#like goddamn bro liking more than one group is not a crime or attack | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

miasswier · 5 years

Text

miasswier’s ultimate glee ranking: no 24

24: I Do

Written by: Ian Brennan Directed by: Brad Falchuk

Overall Thoughts: This one is a tough one to rank, mostly because the parts that I love I love so goddamn much, but the parts that annoy me annoy me so goddamn much. It’s pretty high up on the list because, objectively, it’s a really strong episode. It’s smack-dab in the middle of the strongest set of episodes in season four (lasting from “Sadie Hawkins” to “Guilty Pleasures”), and has really good entertainment value, while also showing a fantastic portrayal of the difficulties of living with mental illness. I originally had it higher on the list than I do now, but I re-watched it again and ugh, seriously, the parts of this episode I dislike drag it down so goddamn much. Still, it’s really strong, and it has some of my favourite moments in all of Glee history.

What I Like:

Finn telling Rachel that not everything is about her. What I like most about this moment is that it’s true. It’s not just Finn telling Rachel that to ~conceal his true feelings or whatever. Him kissing Emma legitimately had nothing to do with Rachel.

Okay, this whole storyline annoys the fuck out of me, but the scene before Jake and Marley sing their duet is pretty funny. It’s too bad they didn’t give Ryder more of a chance to be funny, because Blake Jenner has fantastic comedic timing.

Kurt and Blaine making out in the backseat of that car. Obviously.

“This is just bros helping bros.” “I love it when you talk fratty.” These two are the biggest fucking dorks.

“Tell me that’s not Tina again!”

Becky as the angry flower girl, throwing her petals with so much fucking force.

Jake calling Ryder out on his racist assumption that Jake would steal, or that Marley would assume Jake was stealing. As far as I remember there’s been no indication that Jake has ever actually committed a crime? He’s just lippy with teachers and sleeps with tons of girls and thinks that makes him a badass, but he isn’t a thief.

Jake and Marley not having sex. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: nobody can convince me that Marley wasn’t asexual. Still, I remember hearing the spoilers that five couples would go into hotel rooms and that four of those would be having sex and instantly hoping that Jake and Marley would be the ones that didn’t. I mean, Jake talks a big game about “taking it slow” but they’ve only been dating for four episodes, so that’s, what, a month? Maybe two? I’m glad that Marley didn’t let herself be pressured by the romantic gestures and such.

Santana raising her arms above her head while she follows Quinn into the hotel room. She’s so excited for the sex she’s about to have.

Honestly, Santana and Quinn in general in this episode. Everything about it is perfect, other than Quinn instantly shooting down the possibility of bisexuality, but my absolute favourite exchange is when Quinn tells Santana that the only non-gross guys are Will (ew) and Al Roker and Santana goes “Al Roker is disgusting, by the way.”

Seriously, though. Santana and Quinn had sex. Twice. That is a canonical thing that happened. I think about it every day tbh. God bless Glee.

Brittany taking pictures of Sue as she walks down the aisle and whispering “you look so good.”

“Oh, look, it’s the glee kids.”

Kurt very obviously hiding his boner behind his jacket as he gets out of the car, and Blaine’s adorable “oh my god.”

“You do realize how trashy blasphemous this is, right?” “Oh, come on Mercedes, everybody hooks up at weddings.”

Kurt pulling Blaine into the hotel room by the fucking tie.

I really enjoy the entire montage of couples post-sex (or post-not-sex, in the case of Jake and Marley). Obviously the Klaine scene is my favourite, but even the Artie/Betty scene is pretty cute. Also, Finn and Rachel’s scene is really heartbreaking in hindsight, since that’s the last time we see them on-screen together (in the same location, at least), and it’s the last kiss Rachel ever gives Finn.

Honestly, although it does annoy me in the context of the episode and in the context of when it aired, in hindsight the whole “we are endgame” speech is pretty sad. Hearing Finn talk about how he and Rachel are going to end up together, no matter what, is like a knife to the heart. Like, wow. There’s so much stuff on this show that in hindsight is just gutting.

That being said, it’s hilarious when Finn gives that whole pseudo-deep metaphor about seeds and Rachel just responds with “are you telling me you want to be a gardener?”

“Will Schuester is a weepy man-child whose greatest joy in life is singing with children. And his best friend? Nineteen.”

“Well, don't say that to Will Schuester. He'll have you singing a stripped down acoustic version of I Will Survive in a choir room full of teenagers with meaningful looks on their faces.”

