#panthers discourse

[privateolives]

This is probably because I grew up watching 24/7 animal planet, but what finally made the allo/aplatonic thing click for me were the nature's of big cats.

Lions are powerful, regal creatures who are uniquely adapted to pack life. They need these connections to live a healthy life; A lonely lion is a miserable creature indeed.

Jaguars are solitary, beautiful creatures who live happily solitary. They prowl their lush world with self-sufficient majesty. A jaguar is not lonely without a pack. In fact, forcing jaguars to share space with others they do not enjoy is just as damaging as forcing a lion to live alone.

A lion may choose to head out on it's own for the most part, but in the end must return to the pack to thrive. A jaguar can choose to trust and enjoy the company of others, but they never feel the need to form a pack.

Is a jaguar selfish for this? A psychopath, a narcissist or any other such horrid assumptions? Is it a less moral creature than a lion, who seeks others like it to thrive?

Is a lion pathetic, or needy, or selfish for wanting community? For requiring contact with others like they require water? For their inherent need to string complicated webs of relationships that may seem silly or dramatic to others?

Of course not. These are ridiculous questions to even ask.

They are simply lions and jaguars.

In fact, is a jaguar that chooses to spend time with you not as magical as a lion's love? For a creature that needs no bond to thrive to still enjoy your presence enough to share it a time? Is a lion who can prowl the night alone not impressive in its strength and resilience? Is it not awe-inspiring in its ability to conquer a life it was never wired for and reign still?

Are they not both beautiful and awe-inspiring in their own ways, without being wrong?

Alloplatonics. Aplatonics. Are we not both special and beautiful in both our bonds and self-confident happiness equal, in each our ways? Is there not unique beauty in lifelong bonded packs and magical encounters that need no perpetuity to carry life forward?

Are we not but lions and jaguars? Neither wrong, neither selfish, but just different and beautiful creatures in each our ways?

That's how I've come to see it, anyway.

[capsfriendly]

with the caps at home vs the panthers tonight, i wanted to come on here and say a couple things about the panthers’ visit to the white house.

i’ve seen some people on here and on twitter pointing out the hypocrisy of certain players who have vocally supported diversity initiatives in hockey turning around and doing a photo op with a man who is nakedly trying to strip marginalized people of their rights. the sense of betrayal those fans are feeling is completely justified. despite appearances, conservative politics are incredibly popular among nhl players. i’m not writing to defend any of these men (my views lean pretty far left), but to share my understanding of the ways north american hockey as an institution perpetuates conservatism.

1) barrier of entry

ice hockey requires a lot of equipment to play. to be able to put a child through the decade or more of club dues and equipment fees required to begin seeing returns on investment—in men’s hockey, this begins with stipend pay at the major junior level in north america—requires an amount of money that many families simply cannot pay (though there are a bevy of charities trying to combat this). sports like soccer and basketball, which require comparably little equipment, are far more popular among both players of color and players from low-income families, especially in countries where hockey isn’t a national pastime.

because of this economic disparity between those who can play hockey and those who can’t, locker rooms can turn into echo chambers of privilege.

2) lack of higher education

i’m not sure of the data for other countries, but in the united states, there is a high positive correlation between holding a college degree and voting for democratic candidates. north american players are drafted to the nhl from major junior and collegiate teams, and entrance to professional leagues cuts their education short.

nhl players drafted from collegiate teams often enter the league without completing a bachelor’s degree, getting a year or two of higher education. during those years, many pick classes that they already have a strong knowledge base in, aware they’ll need to keep their grades up to maintain their university’s gpa requirement for athletes. because of this, many miss out on subjects that would teach them about systems of inequality like statistics, sociology, and studies of groups of historically marginalized people.

major juniors players, who move away from home in their mid teens, are even worse off. they leave school, usually completing the bare minimum requirements of a high school diploma to focus on their development as players and travel for games. and up until a recent vote, athletes from the canadian major junior hockey leagues were ineligible from playing ncaa hockey.

3) body economics

like all athletes, hockey players’ bodies are their jobs. the natural decline of their bodies over time limits their playing careers to the years of their lives when they can physically compete with both opposing players (to win games) and their own teammates (for roster spots).

the mean nhl career is 7 years. many hockey players don’t learn another trade and have no guarantee of making a successful career transition after retirement from playing (though some go on to coaching and media positions).

this creates a pressure to make as much money as possible while they still can, knowing that every time the take to the ice to do their jobs, they risk the very things they use to earn money: their bodies.

the physical nature of hockey means that a career-ending injury could come at any point. holding onto their earnings, knowing they’ll likely make up the bulk of income over their entire life, is essential to ensuring the comfort and health of themselves and their families.

earning high paychecks for an inherently limited number of years, it becomes attractive to these players to support candidates who promise to cut taxes for the rich, something popular among conservative politicians. while players may bear no ill will to members of historically marginalized groups and may even support their rights and freedoms, their personal economic situations lead them to vote for politicians who perpetuate that marginalization.

there are plenty of straight-up bigots playing major league sports. the panthers shouldn’t be singled out for visiting 1600 pennsylvania avenue. not because supporting the current administration isn’t reprehensible, but because it isn’t unique among hockey players—or even among athletes.

[deathbysports]

ngl it's a little funny to see oilers fans complain about the panthers being "classless" and having "no sportsmanship" because of the 'fuck mcdavid' chants and marchand's trolling. ...how about you worry about your fellow oilers fans who sent death threats to skinner first before worrying about some mostly harmless celebrations and chirping, mmk?

