#that kind of assholery has nothing to do with who actually has claim over the land and whatever

[cdroloisms]

l'manburg is colonialism is out lmanburg is stantwt is in

[shipfishwrites]

how to recognize a crusade

sometimes, when you’re a site admin, you’re faced with the unfortunate reality that some members are scads. absolute dickwaffles. assholes, if you will. sometimes even worse, sometimes they’re known to commit roleplay sins like fomenting drama over impressions or powerplaying, or getting gold and disappearing, or art theft, stuff like that.

sometimes they’re known for worse shit. irl sins like abuse and betrayal of trust. sometimes they’ve hurt a lot of people, or badly hurt one or two, forever putting a strain on this little fandom because we really can’t afford too many burnt bridges.

when a member like that comes knocking at the door, or commits these sins under your watch, you have a really hard path ahead as an admin. there’s a lot to be said for both the forgiving and the hard-line approaches. talking about and learning from situations like that is really important for admins of any age or style, but that’s not what this post is about.

this post is about spotting people who spread shit instead of letting it lie. who try to control others’ opinions about certain people and certain things. who claim to defend but instead reach out to maim, to isolate, to shun. sometimes when a member with stains on their history comes to join your site, they bring harbingers of doom on their coattails.

a warning is always a good thing. however, some people come warning because they hate the person involved more than they hate the bad deeds.

here are some signs that a warning is actually part of a crusade.

they are quick on the scene, usually contacting you mere minutes after they have heard their target has joined your site

they bring friends to provide additional evidence or just to agree (aka, dogpile)

they express joy that they’re about to get their target banned again

they express a desire to see the target suffer

they want immediate action

they insist that the target may seem harmless, but will cause problems in the future

they insist that the target themself is a bad person, not just their deeds

they haven’t read your site’s lore (ok, maybe just a pet peeve. but they’ll be like “oh [the target] will do anything to get gold!” and your site doesn’t have golds)

they are willing to provide hours of stories and examples of bad deeds, but often cannot produce screenshots or other evidence

evidence or screenshots often reveal a general assholery but zero evidence of the target actually doing the bad things

they claim to be defending someone who was badly hurt, but when you contact them they don’t want to be involved, or barely knew about the crusade

they air the debacle publicly, such as on a livestream on their site’s discord server

these are not all the hallmarks of a crusade, and a legitimate warning can exist with many of these traits as well. as with most things, it isn’t black and white. it’s very important to hear the target’s side of the story if you think a warning is part of a crusade; in general it’s best to hear both sides but in some cases a warning warrants an unappealable ban.

learning active listening and rhetorical analysis is a much broader topic than this little post can cover, and you’ll need both tools to be able to sort fact from motive from feeling from bullshit. some small notes however:

assume both parties are telling the truth as it pertains to them; look for actual events, and understand how and why each party has taken something different from the events

do not lie about playing both sides of the field, but:

be friendly with all sides, assume or at least act as if their side is valid

examine motives. typically, a target’s only motive is to remain. if they demand a retributive ban against the crusader, it is a bad sign.

contact external sources, but be aware that doing so may wake more dragons

the most important thing to remember about a crusade is that it never backs down. a legitimate warning is not always private, calm, specific, and ultimately ambivalent about the outcome, but they often are. remember, a crusade’s point is not to defend. it does not take “no” for an answer, the crusaders become defensive if you say you aren’t convinced or need time to think, they do not settle for a compromise solution, and they will block you on discord if you call them out for publicly airing private drama.

their crusade is not limited to the interaction they had with you. they will continue it in many forms. they will assume maliciousness in any of the target’s opinions; some may legitimately be bad or in some way -phobic or -ist opinions, but often they have nothing to do with the target’s supposed bad deeds. they will crash other admins’ dms. they will spread rumors. they will fail to respect privacy. they will vague about the target’s bad takes on tumblr, then block you when you call them out.

but most of all:

in a crusader’s mind, the target can never be redeemed.

this, as we all know, is false. we are all bad people sometimes, and when we are isolated from kindness in our favorite places, we cannot improve or move on.

[commentaryvorg]

Danganronpa V3 Commentary: Part 4.8

Be aware that this is not a blind playthrough! This will contain spoilers for the entire game, regardless of the part of the game I’m commenting on. A major focus of this commentary is to talk about all of the hints and foreshadowing of events that are going to happen and facts that are going to be revealed in the future of the story. It is emphatically not intended for someone experiencing the game for their first time.

Last time, as chapter 4 became Deadly Life, Miu was incredibly unsubtle about her murder plan, Shuichi apparently thinks Kaito is too invincible to possibly be dead, Gonta was a murderer and then a different Gonta was very confused and sad, Kokichi refused to let Kaito investigate with Shuichi for no actually decent reason, and Kaito made it very clear that he knows Shuichi can and should find the culprit even if it’s someone he believes in.

We left off right as the investigation proper began.

Shuichi:  “Kokichi. What do you want?”

This is Shuichi’s reaction to Kokichi first butting in to try and be his “partner”. He is so completely not about this.

Kokichi:  “It’s just… I hate lies so much that I tend to suspect others a lot.”

As I mentioned with a similar comment of his a while back, him hating lies is actually a somewhat true statement and not as paradoxical as it seems.

Kokichi:  “Kaito said he wouldn’t team up with you for this case, but I can’t trust those words. That’s why I’m keeping an eye out, in case he tries to bother you.”

Except that Kokichi knows Kaito isn’t the culprit and there’d be absolutely no harm in them working together, so really what this is is just Kokichi trying to jab at Kaito’s issues by making sure it gets made clear that hey, look, Shuichi can solve a whole case without you and you have nothing useful to offer him. Look at the way Kokichi calls Kaito a “bother”. He knows what he’s doing.

Kokichi:  “But I’ll help you as much as I can.”

And here he’s trying to make sure that Shuichi will in fact be able to solve the case and figure out that Gonta did it, because he wants the exact opposite of what Gonta wanted when he killed Miu.

It’s a little odd that examining Miu’s corpse only lets you see her from the side, and that the side view of her is the only one that’s added as a Truth Bullet, even though it’s pretty difficult to see her non-bloodshot eyes from that angle, which is relevant. The body discovery cutscene showed them quite clearly, but you don’t get to look at that again.

Shuichi:  (Some helmets have their cords plugged in, others have them removed…)

We can assume that one of the ones with them removed is Gonta’s, then, or else Shuichi would have noticed they were in backwards. Or he just didn’t actually check them all, but that seems unthorough of him not to do so.

Shuichi:  “Gonta… are you alright?”

Kokichi:  “Are you still depressed about Miu? C’mon, don’t be such a Debbie Downer.”

Gonta:  “…”

A very important thing to be aware of: Kokichi has absolutely no idea about Gonta’s memory loss. He fully believes right now that Gonta remembers everything about the murder and their mercy kill plan and is acting in accordance with that. So presumably him trying to tell Gonta to be less down is because he’s worried that Gonta being even more depressed than usual will make it obvious something’s up with him (even though he wants everyone to eventually realise Gonta did it, realising that too soon would be no ~fun~, right??). But nope, actually Gonta’s just such a sweet person that he’d be this depressed over another murder even if he had nothing to do with it.

Kokichi:  “Oh, Gonta, I wanna know what you think. Rare, I know, but who do you think is the culprit?”

This is also pretty telling as to what’s going on. Kokichi would never usually give a fuck about Gonta’s opinion on a case, since he has Gonta written off as a naïve idiot. He’s asking now because he wants to force Gonta to lie, to make sure that Gonta is still willing to lie and isn’t going to get cold feet about the plan.

Gonta:  “Why… Miu killed!? Gonta not understand… Gonta not understand anything…”

Poor thing, he’s so confused – they all sat down to do this complicated thing he didn’t understand that actually turned out to be just going to sleep, and then while they were all asleep Miu got killed for some reason? It doesn’t make any sense!

Kokichi:  “But Gonta doesn’t seem to be lying. I’m pretty sure he’s telling the truth. Well… I guess a big dum-dum like Gonta doesn’t have the brains to lie in the first place.”

He actually is telling us the truth right now even though you think otherwise, you dick. Since Kokichi believes Gonta is lying and knows everyone else is going to eventually realise it, this is another of his pathetically transparent attempts to convince everyone that absolutely nobody, not even someone like Gonta, is ever deserving of trust.

Kokichi:  “I’m so disappointed in you, Gonta. When I first met you, I thought you’d be more useful.”

YOU BELIEVE HE IS BEING USEFUL TO YOU RIGHT NOW YOU ASSHOLE

(If Gonta actually remembered then this would hurt him so much more than it already does.)

Kokichi:  “If you feel that bad about it, then stop blaming yourself. Help us find the culprit instead. This is the culprit’s fault anyway, so pull yourself together and help us, okay?”

AND SPEAKING OF THINGS THAT WOULD HURT GONTA SO MUCH MORE IF HE ACTUALLY REMEMBERED

I can give the whole “help us find the culprit” part a pass as Kokichi trying to make sure Gonta will act as though he normally would in terms of helping the investigation. Still, even that would be awful for a Gonta who’d already be at his limit just lying about his crime when he hates lying so much. Having to act on top of that like he wants to help them find the culprit when really he feels like doing that would achieve the opposite of helping them would be stressful and confusing as hell for him.

But… “This is the culprit’s fault anyway”? Literally two sentences after telling him not to blame himself? Fuck you, Kokichi. Fuck you.

I did have a whole rant written about how awful it is that Kokichi is being this deliberately cruel towards Gonta (which you’ll see an edited version of later this post, because it still applies in a different context), but then it occurred to me that this is probably not deliberate cruelty and is instead Kokichi deflecting his own guilt. It’s totally only Gonta’s fault that Miu’s dead, right? Kokichi didn’t murder her and doesn’t have anything to feel bad about, right?

But no, Kokichi absolutely did also murder Miu and should feel just as bad about it as Gonta does (or would do if he remembered). He deliberately took actions that he knew would lead to her death, that wouldn’t have led to her death if he hadn’t taken them, and she died as a result. The only way in which that is not murder for all intents and purposes is in Monokuma’s very literal definition of who the blackened is. The fact that Kokichi can’t take responsibility for his own goddamn actions and the pain they caused and is (hypothetically) making Gonta suffer even more in his attempts to run away from them makes him a pretty fucking awful person. Not quite as awful a person as he would be if he were doing this to be deliberately cruel, and also a more interesting character than if that were the case, but still a terrible person. Even if he’s only doing it out of cowardice and not just for the sake of being cruel, the end result is still cruelty. Or would have been, as far as Kokichi knows.

And, granted, this is in part caused by Kokichi being twisted by this killing game, and I don’t believe he would be quite as terrible under normal circumstances. That’s interesting in an out-universe sense, but that still doesn’t make it even remotely okay in an in-universe sense. Nobody else was twisted into this kind of assholery by the killing game – most of the others if anything became better people for it, not worse.

Shuichi:  (Now Kokichi is encouraging him?)

Shuichi can tell something’s off here because Kokichi is usually just treating Gonta like a tool and being a dick to him, not encouraging him. Little does he know that Kokichi is still being a dick to him, and even more of one than usual.

Shuichi:  (I really don’t know what Kokichi is thinking.)

Be glad you don’t, Shuichi, because if you did, you’d… well, you probably wouldn’t do much because you’re too passive. If Kaito knew what Kokichi was really thinking, though, man would he give him a piece of his mind about standing by his own actions and taking some goddamn responsibility.

Kokichi:  “Feel free to lie, of course. Exposing lies is the real pleasure of this game, after all.”

Kaito:  “Huh? What!?”

Shuichi:  “Kaito… just ignore him and talk to me, okay?”

I love how clear it is that Shuichi is just having absolutely none of Kokichi’s bullshit and certainly isn’t even remotely on board with the idea of Kokichi being his “partner”. He’s just an annoying hanger-on that Shuichi really wishes would go away.

Shuichi:  “And the body discovery announcement woke you?”