Rachel telling Finn the honest truth that Emma running off has literally nothing to do with him. I’m glad that we’re at the point in the show where Finn making every woman in his life’s drama about himself is getting nipped in the bud.

Blaine and Kurt flanking Tina in red and white. They look like the angel and devil on her shoulders. Also, they’re totally going to make out during Showgirls.

The portrayal of Emma’s downward spiral over this episode and the previous one is so fantastic. Because it’s real. Here is a woman getting ready for what is supposed to be the happiest day of her life, and she’s just dreading it. Her anxiety gets worse and worse, and that just makes her OCD flare up even more-so than usual, and the result we get in the scene leading into “I’m (Not) Getting Married Today” is so wonderfully acted by Jayma Mays. I can think of very few TV shows who accurately dealt with this downside of mental illness: not even being able to enjoy the things that are supposed to bring you joy. Emma wants more than anything to marry Will, but she just can’t do it. It’s so raw, and emotional, and I’m so glad that we got to watch her perspective and not just Will and Finn’s. It’s just… god, I love that whole scene and that whole story. It’s just so goddamn real.

What I Don’t Like:

Mercedes calling Kurt and Blaine her “arm gays”. No thanks.

Okay, yeah, in hindsight the Finchel stuff is really sad, and I did tear up at a few of their scenes, but for fuck’s sake. It’s season four and we’re still dealing with this bullshit? They don’t have that much screen time, but it feels like every one of their scenes is never ending. And just exhausting. Plus, one of those scenes takes place while Kurt and Blaine are singing and I’ll never forgive Glee for that. Never.

In a similar vein, Artie and Betty have way too much screen time considering she was a one-episode character, and they also have a scene during Klaine’s song. It’s almost worse than the Finchel scene because it involves Artie literally annoying a girl into dancing with him via insulting her. She said no, bud. Leave her alone.

Jake/Marley/Ryder is SO ANNOYING OH MY GOD. Of all the annoying heterosexual bullshit I’m forced to put up with in this episode, theirs annoys me the most. First of all, we’re supposed to be rooting for Jake and Marley, but Glee is clearly showing us that Jake is the worst. But then Ryder kisses Marley, who is dating his best friend, so guess who just got added to the list of “the worst”? Seriously , why were these two the only two options given for Marley? She would have been way better off dating Unique.

I know this is a stupid, nitpicky thing, but I hate when Ryder says “she’s just a sophomore” about Marley, because I’m 98% sure that he and Jake are also sophomores, but this makes it sound like they’re both these mature adults or at least seniors, which just ends up making it seem creepy that these two guys are trying to get with this girl who they both clearly see as innocent and inexperienced, and seem to like all the more because of those qualities.

Again, one of the few episodes where I could accept Will having a lot of scenes, and he’s barely in it. Why does Glee always shove Will down my throat when I don’t want him, but hold back on him when he should actually be there? This is his goddamn wedding and he just got stood up. At least show him going to the honeymoon sweet in the hotel alone or something.

Another nitpicky thing but Mercedes isn’t at the reception and that makes me sad >:(

Songs:

You’re All I Need to Get By: I like the scene that comes before this, but the actual performance is boring, mostly because I do not give a rats ass about Jake and Marley. Also, it’s weird that Marley has solo lines in this. I would understand her singing along to some of it, but why is she singing parts by herself? She didn’t know this performance was happening!! HOW DID THEY CO-ORDINATE!!!

Getting Married Today: An awesome performance and amazing vocals by Jayma Mays. I love all of this except for the weird, floating Will Schuester head that is horribly green-screened to hove over Emma running away.

Just Can’t Get Enough: I really, really like this song. The performance, however, frustrates me. You barely see Kurt and Blaine! There are two scenes interjected in the song of straight couples talking, and almost all of the shots during the song are of straight people dancing. WE GET IT FOX! You didn’t want too much gay on your TV, and this episode already had two boys making out, and the implication of them having sex, as well as two girls having sex. Can’t let the boys actually be seen singing together after all that. (Seriously, though, the cover itself is fantastic).

We’ve Got Tonite: Despite my frustration with Finchel in this episode (and always), I really adore this song. It’s the last time they sing together, but even before it was that I still loved it. It’s slow, but sweet, and has fantastic emotion behind it. Plus, we haven’t had Finchel duets shoved down our throat for quite a while now, so I can appreciate how nice they sound together all the more-so. I also love the sneak-attack group song approach they took. Having everyone sing one line and then Finn and Rachel close it off was really clever and makes for a cool song and a great performance.