[euphoric-ghoul]

SILVER PANTHER IS INNOCENT. FUCK YOU GOLDEN SHARK.

[never-meant-for-this-to-hurt]

sam reinhart is honestly the baddest bitch alive

[margbarcisforever]

the truth of the matter is the feds don’t really need to do cointelpro shit in the broader left because we just do it to each other for free lol

[chaosmenu]

theres a post i would like to reblog about revolution but i dont like how combative the language used in it is so heres lenin briefly discussing dual power

[maenefa]

This kind of Denethor discourse is so frustrating to me that I am literally pacing back and forth like a panther in a zoo enclosure. Ugggggggghhhhh

A lot of people will tell you that the moral of The Lord of the Rings is “never lose hope,” and that Denethor is bad because he loses hope.

Please read THIS and THIS and especially THIS, which is one of the most beautiful and heartbreaking meditations on LotR you’ll ever read. Tolkien’s ideas about hope are so much more radical than “hope good despair bad.”

Denethor—Tolkien’s Denethor, not Peter Jackson’s Denethor—is unsettling because he tries to hope, but his hope isn’t strong enough to save him. Here are his thoughts on hope, just a few days before his death:

The time will not be long. In what is left, let all who fight the Enemy in their fashion be at one, and keep hope while they may, and after hope still the hardihood to die free.

Denethor has a more “realist” worldview than Gandalf or Faramir, but he’s not a nihilist. He’s still hanging onto hope even though he’s grieving Boromir and he’s positive that Frodo is going to be captured by Sauron. He only breaks when Faramir is mortally wounded and he sees the black ships in the palantir. And I don’t mean he gives up, I mean his mind snaps:

And as [Pippin] watched, it seemed to him that Denethor grew old before his eyes, as if something had snapped in his proud will, and his stern mind was overthrown.

Tolkien repeatedly uses language like “madness,” “madman,” “he is not himself” and “his mind was overthrown.” It’s not subtle!

Denethor is having a psychotic episode. His culpability is reduced, either partially or totally; we can’t know for certain. But I don’t think that everything he says and does in his last moments is “the real Denethor.”

We can do our best and try to have hope, but sometimes life crushes us. How are we supposed to live with the knowledge that this can happen?

Tolkien was haunted by the idea of heroes who fail, heroes who are crushed by their burdens:

Frodo indeed 'failed' as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did not endure to the end; he gave in, ratted. (Letter 246)

….I think it can be observed in history and experience that some individuals seem to be placed in 'sacrificial' positions: situations or tasks that for perfection of solution demand powers beyond their utmost limits, even beyond all possible limits for an incarnate creature in a physical world – in which a body may be destroyed, or so maimed that it affects the mind and will. Judgement upon any such case should then depend on the motives and disposition with which he started out, and should weigh his actions against the utmost possibility of his powers, all along the road to whatever proved the breaking-point. (Letter 246)

Tolkien himself tended to judge Denethor harshly, but the character fits very well into the same template as Frodo: a “sacrificial” person who is pushed beyond his limits. The palantir aged him and weakened his mental health, but what truly pushed him over the edge was the wounding of Faramir: Tolkien says that Denethor “maintained the integrity of his personality until the final blow of the (apparently) mortal wound of his only surviving son.”

It’s easy to judge Denethor for using the palantir (although Tolkien said that he had the right to use it and Gandalf admitted that the palantir’s knowledge had often proved useful!) but what should Denethor have done differently regarding sending Faramir into battle? We know that the defense of Osgiliath was necessary because Tolkien had the Rohirrim arrive at the exact moment the Witch King is about to ride through the gate of Minas Tirith. If Faramir hadn’t delayed Mordor’s army, the Rohirrim would have showed up to a conquered city.

Denethor believed that it was necessary to send Faramir to Osgiliath… and he was right! But the pain of being responsible for Faramir’s death was too great for him to bear. You can say that his craving for information killed him, but it’s just as accurate to say that his love for Faramir killed him.

Gandalf tells Denethor’s servants that they were “caught in a net of warring duties,” and this is also true of Denethor. His duty as a father conflicts with his duty as the leader of Gondor, and the strain destroys him.

It may be true that Denethor’s need for control is a character flaw, but I wonder about his final use of the palantir. His son appears to be dying: why does he leave his side to go look in the palantir? I actually think this was a hopeful act: Denethor was hoping to see the Rohirrim, or some kind of good news about the war, some indication that Faramir’s death would not be in vain. But the palantir shows him that he sent his son to die for nothing.

It’s the tragedy of Denethor lamenting “I sent my son forth, unthanked, unblessed, out into needless peril” and dying before he can learn that the battle wasn’t needless… you can’t reduce this tragedy to a morality play!

Okay, I can’t deny that the palantir is a very topical analogy for the internet/smartphones/the tyranny of “data” in general.

But Denethor is so much more than a blackpilled internet doomer, and I will defend him forever.

[professorsparklepants]

Hello Desmond Miles enjoyers I have an au concept for you. He is tall, handsome, built, and lived in New York City. There is no way this boy has not been scouted by a modeling agency at LEAST once. I know this in my heart to be true. Canon-compliant version he probably laughs nervously, says he doesn't have a phone, and throws away the number they give him in the first trash can he can find.

BUT CONSIDER. It would be so fucking funny to make him a male model. Give him an Anok Yai style career where a street photo of him goes viral and agencies are calling him every day. No phone? No problem, you've got a job and a landlord. After a month of this he's like, you know what? Why *shouldn't* I be a male model? I ran away from home because I didn't want to be involved in a bullshit war between secret societies that probably isn't even real. What's the harm. And then a month later he opens a Prada show and his career explodes.