Kaito:  “Yeah, that’s right. I heard it and rushed back here.”

Kaito’s looking away with that pained expression on his face as he says this. This might be him remembering how terrified he was at the possibility of it being Shuichi or Maki.

Kaito:  “I said I’m not lying! Tell him, Shuichi!”

Kokichi:  “No, Shuichi. In order to find the truth, you can’t be biased.”

Shuichi:  “…”

…Sadly it appears that Shuichi agrees with Kokichi here. I have no doubt that he believes Kaito’s telling the truth, but he doesn’t reassure Kaito of that. Apparently he thinks it’s not very Ultimate Detective of him to be saying things with no evidence, and right now he’s very much in Ultimate Detective mode.

Monotaro jumps in to help get evidence from the computer, which Monophanie claims is against the rules… but I don’t think it is, especially since Monokuma doesn’t come and try to stop him. I think that even if Miu’s plan had succeeded, in which case Miu would have tried to lie about the computer’s settings and Monotaro wouldn’t have been co-operative, Monokuma himself would have made sure everyone got the computer-related information they need. It’s the same principle as why he provides the Monokuma Files – he needs to give everyone just enough information to make the trial fair for both sides.

Kokichi:  “He’s doing his best for his dead mommy! I-I’m so touched… WAAAAAAAAHHH!!!”

…Really, Kokichi? You really need to overexaggerate a reaction so that you can lie to yourself about your feelings regarding this? Apparently his lying to himself about his own feelings is going into overdrive if he’s doing this here with things only indirectly related to what he’s actually having feelings about.

Shuichi:  (Kaito. He logged out ahead of us… No, it couldn’t be him.)

I’m doing this bit before checking the poison bottle so that Shuichi’s certainty of Kaito’s innocence isn’t based on actual evidence (because it really doesn’t take much evidence to prove Kaito couldn’t have done it) and is purely him choosing to believe unflinchingly in his best friend. I like it better that way.

Kokichi continues to show his impressive deflecting skills in response to Keebo being upset about Miu’s death:

Kokichi:  “He told us he couldn’t cry even if he wanted to! He went so far as to stage his dramatic reaction.”

Because obviously if someone deliberately stages a dramatic reaction, that means they don’t really care about whatever they’re pretending to be upset about, not even in the slightest, right? And that’s definitely only something Keebo is doing, not him, of course. This is some recursive deflection right here.

Tsumugi talks about when she witnessed Miu and how she didn’t tell Shuichi right away because she thought she was mistaken.

Kokichi:  “You’re only saying you were ‘mistaken’ so you don’t have to feel as guilty.”

Tsumugi:  “Huh?”

Kokichi:  “If you had been *positive* it was Miu, then you could have done something sooner… You could’ve prevented her death, y’know?”

Tsumugi:  “Th-That…”

Kokichi is apparently being his usual dickish self and trying to make Tsumugi feel guilty. Joke’s on you, Kokichi – Tsumugi doesn’t actually give a fuck that Miu died and is probably quite happy it happened.

But really, Kokichi’s claim that she’s saying that to feel less guilty is yet more recursive deflection of his deflection of his guilt. Geez, Kokichi.

Kaito happens to butt in on this continuing conversation to ask for more details about them hearing Keebo’s voice, to the point that he hears about the part where Shuichi and Tsumugi ran outside and immediately encountered Gonta. This is a fact that he uses to argue for Gonta’s innocence in the trial, so it’s neat that the writers put in this bit to establish that Kaito knows this even though he wasn’t witness to it himself. It’s also very important that Kaito wasn’t personally witness to it himself and only hears about it second-hand.

Kokichi:  “What about it though? Did you notice anything?”

Kaito:  “…”

Shuichi:  (I suppose not.)

Ouch. Kaito’s making an effort to gather information and figure stuff out, though, even if he’s not able to draw any conclusions! That said, he hasn’t been managing to pay attention to every conversation Shuichi’s been having, because there are some gaps in his knowledge that will become apparent during the trial.

Kokichi:  “If there’s poison and tricks prepared, then of course I’d investigate them ASAP.”

Shuichi:  “Is that—”

Kokichi:  “Oh, it’s not so that I can use them. I check in case someone else uses them.”

I somewhat believe that. He definitely would want to know what tools everyone else has to use against him – since he’s so convinced everyone else is an awful backstabber who’s out to get him – so that he can be prepared and defend himself as best as possible. Of course, since he’s been planning his own tricks, he also definitely did check them for his own purposes, in case they’d be useful to him.

Since he checked the poisons in Shuichi’s lab, I wonder if he also checked all those murder files. Shuichi and Maki did discuss how the whole point of them was supposedly to give people ideas for murder plans, so that seems like something Kokichi would also want to be aware of. Which is to say, given that one bit in chapter 3 that implied Kokichi might have memories of watching the Danganronpa 1 anime, if Kokichi did check every single one of the files including the very first one, then that might also have helped him piece things together like he did early on in this chapter.

Kokichi:  “By the way, I should tell you what symptoms this poison causes… It causes a small blood vessel under the conjunctiva to expode… which makes the whites of your eyes turn blood red.”

The way this is worded, it almost sounds like the thing about the poison causing bloodshot eyes isn’t on the warning label of the bottle and is just something Kokichi supposedly happens to know about it. However, Shuichi states in the trial that that was in fact on the label, so I guess he read it himself to confirm Kokichi’s claim.

But that’s kind of a shame, because it’d be pretty interesting if that weren’t the case and the label truly said nothing about bloodshot eyes. That would mean that Kokichi is telling a lie here that supposedly proves Kaito’s innocence in order to get people to stop suspecting him and move on to other topics in the trial. Which would be exactly the kind of reason Shuichi uses lies in trials – to get people to stop fixating on whatever seems like the most obvious possibility by claiming that it’s not possible, so that they can start considering other options and get to the real truth. It would make sense for Kokichi to do that here, since he’s only claiming he thinks it’s Kaito to be a dick, and in actuality he wants Shuichi to eventually reach the truth.

It’d also be neat, if we imagine that the poison didn’t cause bloodshot eyes and that Miu had succeeded in killing Kokichi, to think that Shuichi himself might use that very same lie in such a situation. He’d unflinchingly believe in Kaito’s innocence, but there’d be no way to prove it and get people to move onto talking about the Virtual World other than to tell a lie like this. Maki could even also get in on the lie – the two of them together could insist that as an assassin and a detective they just happen to know that fact about this particular poison.

Kokichi:  “Nee-heehee… am I doing a good job? Maybe it’s time you acknowledge me as your partner.”

Yeah, you just did a really helpful job of proving Shuichi’s actual partner innocent, now Kaito can safely investigate with Shuichi again without any problems and you can fuck off. Right?

(…since this is the last thing in the computer room I’m checking before they head back to the Virtual World, that’s actually what happens, so, um.)

Shuichi:  “I thought I remembered you saying that you *didn’t* want to be my partner.”

Kokichi:  “Hm? Did I? Well, sometimes I lie without thinking about it.”

I still do not get what the point is of this apparent implication that Kokichi genuinely does want to be Shuichi’s partner and is jealous of Kaito being his friend. It simply doesn’t have any relevance to anything meaningful about Kokichi’s character or anything he does outside of this one bit in case 4, since the writing obviously can’t go anywhere with it once he’s convinced everyone he’s an evil asshole, and it actively hinders the fact that he doesn’t end up using Shuichi as his accomplice. Just, why.

Kokichi:  “…The Virtual World. We should go there again.”

So at first, Kokichi seems quite on board with being one of the ones to go back into the Virtual World to investigate.

Kaito:  “If we go back to the Virtual World, we might find some new clues. With those, I might be able to clear my name!”

Kaito really wants to try and clear his name himself. He definitely believes Shuichi would be able to do it for him anyway, but he doesn’t want to have to rely on Shuichi for that and wants to be able to prove his own innocence!

…But, uh, sorry, Kaito, Shuichi’s already proven your innocence with evidence just from this room. You could’ve done that too if you’d noticed more. You’re not very good at this investigation thing.

Nearly everyone decides to go back in there, except Maki, who wants to keep an eye on Monotaro’s computer investigation, and of course Gonta.

Gonta:  “Gonta… search this place some more. This no time to be sleeping.”

He’s so bewildered as to why everyone would just go to sleep during a murder investigation! This also rather strongly hints that he really does see it as just sleeping – if he remembered the Virtual World’s events, even if he considered them a weird dream, surely he’d be able to make the connection that maybe that has something to do with how Miu died and that’s why everyone’s going back into that weird dream place.

Kokichi:  “Then, I’ll stay here too.”

And the moment Gonta says he’s staying, Kokichi immediately changes his mind and decides to stay as well.

Kokichi:  “But I’m busy too, y’know? I have to watch Maki in case she tries to do anything deceitful.”

Nope. That’s not why. He’s staying to keep an eye on Gonta and make sure he doesn’t get cold feet and confess to everyone because that would ruin the ~fun~. Or at least, it’d ruin Kokichi getting to draw this out and therefore paint himself as an evil sadist.

(Also there he goes yet again trying to make people distrust Maki when everybody has trusted her and she has done nothing deceitful for over a chapter now.)

Maki:  “Deceitful?”

Kokichi:  “Well, you and Kaito are pretty close, so you might do something deceitful for him, right?”

Okay, slightly better argument than just “she’s an assassin therefore she’s a terrible person”, but still, not why he’s staying. And that argument should also apply to him needing to keep an eye on Shuichi for the same reason. Also, Shuichi has already proven Kaito’s innocence, why can’t he just mention this. (Because this is a game and the players need to figure things out for themselves.)

Kokichi:  “…Good thing Gonta’s here with me. Your glare is too scary to handle alone! Gonta would risk his life to protect me from a murderer!”

FUCK YOU, YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT SAYING THIS WOULD DO TO A GONTA WHO REMEMBERED BEING A MURDERER.

On the one hand, this is the kind of thing Kokichi would have said under normal circumstances of Gonta not being a murderer. On the other hand, this comment, unlike the previous one I was Not Okay about, doesn’t really make sense as being Kokichi deflecting his own guilt. So all he’s doing here is choosing to have zero fucking empathy with how Gonta would be feeling and refusing to even make the slightest effort to go a little easier on him. In this particular moment Kokichi’s not especially being a coward and focusing on protecting his own conscience, which you’d think might make him more capable of considering others’ feelings, but no. Kokichi only cares about himself here.

Kaito:  “Hey! If you keep saying messed up crap like that, I’m gonna kick your ass into orbit!”

…Kaito’s only saying this to defend Maki from Kokichi treating her like a murderer. If he knew what was really going on, he’d want to kick Kokichi’s ass into the next galaxy.

(I like the space theming of Kaito’s threats, by the way.)

Kokichi:  “I don’t like violence. The Ultimate Supreme Leader would rather sneak around!”

Yes and that’s exactly why you got someone else to do the violent dirty work of killing someone so that your conscience can remain totally clean because it’s not like you’re a murderer, right???? (You’re a murderer.)

Kokichi:  “So anywaaay… I’ll leave the Virtual World to you, Shuichi.”

Shuichi:  “…”

Kokichi:  “But I’m not exaggerating when I say this class trial can only be solved by you, okay? Your talent can save the useless people here, y’know?”

Kaito:  “Who you calling useless!?”

Oh hey, here we go. Kokichi’s praising Shuichi. Which is A Thing he’s going to be doing a lot during this case… and it isn’t really about Shuichi at all.

For this particular instance of this, Kokichi doesn’t specifically mention anyone other than Shuichi, whom he’s technically talking to, but Kaito’s reaction makes it clear who this is really targeted at. Kaito’s been secretly feeling more and more useless this whole chapter thanks to the fact that he’s dying and that Shuichi seems to have grown strong enough to not really need his help any more. Kokichi has apparently picked up on this, and every single bit of him stressing that Shuichi is the only person who can save everyone is really him jabbing at Kaito’s feelings of inferiority and jealousy and trying to hurt him. He’s going to be doing this a lot, and… I kind of love it, because this isn’t just about Kokichi being a dick – this is the writers caring so much about contributing to Kaito’s character arc in even the subtlest of ways.

