Ozzies
Ozzies

Ozzies

analysis
analysis

analysis

critic
critic

critic

democratic
democratic

democratic

work ethic
work ethic

work ethic

courtesy
courtesy

courtesy

highness
highness

highness

comming
comming

comming

bride and groom
bride and groom

bride and groom

madding
madding

madding

🔥 | Latest

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...

80s, Adam Driver, and Adam Sandler: NO ONE WILL WATCH THIS No ONE WANTS7 /S UL JUL CARES FOA THIS its-bewitched: trilllizard666: keyhollow:Story matters more than sex, please always remember that. what’s funniest about this comic, I think, is the wildly inconsistent success or complete lack of in the properties and the vast, wild differences between how they were received in the run up to the premier of them as artistic/entertainment propertiesFiegbusters/Ghostbusters 2016 had a PR run that was mostly defined by a weird antagonism where they said detractors are just manbaby basement dwellers that hate women, along with pretty badly done trailers that people compared to Pixels. Remember Pixels? That awful Adam Sandler REMEMBER THE 80S vehicle/scam? That said, unlike Pixels, this Ghostbusters failed to make money. It flopped. It flopped terribly. So Strawman McGee was actually right, Nobody DID Watch This, besides weirdoes that used Holtzmann reaction gifs for a month and kept saying how gay they were for two of the lady Ghostbusters.Star Wars: The Force Awakens was a huge runaway box office success with people excited to see it, even though a lot of people were critical of Rey and how boring she was as a character, in comparison to Finn and Poe, who had a lot more interesting going on with their characters, respectively, and people were excited to see The Last Jedi. Then came the sequel. It was…still a financial box office success, but it was extremely divisive among Star Wars fans and any group of critics that aren’t deeply entrenched “establishment” film critics. And there’s rumors abound it wasn’t quite AS much a box office success as Disney would like, which along with Solo flopping, seems to have resulted in Disney pulling back their Star Wars output a little tiny bit. Possibly.Literally all the reasons that people were apprehensive about Wonder Woman pre-release were all reasons unrelated to her being a woman. She’s one of the most important DC superheroes, a founding member of almost all incarnations of the Justice League, and Frank Miller himself has called part of The Trinity of DC, along with Superman and Batman. People were apprehensive of a Wonder Woman film because almost all the previous attempts to bring Wonder Woman to film or TV have been some sort of disaster, from the Joss Whedon script that leaked that everyone took the absolute piss out of (which had a seriously troubled production that led to the Wonder Woman film we eventually got), to the horrible pilot that makes Wonder Woman into a bizarrely inconsistent crazed murderer. People were apprehensive of a Wonder Woman film because it was part of the badly executed DCEU, with the previous films before this including BvS and Suicide Squad, which were critically SAVAGED. People were looking at a Wonder Woman and dreading it cause they were like “oh god not another one of these fucking awful films”. and then Justice League afterwards was total dogshit. and yeah, there was a bit of controversy about Gal Gadot, but that’s from a mixture of people not being sure she could actually act well enough because she was mostly a model and was in a Fast and Furious film before this, and because she is a proud IDF member, which is kinda controversial because of all the baggage that comes with what the Israeli military frequently does in terms of war crimes. (granted, she was only ever in a non combat role when she served in the military, but come on, this website gave Adam Driver shit for joining the USMC and not doing anything combat related before he got a medical discharge cause he broke his collarbone lmao). it had nothing to do with being a woman.Literally nobody cares about She-Ra except for weirdoes into it, like the beanmouth manchildren animation adherents or the people that uniroically think SJWs are killing everything, and it’s a cheaply made Netflix show. You’d have to almost try on purpose to not make any money from a Netflix show with a low/modest budget. Also I know a few families with young girls and young boys and nobody I know seems to remotely give a shit about the reboot She-Ra. It’s all weird teenagers, shippers, and the type of people that send death threats for people drawing boobs while beating meat to the catgirl in it getting with the main character.Captain Marvel is a box office success and reviewing decently well, but even the critics that like it are leveling criticisms towards how badly shot and done some of the fight scenes and long shots are, and a popular sentient is a lot of the fights have it so that it’s almost impossible to tell what’s happening, which isn’t a criticism unique to Captain Marvel. However, most people that were unthrilled about Captain Marvel before launch…Thought the trailer looked boring (gosh, that’s familiar), or were people raising an eyebrow at how the film’s basically Air Force propaganda. And it’s probably worth saying here, Captain Marvel, or Carol Danvers just isn’t that popular a character and isn’t popular in comics at all. Marvel flagrantly kept trying to astroturf her into an A lister position after they realized they had (at the time), sold off the film rights to a majority of the popular female characters. Most all their popular heroes and anti-heroes and villains that were female are in the X-Men, which was owned by Fox, or in other films in other studios. Cue the pre-Disney buyout reboot of her. Which flopped as a solo title, by the way. Notice how almost all the stuff with Ms Marvel/Danvers Captain Marvel that does well has her as a MEMBER or a side character. She’s a C-level character that came into existence, pre-retcon, because a superpowered Kree’s DNA got mixed with hers in an explosion. She was an emergency replacement, out of universe because of the Captain Marvel DC/Marvel clusterfuck and lawsuits. She’s less a character, and more a device. And this also easily fits under the “needlessly, weirdly antagonistic PR umbrella”nobody that can string together more than a comprehensible sentence does not dislike this things cause there’s women in it, trust me lmao The issue with captain marvel is RT deleting up to 50k reviews from fans that dislike the film. The headlines are “Brie Larson defeats internet trolls!” Calling fans trolls sure does a lot to discourage them from getting into a movie.
80s, Adam Driver, and Adam Sandler: NO ONE WILL WATCH THIS
 No ONE WANTS7
 /S
 UL JUL
 CARES FOA
 THIS
its-bewitched:

trilllizard666:

keyhollow:Story matters more than sex, please always remember that. 
what’s funniest about this comic, I think, is the wildly inconsistent success or complete lack of in the properties and the vast, wild differences between how they were received in the run up to the premier of them as artistic/entertainment propertiesFiegbusters/Ghostbusters 2016 had a PR run that was mostly defined by a weird antagonism where they said detractors are just manbaby basement dwellers that hate women, along with pretty badly done trailers that people compared to Pixels. Remember Pixels? That awful Adam Sandler REMEMBER THE 80S vehicle/scam? That said, unlike Pixels, this Ghostbusters failed to make money. It flopped. It flopped terribly. So Strawman McGee was actually right, Nobody DID Watch This, besides weirdoes that used Holtzmann reaction gifs for a month and kept saying how gay they were for two of the lady Ghostbusters.Star Wars: The Force Awakens was a huge runaway box office success with people excited to see it, even though a lot of people were critical of Rey and how boring she was as a character, in comparison to Finn and Poe, who had a lot more interesting going on with their characters, respectively, and people were excited to see The Last Jedi. Then came the sequel. It was…still a financial box office success, but it was extremely divisive among Star Wars fans and any group of critics that aren’t deeply entrenched “establishment” film critics. And there’s rumors abound it wasn’t quite AS much a box office success as Disney would like, which along with Solo flopping, seems to have resulted in Disney pulling back their Star Wars output a little tiny bit. Possibly.Literally all the reasons that people were apprehensive about Wonder Woman pre-release were all reasons unrelated to her being a woman. She’s one of the most important DC superheroes, a founding member of almost all incarnations of the Justice League, and Frank Miller himself has called part of The Trinity of DC, along with Superman and Batman. People were apprehensive of a Wonder Woman film because almost all the previous attempts to bring Wonder Woman to film or TV have been some sort of disaster, from the Joss Whedon script that leaked that everyone took the absolute piss out of (which had a seriously troubled production that led to the Wonder Woman film we eventually got), to the horrible pilot that makes Wonder Woman into a bizarrely inconsistent crazed murderer. People were apprehensive of a Wonder Woman film because it was part of the badly executed DCEU, with the previous films before this including BvS and Suicide Squad, which were critically SAVAGED. People were looking at a Wonder Woman and dreading it cause they were like “oh god not another one of these fucking awful films”. and then Justice League afterwards was total dogshit. and yeah, there was a bit of controversy about Gal Gadot, but that’s from a mixture of people not being sure she could actually act well enough because she was mostly a model and was in a Fast and Furious film before this, and because she is a proud IDF member, which is kinda controversial because of all the baggage that comes with what the Israeli military frequently does in terms of war crimes. (granted, she was only ever in a non combat role when she served in the military, but come on, this website gave Adam Driver shit for joining the USMC and not doing anything combat related before he got a medical discharge cause he broke his collarbone lmao). it had nothing to do with being a woman.Literally nobody cares about She-Ra except for weirdoes into it, like the beanmouth manchildren animation adherents or the people that uniroically think SJWs are killing everything, and it’s a cheaply made Netflix show. You’d have to almost try on purpose to not make any money from a Netflix show with a low/modest budget. Also I know a few families with young girls and young boys and nobody I know seems to remotely give a shit about the reboot She-Ra. It’s all weird teenagers, shippers, and the type of people that send death threats for people drawing boobs while beating meat to the catgirl in it getting with the main character.Captain Marvel is a box office success and reviewing decently well, but even the critics that like it are leveling criticisms towards how badly shot and done some of the fight scenes and long shots are, and a popular sentient is a lot of the fights have it so that it’s almost impossible to tell what’s happening, which isn’t a criticism unique to Captain Marvel. However, most people that were unthrilled about Captain Marvel before launch…Thought the trailer looked boring (gosh, that’s familiar), or were people raising an eyebrow at how the film’s basically Air Force propaganda. And it’s probably worth saying here, Captain Marvel, or Carol Danvers just isn’t that popular a character and isn’t popular in comics at all. Marvel flagrantly kept trying to astroturf her into an A lister position after they realized they had (at the time), sold off the film rights to a majority of the popular female characters. Most all their popular heroes and anti-heroes and villains that were female are in the X-Men, which was owned by Fox, or in other films in other studios. Cue the pre-Disney buyout reboot of her. Which flopped as a solo title, by the way. Notice how almost all the stuff with Ms Marvel/Danvers Captain Marvel that does well has her as a MEMBER or a side character. She’s a C-level character that came into existence, pre-retcon, because a superpowered Kree’s DNA got mixed with hers in an explosion. She was an emergency replacement, out of universe because of the Captain Marvel DC/Marvel clusterfuck and lawsuits. She’s less a character, and more a device. And this also easily fits under the “needlessly, weirdly antagonistic PR umbrella”nobody that can string together more than a comprehensible sentence does not dislike this things cause there’s women in it, trust me lmao

