#also let's be real he's not going to be portrayed as jewish

[azurecanary]

So apparently Wiccan is about to make his MCU debut

What are the chances they'll fuck him up too?

[rhiannons-bird]

okay so I‘M FINALLY READING SWORD CATCHER AND I HAVE THOUGHTS

I‘m only about halfway through but I need to rant

- it‘s incredible how well cassie manages to lend a unique voice to each of her characters every single time. she just doesn’t miss does she?

- lin caster is the awesomest girl. i just love her because she reminds me of other cc girls in the way that she is kind of a very typical heroine on the surface but you can actually feel her emotions and she’s very believable & flawed & human and you just can’t help rooting for her + i love her friendship with mariam

- everyone is bisexual & it’s completely normalised i love it here

- lin & conor??? apparently they are the flagship which I know because I took a peek at the tag after they had two scenes together because the ENERGY OMG

- ahh yes, conor 😌 another pretty man with issues who’s in a lot of trouble and likes to cover it up with sarcasm, pompous behaviour, fancy clothes & vanity- you just can’t help but love it

- but also he‘s the biggest prick and i want him to have some sense beat into him by everyone around him

- like he qualifies for a huge growth arc but it could also go downhill and turn into sth ugly

- anyone had a weird sense of déjà vu about him and lin after that one little excerpt about adessa and suleman? like, she’s an ashkar with probably immense magical potential let’s be real i see where this is going and he‘s a prince (future king) with marivent blood 🤔🤔🤔

- conor‘s frat boy posse make my blood boil- especially with the way they talked about antonetta in that one scene 🤢🤮

- falconet is the nicest one by far but he‘s sus as hell i know he’s up to sth 🤨 but i rly wanna like him 😭

- the ragpicker king is just a cool dude who dresses emo and has people murdered on the regular i guess i love him. he’s hot. - kaz energy but also very different at the same time. can‘t wait to see more of him. and there’s def more to him.

- also no, andreyen, i don‘t understand either what people mean about ji-an having an off putting manner i‘m pretty convinced she‘s never done anything wrong in her entire life 💗except for the murder what murder

- kel can only be described as a calmly unhinged cinnamon roll. he reminds me a little of james (especially with his „mask“) but if you orphaned him & janked up the loyalty & sluttiness by a hundred

- like fr he is so confused just running around threatening and/or kissing people wtf 😭✋🏼 he just has chemistry with everyone he interacts with lol

- kel & conor remind me of matthew & james but if there was a big power imbalance and a everything is a little more fucked up 🙃

- generally the way power & power dynamics are portrayed and handled is very interesting i like it

- antonetta has my entire heart ❤️

- I need more of her but as an individual not just through kel‘s pov, so far i’m not very big on whatever is being hinted at with her and kel

- I adore merren just like everyone else, he‘s kind of giving a weird mix of christopher/matthew/wylan and I‘m here for it. plus: autism coded character yeass

- also nice to see some jewish rep. (i did not know cassie was jewish before lol) the ashkar are really interesting (& as far as their treatment by the rest of the world goes at times infuriating😤) to read about and add a lot of depth to the world building.

- i love how we see the complexities of their culture portrayed through lin who on the one hand is deeply ingrained in it and holds/has received a lot of love & care for/from her own people while also having been wronged & ostracised by them and how both can be true simultaneously

- as someone who‘s very familiar with multiple romance languages the languages in this book are incredibly entertaining to me

- SO MANY SECRETS & political intrigue hehehe rubbing my little hands together can’t wait for all this to escalate (because it most certainly will) 😈

bottom line

I’m really glad i finally started reading this.

it took me a while to get into it & I’m still holding out on a final judgement since it seems very slow but i’m a patient reader and i appreciate a good setup.

also I want a creepy black crocodile pool in my house now.

[utilitycaster]

Hi, first religion anon (NOT the same as the second religion anon). My main complaints are with TUC (mostly s1 but the ‘Jesus is real’ thing in s2 really bothered me) and the way that Laudna and a few other characters engage with the gods on CR. I have 0 complaints with Sam, I think his engagements with religion as both Scanlan and FCG are fascinating. I think things like ACOC and Kristen on D20 are done fine, but when they move outside of Christian allegories they tend to stumble. I know Brennan and Ally have philosophy backgrounds and Emily has a religious studies background, but frankly I’m not super confident in American universities’ ability to make people deconstruct Christian hegemony, and things like Emily using the phrase “Judeo-Christian” aren’t super encouraging to me.

thanks for clarifying, I was wondering about the second anon bc I was like "the first anon came in being fairly normal even if I don't agree and this feels...bad and also just a hunch but it feels like it's coming from a Cultural Christian who is not American. (also I did get your follow up question and I want to answer that one separately bc I think it's a good but separate point).

I know it's not terribly popular to say but being weird about the term "Judeo-Christian" feels like one of those things that Jumblr and other people in Jewish Millennial/Gen Z spaces online made a big deal about and I'm like "uhhhhh this was a thing my actual Jewish middle school teachers said sometimes; it's not the best term, no, but it was the go-to term in a lot of contexts until quite recently to the point that yeah, Emily going to school in the 2000s would probably hear it even from Jewish profs, and so it's not so much a red flag as a sign that she graduated before 2010."

I also honestly don't mind Jesus being real in TUC 2; at some point if you've decided all other mythology is real why not Christian religion. It feels, in a way, far more Christian-centric to treat Christianity as something that cannot be incorporated, as too real, as compared to say, Norse or Greek myths or Golems.

I will say that I agree that Ally and Marisha do tend to be a bit more limited in how they engage; I actually don't mind Laudna's frustrations with the gods from a "I think this comes from Marisha's personal feelings" perspective more so than a "could we...actually explore this as a throughline rather than a bunch of random-ass statements." I do think that Ally does tend to pull from their own experience; understandably so, but yes, it's very different than my experience as someone not raised Christian let alone strictly so.

I guess, and this might just be difficult to do as an anon ask thing, that I am looking at this very holistically. I am looking far more at what the GM is doing than an individual player, and I haven't had issues with Matt, Brennan, Murph, or Aabria's portrayal of divine forces. I find that Worlds Beyond Number has been explicitly very not Christian (and indeed, heavily influenced by Shintoism and pre-Christian Irish religion) in how the spirits are portrayed, and while I think Matt does tend to draw a lot from Catholic architecture and imagery and vibes, the way the gods engage with the players does not feel exclusively Christian (notably in Campaign 2; none of Fjord, Caduceus, Yasha, nor Jester's experience feel inherently cultural Christian beyond the fact that Travis mentions he doesn't feel like he can connect with the Luxon because 'it's a shape'). So it means I'm not looking to Ally for example for an exploration of religion that is as accessible to me, but I do find that actual play on the whole feels fine. I find a lot of the claims do feel like they get really hung up on specific details (eg: the Santa jokes in Chetney's backstory) instead of the overall feeling (eg: the fact that many of the deities have a very open, fluid, and at times intellectual form of engagement; the fact that the general message is that suffering is not purifying but rather simply sucks; Melora death domain traditions and especially Caduceus's philosophy which is very much outside American Protestantism; the polytheistic society of Vasselheim.)

[sneakydraws]

i wanna see fifty five goldfinch pieces 💔💔

OKAY!! So I have this little series I like to call the great decompartmentalisation of Theo decker... Let me walk you through it. I promise there's art after the massive paragraph of meandering analysis alright

You know how Theo's life is segmented into these distinct episodes? And how he himself is split into multiple different identities, and how much shame and fear there is associated with the idea of those identities mixing? For example: the straight a student living a completely, delusionally idyllic life with his adoring mother and the vanilla teenage troublemaker breaking into people's summer homes with his shady homoerotic bestie. When the two identities come into contact via his suspension, it leads to the most traumatic event in Theo's life, and honestly I suspect that might be the origin of this tendency towards compartmentalisation... I could go through the whole book here but the most prominent examples are Theo panicking at the thought of Mrs Barbour or his therapist finding out about Hobie, his cutting himself off from New York when in Vegas with his other shady homoerotic bestie (the amount of times Vegas is compared to an alien planet...) and his dual post timeskip identifies of charming antiques salesman/fraudulent art stealing junkie. And this often manifests in Theo's reluctance to let people from his different periods interact - see him rushing to stop Boris from talking to Pippa, and him keeping Hobie in the dark about the blackmail, and isn't it kind of weird that the barbours - Theo's soon to be legal family - don't really interact with Hobie and Pippa? Anyway. Basically I thought it would be cool to make a series of little vignettes of theo allowing the people and places and things that represent various versions of Him to interact and thus symbolically healing the disconnected parts of himself... Or something. I have more ideas scribbled down but somehow the only ones I ended up with proper art for is the various holidays (which, holidays are also a weirdly prevalent theme in tgf? Idk whats up with that but it's a good tool for this purpose) so we have:

Christmas Eve at Boris's, featuring Pippa and Hobie - I feel kinda bad for only ever portraying Boris with polish customs but let's be real I'm just using him to show off my own heritage lol. In Poland the main Xmas celebrations happen on Xmas Eve, traditionally with the appearance of the first star in the sky. You eat the mostly inoffensive barszcz as well some truly vile shit, such as mushroom and cabbage dumplings, mushroom and cabbage salad, other items made of mushrooms and cabbage, and finally the most disgusting dish of my life: Jewish style carp. No, it's not quite the same thing as gefiltefish, although that's the Wikipedia page you might use to get to the actual dish. All washed down with compote which I hate. You also break and eat communion wafers while wishing each other stuff, which Pippa is doing with popchyk here hehe

Christmas breakfast as a little bonus despite it not having much of a tradition - I associate it with lots of hams/cured meats, gherkins and maybe Tatar sauce (yum). Much superior to the Xmas dinner imho. Really I just wanted Theo and Boris to have a moment to themselves haha

Christmas proper at the barbours, featuring Boris and Tom cable! I could talk about all the tension and who's diffusing it but honestly I think y'all can draw your own conclusions lol. I just think it would be really funny for the infamous dis-engaged couple to each bring their delinquent boytoys and for Boris the drug dealer to actually come out looking superior

Vegetarian friendly Thanksgiving at Hobie's, as tradition requires! I think he'd love to throw one of his big Thanksgiving parties purely for all of Theo's families to get to know each other... you know, kind of an elaboration on that Thanksgiving illustration I drew a while back! This would be before all the Christmases I think. Boris is winning Mrs Barbour over with his roguish charm lol I think old ladies would like him... Theo in the corner freaking the hell out as per this project's mission statement lmao

And on a slightly different note I wanted Theo Pippa and Hobie to all visit weltys grave. I'm borrowing slightly from the polish tradition of all saint's day, when you clean, decorate and light candles on the graves of loved ones.

[sometipsygnostalgic]

I had to unfollow so many people for posting both Zionist and antisemitic bs. It's so tough to drop someone you followed for so long even for something like that, it feels.

To preface this: it seems a bit strange to make a long reply about how it affects tumblr when there's so much real life shit happening.... but I will anyway.

There's a really famous tumblr blog which has massive Zionist views to the extent they say that Israel's occupation of the middle east saves the countries from "primitives", and they gotten away with it for years. I hope he's getting his ass obliterated for his stupid views now. I hope people have opened their eyes.

There's another blog I've stopped following because their stuff has gone from anti-zionist - which, you know, i am one thousand percent anti zionist - to saying that the persecution of jewish people is a thing of the past, which... uhh.... no? Basically their stuff has gotten more and more extreme to a point which is beyond reason. They don't have any personal connection to events as far as i know.

The reason such a thing has happened is because of a lot of historical events that have happened in the middle east, and also because of the complete wishy washy bullshit way media has been dealing with Palestine. One thing is made perfectly clear - Palestinian lives are not seen as human lives. They are portrayed as "terrorist lives". Meanwhile unilateral support has been provided to Israel's wholly unproportionate, opportunist attempts to dominate Palestine.

There are a whole slew of political issues outside of Israel and Palestine's relationship which have caused this, such as Israel constantly being under threat by Egypt and its other enemies, but that doesn't take away from the sheer unhumanity that seems to be supported by our government and news sources that we were suppposed to trust. And if there are "special reasons" for it, like my dad purports, I'm not hearing them. It is completely unhinged.

This is why posters like the one I've mentioned have become more extreme. In the end their posts don't matter compared to the lives lost, and they want to do something, anything about it. So that anger gets directed at.... the completely wrong people. There are also, of course, a million anti semetic opportunist douchebags and militants who are jumping at the gun to give everyone reasons to beat up and lock up jewish people. And that's not going to end any time soon. It's a real threat. So the risk here is that we let Israel destroy Palestine, AND we let society beat the shit out of a bunch of innocent jewish people because of it.

[sophieakatz]

Thursday Thoughts: Levels of Media Representation

I saw Disney’s Strange World. I really liked Disney’s Strange World. One of the things I really liked about Strange World was how Ethan, the main teenage character, was gay.

Not that he was gay – how he was gay.

There’s more than one way to represent a minority identity in a movie. Each method of portraying this character and their identity has a different effect on the audience. When discussing media representation, it’s not enough to simply ask if there’s a queer character in this movie, or a Jewish character, or a disabled character, or a Black character. We also need to consider how the identity is represented, and exactly how much good – or harm – that kind of representation causes.

These different kinds of minority identity can be viewed as levels on a scale – from least explicit representation to most impactful representation.

An important disclaimer: I am a queer Jewish woman. I am also white and cisgender. In this blog post, I discuss representations of minority identities to which I do not belong, and so I have to assume that at some point I make a bad call about what is or isn’t “good representation” for those identities. It is vital to listen to oppressed people when they say that something is harmful. It is equally vital to listen when they say that something is empowering. I can explore this topic through the lens of the minority identities I have as well as my experience as a writer, media analyzer, and social justice warrior. I cannot call myself an expert on experiences I do not have.

But this idea has been bouncing around my head since I saw Strange World, and so now, I give it voice.

Let’s take a look at the levels of media representation.

[Here there be spoilers – for Disney’s Zootopia and Strange World, and also James Cameron’s Avatar. Other movies and series are mentioned in non-spoiler-y ways]

1. The Allegory

Many movies, especially children’s animated movies, present an allegory for minorities and the struggles they face. A recent example is Disney’s Zootopia, in which different animal species and species groups metaphorically represent real-world human groups. Judy’s struggle to be accepted and respected as the first rabbit police officer directly parallels women’s struggle to break into male-dominated careers.

At the same time, in Zootopia, predators are across the board viewed as potentially dangerous and untrustworthy, mirroring many stereotypes about and bigotry perpetrated against BIPOC humans. At one point, a pig shouts at a cheetah, “Go back to the forest!” It’s as blatant as can be. But an allegory for people of color is not the same thing as telling a story that includes people of color, even if some of the movie’s side characters are voiced by Black and Latinx actors.

There’s also a big problem with an allegory like the one presented in Zootopia – there’s a “reason” for the bigotry. The prey animals have a legitimate, historical reason to fear and hate predators. In the real world, there is no legitimate, historical reason for white people to fear and hate people of color. While allegories can be useful conversation starters or early lessons about prejudice, they often teach, however accidentally, that bigotry is rational.

2. Coding

Sometimes, a movie will include a character who seems queer because of their appearance, their speech, or their body language, but nothing actually happens in the story that confirms it. Or, sometimes a character seems Black, but their skin is actually grey or purple because they’re an alien. These are examples of minority coding.

Coding is important to understand as a part of film history. For a long time, the only way queer creatives could get away with portraying a character who was in any way like themselves was to create a queer-coded character – like Ursula from The Little Mermaid, created in part by Howard Ashman and modeled after the drag queen Divine. Besides the creative outlet, the value of a minority-coded character is that it allowed minority viewers to identify with a character for what was often the first time ever.

The unfortunate side of minority-coding is that coding often involves falling back on harmful stereotypes, especially when the character is created by someone who doesn’t share the identity. Think about Watto from the Star Wars prequel movies, with his big nose, his little round black hat, his nebulously-Eastern-European accent, and his obsession with money. He’s Jew-coded, though I really wish I could disown him.

Even when a coded character is created with love and good intentions, the fact that the character’s identity is never explicitly confirmed in the movie gives bigoted viewers an easy out or an excuse to cause harm. It’s truly awful when a minority viewer who identifies with a fictional character gets dogpiled on social media by white supremacists who are furious that she dared to claim their favorite alien character was Black.

3. The Easy Cut

Near the end of Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, two minor characters, both women, run up to each other and kiss. This is an example of the easy cut level of media representation. If you were to cut about five seconds of footage out of this movie, you would cut out the entirety of its queer representation. I won’t beat a dead horse here, but this kind of representation, though explicit, is insufficient.

I also include in this category those TV characters who are revealed to be Jewish during the show’s Christmas episode, but their Judaism is never brought up in any other context. If you skipped that one episode, you would never know they were Jewish, so does it really matter?

4. Ignorable

Sometimes a character has dark skin, but their race doesn’t have any impact on their story or how they move through the world. Sometimes a character has an accent that implies that they’re from a certain part of the world, but we never actually learn anything about their culture. Sometimes a character has a mezuzah on their doorpost, but they don’t ever mention the fact that they’re Jewish even though their story is about literally wrestling with Egyptian gods. (Yeah, I’m still salty about Moon Knight.)