So watch me count the number of times this happens! Kokichi already did this once at the beginning of the investigation last time when he stressed how it’s Shuichi’s time to shine now that somebody’s dead, making this Kokichi Doing The Thing Count: 2.

All of Kokichi’s awfulness towards Gonta since the murder (or at least what would have been awfulness if Gonta had remembered) can be put down to his issues and him trying to deflect his guilt about being a murderer, meaning that while he’s still ultimately being a terrible person, there’s no active malice behind it. (There very definitely isn’t any kindness behind it either, mind you.)  But this? This isn’t about deflecting anything. This is just malice.

Granted, the entire point of Kokichi’s plan with this case (or at least this is what he’s telling himself) is to deliberately be incredibly cruel to everyone by throwing Gonta’s life away so that people will be convinced by his lie that he’s a sadistic bastard who enjoys making people suffer. This is then in itself for the purpose of backing up his later lie that he’s the mastermind (which is actually a really minor and mostly unnecessary part of his overall plan that does not remotely justify two deaths and all this suffering, but we’ll get into that later). But him jabbing at Kaito here cannot be a part of that plan, because he’s being subtle about it. Most of the time he’s going to be praising Shuichi without even mentioning Kaito at all, which means that nobody is going to catch on to his intentions and go, “man, you’re being such a dick to Kaito, guess that helps prove you really are an evil sadist”. So that’s not the point of this. He’s trying to hurt Kaito purely for the sake of hurting Kaito.

Why is Kokichi trying to hurt Kaito specifically? Because he doesn’t like that Kaito’s philosophy about believing in people is so opposite to his and so he wants to be a dick to Kaito in particular, presumably??? Maybe he’s still bitter about Kaito calling him “naïve” last trial or something? Kokichi definitely seems like the kind of person who’d get mad because he can’t beat someone in an argument and deal with it by trying to get petty revenge on them in a different way.

And I feel like this is something most people would brush off as not that big of a deal even if they did pick up on the fact that all of Kokichi’s praising of Shuichi is actually targeting Kaito, because it’s Kaito, and he’s supposed to be tough and thick-skinned and not let this kind of thing get to him, right? But no – Kaito is a lot more emotionally vulnerable right now that he’d ever let on, and Kokichi knows that and is deliberately exploiting that just to try and hurt him, and it will get to Kaito far more than he’d like to admit.

---

[Next post]

[firstpuffin]

The infuriating politics behind Captain Marvel (2019) [with spoilers]

I watched Captain Marvel the morning of writing this and to make things clear: I liked it. It was fun, I enjoyed her character (which I’ll expand on earlier) and best of all it wasn’t in-your-face feminist propaganda. I call myself apolitical, the “a-“ prefix meaning “not” so I am “not political”. I’m not a feminist because there is modern baggage behind that word and there are very few labels that I actually subscribe to. The ones I do usually have the “a-“ prefix, so that probably says a lot about me.

  I hate that I have to bring this up but people, including people whose opinions I generally respect, can’t see past the politics of a situation. I’m not not a feminist because I don’t believe in the cause; I do. I’m not some kind of red pill manist or whatever they are called, because I’m comfortable in myself. I’m apolitical because I see the content first and the agenda second. And Captain Marvel has good content.

  Yes there are issues. I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t find problems with fiction. Where did Mar-vell get the Tesseract after Stark found it in the sea? Why did only Carol get powers from the explosion and not the others who were there? And it most definitely had the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s villain problem.

 To make it clear this article is not about the film, it’s about people whose reviews repeatedly talk about the freaking patriarchy. Such as yes, Jude Law’s character is revealed to be a part of the conspiracy to suppress her true self. As a man he is clearly oppressing our female hero-

  Or maybe he’s just a bad guy. You know, the bad guy. The villain. And we all know that if he had been a woman instead then the same people would claim there were too many women in the film thus feminist agenda. You know what has too many female characters? The Supergirl television show. But if you were to switch everybody’s sexes then it would look like an ordinary male-lead show. You could consider that as them pushing a bit too hard, but it is not only understandable but is also far from the worst part of that show.

 So, our antagonist is suppressing the powers of our hero. Maybe that’s because as we see in the final part of the story (what is known as the Falling Action and is when the heroes turn things around) she is practically unstoppable. Maybe it’s because they are trying to use her. Maybe it’s because he shot her out of the sky six years ago and is responsible for the death of the person she admires most and is possibly the person who wiped her memory. Maybe it’s not patriarchy but assholery.

  I started watching one review that said it was bad because it didn’t follow the Hero’s Journey, an old method of story-telling that he claimed is essential to a good story (which it isn’t, especially in our post-modern age) and while it seemed to follow it at the beginning it quickly departed. How? Well the mentor character (Jude Law again) wasn’t actually a mentor character, he just pretended to be one. Except he was a mentor, but the twist (admittedly a predictable one) was that he was a villain. And if you think that doesn’t count, then look at it this way: he’s training her to be a bad guy too. So he’s still a mentor.

  And he claimed that there was no “call to action”, which is the reason why the hero ventures out to adventure, saying that she was just “sent on a mission”. And yes, that wasn’t a call to action (except maybe in the most literal sense), the call to action comes later when she discovered hints about her past and found out that everything was in danger if she, the only person in the position to do so, didn’t help; by which I mean she was the only member of her organisation on Earth for the next day. If galactic danger and self-discovery aren’t calls to action then just what is it that motivates most stories?

  So clearly this guy wanted to dislike the film. I stopped watching less than half way through his video after he said patriarchy for the fifth time. Like, shut up about it already.

 The next complaint that I’m going to cover is that apparently only boys like comics and so a strong female character is off-putting? I’m not sure, this guy confused me. Yes, comics were (and possibly still are; I don’t check demographics) aimed at young teenage boys, hence the silly action and terrifyingly bombastic female figures (like seriously, those proportions would be fatal). But you know what I like? To use my own terminology, capable characters.

  I don’t use “strong” as an adjective without purpose because it has connotations of physical power, which isn’t what is meant by “strong female characters”. I use capable because I feel it is a better fit. Carol Danvers is capable, strong and generally badass anyway. Why? Well for one thing, she always gets back up. You know, that thing that Captain America always does? That is important to his character? She does it too, and it is hinted at all throughout the film so it isn’t just some cheap “drama” for the climax.

  I’m going to go full nerd here and talk about anime. My favourite characters in the action genre have always been those who stand back up. They get beaten down (physically or mentally) and force themselves back up. It’s cheesy as all hell and it is done in anime better than I usually see in western comics or films and stuff. It’s cool, it’s dramatic and it works really well at getting you to root for the hero.

  Many people probably know of Dragon Ball Z and we see it in Goku, the hero of that series. I’d also like to point out that when it comes to raw power, the Dragon Ball fighters are similar yet stronger than Captain Marvel. A character in the series who is less frequently called “strong” is Bulma. She isn’t a fighter and she doesn’t have all of the superpowers of Goku or the others, but she’s a scientist who often provides support. More than that though, she never lets her lack of planet-destroying power prevent her from standing side by side with the fighters. Heck, she stands up to literal gods when they piss her off.

  She is what I think of as a capable female character, because she can’t kick ass but that doesn’t make her weak.

 Growing up, Carol Danvers is obviously what we call a “tomboy”. She wants to do what the boys do and she pushes herself to do so, despite being condescended to regularly for it. She literally gets knocked down, she falls and she (again literally) crashes and she gets back up. Even more impressive for me is that she is mentally and emotionally shaken, but stands up again to protect others and to regain control of her life.

  And there is nothing in that above paragraph that is uniquely masculine.

  A girl can fall over and stand back up. A woman can be emotionally manipulated only to pick herself back up. And because they aren’t masculine actions, seeing a female character do so isn’t at all feminism. It’s just a person doing what a person does.

 So, what else? Well there are complaints about her character being “snarky” or her being a bad loser (she is beaten in a sparring match and lashes out). Except I loved seeing her cocky mannerisms (which are common in male action heroes) and her obvious pleasure to be doing something, because it’s pretty clear that they haven’t let her do anything but train for the last six years. And this isn’t patriarchy again, she is in a military group with strict guidelines on when you are ready to go into the field (plus as we know, they are scared of her power).

  She was bored, she was restless. She’s a character who obviously like to act, being held back. That’s why she lashed out; she was frustrated and angry at not doing anything and yes, it could be seen as a flaw. But it’s a humanising and understandable flaw if you just try to empathise with her instead of looking for things to dislike. And one last point, Jude Law’s character said that if she couldn’t control her power then she’d have to visit the Supreme Intelligence(SI), who is a sort of commanding officer (I don’t know the terminology). So what does Danvers do? She uses it. It is not a stretch at all to suppose that she may have intentionally lashed out so that she could confront the SI. Plus, they are all something that we see again and again in male action heroes.

  Yes, I keep comparing her to male action heroes and that’s because she is also an action hero. They will have similar traits regardless of sex or gender. She is confident and willing to have a laugh and it is great to see.

  And finally, and this may come across badly but hear me out first, I loved seeing her smile. I don’t mean that in the “give us a smile, love”, but in the “she’s excited” way. I love to see people excited and when she’s about to go on a mission or when she’s figuring out her powers towards the end, she is clearly having fun.

  I’d love to see that in a male character too, it doesn’t matter. Seeing action heroes excited to do what they do, is great. Again, that’s something we see a lot in anime so it’s no surprise that I like seeing it here.

 This has run longer than I intended so, to conclude: Captain Marvel is an action hero who is frustrated from doing nothing for six years and when she gets the chance, she acts. She is driven, her power is suppressed and she is oh-so clearly a good person. Oh, and she’s confident, which I suspect is a big problem for those who are not used to seeing it.

-Note= I found it interesting that according to the dictionaries I looked at, bombastic means flowery or pretentious language; think of people who use excessively complex language. But as soon as you look at how people use the word (including but not limited to Urban Dictionary) you see that is not only how people use the word. Language is fascinating.

-Note= Releasing these every two weeks isn’t working, I can’t keep it in mind and so I keep missing the upload date. Instead I’m considering releasing a short 500 word-ish between uploads, just to keep myself from slipping.

[schraubd]

The Internet Teaches You Things

I've been on the internet for a long time. This blog has been around since 2004! That's positively ancient in internet-years. Over the past few days -- not prompted by anything in particular -- I've been reflected on some of the things I've learned from just observing people talking on the internet. Of course, you could say that the internet is a very particular forum where people exhibit very particular forms of behavior. And that's true. But it's also the case that the internet is an unprecedented aggregation of a diverse array of voices, personalities, and speaking styles, and that there is something to be said for taking its denizens seriously. So, without further adieu, here are some things I've learned, and advice I accordingly offer, as an official Elder of the Internet:

No matter your ideology, there will always be someone purer than you. That doesn't mean they're right. This includes centrists.

No matter your ideology, there will always be someone profoundly idiotic who largely agrees with you, and someone profoundly idiotic who largely disagrees with you. Neither fact should be unduly weighted.

No ideology is immune from having assholes as adherents. Moreover, people who are assholes can and will express their assholery in the argot of their ideology. So a conservative asshole will use conservative rhetoric and language to effectuate being an asshole, while a socialist asshole will use socialist rhetoric and language. Ditto liberals, ditto centrists, ditto nationalists, ditto anyone. Nothing about the ideology will stop them from doing so, and certainly do not believe your ideology is an exception.

Consequently, I'm dubious that the fact of being an asshole makes one significantly more likely to be attracted to a particular ideology. Rather, I think people adopt political ideologies for other reasons and, "fortuitously", then find that they can still be as trollish and nasty as they like within their confines.

Virtually everyone is more complex than they appear at first glance. Try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they're not the stock caricature version of the position or you think they hold or the identity you imagine they occupy. If you take them seriously, you'd be surprised how far they might be willing to walk with you.

