!

It might be premature to say that Warner Bros has finally righted the DCEU ship, but Wonder Woman is definitely a step in the right direction. My buddy Chad predicted that it would be the new gold standard in comic book movies, and while I don’t think it quite achieves that, it’s definitely the gold standard for the DC Universe. It’s one of the rare comic book movies where I left and didn’t really have any issues with plot holes. It was such a joy to watch, thanks to the acting of Gal Gadot. First of all, she’s so goddamn beautiful that it should be illegal for the camera to be trained on her for prolonged periods of time. Seriously, I thought I was gonna have a seizure like those kids did from that Pokémon episode back in ’99. She does such a great job playing  up Wonder Woman’s sweet naiveté about “Man’s World”, but is also a commanding presence during the battles. It’s funny how when she was cast, we were all saying “She’s too small to be Wonder Woman”, but watching her onscreen, all those doubts slip away.

Now, as much as I loved it, it’s not a perfect film. It deftly straddles the line between “suspension of disbelief” and just plain hokey, but it sort of feels like a 90s comic book movie in that way. And while Patty Jenkins may have directed it, Zack Snyder’s fingerprints are ALL OVER IT (as he co-wrote it with Allan Heinberg). I swear, I think about 60% of it was pure green screen, as I sat there thinking to myself, “This is on a soundstage. That is on a soundstage. Oh, that’s definitely a sound stage.” At points (especially during the final act), it shifts into that “Snydervision” that most of the DCEU movies are in, where it just becomes a copper-tinted music video.

Plus, I’m still not sure about the shared universe nature of the DCEU. While Marvel has almost flawlessly built their world over the course of many films, it just feels so forced with the DC movies. Whereas the MCU feels organic, the DCEU feels copycat. The framing device of the movie is meant to sort of further that idea of a shared universe, but I’m not sure it works. To be honest, I’d probably enjoy it more if I knew nothing about Dawn of Justice or the fact that she’ll pop up in Justice League later this year. She’s strong enough to stand on her own, and the rest of the disappointing DCEU almost taints her.

All that said, it’s really a great cinematic debut for the character, and young girls finally have their own big screen hero. Not to give too much away, but as the film starts, Diana is a wide-eyed little girl, and I could see so much of the audience connecting with that. I thought of my own daughter, and the fact the she now has her own hero. I think that will mean a lot to folks. As far as I’m concerned, scrap Justice League and the rest of the solo films on DC’s slate, and rush Wonder Woman 2 into production stat! For these reasons, Wonder Woman had the West Week Ever.

[therightnewsnetwork]

Liberal Women Behaving VERY Badly

I didn’t want to do this…but because of the abject stupidity of it, I now feel compelled to issue this article and address it to specifically those…whatever they were…at last weekend’s parade of pussies in Washington DC.

What in THE hell, were you bunch of drooling, slobbering liberals thinking?

Seriously…you wanted to have a voice…you had the biggest stage imaginable…you wanted yourselves and whatever cause it was you claimed to represent to be taken seriously, and you dressed up like clowns from a circus of hookers, drew up vulgar signs and pranced about like a 500,000 member gaggle of shrieking, malcontented, pissed-off sufferers of PMS pansies.

In just 24 hours, you mangy morons managed to show more disrespect, more abject hatred of your own gender and did more to demean your cause that President Trump could possibly do in a lifetime.

And speaking of gender… I was under the impression that liberals, regardless of their gender, didn’t give a happy puss 13damn about gender, and that being the case…why on earth were you out there demanding anything specifically related to one gender?

You can’t be gender-neutral and be marching for any gender’s rights at the same time…unless of course, you’re admitting your own hypocrisy.

Anyway…

Please, any one of you who were there, name even a single right that you had as women before last Friday at noon that you lost as OF noon on Friday when Donald Trump was sworn into office. Just one. Anyone?

Bueller?

Bueller?

You can’t, because you haven’t lost even a single right, so what was it again you were out there for?

Oh, yes…a woman’s right to have an abortion…and you’re scared that if the Supreme Court swings back to the Conservative…you might lose that right.