Anything Could Happen: This is a fun, upbeat song, and it’s a fun, upbeat scene, but honestly, it feels out of place. We aren’t at a fun, upbeat place when this episode ends. Rachel thinks she’s pregnant. Will can’t find Emma. Finn still feels guilty even though Rachel told him explicitly that it wasn’t his fault. Marley feels weird about Ryder kissing her (even though it wasn’t her fault!). The only storyline that really had a happy ending was the Klaine/Tina one (technically Artie/Betty too, but since we literally never see her again…), so I don’t know why this is suddenly all upbeat and happy. It feels like a really odd note to end such an emotional episode on.

Final Thoughts: I’ve always held this episode close to my heart. There is so much that happens in this episode that is so important to me (mostly Quinntana sexy times, but a lot of it is the Emma stuff too). Yeah, some of it annoys me, and the stuff that annoys me really annoys me, but it doesn’t outweigh all the awesome parts of this episode. Just, overall really strong and well-crafted. A+ Glee!

#ultimate glee ranking

8 notes · View notes

smokeybrandreviews · 4 years

Text

Heartless

I’ve seen some of the new Doctor Who and it’s kind of terrible. Once, when i was younger, I’d be on the edge of my seat whenever i tuned into this smart, snarky, surprisingly well executed indie-like show. I adored the first few series of the revival run. Eccelston was a decent Doctor but the show took off once David Tennant got the role. 10 is my favorite Doc of all time, no disrespect to Matt Smith or Tom Baker but, for me, it’s 10 all the way. He had the best stories, the best development, the best pathos. He was written brilliantly and i adored every second of it. And that’s the rub; 10 was WRITTEN beautifully. There was creativity and passion and love in his stories. All of that was driven by Russell T. Davies, a brilliant creator in his own right. This cat was the driving force behind shows like Queer As Folk and The Grand. He had a way to ground his storied in reality by focusing on the characters and their motivation. For Davies, the devil was in the detail and his almost auteur sense of showrunning made sure of that. I understand why Eccelston left after one series. Davies wasn’t budging on his vision and Eccelston, being the same way in front of the screen, woulld, invariably, do nothing but clash. It was sad to see him go but we got Tennant in tow, so it wasn’t all bad. I was born in the 80s so, until the revival started, my Doctor Who was Paul McGann. It’s a shame he didn’t get a fair shake. I think he could have been incredibly special in the role. Unfortunate. Eventually, Tennant left, like Eccelestson, but on different terms. Cats had to pry David off the set, he loved the character so much. In comes Matt Smith, all young and gang, instantly warming our hearts to his cool ass bow ties. Matt Smith brought Steven Moffat with him as showrunner and this is where things took a turn, I think.

Steven Moffat is a huge television person in Britain. He’s produced fantastic shows like the BBC Sherlock, Jekyll, and the current Netflix Dracula run. He is not Russell T. Davies. The difference in their writing is wildly apparent. I’m not saying it’s bad but it’s definitely less. Or so it was after Davies left. See, Davies had a cache of writers on his staff while he ran his portion of Who. Moffat was one of those cats. Davies says he never changed a single script submitted by Moffat, and I’m inclined to agree. When you have strict parents, you know to stay inline and put your best foot forward. When Davies bowed out and Moffat got the big chair? That’s when sh*t started to slide. Don’t get me wrong, the show was still entertaining. Moffat hit the jackpot with Smith and Karen Gillan. Their chemistry was amazing. I, personally, enjoyed the episodes with Rover Song as well, although, that seems to be a point of contention among the fandom. However, You can see cracks begin to form when Gillan left. Now, i absolutely adore Clara Oswin Oswald. The idea of her character was great. The execution, not so great. That becomes a theme in Moffat run. By the time Peter Capaldi got to throw on his sonic shades, Moffat was phoning sh*t in left and right, which is absurd because Capaldi is an excellent actor. How do yo outright waste such talent? There were a few sparks of amazing, a few brilliant episode, and f*cking Missy, ultimately though, Moffat went out with a fart instead of a bang. I think, toward the end there, Moffat was tired of the vehicle that made him a star. This brings my to current Who. The BBC installed one of the worse creatives in their social conscious to helm what could arguably be the biggest shift n Who since the first hiatus; A female Doctor.