That said , there are many genuinely bigoted, malicious, prejudiced people out there. You can call them out, or ignore them, or block them, or mock them, or even argue with them. But don't be in denial about their existence. This goes triple for acknowledging the existence of bigots who are targeting people-not-like-you.

Related: The bigotry you and yours face is serious and should be taken seriously. But you don't need to deny that others are burdened in their own way, and you should be self-critical about one's assumption that they're not. Whether your claim is that "nobody would ever tolerate this if it was said about Jews" or "only when it's said about Jews do people tolerate this", you're almost certainly wrong. They would say it about Jews; they'd say it about other groups too.

There will never be an "-ism" (racism, antisemitism, sexism, etc.) case that is incontestable to everyone. No matter how obvious it seems, someone will be there to contend its actually fair play (why hello, Councillor "Jews are blood-drinkers"!). Consequently, the whole point of asserting that something is racist or antisemitic or what have you is to do so in cases where someone is contesting it. And the fact that the -ism claim is contested does not, itself, suffice to refute it.

Resist pile-ons. Yes, accountability is important. And yes, each individual contribution to the pile-on would typically (not always -- see death threats) be proportionate and reasonable if isolated and placed in the context of an individual, face-to-face encounter. But aggregated together, they quickly can spiral out of control, and frequently magnify all the internet's worst qualities.

Be generous when reading others. Precision can be hard on social media platforms. Try to be precise in your own work. When you inevitably fail (and you will), you'll be grateful when others are generous while reading you.

The worst thing you can be on the internet is an abusive troll. But the second worst thing you can be is a hack. Practices associated with hackery include cheap shots, indifference to facts, mischaracterizations, ungenerous reading of interlocutors, smarminess, and lazy adoption of prevailing narratives without evidentiary support. Don't be a hack. Perhaps more importantly: if you're a publisher, don't publish hacks. Nobody is forcing you to do it.

Hypocrisy arguments are almost always a double-edged sword. If you say "how can you criticize A for X when you don't criticize B for Y?", it invites the retort "how can you criticize B for Y when you don't criticize A for X?" Typically, all that's revealed is that both parties to the conversation are hacks.

There is a huge difference between suggesting that a given piece of art or writing was of such poor quality that it shouldn't have been run (and that the fact of its publication reflects poorly both on the author and on whoever elected to run it) versus suggesting that some de jure authority should have prohibited it from running. The latter is censorship, the former is quality control. Also, the claim that a given piece is racist, antisemitic, etc. etc. is a (subset) claim about its quality, not something that stands apart and separate from it.

That said, stretch yourself in terms of what you're willing to read or consider. Precisely because personal, private refusal to read or consider something is not censorship, it is in some ways a more tempting and dangerous mechanism for isolating yourself from challenging ideas. It's a fine line between the truth that one need not consider obviously repugnant and unjustified claims (e.g., Holocaust denial) and the truth that one should consider difficult and challenging claims, and only you can police yourself on this front. Take responsibility for your intellectual health.

Recognizing the diversity and pluralism in other groups is good. Searching high and low for the members of other groups who happen to agree with what you already think about them, and then claiming credit for your diverse, pluralistic reading habits, is not good. It is hackery.

Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, if something you write is widely disparaged and reviled by your target audience, it's not because you were telling some difficult truth or produced a misunderstood masterpiece. It's just because it was bad. Reveling in a hostile reception for its own sake is a bad habit. Reflexive contrarianism is not a good look. Telling yourself that it's all just "people who like being offended" is usually self-serving. And provocation for its own sake is almost always hackery.

People follow people on social media for all sorts of reasons. Don't read too much into it, unless there's a really obvious pattern. "So-and-so follows X-and-Y who once tweeted Z in 2009!" is pretty much always a hack move.

Nobody can force you to be an asshole, or a troll, or a hack. Own your choices online. No one is a saint all the time, and far be it from me to discount the joy of a great internet burn. But default towards kindness.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2AtTCwB

[osberend]

@moltendistress has, as is typical for an anti, now changed her handle, to @galactic-mom. She has also blocked me. So I’m going to quote the contents of her latest reply to me, rather than reblogging it. (If she deletes or edits it and anyone wants screenshots, I can supply them, but text is user-friendlier.)

In reply to this post of mine, she said:

aight i don’t like to argue with people online because it’s fucking childish, but I’m making a special exception for you because you called me a coward. 

Which you then proceeded to neatly confirm by reblogging-and-blocking.

First of all, you fucking walnut, yeah I reblogged your dumbass post using a sideblog because I happened to be working on that particular sideblog when I was going through my notes. It was an accident. Rather than deleting the post in its entirety and starting over, I just reblogged it to my main and got it off of my art blog because it doesn’t fucking belong there??? It’s an ART blog??? 

Actual question to my followers: Is “walnut” some sort of dialectical insult that I haven’t heard of? Or is this just more of “antis are bizarrely bad at coherent insults?”

In any event, you could easily have copy-and-pasted the post from one blog to the other, and that would have been a far more natural thing to do than reblog-and-delete.

“Presumably all in the hopes that I wouldn’t be able to track down your post” are you fucking stupid? The description in both my main and my sideblog @numinousgallery has my fucking URL in it. There wasn’t anything ‘sneaky’ about it and there isn’t anything special about you for being able to find my main blog. It’s literally in the fucking description you dipshit.

Antis have a long history of exceedingly incompetent attempts at being sneaky. This would have been entirely par for the course.

Also, why are you so pissed about me screenshotting your blog? I thought you were okay with that kind of shit:

[screenshot of this post]

I’m not pissed about you screenshotting my blog, and nothing I said implies that I am.

I’m annoyed about you making libelous claims about me. (Specifically: That I am misogynist, that I am racist, and that I am a redpiller.) In fact, given that you’re making such claims, it’s probably preferable that you do so together with screenshots of your “evidence” than without, so that everyone can see just how full of shit you are.

No one’s making fun of you for being autistic.

Not for being autistic as such. But for allegedly fitting into a stereotype that amounts to a caricature of a verbal adult autistic male, absolutely.

We’re making fun of you for supporting “bash a violent bitch day” 

Month, not day. “October is Bash a Violent Bitch Month” is an egalitarian response to the many (not all) “October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month” posts that tacitly assume that domestic abuse in heterosexual couples is exclusively perpetrated by men, against women, when studies suggest that the numbers are actually about equal. (Severe physical injury is substantially more likely to be inflicted on women by men than vice versa, but that’s perfectly consistent with the mere material fact that men tend to be stronger.)

And so the message is, quite simply: If your wife or girlfriend hits you, without a damn good reason, and she feels safe doing this even though you’re stronger than her because “real men don’t hit women” or some other misandrist crap like that, you should beat the shit out of her. Not for any sexist reason, but for the same reason you’d beat the shit out of another man who was stupid enough to hit you without a damn good reason despite being weaker than you: Because physically attacking another human being, outside of some very limited circumstances, is reprehensible regardless of either party’s sex. (And thinking you deserve to get away with it because you’re in the special gender that is allowed to initiate violence is extra reprehensible --- again, regardless of which gender that may be in your particular bigoted ideology.)

And any time the victim (of any gender) of such a reprehensible attack can turn the tables and beat up their attacker (of any gender), that’s a thing to be celebrated.

and acting like an all-around asshole.

Says the witch-hunter going after people who aren’t hurting anyone, because the attractions they never chose to have make them acceptable targets in your eyes. I know which one of us is the asshole here, and it ain’t me.

I don’t know what you’re equating a “neckbeard” with, but what most people tend to equate it with is a misogynist.

Bullshit.

It’s true that there are plenty of feminist assholes --- let the record show that I recognize that not all feminists are assholes (although they are all wrong), and moreover not all feminist assholes engage in this particular form of assholery --- who will treat “neckbeard” as implying “misogynist,” but none of them actually treat them as synonyms. If they did, we’d see Donald Trump being called a neckbeard, and yet we don’t. Because what “neckbeard” really means is a man who fits, to a greater or lesser degree, the following stereotype:

Unusual personal grooming behaviors (e.g., having a neckbeard) and/or poor hygiene (”unwashed,” “greasy,” “smelly,” etc.)

Unusual fashion choices (most stereotypically: “fedoras” (which is sometimes used as a synonym for “neckbeards”), but may also encompass geeky tee-shirts, retro clothing of various sorts, formalwear in situations where formalwear would not be expected, etc.)

Unusual and/or stereotyped speech patterns (“m’lady”) and gestures (”tips fedora”)

Tendency to infodump (”go on and on”) about special interests (most stereotypically: roleplaying games, computer games, politics, religion and atheism, comic books, and/or geeky TV shows)

Anime fan

My Little Pony fan/”brony”

In poor physical shape (fat, unmuscular, and/or in poor cardiovascular health)

Spends all or nearly all his time online

Poor at reading non-verbal social cues (tone, body language, and facial expressions)

Extremely literal

Hyper-precise

Either unemployed or employed as a computer programmer

Lives in his mothers basement

. . . which is precisely a stereotype of a verbal, normal- or high-IQ, autistic man. And to the extent that feminists conflate “neckbeard” with “misogynist,” they do so precisely by claiming that (actually and/or stereotypically) common autistic traits imply secret misogyny (at least when the individuals with those traits are men).

Which is, of course, bigoted as fuck.

If a misogynist is the same thing as an autistic person to you, I don’t know what to say.

I’m not the one making that conflation.

#im done#not arguing anymore idgaf

Which is why you replied (and then blocked). Right.

As I said before: You’re a contemptible coward.

[renegaderoots]

BASIC INFORMATION

♚┋FULL NAME: Ronan Morrison  ♚┋PRONUNCIATION:  Ro-nohn ♚┋NICKNAME(S): Buttercup (by Cían) ♚┋TITLE: The Damned ♚┋OCCUPATION: Escort  ♚┋~AGE: 30 ♚┋DATE OF BIRTH: 23rd July ♚┋GENDER: Genderfluid ♚┋PRONOUNS:  He/Him/His ♚┋ORIENTATION: Homoromantic Homosexual ♚┋NATIONALITY: French ♚┋RELIGION: Agnostic Atheist ♚┋SPECIES: Human ♚┋AFFILIATION: Morrison ♚┋GENERATION: Third ♚┋THREAT LEVEL: Moderate 

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

♚┋FACE CLAIM: Nicolas Simoes ♚┋EYE COLOUR: Hazel ♚┋HAIR COLOUR: Brown ♚┋DOMINANT HAND: Right ♚┋HEIGHT: 6′2 ♚┋WEIGHT: 176 lbs ♚┋TATTOOS: The name of his first love in his handwriting mirrored on his collarbone. ♚┋SCARS: actually has scars from a brain surgery when he was younger but they’re covered by his hair.  ♚┋PIERCINGS: No. ♚┋GLASSES: contacts.Glasses are ugly, he says. 

PSYCHOLOGY INFORMATION

♚┋JUNG TYPE: ENFJ ♚┋SUBTYPE: Intuitive ♚┋ENNEATYPE: 6w7 ♚┋MORAL ALIGNMENT: Chaotic Neutral ♚┋TEMPERAMENT: Sanguine ♚┋SCHEMA: AS, DS, FA ♚┋INTELLIGENCE TYPE: Bodily-Kinesthetic, Musical ♚┋~IQ: 115 ♚┋NEUROTYPE: Neurotypical ♚┋AT RISK? No.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

♚┋HOMETOWN: Rouen, France ♚┋CURRENT:  Dublin, Ireland ♚┋LANGUAGE(S): French, English ♚┋SOCIAL CLASS: Lower class until he was adopted by Eoghan.  ♚┋DEGREE: Bachelor  ♚┋SUBJECT(S): music, music theory, vocal training, and musicology  ♚┋PARENT #1: Claire Brissaud neé Poulin ♚┋PARENT #2: René Brissaud  ♚┋SIBLING(S): none ♚┋MAIN SHIP: none ♚┋RELATIONSHIP STATUS: single ♚┋CHILDREN: none ♚┋PET(S): no, thank you. ♚┋ADOPTED? Yes ♚┋RAP SHEET?  No. ♚┋PRISON TIME? No.