He'd do fantastic, he walks like a panther who's coming to eat you and has (and I am saying this because the modeling industry is notably racist) enough ethnic features to be interesting but not so many that he can't pass as white. Like a male Bella Hadid. Dolce & Gabbana would love him.

Anyway the really funny part is imagining Bill Miles tearing his hair out over the fact that his son has a Wikipedia page with his face on it. Asbtergo knows who he is ("why is Altair Ibn-La'Had in my copy of Vogue") but can't actually kidnap him easily because he's high profile enough that they can't just disappear him with no issues. Obviously they do kidnap him eventually but I think they put a lot more prep into it than "pull him out of his apartment 24 hours after they first ping his ID."

Lucy: yeah. You've been kidnapped. Sorry. They're going to keep you here indefinitely until they get everything they need from you through the Animus.

Desmond: I could break my diet.... Lucy can you get me a cheeseburger. Can I please have a cheeseburger and fries and a milkshake.

Rebecca, after he gets rescued: yeah they put you on the FBI most wanted list. Sorry.

Desmond: NOOO... MY CAREER...

The perception of his descent into terrorism would be amazing. Literally no discernable reason it just looks like he snapped under pressure and bombed a pharmaceutical company. The fashion industry is gonna get soooooooo much shit about it. Desmond is reading the New York Times article about it on Rebecca's phone like "not actually what happened but if it gets them to stop making sixteen year olds cry we'll call it a win."

Anyway you know the tumblr would be fucking insane about him. Discourse over whether it's ethical to be calling him hot if he blew up a building and killed dozens of people. Armchair sleuthing out the wazoo. There are multiple flower crown edits. Shaun leaks footage of Desmond's kidnapping and the true crime girlies go bananas.

[agentoffangirling]

I really don't like it when people try to present Team Cap and Team Iron Man as being the same thing, bc they're very clearly not? (And sorry for doing this type of discourse in 2025, but it needs to be said)

Because let's be honest, the mainline MCU didn't really focus on the Sokovia Accords past Civil War. It's not present in Doctor Strange, Black Widow, Homecoming (at least in a large capacity), certainly not Ragnarok or GOTG 2, Black Panther, and almost no one cares by Infinity War. When we look at the projects post Accords, there are hardly any moments where they matter, and by 2025, they're fully repealed. Nine years of being active, five of whom were during the Snap, meaning only four years, and most of the projects don't go very in depth. That tends to lead mainline audiences into believing it was never that bad in the first place and that Cap was being selfish

But we see how the Accords really effect everyday powered people in the supplemental material like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. After being introduced, powered people had three options

Go into hiding. Live a normal life. Never show off your abilities

Sign the Accords. If you were part of a government agency like S.H.I.E.L.D., it is heavily implied you had to sign or you couldn't work for them anymore

Don't sign and show off your powers? You go to the Raft

This went for everyone, it didn't matter if your power was making farts smell good, you counted as powered. Imagine the bank down the street is getting robbed, with these in place, you couldn't do anything about it if you weren't signed or you risked going to jail; they're awful options

Or what if you were signed? Great, now all your information (powers, weaknesses, danger level, LITERALLY EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU) is held in a massive server that can be easily hacked and accessed. We see in AoS s4 that signed Inhumans are getting harmed bc the Watchdogs, a hate organization, was able to get their hands on their information and find out exactly where they were. POWERED PEOPLE WORE TRACKERS THAT WAS CONSTANTLY BEING UPDATED ON THEIR LOCATION. THAT'S FUCKING WRONG IN SO MANY WAYS

Let's switch gears for a sec here and go to another side, where thankfully, that isn't happening to you, but you do wanna make some kind of change in your community. You notice that people are going missing, that there's weird power outages and decide that's worth looking into, so you go to the council and present your case. Now, as we all know, politicians never agree on anything, so the chance of getting an immediate yes is almost impossible (I'd argue 1% is far too generous in this case). It may take weeks, months, or the decision is swept under the rug and oopsies, now the entirety of Florida is covered by a blanket of darkness!

Or you get a no, and actually, they want you to check out this tiny little village in New Zealand, and so you have no choice but to go. You quickly realize that this isn't really worth your time and feel like your services are required elsewhere, but again, you're not able to back out. When you return, you find that London has been utterly destroyed. This is a situation that Steve himself brings up, and it's something that absolutely could happen! There are just endless risks to this

Then, of course, the worst scenario, being sent to the Raft, which, bc it's in international waters, they can do whatever they want to you!! Doesn't matter if it's inhumane, no one can do shit about it. It's stated in "Jessica Jones" that prisoners aren't allowed to have any contact with the outside world, and if you go in there, you go in for good. Almost no one makes it out. Again, it doesn't matter who you were and what your powers were, you would be stuck inside with the worst of the worst. WANDA MAXIMOFF WAS IN A SHOCK COLLAR AND STRAIGHTJACKET. How in any situation is that okay??

Steve understood this, understood the true consequences of handing themselves over to hundreds of governments. He wasn't against having regulations (neither am I) but he knew this wasn't the right way to go

One side holds all the power. The other holds nothing. This is in no way equal

[therosehost]

👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿 as somebody who thinks the ship wars are funny

(Longer read) It was extremely hard to find character takes without brainworms concerning Wakanda Forever in the thick of silly ship wars or character stanning, I'm not going to hold you. Each side had some level of misses going on. Everybody was too busy making another character a scapegoat or harping on about how good or bad a Shuri ship was. At best, a character seemed to be understood a little bit, but then diagnoses of other characters were woefully one-dimensional or mild mischaracterizations.