We know that this was exactly what your little parade of fools was all about because we know that Right to Life groups asked to be included in your orgy and that the organizers OF your orgy refused them.

What really has your parts all puckered up is the idea that the Conservative majority in Congress might vote to divest the American taxpayers of funding Planned Non-Parenthood. Now here’s a couple of things you probably haven’t spent too much time thinking about, and by the look of so many of your get-ups at your protest last weekend, I rather doubt that very many of you take the time to think at all…but Planned Parenthood, is not a non-profit bastion of abortion. They are FOR profit, and therefore probably don’t deserve taxpayer monies to begin with.

Now before you start telling me that oil companies get taxpayer dollars and they’re for profit…let me just point out that Exxon isn’t killing the soon-to-be-born on demand, so there is a difference.

Here’s an idea…why don’t you just pay for your own abortions, or better yet…don’t get pregnant to begin with and judging by the way you presented yourselves at last Saturday’s rally…the latter shouldn’t be much of a problem.

It really is amazing how you liberals want the government involved in everything…in every aspect of our daily lives, but you draw the line at government not paying for your abortions. You WANT the government to protect your ability to HAVE an abortion…you WANT them involved in your vaginas at THAT point…but you march about carrying signs telling the government to stay OUT of your vaginas.

So…which is it? In…or out…or in…or out…or in…

And don’t start screaming, “OH GOD, OH GOD,” because we know that your ilk doesn’t even believe in God.

You claim that you have the collective RIGHT to have an abortion.

No…you don’t. Finger through all the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, when you aren’t busy fingering something, or someone else, and you won’t find a single thing in their about any right, endowed by the Creator, regarding you having any right to end the life of a soon to be born child. And while you’re at it, take a moment to discover that our Constitution and our Bill of Rights makes it clear that our unalienable rights do not come from the government.

So…how did the organizers of this obtuse gathering pull it all together so quickly? Simple…it had been planned for months…as a celebration of Hillary’s win…which never happened…hence the need for hand lettered rather than pre-printed signage.

And women’s rights? Really? That’s what this was all about…in a country where women have equal rights? What about all the countries, many of which donated money directly to Hillary Clinton via her pay to play set up at the Department of State where women most assuredly do NOT have anything even slightly resembling equal rights?

Countries where women are stoned to death for being raped? Places where women are beaten for daring to be seen in public without their husbands? Countries where women are not allowed to drive, or get an education, or vote, or decide for themselves who they will marry?

Nearly all of those countries have an embassy in Washington…where these liberal woman could protest for women’s rights…where women’s rights are desperately lacking…but did they?

Of course not.

Those liberal moonbats protested for their right to have their soon to be born children killed, as a matter of birth control…and to have their deeds paid for by the American taxpayers.To those liberal women, and the smattering of liberal men who attended…the greatest injustice that women here face is the prospect of having to pay for their own abortions, or worse yet, in their eyes, the prospect of not being able to end the lives of their soon to be born children at all.

Oh, the humanity.

Let me now put the finest, sharpest point on the abject stupidity of this march that I possibly can…once it went from being a Hillary Celebration party to a so-called “women’s rights” march in protest of President Trump…the CO-CHAIR of this “women’s rights” gathering of liberal loons was…Linda Sarsour…a Muslim, tied to terrorist organizations…WHO SUPPORTS SHARIA LAW…which contains absolutely NO rights for women.

Okay, all of that said…allow me to address some of the idiots who joined the parade of pussies last weekend individually.

First up, we have what at first blush seems to be a woman dressed as a cow, but upon closer inspection, and after a little research, it is actually a cow dressed up as a woman. EradiGate is not how you spell…eradicate…which I believe is what you may have meant and I’m sure that had you possessed a dickshunairy…you would have known that.

Next…we had THIS liberal wordsmith…who had well over a month to come up with something deep to write on her sign…

But felt compelled to wallow about on the shallowest end of the gene pool she could find in order to show us all that liberals really are…staggeringly more enlightened than anyone else.