VICES / HABITS

♚┋SMOKES? No. ♚┋DRINKS? No. ♚┋DOES DRUGS? No. ♚┋IS VIOLENT? frankly, Ronan is not the least bit prone to violence if it can be helped; but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t mugged or smashed a whiskey bottle over somebody’s head before either. So, when he is violent, it is almost always physical.  ♚┋HAS AN ADDICTION?  Yes. Although he hasn’t touched alcohol for nearly a decade and doesn’t show any signs of relapse, Ronan is very aware of the fact that he will never be addiction-free.  ♚┋IS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE? Yes. ♚┋HABITS: stubborn bare-foot walker (has walked bare-foot on the streets before no fucks given), playing with his hair when he’s tired, doesn’t like to stand in a room with his back exposed (always leaning on something if possible) ♚┋HOBBIES: baking in the middle of the night only to doze for a few more hours, eggshell carving, hard-core karaoke fan ( if you’re ever in a karaoke bar with him and hear we will rock you, just...........run), also a skater boi ♚┋TICS: List all tics your character has ♚┋OBSESSION(S): List all obsessions your character has ♚┋COMPULSION(S): List all compulsions your character has

MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION

♚┋HOUSE: Hufflepuff ♚┋VICE: Envy ♚┋VIRTUE: Lust ♚┋ELEMENT: Earth  ♚┋ANGEL: An angel that can be associated with your character ♚┋MYTHOLOGICAL CREATURE: Anael ♚┋ANIMAL: Otter  ♚┋MUTATION: power absorption  ♚┋WOULD SURVIVE POST-APOC? Yes.

STATUS INFORMATION

♚┋DEVELOPMENT:  Semi-developed ♚┋SHIPPING: multiship ♚┋VERSE: crime ♚┋VERSE TYPE: crime ♚┋CANON: crime ♚┋PLOTTING: open  ♚┋CREATION DATE: technically, this is a refined version of Avery, so probably...2014. 

CHARACTER SUMMARY

The limelight loves him, that’s for sure, albeit not in thespian glory-sort-of way. From poor French suburbia into the lap of a criminal --- there’s enough material for several front page articles. So he is, perforce, a cat in human form: needy, self-absorbed, volatile and, quite possibly, really stellar at situational assholery. But his life became ever so skewed when Ronan had his face smashed into the front door for something he can’t control. His sexuality. Ever since then, home has been an escape from home; a from hand to mouth existence entirely at the mercy of passer-by. This, however understandable it might be, hasn’t made him resentful or cruelly righteous. All characteristic blemishes aside, Ronan is a good guy, a cool guy, and he can take the sorrow off your shoulders for a sweet night. He has been a perpetrator too often in his past; the crimes carved into his memory weigh heavily on him. Entertaining – dancing, in a word – is his take on atonement. That’s really all he can hope for, entrenched in menace as he is.

APPEARANCE DESCRIPTION

At over six feet, Ronan has well grown accustomed to towering over particularly tiny people. Unlike most members in the family, he is less than enthusiastic (the only interesting sport, he will have you know, being sex) about physical exertion than the rest of the Morrisons. As such, Ronan has to be dragged to his martial arts classes and is perpetually pestered by Alannah to follow his train regimen. Consequently, his physique is less defined; his muscles lean, his arms thin. Ever since he left France behind as a teen, moreover, Ronan’s originally thick accent has diminished exponentially, though if one listens closely, especially when he’s tired. Also, his wardrobe is situational: if it’s a client meeting, then a suit is non-negotiable. When Ronan has the choice, however, he kind of looks like Oscar in a garbage can. Really, vanity is so passé if you ask him. There’s nothing extraordinary about his face, however attractive it may be. Brown eyes, brown hair.

PERSONALITY DESCRIPTION

His personality is partially a chimera between a cat and a dog with a bone-idle work attitude towards most everything unless it includes giving him attention --- and ample of it, please. Simultaneously, though, Ronan will just as gladly do the same in return, showing a genuine appreciation for whatever people willingly give to him. If he trusts you, he will stick by your side, regardless of all the lies he is compelled to tell as to his occupation. Essentially, Ronan is hard to pin down. With strangers, he can be steadfast in his honesty, and quite affectionate if that brightens their day just a little. His entertaining, spontaneous persona as a dancer is, after all, his fraudulent shot at redemption. At the same time, though, Ronan is psychologically scarred, often leaving his mind in a place of constant vigilance. Especially around his family, he reacts defensively, sarcastic and all too belligerent. Because he can’t really shake off the monsters of his childhood, Ronan always feels anxious to some extent. Either he overindulges in physical escapades with others or he stubbornly confronts his fears in a futile effort to be free of them. Despite all his empathy, though, a paragon of decorum, he is not. In fact, he tends to be coercive (because he’s right), judgmental (because you’re wrong) and much too needy for attention. What he struggles with most is dissent; his self-sacrificing side is downright self-destructive.

SKILLS / COMPETENCES

First and foremost, Ronan is bilingual, able to speak French and English with proficiency. In contrast to this, though, are his non-existent Irish skills. Quite probably the only one in the family who doesn’t speak a lick of Irish, he simply cannot be bothered to make the effort. What he really excels at beyond compare is his astonishing body control when he dances. As a result of this, Ronan has an astute understanding of his own body and can be described as athletic. In his free time, he seeks to expand on the kind of dancing styles he has already “mastered”. Currently, Ronan feels most comfortable with ballet, though modern dances aren’t outside of his abilities as a dancer either. Though regarded an alternative to classical disciplines, he is also fond of contemporary dance. But that’s not all. Being able to play multiple instruments, it is not a stretch to say that this boy is quite the musician. He can play the piano, the saxophone and sometimes he also passive aggressively plays his ukulele. Don’t ask him to do your accounting lest you are keen on ending up in debt. Unsurprisingly, he has a degree in music and went on to pursue musicology and vocal training.

INTERPERSONAL MANNER

How he treats you is very situational. Around his customers, moodiness isn’t really good for business so you won’t really have any ground for complaints there. He will be engaging, flirtatious, amiable and fun to be around. Everybody has their shadowy sides as well, though, and this usually manifests in being judgmental, belligerent, coercive, insensitive, unfairly partisan in his opinions, hysterical, suspicious and backstabbing. When in an argument, Ronan tends to just shut down, stubbornly ignoring the issue for harmony’s sake. This is when he becomes spineless in his perpetual yes-sayer-dom. Moreover, as much as he wants to trust others, Ronan frequently finds he just doesn’t have it in him, preferring instead to keep his relationships casual and without any strings attached. It’s not that he doesn’t enjoy being around people – he really does – but given his anxious inhibitions, he’d much rather play it safe and live according to how the guiding figures in his life tell him to.

INSPIRED BY: Dandelion (The Witcher), The Cheshire Cat (AIW)

SCHEMAS:

DS:  DEFECTIVENESS / SHAME  (DS)     The feeling that one is defective, bad, unwanted, inferior, or invalid in important respects; or that one would be unlovable to significant others if exposed. May involve hypersensitivity to criticism, rejection, and blame; self-consciousness, comparisons, and insecurity around others; or a sense of shame regarding one's perceived flaws. These flaws may be private (e.g., selfishness, angry impulses, unacceptable sexual desires) or public (e.g., undesirable physical appearance, social awkwardness).

AS:  APPROVAL-SEEKING  /  RECOGNITION-SEEKING  (AS)    Excessive emphasis on gaining approval, recognition, or attention from other people, or fitting in, at the expense of developing a secure and true sense of self.  One's sense of esteem is dependent primarily on the reactions of others rather than on one's own natural inclinations.  Sometimes includes an overemphasis on status, appearance, social acceptance, money, or achievement --  as means of gaining approval, admiration, or attention (not primarily for power or control). Frequently results in major life decisions that are inauthentic or unsatisfying;  or in hypersensitivity to rejection.

FA: FAILURE TO ACHIEVE  (FA)     The belief that one has failed,  will inevitably fail, or is fundamentally inadequate relative to one's peers, in areas of achievement (school, career, sports, etc.). Often involves beliefs that one is stupid, inept, untalented, ignorant, lower in status, less successful than others, etc.

[apsbicepstraining]

8 Famed Parties That History Got Almost Exactly Wrong

Look, it’s not our operation here to prove that record is bullshit. It’s precisely that what the hell are you memorize in institution tends to be boiled down to a few highlights that can be plowed through in one period, and what you read in movies is the product of some screenwriter pounding it out over a coke-fueled weekend. We change real human being into heroes, rogues, and crude stereotypes.

The truth is more complex, as proven by the fact that …

# 8. Mother Teresa Accepted Money From Criminals And Deliberately Neglected Patients

Is there anyone whose honour is more bulletproof than Mother Teresa? The Catholic nun dedicated their own lives to helping the impoverished in India, and her run not only prevailed her the Nobel Peace Prize but made her the fast track to legitimate sainthood. But some people have come out of the woodwork to question Teresa’s integrity, including atheist pot-stirrer Christopher Hitchens, who released a documentary about her provocatively entitled Hell’s Angel .

For those not very well known Hitchens, he’s that person you always find vaguely like an asshole for come to terms with .

Among the charges against Mother Teresa are that the conditions in her hospital were actually downright appalling, with some medical professionals likening it to a concentration camp. Since then former members of the religious order she founded have come forward to reveal that the money donated didn’t inevitably go toward the poor, and the people lives in horrifying provisions where nurses organized drug with their bare mitts and reused weaken needles, because apparently you can pray away cross-contamination.

Apparently, Mother Teresa wasn’t too concerned about the poor conditions in her infirmary because, according to her, suffering brought people closer to Jesus, and she avoided from expending anesthesia because alleviating people’s hurting was less important than proselytizing them to Christianity. Apparently that didn’t apply to Teresa, because when she fell ill herself, she tried care in a modern American hospital. But, hell, she already knew about Jesus.

“So how’s about we get a little less prophetic and a bit more anesthetic.”

But pundits also point out that Teresa wasn’t too concerned about who she took gifts from, and so she became a lightning rod for offenders and tyrants who wanted to represent themselves look better by being able to say that they donated to Mother Teresa. Among her top donors were Jean-Claude Duvalier, harsh dictator of Haiti, and banker Charles Keating, who was convicted in the 1990 s for cases of fraud and racketeering. On crown of everything else, in 1991 it was revealed that simply a small amount of the money donated to Mother Teresa’s organisation could be accounted for. The remain likely moved immediately into the Vatican’s bank vault, because if there’s anyone who needs money more than the poor people of India, it’s the pope.

# 7. Leonardo Da Vinci Was A Muscular Male Model

If Hollywood made a movie about Leonardo Da Vinci and cast, respond, The Rock in the lead role, you’d likely believe that this is amusing. After all, when you imagine Leonardo Da Vinci, you’re most likely picturing a wizened old bearded guy. While this is the epitome that has existed through the centuries, the truth is that, in his time, Da Vinci was in fact known for being less Dumbledore and more Dwayne Johnson.

And sometimes wore his dres backwards, apparently .

Multiple accountings from Leonardo’s time had people mentioning how taken aback they were by his good looks, with some describing him as “a man of great beauty.” In knowledge, it’s thought that his first teacher, Verrocchio, probably initially hired him as a simulation rather than a student.

But Da Vinci didn’t precisely have incredible cheekbones. His particular obsession with learning the male physique came in part from his own absurd level of fitness. Gentleman in those daylights had a hard time constructing large-scale gizmoes by hand without the help of machinery, and Da Vinci’s reputation for being a master make starts with the fact that he himself was improved like a brick shithouse. It’s said that he was able to impress people at parties by stooping horseshoes with one hand.

A stunt this sauntering gym membership ad of a gentleman requirement both hands and a fair chip of grunting to pull off .

