#anti robert manion

[schwhoopsie]

Ok so basically he said that he was never kicked out of starkid he chose to leave on his own free will because that’s what was best for his mental health. He said that the three guys running starkid(I’m assuming this is Nick Matt and Brian???) were super unprofessional, had no idea what they were doing, and showed extreme favouritism towards the people they went to college with and made the newer members like him feel like they could be fired or replaced at any time. He said that while some of the members of starkid like Kim were nice to him 99% of them bullied him and backstabbed him and made him feel like he couldn’t trust anybody which is why he was so distant during Black Friday. He then talked for a really long time about one starkid member did something so traumatic to him that he ended up developing ptsd and when he Finally got the courage to tell “ “the man in charge” what happened he told Robert that he didn’t care and to get over it

in response to this question

okay now that i have the context that does sound a lot like he's just trying to start shit. starkid's been around for 10+ years, so if they were really that bad a group to be around, then why are we just starting to hear this now? there's been lots of non-university of michigan people that have become starkid members within the last few years, so why's he the only one talking shit about the group? that seems sus.

plus he's been with starkid since 2014 (?) so if this has been going on for a while why didn't he leave earlier? even if it hasn't been going on that long, then why didn't he just say this when the sa accusation came out? ig even if he did say this then i still wouldn't believe him, but it's all just super shitty behavior on his part. (also doesn't he still live with nick and jon? bc if so that's gotta be awkward for nick to see/hear him saying this shit about him online). while typing this i got another message on the situation. apparently somebody in sk said something inappropriate to him early on in his time with the group and when he brought it up to someone he was basically brushed off.

i feel like since he's saying all this on live then he's just trying to start shit bc some of the bad things he's done (minus the sa accusations) could've been handled in private. i get that in his pov he's he's trying to tell fans who team starkid really are by unveiling the things that the group has supposedly done to him, but the fact that 1. he's the only one doing shit like this and 2. [according to tumblr posts] he's still close with mariah (and maybe angela?) seems kinda weird to me. i feel like if this was true then those two especially would have something to say about it bc they also didn't go to u of m, but the fact that they haven't spoken out about the group makes me think that what he's saying isn't true. bc if it was then wouldn't they be trying to defend their supposed friend? or maybe they just haven't said anything bc they're both doing npmd? i'm not trying to defend him bc he's done a lot of bad. maybe the reason the other starkid's haven't said anything about the situation with him is because they can't.

tl;dr i think he's just trying to start shit. i feel like if it were true, somebody else would've said something before. this is all ofc just my opinion though

[snowoiive]

Robert did another live last night and now I’m 1000% convinced he’s just salty he got kicked out of the group because everything he said was sooooo petty. He apologized for being in Twisted and said that it a couple of years everybody else will regret being in it too, said he had a horrible time doing homecoming, complained that Dylan gets too many songs, said he was never asked to do the upcoming Christmas tour but even if he was if he would have said no because there’s nothing more cringey then a bunch of 40 years olds singing back to Hogwarts, tried to imply that Jeff is being mistreated because he’s not an og member like AJ is, said the only way he would agree to do another Starkid show is if the people in charge left, complained that Nicks hidgens voice is different then his, and complained that while him and Mariah are on good terms she hasn’t hung out with him since after lockdown because she spends all her time and energy on her boyfriend. Like everything he said was so catty

i truly am so tired of him sorry!

[secretbrittanalovechild]

Robert Manion fans will not be tolerated here btw he sucks

[toasterbunnicula]

Hatchetfield headcanons!

(disclaimer: i have not watched the nightmare times so if anything here is anti-canon or somehow already confirmed, oopsies)

emma was the token straight theater kid who secretly wished she was lesbian bc the guys she attracted were losers (including paul but he’s also a nice person so it’s all good)

lautski are t4t she/they he/they. neither of them realize until a month into dating

ruth and richie are too good of friends to ever realize on their own that they could just easily date each other (or even just hook up) and cure themselves of their chronic and possibly terminal virginity

ted doesn’t know how to not make sexual innuendos

before crushing on steph, pete had a huge crush on alice before realizing she liked girls. he has a type and that type is mariah rose faith

grace chasity is the only person at school ruth never had a crush on because she was too much of a nerdy prude

max also had tom as a teacher and bullied him the least out of all his teachers. tom has once successfully stopped max from beating up someone in his class, the only staff member to do so

max once fell asleep during class and had a dream of himself as a femboy. he immediately went into the bathroom, looked at himself in the mirror, and said “i’m not doing this” and never thought about it again

officer bailey and president howard whatever his last name was are second cousins. howard also has the kicking chairs thing but hides it better

officer bailey is the robert manion cop from tgwdlm

[l1z4rdm34t]