So anyway, I want to talk about it and give every character their grace.

Don't mistake me. It's not wrong to connect with one side more than the other. In a video interview, director and writer Ryan Coogler even stated it was written in a way that who you root for could change and depend on the day. He wanted both sides to be sympathetic, but never evil or wrong on all accounts. It was just a case of people trying to do the best they could with what they're dealing with. It was a story about grief and how it affected us. It also came with a layer of bipoc experience and colonialization.

It makes sense for you to follow Shuri and Wakanda as they are the protagonists. It is sensible to empathize with Talokan, too, given what we learned about them.

What drives me bonkers is completely spitting on the narrative, making it into something it never was. (If it doesn't apply let it fly!)

If some fans seemed to understand Namor, more than a comfortable number of times, it turned into oversympathization at the expenses of other characters and his own character development. They try downplaying Namor's canonically rough edges and faults while blaming Nakia or Ramonda.

It appeared that they understood Talokan's points, but suddenly, that same critical thinking or humane sympathy is in sparing doses for Wakanda (their sister nation).

I just think people need to remember that Namor is... Kind of an asshole in any canon. He was literally called that and arrogant by Ryan Coogler, which is what we have seen in Wakanda Forever.

Namor is a multi-faceted character. His motives are upright and just. He's not entirely a "villain." Everything he did in Wakanda Forever had a rhyme and reason. His actions were in response to something (e.g., Wakanda unknowingly jeopardizing Talokan's safety). No, Namor didn't want to hurt Shuri, nor did he view it as him killing her mother. Yes, he genuinely sought out kinship, support, and an alliance with her. Yes, it is true that he holds respect and admiration for Shuri and Wakanda (see Con La Brisa or Namor's first and lines just for three references).

At the same time, he had his missteps. His diplomacy skills (barring his first conversations with Shuri) sucked exponentially! Namor was difficult with Ramonda. He intruded and constantly tried to give orders, make demands, or give Wakanda ultimatum.

These things can co-exist. As Joe Robert Cole said, Namor wasn't wrong for what he felt or his objective. His point of view is comprehensible and valid, but the problem was his approach. Namor even admits how Shuri had every right to kill him to Namora, so yes, he is flawed and had fault.

If some fans seemed to sympathize heavily with Shuri, they oddly villified and outright misconstrue Namor as something "anti-black," an oppressor (pure insanity), or a purely villainous, evil finger twiddling mastermind who sought to manipulate her right from the start.

These are stupid reads that's blatantly non-canon, mind you. Ryan Coogler even debunked that. He stated that he wanted their scenes to read as intimate and legitimate human connection amongst people who mirror.

There is also the fact that, if anything, the only character that was to give the impression to being "fooled" was Namor.

I think people should also realize how Shuri was not at all ok (aka, her flaw). This is another thing Ryan Coogler stressed in an interview. Namor and Shuri were intentionally two sides to the same coin. The pain one had was reflected in the other. Shuri was paralleling Namor in his thirst for retribution and destructive grief, but the difference is that she stopped herself from crossing the point of no return as he did, while offering her hand to pull him back.

"Vengance has consumed us. We cannot let it consume our people." Shuri wouldn't have said that for no reason.

There is an important point behind Shuri and Namor resonating with one another. Attempting to erode the connection they kindled in Talokan or misconstrue either of the two is a disservice to the movie's intricately structured theme.

If some fans loved Okoye and empathize with her struggles, they took shots at Ramonda for snapping. Yes, Okoye is an amazing, sympathetic character and tried her best. Okoye was suffering too, but do not neglect Queen Ramonda's pains.

"I had to lead a wounded nation and a broken world."

This is the same woman who lost her daughter for 5 years in the Blip, lost her son three times with the final being permanent, and lost her husband, who was politically assassinated. Throughout all of this, she had to lead a broken nation through a broken world herself. In Wakanda Forever, Ramonda had to deal with a dangerously grieving Shuri whose whole world was torn apart. She had to stand strong, seeing her daughter come undone while grieving herself.

Okoye stayed loyal to the throne when N'Jadaka (T'Challa's supposed murderer) took it while she and Shuri ran for their lives to the Jabari. Okoye's husband, W'Kabi, was a traitor. Ramonda pushed this all away (likely because she knew Okoye's heart and she understood the situation), allowing Okoye to continue serving at her side as her entrusted general and friend.

Ramonda told Okoye Shuri wasn't ready and told her not to take her on the field. Ramonda stressed her concerns about Namor (an unknown player with vibranium who had unexplainably breeched their boarders, warned them of their military power, and acted with help). Still, Okoye insisted, assuming full responsibility over Shuri.

Yes, Queen Ramonda was acting more like a mother than a queen here, and it wasn't the best decision she could've made (Okoye is their best warrior and was the only one who had fighting experience against Talokanil). However, it shows that she was human. It makes complete sense that the dam broke. She also had a point: Okoye failed in her duty, an insanely important duty that determined the fate of Wakanda.

Shuri isn't just Ramonda's daughter. She's the apparent heir. Shuri is a vital pillar in Wakanda as:

A) the apparent and only heir

B) head of Wakandan technology and design

Shuri is a leader in more ways than one, so her being taken is nothing to take lightly. Shuri even told Namor herself that Wakanda wouldn't rest until she was returned. When she comes back, a lab technician confirms this, stating to Shuri that the city has been stressed and restless in her absence.