All this time, we’ve been doing Leonardo’s memory a disservice by envisioning him as an eccentric age-old tinkerer, when in reality he was like someone made the brain of Bruce Banner in their own bodies of The Hulk.

# 6. Punk Star Johnny Ramone Was A Staunch Conservative

Johnny Ramone was the guitarist for The Ramones, one of the most influential bandings in its own history of punk. Punk, of course, has been the category of alternative for left-wing revolutionaries for decades, so it ruffled a few feathers when The Ramones were inaugurated into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame in 2002, and Johnny took to the podium to answer, “God bless President Bush, and god bless America.” You could just about hear the record scratch resemble through the hall.

Not that there’s anything unseemly about has become a Republican, necessarily — it’s only that you don’t learn a lot of spiked collars and mohawks at a Ted Cruz rally. There’s not much overlap on that particular Venn diagram. Still, it genuinely shouldn’t have been too stunning for devotees who had followed their profession, because although his bandmates leaned to the left politically, Johnny had always been staunchly republican, a Republican voter, and an NRA member.

Despite looking like someone they are able to hunt for sport when big game got too suffering .

According to band members Joey and Marky Ramone( the surname is phony; none of the musicians were actually referred ), Johnny had considered that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president in American record and was even right-wing enough that he was one of the dozen or so beings in the two countries who guessed Richard Nixon got a raw deal.

Johnny died from cancer shortly after his Dormitory Of Fame appearance, but it had the effect of inspiring other republican punk love to come out to the world. Because, really, what could be more rebellious than standing in that crowd, raising a fist in the air, and screaming for lower capital increases taxes?

“HEY! HO! LET’S GO-P! ”

Meanwhile …

# 5. Karl Marx Mooched Off His Wealthy Friends

Karl Marx is perhaps the most influential political philosopher of all time, if you consider communism to be a big deal. For someone with such a famed enmity against capitalism, you’d likely premise he had some ghastly boss in his time, sufficient to build Dilbert and Office Space mixed look like a revelry of the free market. In actuality, Marx never held down a chore. But that didn’t signify he lived the humble, impoverished life of the proletariat, either — he actually experienced an extravagant lifestyle, mooching off his aristocratic partner, whose upper-class background he often boasted about, and sending his their children to expensive private schools.

Maintenance on that beard alone cost more than most working proles acquired in a month .

But his wife’s old money wasn’t his biggest source of income. A full-time life-style of philosophizing about financial was expensive to conserve, along with the vintage wines and bathtubs full of cocaine it probably involved, so its tremendous welfare checks were cut by his significantly richer friend, Friedrich Engels, who you might recognize as the lesser co-author of The Communist Manifesto , even though he did most of the work.

Marx did eventually get a job as a reporter for the New York Daily Tribune, but he couldn’t actually speak much English, which was OK because he never actually intended to write for them — what happened was Engels wrote essays for the working paper under Marx’s name, with the checks going to Marx. It was a win-win plan, because Marx get pay money doing good-for-nothing, while Engels … got to practice his English grammar, we suspect?

“I can’t facilitate but appear I’ve recognized a mistake in your beliefs, Karl.”

That wasn’t the only scam that Marx and Engels ran together with 100 percent of potential benefits going to Marx. Engels also embezzled money from his father’s company to give to Marx, at great risk to his own career and family. Maybe Engels’ biggest one-sided advantage was after Marx knocked up his housemaid and Engels claimed himself the parent to shunned his friend standing embarrassment. All thoughts considered, Engels was probably the world’s best friend that the world’s worst sidekick was possible to have.

# 4. Charles Dickens Was Kind Of A Dick

For a scribe who is best known for romances about assholes reading the error of their roads and becoming “peoples lives” around to act the best interests of humanity, follower was Charles Dickens himself a bigger shit than any attribute he was never wrote.

According to one biography, Dickens liked to entertain himself by bothering the inferno out of parties, like your worst acquaintance in college. He would walk up to beings in wall street and irk them with absurdity pranks, and would obnoxiously hit on women in ways that would have gotten him pepper-sprayed nowadays. On one reason, he picked a woman up without her permission and carried her down the beach, insinuating that he was going to kill her. This was all great recreation for Dickens, but less recreation for his wife.

The wife who accepted she was about to be abducted and murdered likely wasn’t tittering either .

Oh yes, he was married at the time. And his wife suffered from his assholery more than anyone. From referring to her as a “donkey, ” to smacking on teenage daughters in plain sight, he was emotionally abusive enough that he’d be right at home in a Charles Dickens fiction. But, like “theyre saying”, the best writers write what they know.

Probably this symbolize he made her sweep chimneys and live on exclusively portioned gruel .

The worst chapter in their nightmare wedding was when Dickens, aged 45 and with nine teenagers, started having an occasion with 18 -year-old actress Ellen Ternan. Dickens deterred the occasion secret for fear that it would destroy his reputation. This became more difficult as time went on, due to complications such as them designing a child together.

Eventually, the deceit became too spending for him, but rather than purpose the circumstance, he divorced his wife, leaving her with a generous alimony but forbidding her access to their nine offsprings. He then spent the rest of his life talking to anyone who would listen about what a crappy mom she had been and how she was perhaps lunatic, just so he could keep the truth about his infidelity under wraps. All that is something that takes the punch out of the moral to A Christmas Carol .

# 3. Queen Victoria Was Just A Gigantic Person

It’s no secret that Queen Victoria was a little on the chubby side. But while nothing was ever for the purposes of the illusion that she could be mistaken for an Olsen twin, facts have recently come to light about just how big she was. Those facts involve the 2014 auction of her 52 -inch-waist underwear, who was allegedly can fit three parties comfortably.

We don’t just knowing that kind of parties were willing to shell out cold, hard cash — over $4,000, in fact — for Queen Victoria’s underthings. The purchasers opted to remain anonymous, but let’s just say that they’re now in control of a very large conversation piece or a cozy silk bed sheet.

Nothing like compensating the cost of a put-upon vehicle for captured farts from the 1860 s .

The auctioneer finely has pointed out that, by this object in her life, the queen “had eaten a lot more than most people could render to.” Apparently, the underwear was donated to her servants in her will, which is the least she could do to thank the team of people who likely had to help her into them every morning. Now your boss’ crappy Christmas cards don’t search so bad. Or they examine worse; we’re not sure.

And while we’re grossly body-shaming the monstrous of biography …

# 2. Napoleon Was A Normal-Sized Person, But He Had A Tiny Penis

We’ve already exposed that the idea of French despot Napoleon being really short is a demonstrably untrue superstition. He was actually somewhat above median in meridian and exactly took a cluster of photos alongside freakishly towering sentries that gave rise to the illusion. However, there may be another reason why Napoleon could have had a so-called “Napoleon complex.”

The artifact finely identified “Napoleon’s Item” was removed during his autopsy back in 1821 and hindered preserved by a clergyman until “its been” placed on display by the Museum Of French Art in 1927. In instance you don’t know what we’re speak about, it’s his dick. This enter is about Napoleon’s dick.

“My forwards artillery is none of your business.”

His minuscule dick, as it turns out. The British Tv line Dead Famous DNA started in search of the cherished artifact in 2014 and obtained it in New Jersey of all places, in the home of a private collector who is apparently unwilling to show it to exactly anyone, for reasonableness most people can probably understand.

Analysis of the item reveals that it is just under two inches in section. The owner admits that it is “very small” but also says that it is “perfect structurally, ” as if that’s any relief. The takeaway is that the dude was just jam-pack plural inches. No amazement he was angry all the time.

Who would’ve suspected he was trying to compensate for something .

To be fair to Mr. Bonaparte, most dicks get reasonably underwhelming on a cold day, so we can only imagine what happens after you lop them off and store them in a cup for nearly two centuries.

# 1. King Tut Was Highly Deformed Due To Inbreeding

Tutankhamun, affectionately nicknamed King Tut, is possibly the only Egyptian pharaoh other than Cleopatra that it is able to refer on a pop quiz. Even so, you probably only think of him as a person with a serpent on his hat who did The Bangles’ Egyptian tread. Tut wasn’t actually that important a figure in ancient Egyptian biography, and there are really simply two things we know about his life — he died young, likely a teenager, and he was incredibly deformed. These two facts are likely related.

Upon the uncovering of Tutankhamun’s tomb and mummy in 1922, it was noticed that all the decorates of the pharaoh pictured him carrying a stick. Although some represented him expending it as a weapon, so it was theorized at the time that he just liked making people with remains. Maybe he was just a dick that way.

Seems to fit with our experiences with busters who wander around uncovering their abs all day .

But further analysis of his body showed that he probably necessary a walking stick to get around at all, because he stood just about every physical deformity you can imagine.

Still doing better than ol’ Bonaparte, at the least .

See, the Egyptian royal family had kind of a predilection toward marrying their own siblings in order to keep the bloodline pure. This attire have all contributed to genetic deformities, and in Tutankhamun’s regrettable lawsuit, he fell out of the incest tree and slam every diverge on the way down. Studies present that he had: an extreme overbite, a club paw, a skeletal deformity announced Kohler disease, and exceptionally wide-eyed hips. On surface of that, he suffered a separated leg at some extent and contracted malaria.

No wonder his tomb contained an unusual number of statues intended as servants to help the pharaoh in the afterlife. He probably needed a dozen beings to help him get out of berth in the morning, and that was when his legs were still alive.

The post 8 Famed Parties That History Got Almost Exactly Wrong appeared first on apsbicepstraining.com.

from WordPress http://ift.tt/2hc98DJ via IFTTT

[apsbicepstraining]

8 Famed Parties That History Got Almost Exactly Wrong

Look, it’s not our operation here to prove that record is bullshit. It’s precisely that what the hell are you memorize in institution tends to be boiled down to a few highlights that can be plowed through in one period, and what you read in movies is the product of some screenwriter pounding it out over a coke-fueled weekend. We change real human being into heroes, rogues, and crude stereotypes.

The truth is more complex, as proven by the fact that …

# 8. Mother Teresa Accepted Money From Criminals And Deliberately Neglected Patients

Is there anyone whose honour is more bulletproof than Mother Teresa? The Catholic nun dedicated their own lives to helping the impoverished in India, and her run not only prevailed her the Nobel Peace Prize but made her the fast track to legitimate sainthood. But some people have come out of the woodwork to question Teresa’s integrity, including atheist pot-stirrer Christopher Hitchens, who released a documentary about her provocatively entitled Hell’s Angel .

For those not very well known Hitchens, he’s that person you always find vaguely like an asshole for come to terms with .

Among the charges against Mother Teresa are that the conditions in her hospital were actually downright appalling, with some medical professionals likening it to a concentration camp. Since then former members of the religious order she founded have come forward to reveal that the money donated didn’t inevitably go toward the poor, and the people lives in horrifying provisions where nurses organized drug with their bare mitts and reused weaken needles, because apparently you can pray away cross-contamination.

Apparently, Mother Teresa wasn’t too concerned about the poor conditions in her infirmary because, according to her, suffering brought people closer to Jesus, and she avoided from expending anesthesia because alleviating people’s hurting was less important than proselytizing them to Christianity. Apparently that didn’t apply to Teresa, because when she fell ill herself, she tried care in a modern American hospital. But, hell, she already knew about Jesus.

“So how’s about we get a little less prophetic and a bit more anesthetic.”

But pundits also point out that Teresa wasn’t too concerned about who she took gifts from, and so she became a lightning rod for offenders and tyrants who wanted to represent themselves look better by being able to say that they donated to Mother Teresa. Among her top donors were Jean-Claude Duvalier, harsh dictator of Haiti, and banker Charles Keating, who was convicted in the 1990 s for cases of fraud and racketeering. On crown of everything else, in 1991 it was revealed that simply a small amount of the money donated to Mother Teresa’s organisation could be accounted for. The remain likely moved immediately into the Vatican’s bank vault, because if there’s anyone who needs money more than the poor people of India, it’s the pope.