Hiiii 😋😋😋 this is my art account! My main blog is @t1r3dr3pt1l3z !!! Hopefully I remember to post on here, but for now here’s an intro post

What to call me:

I go by Fig/Figael, Talon, or Tired! You can also call me Lizard if you want :)

Pronouns:

He/hymn/his/hymnself

They/them/theirs/theirself

Xe/xem/xyrs/xyrself

Ze/zir/zirs/zirself

He/him/his/himself

Do not use she/her or it/its pronouns for me! I will block you.

My Fandoms:

• Dimension 20

- Fantasy High, all seasons

- The Unsleeping City | & ||

- A Crown of Candy

- Pirates of Leviathan 💛

- Mice & Murder

- Misfits & Magic 💛

- Shriek Week 💛

- A Starstruck Odyssey 💛

- Coffin Run 💛

- Fey and Flowers (my first Aabria season)

- Neverafter

- The Ravening War

- Dungeons and Drag Queens

- Mentopolis 💛

- Burrow’s End

• MLP

- the main show (not the new one)

• Adventure Time/Fiona and Cake

• Some Tin Can Bros

- The Solve It Squad/Grunch

- Spies are Forever

- Wayward Guide

- Poe’s Dinner Party

• Smile For Me

• Sort’ve into TF2 and Fallout but not really, I just think they’re silly

DNI list:

- Anti shippers

- Pro/Comshippers

- Lolicons/Shotacons

- DSMP fans/apologists/stans

- Gore spammers

- Zionists

- Bible thumpers (or any religious extremists)

- Neil Gaiman and Taika Waititi apologists

- Robert Manion apologists

- MHA/BMHA fans

- littles (I have nothing against y’all but I’m uncomfortable interacting with you on Tumblr)

[cowboykissing]

Twitter be: I like my fellow stan/anti's tweet only to realize it was a Famous Person who said that and freak out about it

[starkiddreamcasting]

Starkid Reefer Madness: The Musical

Happy 4/20 everybody! Here’s the Starkid dreamcast for Reefer Madness: the Musical! What began as a terrible anti-weed propaganda flick actually became a pretty good musical satire about propaganda itself (one that I would recommend listening too as it has music by the Heathers people and stars Kristen Bell and Alan Cummings).

1. Robert Manion as The Lecturer/The Goatman/Mr. Poppy/Priest/Officer/FDR 2. Brian Rosenthal as Jimmy Campbell 3. Ali Gordon as Mary Lane 4. Jamie Burns as Mae Coleman 5. Joey Richter as Jack Stone/Jesus/George Washington 6. Jeff Blim as Ralph Wiley/Sally’s Baby/Switch Puller/Uncle Sam 7. Lauren Lopez as Sally DeBanis/Lady Liberty 8. Denise Donovan as The Placard Girl/Ensemble 9. Jon Matteson as Ensemble/Jimmy Campbell (u/s) 10. Jaime Lyn Beatty as Ensemble/Mae Coleman (u/s) 11. Curt Mega as Ensemble/The Lecturer (u/s)/The Goatman (u/s)/Mr. Poppy (u/s)/Priest (u/s)/Officer (u/s)/FDR (u/s)/Jack Stone (u/s)/Jesus (u/s)/George Washington (u/s) 12. Brian Holden as Ensemble/Jack Stone (u/s)/Jesus (u/s)/George Washington (u/s)/Ralph Wiley (u/s)/Sally’s Baby (u/s)/Switch Puller (u/s)/Uncle Sam (u/s) 13. Rachael Soglin as Ensemble/Mary Lane (u/s) 14. Kim Whalen as Ensemble/Mae Coleman (u/s)/Sally DeBanis (u/s)/Lady Liberty (u/s) 15. James Tolbert as Ensemble 16. Alle-Faye Monka as Ensemble/Sally DeBanis (u/s)/Lady Liberty (u/s)/The Placard Girl (u/s) 17. Jim Povolo as Swing/The Lecturer (u/s)/The Goatman (u/s)/Mr. Poppy (u/s)/Priest (u/s)/Officer (u/s)/FDR (u/s) 18. Brant Cox as Swing/Jimmy Campbell (u/s)/Ralph Wiley (u/s)/Sally’s Baby (u/s)/Switch Puller (u/s)/Uncle Sam (u/s) 19. Alex Paul as Swing/Mary Lane (u/s) 20. Julia Albain as Swing/The Placard Girl (u/s)