Then, we had this glowing example of liberal womanhood…

A woman who somehow managed to put her ass on backwards last Saturday morning, and she wore a shirt proclaiming that “the struggle is real.” Yes…yes it was…

After that, we come to THIS…

One can only imagine that she is trying to tell the rest of the world that she has managed to plow through all the available American men, and lesbians…along with having hosted all the illegal aliens in her own, private sanctuary city, so now she’s inviting all of Obama’s unvetted “refugees” through the front door.

Apparently, she isn’t particularly interested in vetting anyone who takes the plunge, therefore all but admitting her status as a multi-cultural slut…but there are a few things of which she might like to be aware…

All of Obama’s unvetted “refugees” are from Islamic countries, and some of them tend to wear clothing packed with dynamite, and some are prone to early self-detonation which could well lead to her first ever explosive orgasm. Also, those Islamists are looking for 72 VIRGINS and if one reads between the lines of her welcome mat…she doesn’t qualify.

Next up…

Her voice coach has been trying to get her to sing from her diaphragm…apparently, with some measure of success.

How about this tremendous example of liberalism who managed to turn her 15 seconds of shame into a TV interview

While I would tend to agree that building the wall she suggests would most likely repel illegal alien invaders…I have a hunch she wants the American tax payers to foot the bill and not the Mexican government.

Oh…dear…God…

If yours are ROARING…you’ve got problems bigger than Donald Trump.

This next one is a real head-scratcher…

Let’s see…you’re at a rally promoting abortion, but you have a toddler…maybe 3 or 4 years old….and you’re parading that child around carrying a sign containing 4 words…at least 3 of which she doesn’t even understand…in the hopes that she’ll grow up to be both as stupid, and as bitter as her mother.

Mom of the year.

Just a couple more…I promise…

What’s really ironic is that the vast vaginal majority of last weekend’s prancing genitalia hate Trump because, 10 years ago, he made a comment about grabbing a pussy…and those who actually voted…voted for the wife of Monica Lewinski’s former boyfriend who used his girlfriend, as a humidor.

And finally…speaking of liberal men…

THIS guy showed up at the weekend march with THIS sign…

Atta boy…way to prove my point.

Now that we have seen the mindset of the garden variety liberal woman, on full display, let me wrap this all up with perhaps the most ironic, hypocritical and bone crushingly stupid part of last weekend’s waddling parade of vaginas…a parade supposedly meant, in part, to convince men to stop objectifying women. As your keynote speaker…there to whip the collective women’s movement into a frothy lather, and once and for all times put an end to men treating women as little more than the receptacles they were dressed as last Saturday…you put Madonna on center stage…Madonna…the very woman who promised oral sex to anyone who voted for Hillary.

In the course of a single day, somewhere near 500,000 liberal women managed to delegitimize, and make a total mockery of their entire agenda, because never again will anyone with an ounce of common sense or caring hear one single word they have to say without envisioning their absurd costumes.

And trust me when I tell you, that nobody takes a 5-6 foot tall, vulgar, slobbering, drooling and acerbic vagina…seriously.

Absolutely nobody.

Source: TheNationalPatriot.com

The post Liberal Women Behaving VERY Badly appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Powered by WPeMatico

from http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/liberal-women-behaving-very-badly/

[patriotnewsblogger-blog]

Liberal Women Behaving VERY Badly

New Post has been published on http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/liberal-women-behaving-very-badly/

Liberal Women Behaving VERY Badly

I didn’t want to do this…but because of the abject stupidity of it, I now feel compelled to issue this article and address it to specifically those…whatever they were…at last weekend’s parade of pussies in Washington DC.

What in THE hell, were you bunch of drooling, slobbering liberals thinking?

Seriously…you wanted to have a voice…you had the biggest stage imaginable…you wanted yourselves and whatever cause it was you claimed to represent to be taken seriously, and you dressed up like clowns from a circus of hookers, drew up vulgar signs and pranced about like a 500,000 member gaggle of shrieking, malcontented, pissed-off sufferers of PMS pansies.