Now, i was never one of these cats who cared if the Doctor had a Johnson or a Virginia, they’re immortal interdenominational aliens who regenerate their bodies after death. They can be whatever the f*ck they want to be at that point, except ginger, apparently. o be so butt-hurt that their precious Doctor now has boobies is ridiculous. Be upset about who they cast, bro. We’ve had excellent actors portraying the good Doctor for decades. Is this new one, female or not, going to carry that torch? Do they have the ability to do this legacy justice? That’s what should have been the focus, but it wasn’t, so the BBC was able to slide Chris Chibnall into the big chair. That is the problem with this show. A lot of Chibnall’s catalog seems to be crime serials. I’m intimately familiar with Broadchurch and i can make pretty accurate assumptions about Law and Order: UK. He was head writer fir Torchwood, but that ain’t Doctor Who. That’s a different show with a different feel. He’s actually written some of the worst episodes of Doctor Who in the new run, itself. Who’s favorite episode is f*cking “Dinosaurs on a Spaceship?” And the BBC put THIS guy in charge? No wonder the ratings are in the sh*tter, dude can’t write outside of crime dramas! There is a distinct lack of imagination there and it shows in his filmography. Just because you have a tenuous connection to Doctor Who, doesn’t mean you should be in charge of the entire goddamn show! Which is a shame because Jodie Whittaker is an amazing actor!

Jodie is the saving grace of this terrible run and it’s hard to see that with how drab her scripts have been. This feels a lot like how McGann got burned in the 90s but in a different way. Whittaker’s pedigrees is unassailable. Ma can act. She was great in attack the Block and the best goddamn thing about Broadchurch so stepping into the role of the Doctor; a role historically chock full of freedom for the actor to craft any sort of personality for the character, should have been a dream come true. it wasn’t. Whittaker was almost immediately boxed in by the BBC and Chibnall, forcing this weird, focus grouped, visage all over her. She was immediately expected to impersonate a cross between Smith and Tennant, something that sound awesome on paper but is absolutely impossible to pull off once you have a deep understanding about those two characters. 10 was a Doctor who had to live with the knowledge that he committed genocide on his own people. While he was able to smile and interact with others on a personable level, he kept people at an arms length. He abandoned the woman he loved in another dimension because of this fact. Because he feels he doesn’t deserve to be happy. 11 is the opposite. He forgot the number. He stopped counting. He allows himself to love again, both platonic and romantic. He doesn’t care about the Time War and it’s casualties, not anymore. This juxtaposition is impossible to reconcile and it makes for a sh*tty character with no tone, no agency, and no heart. And that’s the problem with this run of Doctor Who so far; There’s no heart.

It seems Chibnall has a rather short leash with this run of the Doctor. Not that he minds it, dude comes across has kind of an executive bootlicker from what I’ve seen. He’s a creative who isn’t all that creative; a writer who has good ideas and not a lick of understanding about how to execute them properly. I could be wrong, I’m not British, but i am observant and it appears to me that Chibnall is at his best when he’s adapting some sh*t or has a framework to build upon. Crime serials have that.They have a structure to their narrative. It you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all that’s why they’re called “serials”. Even with Torchwood, there was a world to build upon and cats to edit his scripts. Being the showrunner for Doctor Who has none of that. There is no structure. There is no framework. There is just pure possibility, awash in the fantastic. You have to have imagination to be in charge of Who and, as far as i can tell, Chibnall is lacking that aspect. He’s lacking heart. Doctor Who feels like Broadchurch, in more ways than one, and that i absolutely a sin. Who should feel like Who. It would be whimsical and tragic and uplifting and heartfelt and genuine. What Chibnall has created in these two series so far, feels like a product. This sh*t was pressed out, manufactured, with not even an ounce of love and that sucks. How can he be so jaded and he just got the job?

#Doctor Who

0 notes

smokeybrand · 4 years

Text

Heartless

0 notes

fapangel · 7 years

Note

199 chars, I got cites. I'll stick to actions and militia/cult behavior. The sniper attack on power station citation is you missing my point. Antifa has no weapon stockpiles or military training. The groups law enforcement see as a threat are the militias: "Law Enforcement Assessment of the Violent Extremist Threat". PBS: "armed militia groups surging across nation" Cult stuff: Business Insider:"right-wing-militias-recruit-young-soldiers-on-4chan-2017-5" psychologytoday:"the mind the militias".