Make sure to leave any show suggestions or any questions on my casting choices so I can explain them.

[screechingkingdomhottub]

Free Palestine.

so this was inspired by robert manion’s recent twitter stuff, hi starkid fandom, what’s good? So he essentially said “i’m going to educate myself then talk about the situation in Israel because i’m hearing drastically different perspectives” so let’s talk about this:  the good: educating yourself! always good to learn stuff and inspire others to learn themselves too the bad: he didn’t even mention Palestine. The whole point is that it’s in Palestine and if these perspectives are so different, one has to mention Palestine. Also saying you’re going to educate yourself seems to give you credit for something you’ve not done yet when you could spend the time you did making those tweets, actually educating yourself.  Now here’s a very very very brief idea of what’s happening:  -Israel are trying to take Palestine’s land and are taking it by force, people are being forced out of their homes, mosques are being blown up and children are dying.  -There are rocket attacks in Israel from Palestine as a retaliation, this part is the part that’s getting promoted by people that don’t want to acknowledge that Palestine is merely defending themselves.  -The US funds the Israeli army, they are signing off on this and it’s gross.  I think a celebrity that handled the issue a lot better is Sami Zayn, if you check his twitter you can see him posting about fundraisers and spreading awareness about Palestine.  Here’s how you can educate yourself better:  https://instagram.com/subhi.taha?igshid=1v14eljcn87lh https://instagram.com/adnan_barq?igshid=1blg8psq74db5 https://www.instagram.com/p/COvqhx4lgse/?igshid=1mt028xwhgchi Some of that stuff won’t be pretty, that’s the point. It’s awful.  Here’s a fundraiser around the situation, only has two days to go unfortunately but there’s still time:  https://gogetfunding.com/ramadan-food-parcels-for-gaza-2021/ This isn’t an anti robert manion thing, it’s not even an anti-israeli thing (the israeli army and government is awful but that doesn’t mean everyone from israel is awful), it’s just something that we need to speak about. 

[emtalksbooks]

End of Year Book List

In the order they were read, separated by category:

Fiction

1. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger

2. The Last Ballad by Wiley Cash

3. Z: A Novel of Zelda Fitzgerald by Therese Anne Fowler

4. Salvage the Bones by Jesmyn Ward

5. Mystic River by Dennis Lehane

6. The Martian by Andy Weir

7. Zone One by Colson Whitehead

8. The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien

9. Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy

10. Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton

Nonfiction

1. Caste by Isabel Wilkerson

2. Trick Mirror by Jia Tolentino

3. Stamped from the Beginning by Ibram X. Kendi

4. Heroines by Kate Zambreno

5. The Other Side of the River by Alex Kotlowitz

6. Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? 20th Anniversary Edition, by Beverly Daniel Tatum