These are examples of ignorable representation. The visible or audible aspects of this character’s minority identity are present for more than five seconds, so you couldn’t so easily cut it out of the show. However, the character interacts with the world in the exact same way that the “default” straight white man would. The media ignores how different identities create unique perspectives and experiences. As a result, this character’s minority identity hardly matters at all.

5. The Token Minority

The Black best friend. The sassy gay friend. The one elderly Asian man who owns the restaurant. The only female Smurf. These are some examples of the token minority. They’re not the main character of the story, and so they’re often one-dimensional, lacking a driving plotline of their own. Their only purpose in-universe is to support the straight/white/male/all of the above protagonist.

This is because their only purpose out-of-universe is to draw in a wider audience because the show has a character who is not straight/white/male/all of the above. As a result, this character lacks the complexity to be a true representation of a person and their experiences, which has the harmful effect of implying that real-world people with minority identities are not as complex, interesting, or worthy of focus as real-world people with majority identities. If every time you see yourself in a story, you are the side character in someone else’s life, what does that teach you about how you fit into the world? The token minority exists, and their identity cannot be ignored or denied, but they still don’t seem to matter.

6. Suffering

Finally, a category where the minority character’s identity cannot be ignored, and they are also the main character! However, the reason that their identity cannot be ignored is that their identity is the cause of the story’s conflict. Their identity is a big, terrible deal – a source of obstacles or of outright suffering for the character.

Think about Black people in movies about slavery, Jewish people in movies about the Holocaust, or queer people in movies about homophobia. Their identity matters to the story, yes, but in a profoundly negative way. The character’s minority identity might even be presented as something to escape or overcome, instead of as an important part of who they are. In James Cameron’s Avatar, Jake Sully begins the movie as a paraplegic, and his happy ending involves receiving a new body that is not disabled.

It is important for us to see and learn stories about different people’s struggles. We cannot afford to allow the world to forget about the ways that bigotry has led to suffering, because when we remember, we can learn from history and – G-d willing – put an end to bigotry, or at least more effectively fight it.

The problem is when these stories dominate the media. If we only hear about Jewish suffering, and never about Jewish joy, that sends a message to the world that Judaism is a terrible thing. Minorities’ suffering is one kind of representation, but it cannot be a complete picture.

7. Not A Big Deal, Yet Impossible To Ignore

But what if a movie included, as a main or major character, someone whose minority identity is not a big, bad deal, but also something that has a real impact on the way this character interacts with the world around them, to the point where their identity cannot be cut, ignored, or denied?

This brings me to Ethan from Strange World. While watching this movie, I felt I was truly seeing a person. Not an allegory, an implication, a stereotype, a token, or someone who only existed to suffer.

Ethan is a gay person. He’s a teenager with a crush on a boy named Diazo. He flirts with Diazo. His friends make fun of him and Diazo for flirting with each other. Ethan’s dad, Searcher, wants to meet and get to know Diazo, and Ethan is completely embarrassed about this. In the middle of a dangerous adventure, Ethan gleefully imagines how impressed Diazo will be when he hears about it. Ethan’s grandfather, Jaeger, is excited to hear Ethan talk about how Diazo makes him feel. Also, Ethan’s relationship with Diazo, and the way Diazo encourages Ethan to be himself and be an explorer, is an integral part of Ethan’s journey and character growth through the movie.

It is impossible to ignore that Ethan is gay. But it’s also not a big deal. It’s an integral part of who Ethan is. It informs his behavior just as much as being straight or aro-ace would inform his behavior. But it’s not an obstacle, nor a source of suffering, nor the only reason that Ethan exists in the story.

We need more of this kind of representation. I cannot exaggerate how much of a positive impact that characters like Ethan stand to create. People of all identities deserve to see themselves in movies, series, and all kinds of media as complete human beings who matter and whose identity matters as an integral part of their lives. Ethan is not the first example, and not even the first example that Disney has created (Mirabel from Encanto comes to mind – she and her family are undeniably, integrally Colombian). But he is an example that all creatives should learn from.

[skaruresonic]

@beevean Out of morbid curiosity, I watched episode one of Netflixavania following a video explaining games lore (disclaimer: just the Classic era. There seems to be A Lot covered in this franchise). My first impressions are: = Despite being almost comically edgy, I really wasn't emotionally impacted by the writing. It almost felt like it was just going through the motions. We begin the show with the start of Dracula and Lisa's relationship, and yet we're told it was this great transformative love instead of being shown that. One minute she's convinced him to let her stay, the next she's being burned at the stake. Wow. The tragedy. Break out the tissues. Dracula says he loved her, ofc, but since we don't get to see their relationship in action, the show might as well shrug and be like "just trust me dood"

= It's really ironic that a show paying lip service to science conveniently forgets that burn stake victims were likely to die or fall unconscious from smoke inhalation before the actual burning. Meaning Lisa wouldn't have had the time to scream and plead for as long as she had.

= ...Is this another one of those "all religion is bad and I am smart for shitting on it" works? Because I had enough of that with Mists of Avalon lmao. Not that I'm the biggest fan of Christianity, but anti-Christianity tracts like these tend to be equally fucking obnoxious because they're always so one-note, disingenuous, and boring with how they constantly beat you over the head with "religion bad" and don't really add anything else to that particular thought

= Wallachia is portrayed as like, cartoonishly backwater. Women doctors existed in the Middle Ages. They were not all automatically burned at the stake because hurr durr technology is evil.

Some of them even treated kings; I recall reading about a medieval Jewish doctor who cured a young king's eye condition. somehow I get the feeling the writer of this show has not read A History Book

= I also found it funny how the priest named "strange weeds" in the list of Lisa's possessions, as if the people of medieval Wallachia were so backwards that they didn't know what fucking herbs were.

The absolute lmao. = I don't really know anything about Dracula other than he decided to oppose God due to the death of his first wife in the games, but even then, despite my sheer lack of knowledge, I still sensed something off about his characterization here. Given how the show practically has Dracula spell it out for us that He Really Loved Lisa More Than These Stinky Humans, I Swear Just Trust Me Dood at the episode's climax, I had the feeling that if someone like him had been told his wife was dying, he'd fly like the wind to go try and rescue her. Or, failing that, unleashing unholy wrath upon her killers. But no, he just broods to the old woman just to be Dramatique. no talk him, he angy >:c = crying blood. CRAAAAAWLING IN MY CRAAAAAWL, THESE CRAWL THEY WILL NOT CRAAAAAAAAWL = Alucard tells Dracula to go after the one who killed Lisa instead of condemning all of humanity to death, but he already fucking saw who did it so like lmao what kind of logic is this = The people of Wallachia were too dumb to live actually. And kinda had it coming tbh. Imagine you don't think Satan exists but one day he shows up out of nowhere in a cloud of hellfire and tells you to gtfo before he kills you all. And instead of getting the fuck out of Dodge that very night because holy crap Satan is real after all and worse, he's pissed off, you decide to stay. Like dumbasses. = oh is this just Hunchback of Notre Dame without the sexual repression? k cool. = I'll bet the animators really liked drawing all that gore. ow the edge = Why did we spend five minutes on a not-funny, prolonged bestiality joke? It did nothing but waste time. Is this what passes for humor on this show?

= Well. That just happened. Thought it'd be more interesting than that but nah

[lo-fi-charming]

Hi, I saw your ideal Elias drawing and wanted to let you know that portraying politically and/or socially power people & people in high positions has roots deep in antisemitism. It's derived from the claim that all or most political figures are actually jewish and that Jews thus 'run the media'.

Some further reading: The Atlantic article on why conspiracy theorists always land on the Jews: https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/10/why-conspiracy-theorists-always-land-on-the-jews/671730/

The Guardian article on QAnon and their roots in antisemitic theories: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/25/qanon-conspiracy-theory-explained-trump-what-is

Wikipedia article on the international Jewish conspiracy, which also has a short 'see also' section linking to two more Wikipedia articles on antisemitic conspiracy theories: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Jewish_conspiracy

I'm sure you didn't purposefully portray Elias as an antisemitic stereotype/conspiracy, antisemitism often hides in plain sight, so I wanted to take initiative.