All in all, this was a tragic fallout spurred by grief between characters with a mother-daughter dynamic.

Then there's Nakia, who mostly gets blamed for everything when she was roped in with her hands constantly forced. Even in canon, she was mistreated with Shuri ostracizing her. I'll probably write a dissection on her because it's just so crazy to me, but to give a rundown:

☆ Nakia lost "her everything" thrice. She had to be a single mother to Toussaint (who she also had to keep secret).

☆ Nakia's lack of presence at T'Challa's funeral in Wakanda was misunderstood for "running away," when she was told by T'Challa not to attend in fear of exposing their child. This led to characters pressing or misjudging her for it. Shuri had snip remarks towards her and even ignored her calls, yet Nakia remained patient and her side.

☆ The grandmother of her child pulled up to her workplace and home in Haiti, practically pleading with her to save Shuri (the love of her life's beloved sister). Queen Ramonda came to her, urging her to come out of retirement as wardog to rescue Shuri from those who held her. Neither Ramonda nor Nakia knew that Shuri requested to be taken to Namor. There was no rapport formed between them and Namor (quite the opposite). They do not know Namor or how he treats Shuri. We, as the audience, have dramatic irony. The characters do not!

☆ Nakia acted under the order of Ramonda to retrieve Shuri by any means. Even then, she did not shoot immediately. She told the guard to drop her weapon, then shot her only because she attempted to kill Shuri.

When the young handmaiden shakily held Shuri with a fruit knife near her neck, Nakia warned her with two lines, one being a command to let Shuri go. It is understandable that the young maiden froze up in fear, but time was running out. Nakia wasn't going to roll the dice on Shuri's life either. Namor would've done the same (or probably would've killed them on the dot to save his people).

While it is true Nakia killing those two Talokanil in part led to Namor's attack on Wakanda's Golden City...

1. Wakanda and Talokan still would've had inevitable conflict.

2. Her hand was pushed.

I've seen people blame or hate on Riri Williams, too, simultaneously getting and missing the point. Yes, Namor had a reason to kill Riri. He was acting as a king and didn't want his people to suffer the same traumas that caused them to move again. T'Chaka would've done the same thing.

However, even in Namor's own words, it wasn't "about the scientist." In the original script, he furthers he would've killed a thousand scientists if it meant ensuring Talokan's safety. Unfortunately, Riri was the scientist who made the machine (that she honestly had no business creating, even if she didn't know of Talokan). They wanted to throw a wrench in the cogs by depriving them of the machine and the scientist who created it. That way, they can't possibly replicate it.

To Namor, it was "Nothing personal, kid." Not even he fixed the blame on Riri personally. He just emphasized the problematic nature of the vibranium detector and what it opened them to, what it has begun. It's like the ethical delimma question of rerouting the train: Would you save the worker working absentmindedly on the train tracks or the group of people on the other side?

Coming from his perspective, you can understand him to a degree. Shuri did, but still was firm in advocating for sparing Riri. The moment she heard and saw that Riri was a student, she couldn't just fork her over to be killed for something not truly her fault. On her brother and for her brother's legacy, she refused to kill Riri. The choice to protect Riri reflected Wakanda's overall development post-BP1. It also illustrates Wakanda's optimism (afforded by their history and position), which isn't shared by Talokan. Talokan has more pessimism (due to their history of displacement, massacre by colonial disease, and vulnerabilities).

However, Riri also shows how Namor could be wrong.

Riri is a young black girl living in a constant state of disadvantage, trying to prove herself.

“To be young, gifted, and Black though, right?”

She mirrors Namor ironically. She suffered and experienced byproducts of colonialism as an African American. Riri, who is a teenager beginning college (do you expect the pinnacle of maturity and foresight from a 19-year-old?), was just caught in crossfire. Her work was meant for a rock project her professor, for some reason, didn't responsibly dissaude her from doing (but challenged her to). The FBI stolen and weaponized it, then dared to send armed forces to seize her in order to have her make it again. They even attempted to use Riri as a guise to destabilize Wakanda, pretending to care about her safety and abduction.

Additionally, even by Namor's own words, the surface world coming for them was only a matter of time. With or without Riri. Killing her would just be pushing back the dates, but it wouldn't have solved the problem. Beyond the moral dilemma of killing a kid, it actually would've created new problems.

1. A sovereign body intruded on American soil. 2. Said sovereign body and representative of another nation took a citizen. Not only that, a teenaged citizen that poses no harm who has also created the first vibranium detector (which they wanted and are looking for themselves). 3. Assuming Wakanda obliged, Riri would've been killed and never returned. Her mother would throw a fit, and it gives them so much political ammunition and guises to destablize Wakanda.

And what can Wakanda do? They are sworn to secrecy that Talokan exists. So they'll just be taking the hits just like they almost took the hits for sinking that ship when it was Talokan. If Wakanda falls and gets plundered, Talokan is not far behind.

None of these characters are "the real villains." Each of them have nuance, goodness, sympathies, and complexities. Every single one captures the complexity of humanity.