In just 24 hours, you mangy morons managed to show more disrespect, more abject hatred of your own gender and did more to demean your cause that President Trump could possibly do in a lifetime.

And speaking of gender… I was under the impression that liberals, regardless of their gender, didn’t give a happy puss 13damn about gender, and that being the case…why on earth were you out there demanding anything specifically related to one gender?

You can’t be gender-neutral and be marching for any gender’s rights at the same time…unless of course, you’re admitting your own hypocrisy.

Anyway…

Please, any one of you who were there, name even a single right that you had as women before last Friday at noon that you lost as OF noon on Friday when Donald Trump was sworn into office. Just one. Anyone?

Bueller?

Bueller?

You can’t, because you haven’t lost even a single right, so what was it again you were out there for?

Oh, yes…a woman’s right to have an abortion…and you’re scared that if the Supreme Court swings back to the Conservative…you might lose that right.

We know that this was exactly what your little parade of fools was all about because we know that Right to Life groups asked to be included in your orgy and that the organizers OF your orgy refused them.

What really has your parts all puckered up is the idea that the Conservative majority in Congress might vote to divest the American taxpayers of funding Planned Non-Parenthood. Now here’s a couple of things you probably haven’t spent too much time thinking about, and by the look of so many of your get-ups at your protest last weekend, I rather doubt that very many of you take the time to think at all…but Planned Parenthood, is not a non-profit bastion of abortion. They are FOR profit, and therefore probably don’t deserve taxpayer monies to begin with.

Now before you start telling me that oil companies get taxpayer dollars and they’re for profit…let me just point out that Exxon isn’t killing the soon-to-be-born on demand, so there is a difference.

Here’s an idea…why don’t you just pay for your own abortions, or better yet…don’t get pregnant to begin with and judging by the way you presented yourselves at last Saturday’s rally…the latter shouldn’t be much of a problem.

It really is amazing how you liberals want the government involved in everything…in every aspect of our daily lives, but you draw the line at government not paying for your abortions. You WANT the government to protect your ability to HAVE an abortion…you WANT them involved in your vaginas at THAT point…but you march about carrying signs telling the government to stay OUT of your vaginas.

So…which is it? In…or out…or in…or out…or in…

And don’t start screaming, “OH GOD, OH GOD,” because we know that your ilk doesn’t even believe in God.

You claim that you have the collective RIGHT to have an abortion.

No…you don’t. Finger through all the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, when you aren’t busy fingering something, or someone else, and you won’t find a single thing in their about any right, endowed by the Creator, regarding you having any right to end the life of a soon to be born child. And while you’re at it, take a moment to discover that our Constitution and our Bill of Rights makes it clear that our unalienable rights do not come from the government.

So…how did the organizers of this obtuse gathering pull it all together so quickly? Simple…it had been planned for months…as a celebration of Hillary’s win…which never happened…hence the need for hand lettered rather than pre-printed signage.

And women’s rights? Really? That’s what this was all about…in a country where women have equal rights? What about all the countries, many of which donated money directly to Hillary Clinton via her pay to play set up at the Department of State where women most assuredly do NOT have anything even slightly resembling equal rights?

Countries where women are stoned to death for being raped? Places where women are beaten for daring to be seen in public without their husbands? Countries where women are not allowed to drive, or get an education, or vote, or decide for themselves who they will marry?

Nearly all of those countries have an embassy in Washington…where these liberal woman could protest for women’s rights…where women’s rights are desperately lacking…but did they?

Of course not.

Those liberal moonbats protested for their right to have their soon to be born children killed, as a matter of birth control…and to have their deeds paid for by the American taxpayers.To those liberal women, and the smattering of liberal men who attended…the greatest injustice that women here face is the prospect of having to pay for their own abortions, or worse yet, in their eyes, the prospect of not being able to end the lives of their soon to be born children at all.

Oh, the humanity.

Let me now put the finest, sharpest point on the abject stupidity of this march that I possibly can…once it went from being a Hillary Celebration party to a so-called “women’s rights” march in protest of President Trump…the CO-CHAIR of this “women’s rights” gathering of liberal loons was…Linda Sarsour…a Muslim, tied to terrorist organizations…WHO SUPPORTS SHARIA LAW…which contains absolutely NO rights for women.