Have a good [insert relevant temporal word here] :) /gen

anon im going to be so straightforward and real with you

my thoughts on this:

it is a... silly little joke. a pun yknow? EELias? we all have a sensible chuckle

i drew him as an eel because i like eels. i love them so much. i would hug and kiss them.

pr sure the most relevant angle for that antisemitic stereotype is lizard people? and he is not a lizard. he is an eel

my elias isn't jewish? so...?

also elias runs a dumb little institute that relies on donors... he has like 5 dollars... i wouldn't exactly describe him as Politically Powerful

i GUESS you could argue that, well he is literally the guy secretly manipulating all events for his evil plans, but like... that isn't why i drew him, specifically, as an eel? review points 1 and 2

...i think when it comes to why folks might feel the urge to send asks like this... i get it can come from a genuinely well-intentioned place, to an extent. but i've talked before about how asks like these come off and how they make me, personally, feel. it's not your job or obligation to write out an essay explaining to me why [your interpretation of my art] means ive drawn something you feel is bad, and thus need to warn me of

like im sorry but ultimately my feeling is that it's just not that deep and kind of a reach, and this ask is frustrating to me because to me it feels like you're taking the worst-faith reading of something innocuous as an excuse to be pedantic in my direction

[iwantasecretgarden]

This scene specifically is so powerful for Katya (played by Cybill Shepherd) as a character for a number of reasons. Firstly, she shows agency as a partner to Goncharov for the first time mid-film as his equal, willing to make problems - even former business partners - disappear. She’s not the helpless alcohol-soaked victim she portrays to avoid suspicion, even from her husband himself. Katya is aware of Goncharov’s every mood, and yet he is completely oblivious to hers. This scene with Ambrosini directly mirrors the finale, when Katya holds the gun on her husband, leaving the audience on the edge of our seats, as we know she is perfectly capable of shooting a man.

Secondly, Al Pacino acts beyond even his incredible range in his pastiche of condescension, well-meaning scorn, and misogyny that Katya, despite shooting him, was still just a daughter-figure, a princesa, a charity act he might “talk out of her hysteria.” He wheedles and begs, trying to win her over until he makes one fatal error: an anti-Semitic remark. Knowing the Goncharovs were fleeing Russia due to the Jewish round ups in their country, and despite them jumping from the fat to the fire of Naples the Mussolini Era, the layers of Pacino’s character Mario Ambrosini still manage to shine both smarmy and slick. Pacino’s famous glittering eyes immediately became a hallmark for one of the most subtle but unmistakable cinematic moments in history; the exact moment he understands Katya will kill him. Katya even kills Ambrosini in her husband’s signature style, rather than let him bleed out or perhaps escape, despite his ‘caring’ for her earlier in the film. Cybill Shepherd herself plays the affront and the fury of the anti-Semitism Katya expresses perfectly. Later Shepherd went on the record in Modern Screen to remind audiences that unlike in Christianity, there are “some sins that are unforgivable,” and that the Shoah was one. There was no possible redemption for Ambrosini.

Thirdly, the killing weapon being a direct mirror to Goncharov’s calling card - but taken from the guitar Sofia painted for Katya - illuminates why Katya is making this choice. Obviously, Goncharov never wanted children, but to send Mario Ambrosini to force Katya to get it ‘taken care of’ cemented him in cruelty. This directly contrasts to hardline Sofia, who, in her work as an enforcer and a spy, force her to act as ‘one of the guys’ (in her menswear clothing, casual cursing, and lack of feminine materialism such as makeup), chose to have an abortion because of lack of ability to keep a child alive and still pursue her line of work. This is specifically striking as the movie Goncharov was released in 1973, the same year as the hallmark Roe v. Wade that has changed the way women are able to access healthcare in America.

The subtextual relationship between the two women can be played as homo-eroticism, but also as a way to signal that Katya had found someone to call family. Sofia felt isolated and lonely until Katya arrived, and even though the two women played different tropes of the hyper-feminine wife and the very beginnings of the definition of Butch, they were able to bond over a very scarring, real experience that gave many viewers nightmares. For Katya to accept the painted guitar as a gift, and turn around and  make it part of her killing MO shows her ability to truly bloom in her role as neither prisoner nor victim, but a willing - and ruthless - participant of the Naples Underground. It’s what takes this average mob-made movie to a new height beyond the likes of femme fatales in the Hammett and Chandler era.

Despite the film being set in the thirties at the height of Mafia showmanship with the likes of Al Capone - whose personal knowledge of the underground was integral to its scriptwriting - the Cold War and U.S. relations with Russia led to Katya being cast as either a Russian Agent, or a Russian subversion. Either way, we can agree, her killing line will go down with the greatest movie quotes of the 20th century.

- From “Goncharov: A Feminist Critique” printed in Mad Magazine, (Summer 1975)

Image description of script under the cut.

KATYA HOLDS A SMOKING GUN. MARIO IS HALF SITTING AGAINST A WALL HE'S SLID DOWN, HANDS OVER HIS STOMACH. A SPLASH OF BLOOD PAINTS THE WALL.

MARIO: Katya, Katya, come on, be reasonable! Haven't I been like a father to you? To both of you?

KATYA: Goncho told you to leave us alone! He never wants to see you again!

MARIO: And this is how you think he meant it? You're going to make me disappear? I'm too big for it! Too big, I say!

KATYA points the gun at him again.

MARIO, desperately: I loved you! Like a father with his daughter. Wasn't I good to you? Didn't I take care of you? Didn't I open my arms to you? To you and Goncho both! Didn't I open Naples to you? All the doors after that terrible business in the war?

KATYA, lowering the gun: Yes. You did.

MARIO: Yes! Yes. Like a papa, I say. I showed you the best places to eat, the easiest marks to shake down, I showed you how to live! And this is how you repay me?

KATYA: You have been like a father to me.

MARIO, relieved: Thank you! This is what I am saying! I was good to you when nobody was good to your people.

KATYA's eyes narrow.

MARIO: I didn't care what you were! I fixed it so you guys had it good here. So that Italia would always be your father. And don't you owe a debt to your father? Honor your father?

KATYA reaches into her handbag. She takes out a guitar string from the painted guitar SOFIA gave her. KATYA steps closer, so that she straddles an injured, struggling MARIO.

KATYA: I do honor Italia. I will always honor my father.

Camera zooms on her fists turning around the wire garrote.

MARIO's eyes go wide.

KATYA: But this isn't about that. I hated my father.

Focus flashes to her well-lipsticked mouth.

KATYA: And Russia is my mother.

[goingrampant]

The Boys #1 notes: cover to page 2

Alright, so The Boys was written by Garth Ennis, a man who hates genres and tries to end them with satirical fiction. The Boys is his attempt to end superhero comics. Alan Moore previously attempted that with Watchmen by portraying everything with deadly seriousness. Obviously, he failed and Watchmen was ultimately subsumed into the DC universe, but his effort shows genuine human empathy as comes from understanding the genre, recognizing how people actually behave, and presenting something people would develop a real emotional response to. Garth Ennis basically shits all over that and that's what The Boys is: Watchmen covered in shit. I don't usually get so graphic, but the sheer repugnance of The Boys demands a bit of rhetorical oomph.

Darick Robertson does the illustration. He also deserves some of the blame for making everything look like a fascist's satirical representation of degenerate art.

The first issue, released in October 2006, is given the appropriate title "This Is Going to Hurt".

Cover: Oooh, we're so edgy! Look at these tough guys and one girl ready to beat up the viewer in a bit of gangland violence. You'd have to be a reeeaaal tough guy to read it, right?!

Title page: A parody of Greg Rucka's Wonder Woman: The Hiketeia's depiction of Wonder Woman stepping on Batman's head, here distorted into a gross image of a boot (Butcher) stamping down on the face of a Captain America knockoff (Soldier Boy) and seriously mashing up his face in horrific gore. Like, this is completely unnecessary, just "Oooh, we're edgy!" to start off the edgelord book and let you know you're in for an edgy time.

Thematically, it nods to the communist idea of the working class rebelling against the oppressive capitalist class. Butcher's boot is the working class leather lace-up used as a symbol of the hard-working common man often seen in communist propaganda. However, it's also consistent with fascist art about a Volkish uprising against Jewish elites (national socialism borrowing various actual socialist concepts and grafting them to far-right antisemitism). A lot of stuff in The Boys feels fascist-friendly, if not centering them as the target demographic.

The title card tells us this arc is called "The Name of the Game: Part One".

Pages 1-2: We're introduced to Billy Butcher, an assholish looking black leather-clad man on a park bench with his bulldog named Terror. For some reason, female The Boys fans love this dog. Like, they love this dog. I guess he's kind of cute before Butcher reveals how he's trained him, but... I don't get it.

Butcher looks up at some superheroes flying overhead and pledges to get revenge on one of them (Homelander), calling him a "cunt". Now, the word "cunt" has different levels of obscenity in the U.S. vs. the U.K. In the U.K., it means something like "asshole" and is regularly used against men, while in the U.S., it's a misogynistic slur exclusively used against women with the connotation that they're only valuable for sex and shouldn't be considered real people. I think if a man were to call another man a "cunt" in the U.S., it might be taken as a rape threat because the concept of being used for penetration is bound up in it.

Butcher is a working class man from England, so he can use "cunt" in the freer way, but I really get the sense that Ennis (from the U.K. himself) specifically included a character from this demographic so that he could get away with plastering the pages with what American readers would read as a misogynistic slur. It's set in America and marketed to Americans. Ooh, edgy!