Firstoff, pastebin.com is definitely the go-to for things like this -there’s no way anyone can make a cohesive argument in that tiny askbox. Just say “pastebin: and it’ll get you past that “no URLs”filter tumblr imposes. But I can answer these points/sources here:

Have you heard of the John Brown club? They’rean antifa group - the usual insane anarchists - and they’re showingup at protests carrying loaded weapons. The Phoenix group inthat article made a video of themselves doingrange practice. I believe that qualifies as training, youknow, with those weapons you say they don’t have.What fucking training do you think the right-wingmilitias have besides target shooting and playing paintball in thewoods? In other words, exactly what these people are doing?

And what the fuck do you mean stockpiles? Bro,I don’t know if you’re aware, but we live in America - you know,that free country? If you want a gun, are over 21,and don’t have a felony conviction on your record, you can walkinto any store, do 5 minutes of paperwork, wait for them to call theFBI background-check database and walk out with a new long gun. It’sthat fuckin simple. And they’re not that expensive either, you canget a decentAR-15 pattern rifle for under $500, easily. Same for ammo -you can easily buy bulk, online. The only state where both of thoseare harder is California, and I imagine that suits the huge mobs ofclub-armed antifa cunts just fine, because semi-auto firearms with large reloadable magazines are the best way to counter thugs that badly outnumber you. Stockpiles? That crazy fuck that shot the hell out of a US Representative and two Capitol police officers was using an SKS, a fucking WWII era Soviet rifle that loads from the top with fucking stripper clips. And look how much damage he did - it’s only pure dumb luck that nobody was killed or mortally wounded.

... stockpiles? Just how much do you know about guns? Here’s what I found in literally five goddamned seconds on ammoseek.com - you got $290, a credit card, and a shipping address? There you go, a thousand goddamned rounds of .223 Remington. Want two thousand? Three? Change the number in the “quantity” box.

Stockpiles?

Anyway, I’m not surprised that PBS and pals are back at their fake news, doing their damnedest to gin up right-wing militias as the real threat even as they reply to attack after violent attack by radical Islamists with hey - not all Muslims! Yes, that is the trend; witness this Atlantic article trying to justify it. But that’s beside the point. For starters, if you haven’t read my 6,500 word post on left wing vs right wing violence and violent rhetoric, I go into some depth with the whole militia thing there. For all their LARPing in the woods, swaggering and shit-talking, there hasn’t been any significant violence committed by right-wing militias since... forever, considering that Timothy McVeigh was never really part of one - and his attack was twenty-two years ago. Moreover, I cover how his attack - and the attention it drew to the militia movement - sent anywhere from “2/3rds” to “80%” (according to two different militia-affiliated folks being interviewed) scrambling away from them at high speed. Protip - actual terrorist organizations tend to attract attention when they manage huge, spectacular attacks - you know, like how Black Lives Matter is still going strong after multiple ambush attacks on cops? Gee.

And that brings us to the essential point - if these militias are really dangerous, and not just a bunch of shit-talking LARPers playing soldier in the woods - then where’s the violence? Again, as I document in that post, the only “cells” they find are a few shitheads talking shit in a bar too close to an FBI informant that eggs them on - one of them even gave them free automatic rifles to shoot, to get them all excited.

As for this study, it’s a start, but this paper freely and breezily equates “anti-government extremism” with “right-wing extremism,” and that’s a false equivalency - because Antifa are anarcho-communists. Just read their handy-dandy guide to setting up an antifa group, where they call the state their enemy multiple times - as well as cops. Shit, they have a whole section on “state repression.” Also note the bit under “political orientation,” where they openly state - in case there was any doubt - that the majority of their membership in the US are anarchists. In case you weren’t aware, anarchists are, by definition, anti-government extremists. The list on page 4 covers “anti-capitalist violent extremism,” but considering that antifa are anarchists and anti-capitalists - where do they fall in the reporting? Did every agency report them the same? In light of antifa’s own literature (again, that guide) advocating strongly that they not even name their groups and keep their identities secret as long as possible, how accurate is each agencies accounting? Hell, where do right-wing terrorist groups fall on this scale, considering there’s several anti-immigration militias that focus on finding and reporting illegal immigrants? Doesn’t that qualify as racist? Or are they anti-government, considering that anti-government sentiments tend to run pretty strong in groups like that, especially with a black Democrat in office who personally did as much as he could to hamper border control efforts?