[nottodayjustin]

June 29th and 30th 2024 best hockey tweet(s) of the day(s)

I will not be commenting on the Panthers parade discourse at this time because it seems pretty heated and I don’t want anyone to get mad at me, thank you for your understanding 🫡

[velvetvexations]

Saw your tags on that binder post and I thought I’d share that my first introduction to chest binding was actually through the lolita community! A lot of big name japanese brands are not exactly size inclusive and did NOT cater to anyone with more than an A cup, so I did see quite a lot of safe binding advice and methods on blogs and forums back in the day before more inclusive brands became available, ranging from sports bra to actual proper binders. I’m probably not the only example of the “binding to fit into an angelic pretty dress” to “binding to fit into an angelic pretty dress and gender reasons)” pipeline, but plenty of other lolitas I know are still cis women who just do it on occasion or for specific pieces that aren’t very forgiving on the tits! I doubt that a single niche fashion subculture is the reason for those binders being marketed towards cis women so heavily, but I thought this was a funny anecdote :)

Fascinating!

patricia taxxon shit really fucking hurts. i dont want to be effected by a random internet microcelebrity not liking transdudes, that happens often enough. but god her music and essays got me through really rough shit and it really hurts to see someone i looked up to for well written essays and work fall back on the bullshit arguments used to deny my lived experiences. it really really fucking hurts, especially with how it feels barely anyone will talk about or call it out. i thought trfs were something id have to look hard for, and seeing their rhetoric creep into the fucking music i listen to and tumblrs i follow really truly scares me

I'm sorry, anon. I love you a lot. <3

“You shouldn’t break up the trans community into groups!” The TRFs literally came up with a way to break up the community via TMA/TME. They are actively distancing themselves from the community by baking fearmongering into their ideology. God forbid we create a term about sticking together against a group within the community that’s inherently dividing?

lmao literally

Just had my first time getting sexually harassed by a woman as a percieved cis man and commiserating afterwards with a cis man about how we're all just supposed to be cool with being treated like that. It's a weird experience and somehow going through the same things mostly from women as a girl then nonbinary then a trans guy it feels the same but the flavors change. I know the discourse is literally nothing but it makes me feel like my feelings shouldn't matter because of the male privilege. And I even did my civic duty and took the brunt of it away from the other trans man who was getting it worse because of his percieved feminine traits which people also like to pretend doesn't happen. All of it is just stupid.

It's fine, she was a woman and you're a man so that was praxis sexual harassment.

honestly i think a better predictor of how much autonomy a child is able to have over their presentation is probably whether the child is disabled moreso than agab, like i not only wasn't allowed to have my hair too short, i also wasn't allowed to have it too long for a chunk of my childhood because it took me awhile to understand how to brush my hair (because i was afraid to because i am hypersensitive to touch and my mother would always brush my hair in a way that hurt so much i would cry), and my mother would bitch and moan about how difficult i was about it (because she was hurting me and did not listen when i told her this) and so i wasn't allowed to have longer hair until i could brush it myself. ultimately the biggest factor is always the attitude of the parents though

God, so much of my shit with my mother was over my hair, it still really gets to me.

TRF is like the whole voting for face eating panthers. But it’s like TERFs are the panthers and TRFs are a cheetah, like “I’m a kind of cat too so they won’t eat my face as long as I eat faces too right?” WRONG they see you as prey, they won’t spare you because they see a fellow cat, they’ll eat your face cuz you’re not a panther!

cis women will like me if I explain to them how I'm -taxonomically- a woman

it’s insane to me that ‘it’s bad to hate someone for an uncontrollable part of their identity no matter who they are’ is a controversial take now

we've regressed

when people say ‘um ackshually i can say i want all men to die and if you tell me “men see these things and go far right because they think it’s true” then you are blaming women for men’s bad behaviour’ i just immediately assume that this person is stupid as fuck like. if a teenage boy goes online to see what feminism is about and is bombarded with ‘kill all men’ ‘all men are rapists’ etc then OBVIOUSLY he’s not gonna want to be feminist. it is really not that fucking hard to understand. people don’t wanna be in spaces that are cruel to them for an aspect of their identity that they cannot control it’s not ‘blaming women for misogynistic men’ to say that. it’s just fucking true. people are so stupid it actually pains me

unfortunately radfem juice is addictive

[akajustmerry]

I really do feel like "firsts" (ie "first openly gay character", "first film directed by a woman winning XYZ") style marketing in the mid to late 2010s did a number on people and now there's large swathes of fanbases who think the only way to legitimise or validate their love for a product or person is by saying it's a "first". and a lot of the time the "first" they're saying the thing is either a) isn't the first of its kind at all or b) is so niche that it's hardly significant. I'm not saying marking historical progressions aren't important, they are. however, there's this real tendency by certain groups of people to use "firsts" style discourse to erase the work of other marginalised people, and silence critique of the product in question. I vividly rmr when Black Panther came out so many people were saying it was the first Black-led superhero film, despite films like Blade and Catwoman existing years prior. When South Asian people were criticising Crazy Rich Asians for glorifying Chinese supremacy in Singapore, so many of them were bullied off platforms for daring to critique "the first romcom with an all Asian cast" (also not true lmao). again, I'm not saying milestones don't deserve acknowledgement, but I truly despise how so often these milestones are made up or blown out of proportion at the expense of the very marginalised people they supposedly celebrate. also, not for nothing, but if it's 2025 and a corporation is asking you to celebrate the first time they've hired or awarded a marginalised person? That's not a blessing or a boon, that's just an admission of discrimination at this point.

[blackstarlineage]

Lack of Widespread Promotion of Pan-African Ideologies: A Garveyite Perspective

Introduction: The Absence of Pan-Africanism in the Global Black Consciousness

One of the greatest failures in the modern Black world is the lack of widespread promotion of Pan-African ideologies. Despite the work of Marcus Garvey, Kwame Nkrumah, Malcolm X, Thomas Sankara, and other Pan-Africanists, the movement remains marginalized, misunderstood, and underrepresented in mainstream Black discourse.