Now, what Butcher says is "I'm gonna fuckin' have you, you cunt." With the American connotation, that sounds like a rape threat. Our hero, everyone, starting things off with a rape threat.

Something I'm going to be saying a lot is "The show spins this progressively." The show is genius, finding the good parts in the dung heap. The "cunt" thing is spun in an interesting way commentating on American culture, challenging notions of obscenity, and fits into a pattern of musing on gender roles. Thank you, Rebecca Sonnenshine.

Next time... page 3!

[objection-u-a-bitch]

One thing I learn about many people on tumblr is that if you're white and have been treated better by the patriarchy, you will always carry that attitude no matter what that somehow you can dictate other people's experiences and fear because of you have never experienced something bad in life in general or perhaps not worse.

I'm pretty sure you're trying to roast me here but the grammar is pretty bad so I can't even really tell.

Is this about me? If so, who said I'm white? You'd have to scroll down FAR on my blog and read all of my tags to find anything on the colour of my skin.

Who said I've been treated well or even better by the patriarchy? You don't know me, and I certainly don't sell my own misery online for pity points.

Who said I'm dictating other people's experiences? If you feel unsafe around all men, that's your problem to deal with. Frankly, I'm not a therapist. If you come into my inbox talking about how unsafe you feel around all men, the best I can do for you is tell you to go to therapy. I usually don't, because people only tell me this to harrass me into letting them be dicks, but that's besides the point. Fearing 50% of the population just isn't a nice way to live, and there are things you can do to ensure your safety at night/on dates/in clubs that don't require you to live in fear. Caution is not the same as fear.

And to be honest, I as a man shouldn't have to be the victim of your fear. Aside from the fact that the phenomenon known as white woman tears has genuinely cost black lives, especially those of black men, and therefore I don't really have faith that that "fear" is genuine a lot of the time, I don't think most people take a second to think WHY it is that they're scared of someone.

Because the truth of the matter is that black men are frequently portrayed as aggressive abusers who leave their children and commit a lot of crime. Trans men are portrayed as predators and liars who take advantage of their "female socialisation", if they're not outright seen as traitors who are trying to leave womanhood behind for the bliss of privileged manhood. Jewish men are portrayed as greedy and evil, and Arab/Islamic men are seen as extremist oppressors who force their women to veil. Asian men are portrayed as misogynistic, and historically also as predators to white women. Disabled men are portrayed as boundary-disrespecting creeps, and fat men as incels. The intersections of these identities face worse.

Are you afraid of these men because your fear is genuine, or are you afraid of these men because of the stereotypes that cause biases that you're unwilling to check? Are you keeping yourself safe in public in a manner that is reasonable, or are you actively discriminating against marginalised by perpetuating these stereotypes? Can you bring enough self-awareness to the table to acknowledge you might be doing the latter?

And if you have been scrolling through my tags, you will know that my original post is largely about how men are treated online. On the internet, you can't be put in immediate danger the same way you can in real life. You can't hide behind the excuse that you're treating men poorly because you're keeping yourself safe. So what does it say about you that you still feel the need to come into a (marginalised) man's inbox to complain about how he doesn't respect your real life fear enough when he's talking about how people on the internet should not be treating him poorly for being a man?

Nevermind that in real life I should also not have to hear that "all men are evil" and that someone wants to "kill all men". I deserve to live in comfort without being hated and treated poorly for who I am, just like everyone else. Despite the fact that I am and always will be a man.

[jonfarreporter]

The Barbra Streisand Autobiography is an Omnibus, no doubt!

I was taken aback by how many chapters there are in Barbra Streisand’s autobiography; 59, wow!

Yet I have to say that her story and commentary is fascinating, especially for devoted fans.

One thing that surprised me the most was how much Streisand has accomplished as not only as a “superstar” artist but as a human being. Listening to her directly (I enjoy audio books the most) really does help the audience understand her better.

She is most authoritative when speaking about her life and experience in the theater and the arts. Her voice now mellowed with age does carry a certain assurance that truly speaks honestly and factually.

I liked just about everything she said about the arts, especially her work with acting and the entire “collaboration” of putting a production together from start to finish.

One thing I didn’t know about Streisand was that she got into singing because she wanted to act on stage and in movies. Obviously her tremendous voice served her well.

I was disappointed that she said little of her time in San Francisco. Especially when she performed in North Beach at The Hungry i.

Yet, I was very moved by the fact that she really did “pay her dues,” so to speak in attaining to the level of stardom she has achieved.

When she described what it was like to be on stage or in an acting class, I felt as if she is talking about the interior life of art itself. Acting and art students should listen and take to heart some of this book, seriously it’s important! This woman immediately recognized the distinction of a red that Rembrandt used in his paintings (a “Rembrandt red,”) as she calls it. And this was in her early days when she didn’t even attend an art history class.

Some aspects of her personal life are already known. But when you hear it directly from her there’s a resonance that’s deep, even if it seems familiar and cliche.

Like most celebrity books that speaks about the “behind-the-scenes” of movies and shows, it was interesting to hear about the details.

I was sad to hear that Streisand had a very difficult time with the move “Hello Dolly.” Actor, Walter Mathau treated her very badly and she knew instantly that she was too young (at age 27, then) to play the part of Dolly Levi, a middle aged widow, matchmaker, extraordinaire.

As a native SF Bay Area kid I was sad that San Franciscan Carol Channing was not chosen to portray Dolly in the movie. Even Streisand mentioned this. What was the director Gene Kelly thinking? Dolly was Channing’s signature role!

Channing proved she had the ability from her work on the hit film “Thoroughly Modern Milly.” Yet Streisand fulfilled her contract and remained professional.

What also struck me about Streisand is her ability to understand and articulate something intrinsically innate and deeply within herself or something. Like for example, her understanding of lighting and how to present material to an audience. What to wear, how to move around, etc.

Her taste is impeccable and she understands the creative process. That’s very clear in her work “Yentl.”

Speaking of “Yentl” Streisand took a lot of risks with that movie as well as another movie of hers called “Up The Sandbox.”

I was sad to learn that the author of ‘Yentl’ Issac Bashevis Singer didn’t like the movie and thought Streisand didn’t do it well.

Some time ago when I was speaking with a Rabbi’s son, (who now sells Kinish snacks) he mentioned that “Yentl, the movie is all about Barbra.” “It’s not anything about real Judaism,” he told me.

I imagine that type of criticism must have hurt Streisand very much. Especially since she clearly put a lot into that movie.

Let me clarify, I am not Jewish! But I thought the movie “Yentl” did a lot to shine a wonderful spotlight on Judaism and a bit of its history.

Isaac Bashevis Singer should have been pleased that someone like Streisand was willing to go the distance with his literary work. Ok, so it didn’t follow his vision exactly. But it did entertain and inspire, bringing a bit of the complexity of Judaism to the masses.

Also, Streisand helped make Singer’s work more approachable. Please note, I’m not an expert. But Singer writes about Jewish life similarly to that of author and playwright Sholem Aleichem. It was Aleichem’s work that inspired the hit musical “Fidler on The Roof.”

It seems to me, that Streisand tapped into that so that audiences could identify with the characters and life of those people. With all due respect, it seems to me that Singer was a bit of a recluse and preferred a sequestered life.

Streisand is not sequestered at all and it shows in all of her works.

Which, leads me into another dimension. Streisand of course is Jewish, especially as she portrayed comedian, Fanny Brice. Yet, Streisand transcends Judaism.

As I said before, there’s something innate within her that is universal and outstandingly unique.

She’s often imitated, parodied and sometimes made fun of. Yet it’s very clear to me, Streisand is a rare talent of a person that will not be duplicated. We probably won’t see anything truly like her again. God didn’t just “break the mold” as the old saying goes, he/(she) put an exclusive patent on it and it’s in heaven under his/her very special and exclusive contract.

[reallyprofoundkryptonite]

Do you have any RTTE criticisms?

Do I? Yes. Absolutely.

And it has to go with how the writers handled their characters that weren’t Hiccup and Astrid. And while I’m completely happy with how long the series was, I feel like there would have been more room for intense characterization of more minor characters, (hell, even some of the gang were completely swiped by the shortness of the series.) as well as getting to know more about the world of httyd, filling in the plot holes at the end of the series, like Valka popping in at the last moment to take the egg (which her bewilderbeast had been ruling for two decades according to the second movie, and there was no sign of another bewilderbeast besides Valka’s and Drago’s in the second movie.), and just… general ways in handling certain characters redemption arcs (or lack thereof.)

For example, with the redemption arc of Dagur, I absolutely feel that it was too rushed, and that if we’d have been given more time, the redemption would have taken longer to happen. And Hiccup’s reaction to Dagur deserting was kind of… underwhelming? I suppose? Hiccup has never exactly been very confrontational, I suppose, but there’s also the added statement that the way Hiccup handled the Dragon Eye and Viggo’s tribe would have been out of character for him on that statement, considering the fact that he vehemently denied to give back a resource that clearly belonged to someone else, and then clearly wanting it back. (But you have to build drama so I suppose it makes sense?)