Shit, by their own admission on page 4, they defined “Al-Qaeda inspired violent extremism” as “violent extremism inspired by the radical Islamist ideas advocated by al-Qaeda and other like-minded extremist groups,” and every other category with one general example; “violent extremism motivated by any other political, social, or religious concerns, including, but not limited to, anti-government, racist, radical, environmentalist, or anti-capitalist views. Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber (Ted Kaczynski,) and the Sikh temple shooter, Wade Michael Page, are examples of ‘other violent extremists.” So they only define one category well, loosely define the others, and then they start standing around characterizing the results with terminology (right wing, left wing) they didn’t even use in the fucking survey? When all those other categories were lumped together into “other violent extremism” in other categories?

And then there’s other data-sets - one just adds up every every crime committed by “groups or individuals with far-right associations,” (which would include every skinhead robbing a gas station, which they do a lot, because skinheads are dime-store hoods almost by definition,) and the well defined report - focusing on premeditated plots by individuals or groups that rise to the level of attempted or actual domestic terrorism,” has a whopping total of... 34 incidents listed in 14 years, and is published by the Anti-Defamation League, which is a fucking activist group, not academics, or law enforcement. Wew lad. The Global Terrorism database is better - more data, and a good definition of qualifying incidents - but it’s only being compared to Islamic extremist terrorist attacks in the US, not left wing domestic terrorism, which is what we’re discussing here.

Bruh, this is some pretty rough shit, here - all twelve pages of it. Especially that bit at the end where they make a claim about how law enforcement agencies see “right wing terrorism” (a phrase used nowhere in their survey to said law enforcement agencies) as a bigger threat in the city than in rural areas. Yeah, dense urban areas, which overwhelmingly vote Democrat, as anyone who’s seen a county-by-county electoral map can tell you, are the hotbeds of right-wing militias?

Bruh. Bruh.

But, listen, you’re actually doing your fucking homework here, which is more than most assholes can say, so lemme help you. The FBI is a great resource here - not only do they publicly publish huge annual reports on all sorts of categories of violence, (law enforcement officers killed and assaulted, general crime stats, hate crime stats, etc,) but they watch fucking everyone. There is no group too big or too small for them to not worry about - they’re basically a domestic surveillance agency. That’s why you have agents going out of their way to hand out automatic rifles to a trio of knuckle-dragging rednecks to egg them on till they can arrest them - these guys have time and resources to spare, apparently. They watch everyone - and they cover them, too, with published reports. I’ve read their reports on motorcycle gangs, and in researching that big post on violence, I found (and used) their public information on the “Sovereign Citizen” movement, which is definitely right-wing. While we’re at it, here’s their page on anarchist extremism. Note that page is out of date, though:

For today’s generation of American anarchist extremists, the rioting that disrupted the 1999 World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle is the standard by which they measure “success”—it resulted in millions of dollars in property damage and economic loss and injuries to hundreds of law enforcement officers and bystanders. But fortunately, they haven’t been able to duplicate what happened in Seattle…

LOL HAMBURG. But you get my point - the FBI watches everyone, even esoteric groups like anti/pro abortion “activists” that get a little out of hand. So the FBI is an excellent primary source to go to - certainly better than another PBS hit piece which is also regurgitating data from the “Anti-Defamation League” and making claims of “thousands” of people flooding to the Sovereign Citizen movement, without citing any source at all. Especially when they started in on how dangerous sovereign citizens are! As I noted in my big effortpost (see that for the links,) Sovereign Citizens managed to kill six police officers since the year 2000 - but twenty officers have been ambushed and murdered in 2016 alone, with multiple attacks committed by black people acting on black separatist/revolutionary rhetoric, including the Dallas shooting (killing five and wounding nine) and the Baton Rouge shooting nobody seems to have heard about (killing three and wounding three.) The latest ambush murder of a police officer in New York was similarly motivated - I haven’t even counted the ambush killings of cops in 2017 yet. But yeah, man, the fuckin right wing millitias are the real threat! Hooooo boy, how fucking hard can they shill?

Anyway, here’s the FBI’s resources page, complete with all their copious reports in .pdf format, including several on terrorism related topics. I’ll bet $5 you can make a better argument than fuckin PBS with just what you find here. I’d also track down the sources cited in that 12 page “paper” you linked and read them yourself, see what you can get out of them. That should be a good start, at least.

3 notes · View notes