From a Garveyite perspective, this lack of promotion is not accidental—it is part of a deliberate strategy to prevent global Black unity, ensuring that:

Black people remain divided by nationality, ethnicity, and language.

The African diaspora continues to depend on Western and Eastern powers rather than themselves.

Black nations and communities remain economically and politically weak, allowing foreign exploitation.

If Pan-Africanism is not actively promoted and institutionalized, Black people will remain economically disorganized, politically fragmented, and socially disconnected, making true liberation impossible.

1. The Historical Suppression of Pan-African Ideologies

A. The Colonial and Western Opposition to Pan-Africanism

European and Western powers have always opposed Pan-Africanism because they knew it would:

Unite Black people worldwide against colonial and neocolonial exploitation.

Create self-sufficient Black economies, removing financial dependency on Europe and America.

Lead to stronger African and Caribbean nations, reducing foreign control over Black resources.

Example: When Kwame Nkrumah pushed for a United States of Africa, the CIA and Western governments sabotaged his leadership, ensuring that Africa remained divided.

Key Takeaway: Pan-Africanism was never just an ideology—it was a direct threat to white supremacy and global capitalism.

B. The Targeting of Pan-African Leaders and Organizations

Every major Pan-African leader has faced assassination, imprisonment, or political sabotage:

Marcus Garvey was imprisoned and deported by the U.S. government.

Patrice Lumumba was assassinated with CIA and Belgian involvement.

Thomas Sankara was killed in a coup backed by French interests.

Example: The Black Panther Party, which had Pan-Africanist ideals, was destroyed through COINTELPRO, a U.S. government program designed to neutralize Black liberation movements.

Key Takeaway: When Black people unify globally, they become too powerful—this is why Pan-Africanism has always been suppressed.

C. The Role of Colonial Education in Ignoring Pan-Africanism

In most Black-majority nations, schools:

Do not teach about Pan-African history or its leaders.

Focus on colonial history rather than pre-colonial African civilizations.

Promote European political models instead of Pan-African governance structures.

Example: Most African and Caribbean students learn more about European history than about the legacies of Garvey, Nkrumah, or Malcolm X.

Key Takeaway: If Black children are not taught Pan-Africanism, they will grow up with no knowledge of their collective power.

2. The Consequences of Failing to Promote Pan-African Ideologies

A. Disunity Between Africans and the Diaspora

Because Pan-Africanism is not widely promoted, Black people worldwide remain:

Divided by nationality (African vs. Caribbean vs. African American).

Separated by colonial languages (Francophone vs. Anglophone Africa).

Misinformed about each other’s struggles, preventing global solidarity.

Example: Many Black Americans and Africans do not see themselves as part of the same struggle, even though white supremacy and neocolonialism affect both groups.

Key Takeaway: Without Pan-Africanism, Black people remain fragmented and vulnerable to outside control.

B. Economic Dependence on Non-Black Nations

Without widespread Pan-Africanism, Black people continue to:

Trade more with Europe, China, and America than with each other.

Invest in non-Black economies instead of building Pan-African business networks.

Consume media and culture controlled by white-owned corporations.

Example: Africa has some of the richest natural resources on Earth, yet it remains economically weak because foreign corporations control most industries instead of Pan-African trade networks.

Key Takeaway: If Black people do not unify economically, they will always be controlled by outside forces.

C. The Lack of a Unified Black Political Strategy

Because Pan-Africanism is not widely promoted, Black nations and communities:

Fail to coordinate their political efforts globally.

Remain divided on key issues like reparations, land ownership, and governance.

Are unable to form a strong, collective response to global anti-Black racism.

Example: When George Floyd was murdered in the U.S., there was no coordinated Pan-African political or economic response, proving that Black nations and communities still lack global unity.

Key Takeaway: Without Pan-African political cooperation, Black people remain powerless in global decision-making.

3. The Garveyite Solution: Restoring and Promoting Pan-African Ideologies

A. Pan-Africanism Must Be Taught in Schools and Universities

Black institutions must:

Make Pan-African history a mandatory subject.

Teach about leaders like Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, and Kwame Nkrumah.

Educate youth on the importance of global Black unity.

Example: Independent Pan-African schools should be created to teach African history from an Afrocentric perspective, not a colonial one.

Key Takeaway: If Black children are not educated in Pan-Africanism, they will remain mentally enslaved.

B. Black Media Must Prioritize Pan-African Content

Black-owned media must:

Produce documentaries, films, and books that spread Pan-African ideologies.

Expose the lies of colonial history and celebrate Black resistance.

Create platforms that connect Black people worldwide.

Example: Instead of relying on Hollywood, Black filmmakers must fund projects that highlight Pan-African history.

Key Takeaway: Media shapes minds—if Pan-Africanism is not visible, it will not grow.

C. Black Political Leaders Must Push for Pan-African Policies

Black governments and activists must:

Advocate for Pan-African economic policies, such as intra-African trade.

Coordinate global responses to anti-Black racism.

Challenge Western and Chinese exploitation of Africa.

Example: The African Union should be transformed into a real political force that fights for Black interests globally.

Key Takeaway: Pan-Africanism must move from theory to political action.

D. Pan-African Economic Networks Must Be Created

Black entrepreneurs and business leaders must:

Build supply chains that keep Black wealth circulating within the community.

Create Pan-African banking and investment systems.