But also, the characters besides Hiccup and Astrid- there was just too much Hiccstrid in the entire show. I get that’s what people like, but especially in Mi Amore Wing there was just so much unnecessary Hiccstrid drama that seemed so out of character and forced by the directors- Astrid isn’t necessarily the jealous type- and to feel Jealous about Dagur and Mala? (Don’t even get me started on how foul that ship is; not dunking on anyone who really likes it, but it’s just- feels very forced and went way too fast to happen realistically.)

Let’s not forget the handling of Ruffnut and Tuffnut. They’re both very entertaining characters, yes, but Ruffnut gets not abject character development outside of her brother, and somewhat vice versa for Tuffnut. And T.J Miler’s portrayal, while funny, I have to admit, just makes the twins seem like too much of gags and “Buffoons”, than actual characters.

Now… I’m going to get into other small topics- Krogan. Handling him in the show must have been somewhat of an afterthought (though the way his body language, outward personality and so forth are all done extremely well by the voice actor and animators to portray a pretty accurate, albeit very much less seen in media victim of abuse and sufferer of depression and anxiety, as well as maybe even Stockholm Syndrome.) If we were given more time during the show for characters like Krogan, or Ruffnut, or Mala- Hell, even Johann and Viggo, we as an audience would be able to get a better grasp on their motivations and their real ideas for being where they are.

And, another thing- Krogan and Drago are the only real villains (besides Ryker), to not be given redemption arcs, and they’re both noticeably foreign and not from the archipelago. With Krogan being a most definite black man, and Drago being more ambiguous in his race, but maybe(?) middle eastern. It’s sus, if I’m going to be honest, and pretty racially charged that two characters who are not white are not given the same treatment as the other white villains. (Also let’s not forget that Johann is also an anti-Semitic caricature of a Jewish person, and that he’s portrayed as being a greedy, money hungry villain, who just wants fortune and cares for no one but himself.)

The series overall, is great- wonderful even, but it’s the handling of characters, and (mild) racism for me that kind of makes it a little worse, in all.

[just-an-enby-lemon]

(second part): so since you threw the question back: some things I'd want them to carry over from the movie would be some of the designs - Bruce's look when he takes off the helmet and his eye makeup is smeared and his hair a mess is very fun for a young version of the character and it makes him seem more real and vulnerable. Selina's pre-Catwoman thief outfit is nice too, i like how makeshift it looks and that the beanie forms cat ears and how many earrings she wears, it suits her. Another design is the interior of Wayne Tower and the batmobile design, I wouldn't mind if these designs got carried over to the comics either. Another thing is that movie Bruce turned one of his father's old cars into the Batmobile according to tie-in material, which I think makes for interesting symbolism: using something his parents owned to avenge them. and another thing from that novel that could get carried over to the comics is that Edward was a mediocre or bad student - I know that's already older comics canon but I think they should bring it back again, it's always more interesting imo when he wasn't a good student because that would fuel his need to prove he is smart even more if even school was telling him that he isn't, and having him be someone that got failed by the school system not because he wasn't smart but because of his bad home situation and the way his neurodivergence was treated could be used to criticise that system too. Penguin starting his criminal career by working with Falcone could be interesting too

as for things I don't want them to carry over: aside from what you said also Riddler's character design, it's bland and the whole para-military vibe is something that doesn't really fit the character outside of the movie's version not to mention that it's always sad when a flamboyant character is made to fit society's standards of what is "normal" to be or dress like more. I also don't want them to carry over the way that his neurodivergence is portrayed because no offense to the actor but it came across like it really played up that he is a "scary autistic guy" who is scarier because he's not neurotypical. I also don't like how aggressive he is when delivering his riddles, it fits well for this version, but shouldn't become the standard interpretation imo. Oh and I think Martha being an Arkham shouldn't get carried over either cause her being a Kane is important because it makes Bruce jewish on his mother's side. The families could still be related though ofc, maybe via Thomas' mother?

...and now I'm curious what you think of those points haha

Okay. Let's go. About the desing choices you mentioned: heck yeah. I love how both Bruce and Selina's costumes show clearly that they are still starting their carrear and it's genuinally great. Wayne Tower has a great desing and adding to it soo does the Wayne Mansion.

And the batmobiles being adapted from Thomas cars and the desing reflecting it: aaaa. I did not knew that and now my hearth is melting.

• Edward being a mediocre student is something I actually have no opinion about on one way or anothe. I do have a soft spot for Ed being a bad student because his brain was wired different and the text based educacion system is a fraud because of the old comics. It works soo well to explain Edward misplaced fear of being a fraud, his need to prove his inteligence, because he is a genius, but since the way he filters and presents information was different than what formal education wanted he was wasted. A characther who failed by society in all aspects. It can even figure out in a version of him who doesn't know Bruce's secret identity (namely the Arkham games) as even though all evidences point to Bruce he refuses to believe that someone who was never failed by this system, who had the good grades and a good guardian and money and honestly everything could be Batman because that would mean that everyone was right that he was not helped because he isn't good enough.

But I also enjoy Edward being the best student in class and I feel like that can also created a system of self worth based on inteligence. I'm far from a genius but I had good grades and being a bullied kid with undiagnosed autism and just being weird the fact I was considered smart was the only value I could give myself for a long time. I had panick attacks when I forgot to do homework or got answers wrong because my value was being smart. It also creates a weird paradoxal feeling of you are better than everyone else because you are smart but also your value is only mesure by that if you do a mistake you are worse because you have no other talents. And since I wasn't a genius when things got hard (since no one teached me to study as I "didn't need it") and my grades started slipping in High School I started having severe panic attacks and that was how I started therapy. So I can see an Edward who never had this moment, who was mistreated at home and bullied and isolated and different but at least he had good grades and everyone always told him this was his only value and that this was enought to make him better than everyone else and he had no reason to not believe in both of those things. And still serves to criticize the education system.

So that's my way to say I think both aproachs are good and I like the idea. Sorry for the tagent.

• Penguin working for Falcone could be nice.

• Riddler's costume: Oh geez. It makes me question what they will do with Robin?

But seriusly it fits the universe. But comics are wild and any universe who has Constantine, Swanp Thing and Clayface has to stop trying for realism. Also people do dress dramaticatly or silly normally. So yeah. I hope they don't bring it to the main continuity. Also yes I hate when they nend characthers to fit into more socialy accepted clothes or behaviors and use "realism" as the explanation.

• FINALLY SOMEONE SAID IT. I mean some people are talking about it, but it's still such a small percentage.

DC has a huuge history with ableism in relation to bad portraits of mental health. Two-Face often poorly writen TDI is a prime example. Or just the fact that Arkham is based on Bedlam mostly for the scary factor. But I like to believe they are slowly improving on it or at least in showing that being neurodivergent and/or mentally disabled are not the reasons that the rogues are evil. Having Riddler's compulsive OCD being adressed in Unburied not as the reason for his crimes but as something that genuinally harms HIM and his perception of self was a small detail but it was a good start. Same with how they are slowly dealing with Harley being a survivor of DA or Bruce having panic attacks (showing Bruce having panic attacks was also a win in Unburied though it already had happened in some comics) or Jason dealing with PTSD. It's small things but they are progress.

That being the case it only makes worse for me how Riddler was portrait in The Batman. It was sooo fucking ableist. Specially for autistic people. And as an autist myself it gets me genuinally mad and offended. How the fuck did accidental coding on 1966 Riddler made for better stim representation than intencional coding (because it was intencional no one can convince me otherwise) in 2022?! Were they trying to be offensive? Was autism speaks involved in the charactherization? How did they fucked up soo bad?

• Agressive riddles should not be a thing. I think this is specially important as a thing that should not be translated to auditory media: podcasts, cartons, audibooks, future movies. Because I think it takes a lot of what riddles should mean for Riddler and also because I'm a firm beliver that all riddles should be told rhytimically in aduitory media, almost musicaly, specially with characther who do it a lot and/or like them. It just works better in my head.

• Yeah. Martha being an Arkham was something that was comic book cannon for a short while, but I don't like it. Bruce's accidental jewsish heritage makes soo much sense when taking into consideration how DC and MARVEL were founded mostly by jewish people. It feels an homage to this people (same reason I cannot see Peter Parker, Steve Rogers and Clark Kent as not being jewish though in Bruce's case they made it cannon, by accident but still).

While I think it could be interesting to have Bruce have Arkham blood on his father side. He is already related to two of the founder famillies and deeply conected with another via the Elliots. Maybe give the Arkham decendant to Tim to mix a little. Also Bruce being related to Jeremiah Arkham would be a strange thing in comics (like i don't think Mark Reeves plans to using Jeremiah so it's fine, but in the comics he already exists so it would be weird). I just think it could be cool but now really necessary at all.