7. The Battle of Blair Mountain by Robert Shogan

8. Female Husband by Jen Manion

9. Men We Reaped by Jesmyn Ward

10. War Against the Weak by Edwin Black

11. Work Won’t Love You Back by Sarah Jaffe

12. White Evangelical Racism by Anthea Butler

13. The World Without Us by Alan Weisman

14. The Book by Alan Watts

15. Cosmopolitanism by Kwame Anthony Appiah

16. The Origin of Others by Toni Morrison

17. Holding the Line by Barbara Kingsolver

18. Playing the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination by Toni Morrison

19. Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer

20. On Fascism: 12 Lessons from American History by Matthew C. MacWilliams

21. The Lies that Bind by Kwame Anthony Appiah

22. The Violence of Organized Forgetting by Henry Giroux

23. The Places That Scare You by Pema Chodron

24. Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer

25. No More Nice Girls by Lauren McKeon

26. The Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions Happen by Kwame Anthony Appiah

27. The Melancholia of Class by Cynthia Cruz

28. The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton

29. In Cold Blood by Truman Capote

Higher Education & Teaching

1. A Short History of Writing Instruction by James Murphy

2. Everyone Can Write by Peter Elbow

3. Beyond Education: Radical Studying for Another World by Eli Meyerhoff

4. The Anti-Racist Writing Workshop: How to Decolonize the Creative Classroom by Felicia Rose Chavez

5. Why They Can’t Write by John Warner

6. The End of Composition Studies by David Smit

7. Composing Critical Pedagogies by Amy Lee

8. Sustainable, Resilient, Free: The Future of Public Higher Education by John Warner

9. Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada’s Quest to Change Harlem and America by Paul Tough

10. Ungrading by Susan Blum

11. Radical Hope: A Teaching Manifesto by Kevin Gannon

12. Broke: The Racial Consequences of Underfunding Public Universities by Kelly Nielson and Laura T. Hamilton

13. Cracks in the Ivory Tower by Jason Brennan and Philip Magness

14. The Amateur Hour: A History of College Teaching by Jonathan Zimmerman

15. The Adjunct Underclass by Herb Childress

Poetry

1. Frank: Sonnets by Diane Seuss

Total books: 55

[maxwellyjordan]

Symposium: Party of five? Setting the table for Roe v. Wade

Melissa Murray is Professor of Law and Co-Faculty Director of the Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Network at New York University School of Law.

Last summer, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement prompted a flurry of agonized predictions about the Supreme Court’s future, and more particularly, the future of reproductive rights. The confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the pick to replace Kennedy, reflected these anxieties. Women, their mouths taped and their bodies cloaked in red robes reminiscent of Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale,” stood in silent vigil at the periphery of the Senate chamber. Others, unwilling to be silent, interrupted the proceedings to declare their support for reproductive rights. Suffice it to say that, even before the hearings evolved into a referendum on the #MeToo movement, the stakes were high, with commentators, including myself, predicting that Kavanaugh would be a fifth vote to overrule Roe v. Wade and decimate the right to abortion.

So, a year later, where are we? Although Roe survives, the changing composition of the court has emboldened opponents of reproductive rights to pass ever more restrictive laws regulating abortion. A number of state legislatures have enacted “heartbeat laws,” which prohibit abortion from the moment a fetal heartbeat can be detected — as early as six weeks, a time when a woman may not even know that she is pregnant. In this regard, these laws effectively function as pre-viability bans on abortion, in violation of Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Not to be outdone, Alabama recently enacted an aggressive law that criminalizes abortion providers and eschews the standard exceptions for rape and incest. All of these laws raise constitutional red flags. The fact that these laws, with all of their constitutional infirmities, have been enacted suggests that anti-abortion forces, emboldened by the court’s personnel changes, are spoiling for the fight that will overrule Roe once and for all.

The question, of course, is will the court take up this invitation to revisit Roe?  This term suggests that the court, under Chief Justice John Roberts’ stewardship, may tread carefully. Early on, in a cert petition involving state Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood and other health-care providers, Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the liberal wing in denying certiorari. That decision prompted a vehement dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas, who speculated that the majority’s eagerness to avoid hearing the case had “something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood.’”

Likewise, in an early motion in June Medical Services v. Gee, a challenge to a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, the chief justice again joined the court’s liberals to uphold a stay, preventing the law from going into effect while the litigation was pending. But the chief justice’s willingness to go his own way on such fraught issues does not mean that the future of reproductive rights is assured.

Critically, the Louisiana law challenged in June Medical Services was an admitting-privileges requirement that was virtually identical to the Texas admitting-privileges law that the court struck down in 2016’s Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt. The mere fact that a lower court upheld the Louisiana law in the face of an extant precedent invalidating a virtually identical admitting-privileges requirement makes clear the precarious state of abortion jurisprudence, and more troublingly, the willingness of lower courts to challenge, question and defy these precedents. Indeed, in Box v. Planned Parenthood, an appeal of two Indiana abortion restrictions, Judge David Manion voted with two other members of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to invalidate the challenged laws, but wrote separately to emphasize that he did so only because extant precedent “compelled” this result. Noting that “[o]nly the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment” could remove the “insurmountable” precedents that required lower courts to strike down abortion regulations, Manion appeared to issue an invitation — or a directive — to the court to take up the abortion question once again.