Develop economic policies that remove dependency on foreign institutions.

Example: If Black-owned businesses worldwide collaborated instead of competing, they could control their own industries rather than relying on foreign investors.

Key Takeaway: Pan-Africanism must be economically sustainable, not just ideological.

Conclusion: Will Black People Promote Pan-Africanism or Continue Living in Division?

Marcus Garvey said:

“The Black skin is not a badge of shame, but rather a glorious symbol of national greatness."

Will Black people continue being divided by national and ethnic differences, or embrace Pan-African unity?

Will we allow foreign nations to dictate our economic and political future, or take control ourselves?

Will Pan-Africanism remain an ignored ideology, or become the foundation of Black liberation?

The Choice is Ours. The Time is Now.

[annunen]

NHLWAM S12 E6: Anton Lundell & Sasha Barkov

Translated the highlights from this one too! Other FLA episode's translations here.

Again, Putkonen and Manninen are the NHLWAM hosts.

TLDR: Sasha is a proud dad, he praises his teammates and chirps Lundy a lot. Sunscreen discourse.

Under the cut!

-----

Manninen: Lunkka, it's been a couple years since we last sat there on the beach. How are you feeling, are you settled in Florida now?

Lundell: Yeah, it feels like home now. Even on that first season. No complaints, this is a cool place to play in and there aren't many places like this where you can go to the beach even in the winter.

Host: About being outside - it's really hot here, even today, so during the season do you have to wear sunscreen?

Lundell: You should. I've made the mistake of thinking "i don't need it, my skin should be used to the sun by now" a couple times and then my shoulders were completely red the next day.

-----

Manninen: So about Matthew Tkachuk, he's a really colorful person, at least on the ice. What kind of guy is he?

Lundell: Yeah, he came in with a rumble and showed everyone why he's such a good player. 40 goals, over 100 points. In the playoffs he showed us the direction, and that just tells about his persona, how much he just wants to win. He hates losing.

Manninen: What about your other new guy, Niko Mikkola?

Lundell: It's nice to have him on the same team. He's quite an annoying player, at least to play against, if i'm being honest. He plays hard, he's mean, he's a big boy. It's hard to play against guys like that. He's been a great addition to the team, bringing us some physicality and experience to the d-core.

Manninen: And what kind of guy is he off the ice?

Lundell: Really nice guy, Finnish too so it's nice to talk Finnish with him. He's a really funny guy too when he tries to joke a little.

-----

Putkonen: Who has the weirdest pre-game ritual? Does anyone have any weird ones?

Lundell: Patric Hörnqvist had a really weird one. Before the game he always took a stick to the bathroom and then he would say "we're going to score some dirty goals tonight".

(Putkonen jaw drop)

-----

Putkonen: Ville Nieminen asked "what things do you think you're better in than Sasha?"

Lundell: Soccer. Definitely.

Putkonen: What about padel?

Lundell: That's good. I don't think i'm better than him but at least i'm not much worse.

-----

Manninen: Welcome to the "Know your coworker" section. Here we have the Florida Panthers captain Sasha Barkov and the future alternate Anton Lundell.

(Sasha smiles sooo big at that)

(They had to know each other's draft club and draft number, hometown, birth year, junior club, shoe size, first car and eye color. After the fourth question Sasha asks "do you have any harder questions?" Both scored 8 points. I'll subtitle this clip later.)

-----

Putkonen: We came outside and it's like a heatwave day today, so i have a question: do you use sunscreen during the season?

(Sasha shakes his head.)

Putkonen: You don't?

Barkov: No I don't. I was at the beach yesterday and i didn't use sunscreen. I'm a tough guy.

Putkonen: Pretty tough cause Lunkka said he uses sunscreen at least for the beginning of the season.

Barkov: Lunkka is from Espoo.

Putkonen: Yeah, he is from Espoo. Tampere guys don't wear sunscreen.

(all three laugh)

-----

Manninen: So Sasha, you became a daddy a couple years ago! How would you describe this life event?

Barkov: It's quite a big change, but for the better. It feels amazing to have a person you have to take care of and watch him grow. Probably the best thing in my life.

Manninen: Could use the classic cliche of "you don't really understand until you become a parent yourself"?

Barkov: It's exactly that.

-----

Manninen: We were watching your game against Tampa. – – What caught my eye was after all the little scrums and brawls, when there was communication between the refs and the captains, Captain wasn't there. Had you delegated that task to Matthew Tkachuk? Is this a permanent thing or why was it Tkachuk and not you?

Barkov: We have actually agreed with him that when there's scrums like that, he knows about them more than me. He goes to negotiate with the refs. If there's something else to ask, then I'll do my job. But if there's a fight, he knows what to say.

Manninen: For all who have followed Matthew Tkachuk's career at all, he absolutely has seen those scrums. Last season he came in with a crash and really brought your team some of that rough edge.

Barkov: Yeah, he's an unbelievable guy on and off the ice. On the ice, everyone can see how he scores goals and points, how he plays. But how he is off the ice, how much he affects the team atmosphere and connects teammates, that's the biggest thing i've seen about him. He really is - he's like the glue of the team.

-----

Manninen: One Finnish new teammate! Niko Mikkola arrived in Florida this season.  How do you describe Niko as a player and a friend?

Barkov: He's an amazing guy. Just what we needed, a big guy who plays physically and moves really well for a guy that size. Just a great guy, he's really chill and you can crack some jokes at him and he won't get offended like Lunkka does.

(laughing)

Barkov: That might be because he played in Tappara for a couple seasons.