Wow. I wrote a lot. Feel free to coment in any of it.

[dailyaudiobiblechronological]

12/21/2022 DAB Chronological Transcription

Hebrews 1 - 6

Welcome to Daily Audio Bible Chronological, I'm Jill. It's the 21st day of December, welcome. It's so good to be here with you as we are here, and we're accomplishing several goals as we're here. We are we're finishing this week together. We're trying to get through Christmas together, we're trying to finish a year together. And we are also finishing the greatest book of the Greatest story ever told together, individually, collectively and in community. I know so many get behind at this time of year and just fight to stay in it. So if you're here and you're completely in real time, well done. I know how hard it is. I know the fight to stay in it, to stay current, to well, let's just be honest. Sometimes it's just a fight to stay present. With all of the distractions around, our thoughts run, our multitasking just amps up, which can create anxiety, and then we just start making silly, sloppy mistakes. So we're just going to take a breath, even right here inhale deep long and hold it and just, I mean, let it go. Let it go. Sing the song if you want to, at the top of your lungs if you need to, whatever you got to do. Just to come back to center, find your focal point and stay present. Sometimes I bite the inside of my cheek, just helps me with a little pain, a little discomfort. Makes me remember. Stay present. We're here to read the Bible. Today we're reading the book of Hebrews, and we are jumping all in chapters one through six today. And this week we're reading the Common English Bible, Hebrews, chapter one.

Commentary

Okay, so, brand new book of the Bible again today we hit a good bit of Hebrews, and I just want to orient us in the book using the resource The God of Your Story. This letter is one of the most compelling exhortations to keep the faith and stay true that we'll find in the New Testament. While that's true, the letter is a bit of an anomaly because we don't fully know its origins. Although the apostle Paul had been credited with the authorship of Hebrews at different points in time, most scholars would agree that this is unlikely. Paul was very clear that he was called to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles, and this book is Hebrew through and through. Whoever did write Hebrews was a master communicator and was clearly well educated. The author possessed a skilled understanding of the Scriptures and of Judaism. Two candidates who fit this criteria would be Barnabas and Apollos, but no one is certain. What is certain is whoever penned Hebrews had the authority to write such a work, and that the work was regarded with utmost respect. Paul's protege and son of the faith, Timothy, is mentioned in the letter. So Hebrews is probably somewhat contemporary with Paul's writings or perhaps was written a bit later. It's clear from the letter that the persecution of those who believed in Jesus had begun within the Jewish community. Although it hadn't reached the level of martyrdom, in most cases, the Jewish believers and those who were sympathetic had begun to suffer ridicule. They were being stereotyped as irrelevant and weird. It's easy enough to see this dynamic and modern culture. Often Christians are portrayed in the media as irrelevant, backward and a little weird. In the first century, these cultural pressures were causing many Hebrew believers to withdraw into the woodwork and hide their faith. Others were turning their backs and walking away altogether. Returning to traditional Judaism, the writer of Hebrews observed this and boldly stepped over to encourage Hebrew believers to stay faithful to Jesus and not return to their former ways. Hebrews encourages us to hold fast to the hope that we have in Christ without wavering at all. This is a very important message for believers today, and it's offered brilliantly through the lens of the Old Testament and Jewish heritage in the remarkable book of Hebrews. And by the way, in case you missed chapter four, verse eleven through 13, therefore, let's make every effort to enter that rest so that no one will fall by following the same example of disobedience. Because God's Word is living, active and sharper than any two edged sword. It penetrates to the point that it separates the soul from the spirit and the joints from the marrow. It is able to judge the heart's thoughts and intentions. No creature is hidden from it, but rather everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of the one to whom we have to give an answer. That's a very mature statement, and it's also a very good reminder for us today that if that is what's happening to you, if your heart's thoughts and intentions are being judged through the Word, then it's fulfilling its point. We often read the Bible and think about how it's applicable for other people in our lives. And that's not really the point. The main point is to read it and apply it to our own lives, to make the adjustments necessary and needed in our own living.

Prayer

So, Father, we thank you for Your Word today, and we thank you how it does judge our heart's thoughts and our heart's intentions. And it often offends our mind to reveal the true nature of our hearts. But so often we get mad at the messenger, we get mad at the person delivering it. And oftentimes we get mad at you for revealing the truth of our hearts when you are all truth. And we run away and we hide in our shame and in our condemnation that we have confused for conviction. And Father, I pray that we would run to you where you can complete the change within us that is right and necessary. And I pray that we would run to you knowing that we cannot hide. Nothing can be hidden from you. And I thank you that you fully love us, you fully embrace us, you fully see us and you fully know us. And you long for us to know you. And I thank you, let you make yourself known and knowable. May we take this truth and apply it where necessary. I pray this now. In the name of the Father Son, the Holy Spirit, amen.

Announcements

Daily Audio Bible, that's homebase. Check it out. It's a free app. That's the website. Take a look around. If you're new here, welcome. If you are new, we do have some exciting resources that are intended to enhance, cannot talk well today, intended to enhance your journey through the Bible. So check that out in our store at Daily Audio Bible. If you would like to partner with us, we thank you so much for your partnership and we could not do this without you. We're grateful we do not have to. If you are giving by mail, DAB PO Box 1996, Spring Hill, Tennessee 37174. Or utilizing that mobile app, just hit the Give icon. It's up at the top right hand corner of your mobile device on the app. And lastly, look for the Give icon on the website if you need prayer, if you like to pray for someone that's previously called in, you can do so several different ways. 800 583-2164. Or you can hit the red circle button. It's up at the top right hand corner of your mobile device. You have two minutes on the prayer line, hit Submit, turn the wheel over to Chronological and it will get to the right place. Lastly, if you love Christmas music and you're new here because if you've been around you probably know all the resources, we have a small collection of Christmas music available to you. Our son, Maxwell Harden's Christmas Time, which has become one of my favorite reflections at loan and at night. It's a bit haunting I think is a word that somebody used that I think sums it up beautifully. It's beautiful and haunting, which Christmas Time can be very lonely for many. It can be very sad and sombre it can be very joyous and exciting for so many, especially if you have little ones. But the reality is it's a very difficult time for so many. So you might want to check out Christmas Time. It might be something that resonates with you. And then we have the Daily Audio Bible Family Christmas, which we did several years ago. And then I have a couple of Christmas singles out as well. In my former life I was a touring artist and musician. So check those out if you have not. This is my last chance to say that I think before Christmas Time is over with. So there it is. That's it for me today. I'm Jill, we'll turn the page together tomorrow as my final week is coming to a close with all of you. I look forward to turning the page with you tomorrow. Until then, love one another.

Community Prayer Line

Happy half birthday to you. Happy half birthday to you. Happy half birthday dear Yvonne, happy half birthday to you hi this month from Texas and that is for Yvonne. I know on today your birthday because this is going to be played late you are missing your dad calling to wish you a happy half birthday. Just know that I love you, I'm praying for you and I pray that God will comfort you on your born day. Stay blessed, stay encouraged, you're loved and we are praying for you. Take care, bye.

Good morning my dear DABC family, this is Ulibuchku calling from the UK. I wish that the grace and peace of the all nights will always be with us actually this Christmas season. God bless each and every one of us. I'm calling today to ask prayers for my sister in law. I just spoke to my brother and he mentioned that she was with her job in February. They have little girl and apparently the job has been so stressful and to the point that it's affecting her health so stepping away from it I think is a better choice for her health and the health of the family as well. But I asked you, brothers and sisters, to please lift her up in prayer, because they live in a place where yes, and the job is difficult, is hard, especially even for graduates, let alone than anyone else. And she is a lawyer. And I pray that come February, when she ends that chapter of her life, I pray that the will of God be done. If it's his will that she'll get something immediately, we'll praise Him. If it's his will that she will wait a while and rest up and then he'll provide, we praise Him. And above all, whatever the will of God is for this new family I pray that they will have peace with it and wait on the Lord. Peace is all I ask because I know that the will of the Father is always the best even if it takes time. I know how long I had to wait for the job I've got now because I had to stop for my family but he gave me peace through it all and I asked peace for my sister in law in Jesus name.

Hey this is Big Shoes dynavi I want to pray for Chastity from Kansas. Dear Lord, you see, Chastity from Kansas and her family you see they have been struggling with sickness and especially our son. I pray that you will bless them with strength and health and endurance. I pray that you will give her extraordinary efficiency at her work even though our sense doesn't add up because she has to go home. I pray that you will heal them and strengthen them just bless their finances and bless their every situation lord, in Jesus name I pray. Amen.