Okay, all of that said…allow me to address some of the idiots who joined the parade of pussies last weekend individually.

First up, we have what at first blush seems to be a woman dressed as a cow, but upon closer inspection, and after a little research, it is actually a cow dressed up as a woman. EradiGate is not how you spell…eradicate…which I believe is what you may have meant and I’m sure that had you possessed a dickshunairy…you would have known that.

Next…we had THIS liberal wordsmith…who had well over a month to come up with something deep to write on her sign…

But felt compelled to wallow about on the shallowest end of the gene pool she could find in order to show us all that liberals really are���staggeringly more enlightened than anyone else.

Then, we had this glowing example of liberal womanhood…

A woman who somehow managed to put her ass on backwards last Saturday morning, and she wore a shirt proclaiming that “the struggle is real.” Yes…yes it was…

After that, we come to THIS…

One can only imagine that she is trying to tell the rest of the world that she has managed to plow through all the available American men, and lesbians…along with having hosted all the illegal aliens in her own, private sanctuary city, so now she’s inviting all of Obama’s unvetted “refugees” through the front door.

Apparently, she isn’t particularly interested in vetting anyone who takes the plunge, therefore all but admitting her status as a multi-cultural slut…but there are a few things of which she might like to be aware…

All of Obama’s unvetted “refugees” are from Islamic countries, and some of them tend to wear clothing packed with dynamite, and some are prone to early self-detonation which could well lead to her first ever explosive orgasm. Also, those Islamists are looking for 72 VIRGINS and if one reads between the lines of her welcome mat…she doesn’t qualify.

Next up…

Her voice coach has been trying to get her to sing from her diaphragm…apparently, with some measure of success.

How about this tremendous example of liberalism who managed to turn her 15 seconds of shame into a TV interview

While I would tend to agree that building the wall she suggests would most likely repel illegal alien invaders…I have a hunch she wants the American tax payers to foot the bill and not the Mexican government.

Oh…dear…God…

If yours are ROARING…you’ve got problems bigger than Donald Trump.

This next one is a real head-scratcher…

Let’s see…you’re at a rally promoting abortion, but you have a toddler…maybe 3 or 4 years old….and you’re parading that child around carrying a sign containing 4 words…at least 3 of which she doesn’t even understand…in the hopes that she’ll grow up to be both as stupid, and as bitter as her mother.

Mom of the year.

Just a couple more…I promise…

What’s really ironic is that the vast vaginal majority of last weekend’s prancing genitalia hate Trump because, 10 years ago, he made a comment about grabbing a pussy…and those who actually voted…voted for the wife of Monica Lewinski’s former boyfriend who used his girlfriend, as a humidor.

And finally…speaking of liberal men…

THIS guy showed up at the weekend march with THIS sign…

Atta boy…way to prove my point.

Now that we have seen the mindset of the garden variety liberal woman, on full display, let me wrap this all up with perhaps the most ironic, hypocritical and bone crushingly stupid part of last weekend’s waddling parade of vaginas…a parade supposedly meant, in part, to convince men to stop objectifying women. As your keynote speaker…there to whip the collective women’s movement into a frothy lather, and once and for all times put an end to men treating women as little more than the receptacles they were dressed as last Saturday…you put Madonna on center stage…Madonna…the very woman who promised oral sex to anyone who voted for Hillary.

In the course of a single day, somewhere near 500,000 liberal women managed to delegitimize, and make a total mockery of their entire agenda, because never again will anyone with an ounce of common sense or caring hear one single word they have to say without envisioning their absurd costumes.

And trust me when I tell you, that nobody takes a 5-6 foot tall, vulgar, slobbering, drooling and acerbic vagina…seriously.

Absolutely nobody.

Source: TheNationalPatriot.com

The post Liberal Women Behaving VERY Badly appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Powered by WPeMatico

http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/liberal-women-behaving-very-badly/ %cats%