# 7. Leonardo Da Vinci Was A Muscular Male Model

If Hollywood made a movie about Leonardo Da Vinci and cast, respond, The Rock in the lead role, you’d likely believe that this is amusing. After all, when you imagine Leonardo Da Vinci, you’re most likely picturing a wizened old bearded guy. While this is the epitome that has existed through the centuries, the truth is that, in his time, Da Vinci was in fact known for being less Dumbledore and more Dwayne Johnson.

And sometimes wore his dres backwards, apparently .

Multiple accountings from Leonardo’s time had people mentioning how taken aback they were by his good looks, with some describing him as “a man of great beauty.” In knowledge, it’s thought that his first teacher, Verrocchio, probably initially hired him as a simulation rather than a student.

But Da Vinci didn’t precisely have incredible cheekbones. His particular obsession with learning the male physique came in part from his own absurd level of fitness. Gentleman in those daylights had a hard time constructing large-scale gizmoes by hand without the help of machinery, and Da Vinci’s reputation for being a master make starts with the fact that he himself was improved like a brick shithouse. It’s said that he was able to impress people at parties by stooping horseshoes with one hand.

A stunt this sauntering gym membership ad of a gentleman requirement both hands and a fair chip of grunting to pull off .

All this time, we’ve been doing Leonardo’s memory a disservice by envisioning him as an eccentric age-old tinkerer, when in reality he was like someone made the brain of Bruce Banner in their own bodies of The Hulk.

# 6. Punk Star Johnny Ramone Was A Staunch Conservative

Johnny Ramone was the guitarist for The Ramones, one of the most influential bandings in its own history of punk. Punk, of course, has been the category of alternative for left-wing revolutionaries for decades, so it ruffled a few feathers when The Ramones were inaugurated into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame in 2002, and Johnny took to the podium to answer, “God bless President Bush, and god bless America.” You could just about hear the record scratch resemble through the hall.

Not that there’s anything unseemly about has become a Republican, necessarily — it’s only that you don’t learn a lot of spiked collars and mohawks at a Ted Cruz rally. There’s not much overlap on that particular Venn diagram. Still, it genuinely shouldn’t have been too stunning for devotees who had followed their profession, because although his bandmates leaned to the left politically, Johnny had always been staunchly republican, a Republican voter, and an NRA member.

Despite looking like someone they are able to hunt for sport when big game got too suffering .

According to band members Joey and Marky Ramone( the surname is phony; none of the musicians were actually referred ), Johnny had considered that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president in American record and was even right-wing enough that he was one of the dozen or so beings in the two countries who guessed Richard Nixon got a raw deal.

Johnny died from cancer shortly after his Dormitory Of Fame appearance, but it had the effect of inspiring other republican punk love to come out to the world. Because, really, what could be more rebellious than standing in that crowd, raising a fist in the air, and screaming for lower capital increases taxes?

“HEY! HO! LET’S GO-P! ”

Meanwhile …

# 5. Karl Marx Mooched Off His Wealthy Friends

Karl Marx is perhaps the most influential political philosopher of all time, if you consider communism to be a big deal. For someone with such a famed enmity against capitalism, you’d likely premise he had some ghastly boss in his time, sufficient to build Dilbert and Office Space mixed look like a revelry of the free market. In actuality, Marx never held down a chore. But that didn’t signify he lived the humble, impoverished life of the proletariat, either — he actually experienced an extravagant lifestyle, mooching off his aristocratic partner, whose upper-class background he often boasted about, and sending his their children to expensive private schools.

Maintenance on that beard alone cost more than most working proles acquired in a month .

But his wife’s old money wasn’t his biggest source of income. A full-time life-style of philosophizing about financial was expensive to conserve, along with the vintage wines and bathtubs full of cocaine it probably involved, so its tremendous welfare checks were cut by his significantly richer friend, Friedrich Engels, who you might recognize as the lesser co-author of The Communist Manifesto , even though he did most of the work.

Marx did eventually get a job as a reporter for the New York Daily Tribune, but he couldn’t actually speak much English, which was OK because he never actually intended to write for them — what happened was Engels wrote essays for the working paper under Marx’s name, with the checks going to Marx. It was a win-win plan, because Marx get pay money doing good-for-nothing, while Engels … got to practice his English grammar, we suspect?

“I can’t facilitate but appear I’ve recognized a mistake in your beliefs, Karl.”

That wasn’t the only scam that Marx and Engels ran together with 100 percent of potential benefits going to Marx. Engels also embezzled money from his father’s company to give to Marx, at great risk to his own career and family. Maybe Engels’ biggest one-sided advantage was after Marx knocked up his housemaid and Engels claimed himself the parent to shunned his friend standing embarrassment. All thoughts considered, Engels was probably the world’s best friend that the world’s worst sidekick was possible to have.

# 4. Charles Dickens Was Kind Of A Dick

For a scribe who is best known for romances about assholes reading the error of their roads and becoming “peoples lives” around to act the best interests of humanity, follower was Charles Dickens himself a bigger shit than any attribute he was never wrote.

According to one biography, Dickens liked to entertain himself by bothering the inferno out of parties, like your worst acquaintance in college. He would walk up to beings in wall street and irk them with absurdity pranks, and would obnoxiously hit on women in ways that would have gotten him pepper-sprayed nowadays. On one reason, he picked a woman up without her permission and carried her down the beach, insinuating that he was going to kill her. This was all great recreation for Dickens, but less recreation for his wife.

The wife who accepted she was about to be abducted and murdered likely wasn’t tittering either .

Oh yes, he was married at the time. And his wife suffered from his assholery more than anyone. From referring to her as a “donkey, ” to smacking on teenage daughters in plain sight, he was emotionally abusive enough that he’d be right at home in a Charles Dickens fiction. But, like “theyre saying”, the best writers write what they know.

Probably this symbolize he made her sweep chimneys and live on exclusively portioned gruel .

The worst chapter in their nightmare wedding was when Dickens, aged 45 and with nine teenagers, started having an occasion with 18 -year-old actress Ellen Ternan. Dickens deterred the occasion secret for fear that it would destroy his reputation. This became more difficult as time went on, due to complications such as them designing a child together.

Eventually, the deceit became too spending for him, but rather than purpose the circumstance, he divorced his wife, leaving her with a generous alimony but forbidding her access to their nine offsprings. He then spent the rest of his life talking to anyone who would listen about what a crappy mom she had been and how she was perhaps lunatic, just so he could keep the truth about his infidelity under wraps. All that is something that takes the punch out of the moral to A Christmas Carol .

# 3. Queen Victoria Was Just A Gigantic Person

It’s no secret that Queen Victoria was a little on the chubby side. But while nothing was ever for the purposes of the illusion that she could be mistaken for an Olsen twin, facts have recently come to light about just how big she was. Those facts involve the 2014 auction of her 52 -inch-waist underwear, who was allegedly can fit three parties comfortably.

We don’t just knowing that kind of parties were willing to shell out cold, hard cash — over $4,000, in fact — for Queen Victoria’s underthings. The purchasers opted to remain anonymous, but let’s just say that they’re now in control of a very large conversation piece or a cozy silk bed sheet.

Nothing like compensating the cost of a put-upon vehicle for captured farts from the 1860 s .

The auctioneer finely has pointed out that, by this object in her life, the queen “had eaten a lot more than most people could render to.” Apparently, the underwear was donated to her servants in her will, which is the least she could do to thank the team of people who likely had to help her into them every morning. Now your boss’ crappy Christmas cards don’t search so bad. Or they examine worse; we’re not sure.

And while we’re grossly body-shaming the monstrous of biography …

# 2. Napoleon Was A Normal-Sized Person, But He Had A Tiny Penis

We’ve already exposed that the idea of French despot Napoleon being really short is a demonstrably untrue superstition. He was actually somewhat above median in meridian and exactly took a cluster of photos alongside freakishly towering sentries that gave rise to the illusion. However, there may be another reason why Napoleon could have had a so-called “Napoleon complex.”

The artifact finely identified “Napoleon’s Item” was removed during his autopsy back in 1821 and hindered preserved by a clergyman until “its been” placed on display by the Museum Of French Art in 1927. In instance you don’t know what we’re speak about, it’s his dick. This enter is about Napoleon’s dick.

“My forwards artillery is none of your business.”

His minuscule dick, as it turns out. The British Tv line Dead Famous DNA started in search of the cherished artifact in 2014 and obtained it in New Jersey of all places, in the home of a private collector who is apparently unwilling to show it to exactly anyone, for reasonableness most people can probably understand.

Analysis of the item reveals that it is just under two inches in section. The owner admits that it is “very small” but also says that it is “perfect structurally, ” as if that’s any relief. The takeaway is that the dude was just jam-pack plural inches. No amazement he was angry all the time.

Who would’ve suspected he was trying to compensate for something .

To be fair to Mr. Bonaparte, most dicks get reasonably underwhelming on a cold day, so we can only imagine what happens after you lop them off and store them in a cup for nearly two centuries.

# 1. King Tut Was Highly Deformed Due To Inbreeding

Tutankhamun, affectionately nicknamed King Tut, is possibly the only Egyptian pharaoh other than Cleopatra that it is able to refer on a pop quiz. Even so, you probably only think of him as a person with a serpent on his hat who did The Bangles’ Egyptian tread. Tut wasn’t actually that important a figure in ancient Egyptian biography, and there are really simply two things we know about his life — he died young, likely a teenager, and he was incredibly deformed. These two facts are likely related.

Upon the uncovering of Tutankhamun’s tomb and mummy in 1922, it was noticed that all the decorates of the pharaoh pictured him carrying a stick. Although some represented him expending it as a weapon, so it was theorized at the time that he just liked making people with remains. Maybe he was just a dick that way.

Seems to fit with our experiences with busters who wander around uncovering their abs all day .

But further analysis of his body showed that he probably necessary a walking stick to get around at all, because he stood just about every physical deformity you can imagine.

Still doing better than ol’ Bonaparte, at the least .

See, the Egyptian royal family had kind of a predilection toward marrying their own siblings in order to keep the bloodline pure. This attire have all contributed to genetic deformities, and in Tutankhamun’s regrettable lawsuit, he fell out of the incest tree and slam every diverge on the way down. Studies present that he had: an extreme overbite, a club paw, a skeletal deformity announced Kohler disease, and exceptionally wide-eyed hips. On surface of that, he suffered a separated leg at some extent and contracted malaria.

No wonder his tomb contained an unusual number of statues intended as servants to help the pharaoh in the afterlife. He probably needed a dozen beings to help him get out of berth in the morning, and that was when his legs were still alive.

The post 8 Famed Parties That History Got Almost Exactly Wrong appeared first on apsbicepstraining.com.

from WordPress http://ift.tt/2hc98DJ via IFTTT

[apsbicepstraining]

8 Famed Parties That History Got Almost Exactly Wrong

Look, it’s not our operation here to prove that record is bullshit. It’s precisely that what the hell are you memorize in institution tends to be boiled down to a few highlights that can be plowed through in one period, and what you read in movies is the product of some screenwriter pounding it out over a coke-fueled weekend. We change real human being into heroes, rogues, and crude stereotypes.

The truth is more complex, as proven by the fact that …

# 8. Mother Teresa Accepted Money From Criminals And Deliberately Neglected Patients

Is there anyone whose honour is more bulletproof than Mother Teresa? The Catholic nun dedicated their own lives to helping the impoverished in India, and her run not only prevailed her the Nobel Peace Prize but made her the fast track to legitimate sainthood. But some people have come out of the woodwork to question Teresa’s integrity, including atheist pot-stirrer Christopher Hitchens, who released a documentary about her provocatively entitled Hell’s Angel .

For those not very well known Hitchens, he’s that person you always find vaguely like an asshole for come to terms with .

Among the charges against Mother Teresa are that the conditions in her hospital were actually downright appalling, with some medical professionals likening it to a concentration camp. Since then former members of the religious order she founded have come forward to reveal that the money donated didn’t inevitably go toward the poor, and the people lives in horrifying provisions where nurses organized drug with their bare mitts and reused weaken needles, because apparently you can pray away cross-contamination.