Hi DABC community this greeting is for elan in Alberta, Canada. Happy half birthday to you. Happy half birthday to you. Happy half birthday, dear Alan in Alberta, Canada. Happy half birthday to you. God bless you. Somebody had a thing. Happy half birthday to you. So it's from your neighbor godscale in Minnesota and I wish you the best on your birthday. Today the 18th, and I know grief is hard and you're missing your dad, God, and I'm praying for you. So God bless you, Alan, and I'll be continuing to pray for you. Signing off from Minnesota. Godscale. Bye.

[hjohn3]

The Sectarianism of Keir Starmer

Why the Labour Leader’s Treatment of Jeremy Corbyn Does Himself and His Party No Service

By Honest John

“Let me be very clear, Jeremy Corbyn will not stand for Labour at the next general election. What I said about the party changing I meant and we are not going back… It will never again be a party of narrow interests… If you don’t like that… I say the door is open and you can leave.” - Keir Starmer, 15th February 2023

KEIR STARMER, in a speech to party faithful at the Toynbee Hall in East London on 15th February, reached the culmination of his campaign of dissociation of his Labour Party from that led by Jeremy Corbyn by confirming the permanent removal of the Labour whip from the former leader. Starmer stated that Corbyn will not be permitted to stand as a Labour candidate for North Islington at the next General Election, a seat he has represented since 1983. This decision is the denouement of a political headache that has afflicted Starmer ever since he took the bold step of removing the Labour whip from Corbyn in October 2020, following the latter’s unapologetic response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) inquiry into anti semitism within Labour under Corbyn’s leadership. The EHRC found the party itself to be in breach of equalities legislation and the former leader culpable in failing to address an acknowledged problem of explicit or implicit anti Jewish racism against party members by left wing activists within Labour. Ever since that step, the question as to whether Corbyn should have the whip restored and so avoid Labour division in one of its safest seats, has remained a dilemma for the leadership. Now we are clear.

Starmer, acknowledging the personal toxicity of Corbyn at the 2019 General Election has, since becoming Labour leader, sought to portray Labour under his leadership as fundamentally transformed from the allegedly “hard left” version of the party led by Corbyn from 2015 until 2020, and which lost so badly in 2019. Politically, this of course makes sense, but Starmer’s actions, which have comprised attacks and party fixes to marginalise the left of the party, have often seemed gratuitous and partisan. With the effective expulsion of Corbyn from the Labour Party and an invitation to all Corbyn sympathisers to join him in leaving Labour, Starmer has moved into vindictive and risky territory, that does little to enhance his much sought reputation as an “adult” moderate and, in a very real way, represents an ill thought out assault on the very essence of the Labour Party itself.

Let’s make no mistake: Corbyn has been a key member of the sectarian left since the days of Tony Benn. He also represents the increasingly outmoded politics of “anti imperialism” when it comes to international affairs, based on a crude Trotskyist critique of post imperial economic and military power exercised by “the West”. It is this strand of his thinking that led him to not only retain an unthinking loyalty to Putin’s Russia but also to his connections and sympathies with an anti semitic Islamism in the Middle East, as part of his unquestioning support of the Palestinians against the Israeli state. There is little doubt that left wing anti semitism prospered under his leadership of the Labour Party disguising itself as “anti Zionism”. Corbyn’s sectarian mindset rendered him incapable of distinguishing between attested cases of gross anti Jewish racism by activists within the party and allegations of such by his political enemies on the right and centre of the party: in Corbyn’s mind no left wing supporter of his could possibly be anti semitic - the allegations therefore had to be malign fabrications by the right of the party and the loathed “centrists” out to undermine the left. Sectarianism has long been the curse of the Labour Party, and owes less to policy positions or debates about political philosophy between rival ideological tendencies, than it does to which factional gang certain committed members align themselves with: an infantile and self defeating political children’s playground.

The problem with Starmer’s positioning, however, is that it is every bit as sectarian as anything practiced by the caucuses of the left. In fact in some ways it is worse, because it pretends not to be. Rather, Starmer’s undermining, removal, and insulting of any party member with past or present association with Corbyn or his support group Momentum, is presented as Labour regaining some alleged “middle ground” which the Corbynistas wrenched away during their calamitous period in power. What Starmer and his outriders betray is a shocking lack of knowledge of Labour history and a willingness to airbrush inconvenient truths, such as the unexpectedly strong showing by Labour under Corbyn in the 2017 General Election, in much the same way as the left tried to pretend thirteen years of Labour government under Blair and Brown were somehow illegitimate and not “real’ Labour governments at all. This knee jerk and childish sectarianism is as central to the Starmer project as it was to that of Corbyn: both tendencies are fundamentally destructive. Labour can win power by denying its past (Tony Blair with his “New Labour” invention was a master of this) but it cannot govern effectively unless it marshals all the resources of the big tent of left of centre politics required by the First Past The Post U.K. voting system. Just as Labour cannot take and hold power without the political calculus and ruthlessness of the centrist leaderships so derided by the left, so it cannot govern in the interests of the people it seeks to represent without the ideas and intellectual heft so often found on the left of the party: if either wing fundamentally destabilises the other, then Labour as a progressive force for actual change becomes fatally undermined. The closest Labour came to this act of political hari-kiri occurred in 1983 when the Bennite left, bolstered by Trotskyist entryists, provoked the desertion of the Labour right to a new Social Democratic Party and presided over a collapse in Labour vote share to just 28% in the General Election that year. I see very little difference between this nadir of Labour solidarity and Starmer’s ill judged call on party supporters who don’t like his treatment of Corbyn to leave.

Starmer’s assertion that the Labour Party is “unrecognisable from that of 2019” also does not stand up to the most cursory of scrutiny. Every eye catching, transformative and politically popular policy that Labour currently espouse, either could have, or did, come from the Party manifestos of 2017 and 2019. There is nothing Blairite about current Labour plans for a nationalised U.K. wide energy company; about plans to re-industrialise Britain through green energy alternatives; about fundamental constitutional reform, including abolition of he House of Lords; or about active government management of the post Brexit economy through stimulus economics to attract inward investment as outlined by Starmer at Davos, itself supported by a Sovereign Wealth Fund (the same proposed public investment model as John McDonnell’s National Investment Bank). The fact of the matter is that current Labour policy is rooted fundamentally in its Corbynist recent past, representing that very alignment of serious political intent with transformative change mentioned above that propels Labour into power. The criticism of Starmer from the centrist media, is that Labour’s vision remains too cautious given the problems facing the country: his political allies want him to be more radical, not less.

This brings us to the personal inconsistency of Starmer. He speaks in the language of an internal cultural revolution, when the policy programme he advocates indicates anything but. He visibly squirms when asked about the years he sat on Corbyn’s front bench, implying he was fighting the good fight against anti semitism and extremism, when all the evidence is that for much of the time his relationships with Corbyn’s team were cordial. He prefers to ignore the fact he won the Labour leadership by exhorting members to respect the traditions of both Jeremy Corbyn and Tony Blair, including the release of ten “pledges” on issues close to the membership’s heart, all but two of which have been since quietly jettisoned. He is continually caught out taking new positions that flatly contradict those he claimed to hold as recently as two years ago. There is a place for pragmatism and the desire to win elections, particularly for Labour leaders whose battles to secure power are always dispiritingly uphill, but the apparent emptiness at the heart of Starmer’s politics and the flexibility of his principles cannot but be a cause for concern when he wishes to contrast himself to the seedy corruption of Johnson and the rank hypocrisy of Sunak.

There is a final, troubling aspect to the treatment of Corbyn which repeats itself in Labour history with monotonous and depressing regularity: it is the lack of respect with which the Labour Party so often holds its previous leaders. Whether it is the hostile view of arch traitor Ramsay McDonald (the charismatic working class leader who first got Labour elected in 1924); the trimming and opportunist Harold Wilson, as scornfully dismissed by the left (who won four General Elections and secured the freedoms for women, racial minorities and gay people we now take for granted); Tony Blair the liar (who won Labour three elections and oversaw significant improvements to public services and living standards after Thatcherism), or toxic Jeremy Corbyn (who in 2017 obtained Labour’s best General Election result since 1997 and seeded Labour’s current transformative policy programme), it seems deep rooted sectarianism will always overcome decency, respect for duty and service and forgiveness for the inevitable mistakes fallible humans will make when undertaking one of the most thankless tasks in British politics.

The term “broad church” is used too frequently now to perhaps be meaningful, but this inevitable consequence of the FPTP electoral system has huge strength in representing a variety of left wing traditions, a wide range of demographics and, fundamentally, a level of shared values across the spectrum of a party that the often gleeful internecine disputes within Labour frequently deny. No one benefits from this self defeatism but the Tories - more often in power than out. It is perhaps a folorn hope, but if Starmer is serious about introducing a new, less divisive, more inclusive and courteous brand of politics to the U.K., he could do worse than start that process in his own back yard.

19th February 2023