Some members of the court seem eager to take up the invitation to reconsider Roe — and other extant precedents. In its review of the 7th Circuit’s disposition of the two Indiana abortion laws at issue in Box, the court, in a per curiam opinion, upheld the provision requiring the interment or cremation of fetal remains, while denying certiorari on a challenge to the second provision, which banned abortions performed solely on the basis of a fetus’s gender, race, ethnicity or disabilities. In a stinging concurrence, Thomas sought to link Margaret Sanger, the early birth-control movement, and the eugenics movement to abortion. As he explained, just as the early interest in contraception was linked to a Darwinian effort to cull “undesirable” traits from the broader population, modern-day abortion procedures are “rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation.”

Thomas’ concurrence is notable on multiple fronts. As an initial matter, it is an extraordinary effort to launch an alternative narrative for abortion opposition — one that may have greater purchase with those who have been skeptical of claims that restrictive abortion regulations are necessary to secure women’s health. In offering an alternative frame for abortion opposition, Thomas’ eugenics narrative also drives a wedge between the racial-justice and disabilities-rights communities and the pro-choice community. Finally, the abortion-as-eugenics framing abandons the anti-abortion movement’s characterization of women as unwitting victims of callous abortion providers and instead recasts them as potential eugenicists determined to avoid giving birth to the “wrong” sort of child.

But perhaps most notable about Thomas’ concurrence in Box is its relationship to his other separate writings from this term. In Gamble v. United States, which considered the separate-sovereigns exception to double jeopardy, Thomas wrote separately “to address the proper role of the doctrine of stare decisis.” As he explained, the current formulation of stare decisis undermines the Supreme Court’s Article III duties because “it elevates demonstrably erroneous decisions … over the text of the Constitution and other duly enacted federal law.” Under this new formulation of stare decisis, the court is under no obligation to follow “demonstrably erroneous” precedents; indeed, when confronted with such a precedent, the court is duty-bound to “correct the error, regardless of whether other factors support overruling the precedent.” Meaningfully, in offering this muscular vision of stare decisis and the judicial role, Thomas takes direct aim at Casey, the 1992 case that not only upheld the right to an abortion first recognized in Roe, but also identified a series of factors that courts must weigh in determining whether overruling an extant precedent is warranted.

Thus, while the chief justice’s efforts to avoid the abortion issue may have cheered progressives, Thomas’ separate writings this term should temper any pro-choice optimism. In Box, Thomas advances an alternative argument — abortion’s eugenics potential — for overruling Roe, while proposing in Gamble reconfigured rules by which the Supreme Court considers its obligation to adhere to precedent. Taken together, these two opinions sketch an alarming blueprint for unraveling reproductive rights.

And make no mistake about it, the upcoming terms will provide ample opportunities for Thomas and others to entrench these views — and in so doing, to cobble together a majority to overrule Roe or simply whittle down the abortion right to the point of inconsequence. Coming down the pike are a range of cases that squarely confront the question of Roe’s continued vitality. If five members of the court are amenable to Thomas’ entreaties to revisit the rules of stare decisis and his concerns about the eugenics potential of abortion, then almost any of these cases are plausible candidates to rule Roe out of existence.

With all of this in mind, we might think of OT 2018 as an exercise in table-setting. Despite the chief justice’s best efforts to avoid controversial rulings, Thomas has emerged as the consummate host, carefully laying a table complete with all the implements needed to partake of a jurisprudential buffet in which the traditional notion of stare decisis, Roe and a host of other precedents are up for grabs. With new colleagues on the right, Thomas is ready to feast. The question going forward will be whether he can persuade the chief justice to join him.

The post Symposium: Party of five? Setting the table for <em>Roe v. Wade</em> appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/07/symposium-party-of-five-setting-the-table-for-roe-v-wade/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[schwhoopsie]

so did we just. forget what robert manion did 

[schwhoopsie]

Do you think that anything that Robert said in his live last night actually happened or do you think he’s just pissed and starting shit because he’s no longer going to be in starkid shows??

I actually don’t know what he said. I didn’t watch his live. What did he say?

[schwhoopsie]

can people stop sending me asks about the robert thing? usually i love asks but continually talking about a heavy subject is overwhelming