Apparently, Mother Teresa wasn’t too concerned about the poor conditions in her infirmary because, according to her, suffering brought people closer to Jesus, and she avoided from expending anesthesia because alleviating people’s hurting was less important than proselytizing them to Christianity. Apparently that didn’t apply to Teresa, because when she fell ill herself, she tried care in a modern American hospital. But, hell, she already knew about Jesus.

“So how’s about we get a little less prophetic and a bit more anesthetic.”

But pundits also point out that Teresa wasn’t too concerned about who she took gifts from, and so she became a lightning rod for offenders and tyrants who wanted to represent themselves look better by being able to say that they donated to Mother Teresa. Among her top donors were Jean-Claude Duvalier, harsh dictator of Haiti, and banker Charles Keating, who was convicted in the 1990 s for cases of fraud and racketeering. On crown of everything else, in 1991 it was revealed that simply a small amount of the money donated to Mother Teresa’s organisation could be accounted for. The remain likely moved immediately into the Vatican’s bank vault, because if there’s anyone who needs money more than the poor people of India, it’s the pope.

# 7. Leonardo Da Vinci Was A Muscular Male Model

If Hollywood made a movie about Leonardo Da Vinci and cast, respond, The Rock in the lead role, you’d likely believe that this is amusing. After all, when you imagine Leonardo Da Vinci, you’re most likely picturing a wizened old bearded guy. While this is the epitome that has existed through the centuries, the truth is that, in his time, Da Vinci was in fact known for being less Dumbledore and more Dwayne Johnson.

And sometimes wore his dres backwards, apparently .

Multiple accountings from Leonardo’s time had people mentioning how taken aback they were by his good looks, with some describing him as “a man of great beauty.” In knowledge, it’s thought that his first teacher, Verrocchio, probably initially hired him as a simulation rather than a student.

But Da Vinci didn’t precisely have incredible cheekbones. His particular obsession with learning the male physique came in part from his own absurd level of fitness. Gentleman in those daylights had a hard time constructing large-scale gizmoes by hand without the help of machinery, and Da Vinci’s reputation for being a master make starts with the fact that he himself was improved like a brick shithouse. It’s said that he was able to impress people at parties by stooping horseshoes with one hand.

A stunt this sauntering gym membership ad of a gentleman requirement both hands and a fair chip of grunting to pull off .

All this time, we’ve been doing Leonardo’s memory a disservice by envisioning him as an eccentric age-old tinkerer, when in reality he was like someone made the brain of Bruce Banner in their own bodies of The Hulk.

# 6. Punk Star Johnny Ramone Was A Staunch Conservative

Johnny Ramone was the guitarist for The Ramones, one of the most influential bandings in its own history of punk. Punk, of course, has been the category of alternative for left-wing revolutionaries for decades, so it ruffled a few feathers when The Ramones were inaugurated into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame in 2002, and Johnny took to the podium to answer, “God bless President Bush, and god bless America.” You could just about hear the record scratch resemble through the hall.

Not that there’s anything unseemly about has become a Republican, necessarily — it’s only that you don’t learn a lot of spiked collars and mohawks at a Ted Cruz rally. There’s not much overlap on that particular Venn diagram. Still, it genuinely shouldn’t have been too stunning for devotees who had followed their profession, because although his bandmates leaned to the left politically, Johnny had always been staunchly republican, a Republican voter, and an NRA member.

Despite looking like someone they are able to hunt for sport when big game got too suffering .

According to band members Joey and Marky Ramone( the surname is phony; none of the musicians were actually referred ), Johnny had considered that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president in American record and was even right-wing enough that he was one of the dozen or so beings in the two countries who guessed Richard Nixon got a raw deal.

Johnny died from cancer shortly after his Dormitory Of Fame appearance, but it had the effect of inspiring other republican punk love to come out to the world. Because, really, what could be more rebellious than standing in that crowd, raising a fist in the air, and screaming for lower capital increases taxes?

“HEY! HO! LET’S GO-P! ”

Meanwhile …

# 5. Karl Marx Mooched Off His Wealthy Friends

Karl Marx is perhaps the most influential political philosopher of all time, if you consider communism to be a big deal. For someone with such a famed enmity against capitalism, you’d likely premise he had some ghastly boss in his time, sufficient to build Dilbert and Office Space mixed look like a revelry of the free market. In actuality, Marx never held down a chore. But that didn’t signify he lived the humble, impoverished life of the proletariat, either — he actually experienced an extravagant lifestyle, mooching off his aristocratic partner, whose upper-class background he often boasted about, and sending his their children to expensive private schools.

Maintenance on that beard alone cost more than most working proles acquired in a month .

But his wife’s old money wasn’t his biggest source of income. A full-time life-style of philosophizing about financial was expensive to conserve, along with the vintage wines and bathtubs full of cocaine it probably involved, so its tremendous welfare checks were cut by his significantly richer friend, Friedrich Engels, who you might recognize as the lesser co-author of The Communist Manifesto , even though he did most of the work.

Marx did eventually get a job as a reporter for the New York Daily Tribune, but he couldn’t actually speak much English, which was OK because he never actually intended to write for them — what happened was Engels wrote essays for the working paper under Marx’s name, with the checks going to Marx. It was a win-win plan, because Marx get pay money doing good-for-nothing, while Engels … got to practice his English grammar, we suspect?

“I can’t facilitate but appear I’ve recognized a mistake in your beliefs, Karl.”

That wasn’t the only scam that Marx and Engels ran together with 100 percent of potential benefits going to Marx. Engels also embezzled money from his father’s company to give to Marx, at great risk to his own career and family. Maybe Engels’ biggest one-sided advantage was after Marx knocked up his housemaid and Engels claimed himself the parent to shunned his friend standing embarrassment. All thoughts considered, Engels was probably the world’s best friend that the world’s worst sidekick was possible to have.

# 4. Charles Dickens Was Kind Of A Dick

For a scribe who is best known for romances about assholes reading the error of their roads and becoming “peoples lives” around to act the best interests of humanity, follower was Charles Dickens himself a bigger shit than any attribute he was never wrote.

According to one biography, Dickens liked to entertain himself by bothering the inferno out of parties, like your worst acquaintance in college. He would walk up to beings in wall street and irk them with absurdity pranks, and would obnoxiously hit on women in ways that would have gotten him pepper-sprayed nowadays. On one reason, he picked a woman up without her permission and carried her down the beach, insinuating that he was going to kill her. This was all great recreation for Dickens, but less recreation for his wife.

The wife who accepted she was about to be abducted and murdered likely wasn’t tittering either .

Oh yes, he was married at the time. And his wife suffered from his assholery more than anyone. From referring to her as a “donkey, ” to smacking on teenage daughters in plain sight, he was emotionally abusive enough that he’d be right at home in a Charles Dickens fiction. But, like “theyre saying”, the best writers write what they know.

Probably this symbolize he made her sweep chimneys and live on exclusively portioned gruel .

The worst chapter in their nightmare wedding was when Dickens, aged 45 and with nine teenagers, started having an occasion with 18 -year-old actress Ellen Ternan. Dickens deterred the occasion secret for fear that it would destroy his reputation. This became more difficult as time went on, due to complications such as them designing a child together.

Eventually, the deceit became too spending for him, but rather than purpose the circumstance, he divorced his wife, leaving her with a generous alimony but forbidding her access to their nine offsprings. He then spent the rest of his life talking to anyone who would listen about what a crappy mom she had been and how she was perhaps lunatic, just so he could keep the truth about his infidelity under wraps. All that is something that takes the punch out of the moral to A Christmas Carol .

# 3. Queen Victoria Was Just A Gigantic Person

It’s no secret that Queen Victoria was a little on the chubby side. But while nothing was ever for the purposes of the illusion that she could be mistaken for an Olsen twin, facts have recently come to light about just how big she was. Those facts involve the 2014 auction of her 52 -inch-waist underwear, who was allegedly can fit three parties comfortably.

We don’t just knowing that kind of parties were willing to shell out cold, hard cash — over $4,000, in fact — for Queen Victoria’s underthings. The purchasers opted to remain anonymous, but let’s just say that they’re now in control of a very large conversation piece or a cozy silk bed sheet.

Nothing like compensating the cost of a put-upon vehicle for captured farts from the 1860 s .

The auctioneer finely has pointed out that, by this object in her life, the queen “had eaten a lot more than most people could render to.” Apparently, the underwear was donated to her servants in her will, which is the least she could do to thank the team of people who likely had to help her into them every morning. Now your boss’ crappy Christmas cards don’t search so bad. Or they examine worse; we’re not sure.

And while we’re grossly body-shaming the monstrous of biography …

# 2. Napoleon Was A Normal-Sized Person, But He Had A Tiny Penis

We’ve already exposed that the idea of French despot Napoleon being really short is a demonstrably untrue superstition. He was actually somewhat above median in meridian and exactly took a cluster of photos alongside freakishly towering sentries that gave rise to the illusion. However, there may be another reason why Napoleon could have had a so-called “Napoleon complex.”

The artifact finely identified “Napoleon’s Item” was removed during his autopsy back in 1821 and hindered preserved by a clergyman until “its been” placed on display by the Museum Of French Art in 1927. In instance you don’t know what we’re speak about, it’s his dick. This enter is about Napoleon’s dick.

“My forwards artillery is none of your business.”

His minuscule dick, as it turns out. The British Tv line Dead Famous DNA started in search of the cherished artifact in 2014 and obtained it in New Jersey of all places, in the home of a private collector who is apparently unwilling to show it to exactly anyone, for reasonableness most people can probably understand.

Analysis of the item reveals that it is just under two inches in section. The owner admits that it is “very small” but also says that it is “perfect structurally, ” as if that’s any relief. The takeaway is that the dude was just jam-pack plural inches. No amazement he was angry all the time.

Who would’ve suspected he was trying to compensate for something .

To be fair to Mr. Bonaparte, most dicks get reasonably underwhelming on a cold day, so we can only imagine what happens after you lop them off and store them in a cup for nearly two centuries.

# 1. King Tut Was Highly Deformed Due To Inbreeding

Tutankhamun, affectionately nicknamed King Tut, is possibly the only Egyptian pharaoh other than Cleopatra that it is able to refer on a pop quiz. Even so, you probably only think of him as a person with a serpent on his hat who did The Bangles’ Egyptian tread. Tut wasn’t actually that important a figure in ancient Egyptian biography, and there are really simply two things we know about his life — he died young, likely a teenager, and he was incredibly deformed. These two facts are likely related.

Upon the uncovering of Tutankhamun’s tomb and mummy in 1922, it was noticed that all the decorates of the pharaoh pictured him carrying a stick. Although some represented him expending it as a weapon, so it was theorized at the time that he just liked making people with remains. Maybe he was just a dick that way.

Seems to fit with our experiences with busters who wander around uncovering their abs all day .

But further analysis of his body showed that he probably necessary a walking stick to get around at all, because he stood just about every physical deformity you can imagine.

Still doing better than ol’ Bonaparte, at the least .

See, the Egyptian royal family had kind of a predilection toward marrying their own siblings in order to keep the bloodline pure. This attire have all contributed to genetic deformities, and in Tutankhamun’s regrettable lawsuit, he fell out of the incest tree and slam every diverge on the way down. Studies present that he had: an extreme overbite, a club paw, a skeletal deformity announced Kohler disease, and exceptionally wide-eyed hips. On surface of that, he suffered a separated leg at some extent and contracted malaria.

No wonder his tomb contained an unusual number of statues intended as servants to help the pharaoh in the afterlife. He probably needed a dozen beings to help him get out of berth in the morning, and that was when his legs were still alive.

The post 8 Famed Parties That History Got Almost Exactly Wrong appeared first on apsbicepstraining.com.

from WordPress http://ift.tt/2hc98DJ via IFTTT