The issue with captain marvel is RT deleting up to 50k reviews from fans that dislike the film. The headlines are “Brie Larson defeats internet trolls!” Calling fans trolls sure does a lot to discourage them from getting into a movie.

its-bewitched: trilllizard666: keyhollow:Story matters more than sex, please always remember that. what’s funniest about this comic, I th...

Af, America, and Apparently: Game Of Thrones's Natalie Dormer: men are as objectified as women on TV actor has joined the debate genders are judged equally on looks about objectification in TVand L4 butterflyinthewell: shipperwolf1: brunhiddensmusings: fierceawakening: guyveranimefan87: eric-coldfire: eldritchgentleman: cruxofargon: the-critical-feminist: cishetwhiteoppressor: Finally, a sane celebrity who doesn’t bend the knee to feminist bullshit. Source My god I love her. I know people are gonna get salty af about this but by God she’s RIGHT. When Brad Pitt did Fight Club, he was cutting weight for every single scene to maintain his physique at 155. I’ve you’ve ever cut weight, you know how horrible that must have been. He did it because they needed a “look”. Changing Tatum said his Magic Mike body doesn’t last for more than five days. He starved down and dehydrated his already fit physique for a “look”. The male soldiers on Spartacus: Blood and Sand were eating pretty much chicken and veggies for every meal to maintain a “look”. Why is this such a big deal? Because all these characters are considered physical goals for men. These are actual unobtainable physical standards for men. Male body image issues get swept under the rug so often that some people don’t even think they exist. You want proof? Just check out that scene in Captain America: First Avenger where Cap just transformed into that beautiful beefcake of a man. Agent Carter’s actress just HAD to touch them muscles, it was completely unscripted. Chris Evans had to wear shirts so small they physically hurt, and he dislocated a shoulder during the helicopter scene in Civil War. But who cares, girls got to wet their panties watching Captain America flex. If we are talking about unrealistic physical standards of male fitness given to us by movies, I would like to mention Hugh “Wolverine” Jackman here. Yeah, he is ripped, isn’t he? Well, it is true, but to get that kind of definition, he went through 36 hour period of dehydration, which caused him to temporarily lose 10 pounds of “water weight”.  Thus during the fight scene he was filming, he was a hair breadth from blacking out whole time, just to look unrealistically muscular. As he said during interview with Steven Colbert, “If You go three days without water, You will die. Then, when You are halfway there they shout ‘Roll it!” It’s the same with professional bodybuilders who get into periods of extreme fasting and dehydration to lower their fat-to-muscle ratio to inhuman levels, all in hopes of making their muscle definition a bit better. According to experts, healthy body fat percentage for a healthy male ranges from 8% to 20%, depending on height, lifestyle and numerous other variables.  Fitness model and professional bodybuilder Helmut Strebl also known as “World’s Most Shredded Man” as he supposedly managed to get his body fat percentage below 5%… … But only when he partakes in competitions, since it is not humanly possible to live with such low fat percentage of one’s body for longer periods of time. I mean, yeah, he keeps a draconian training regime, as well as a very strict diet even off-season, but looks much more human then… There are documented cases of incredibly fit and muscular bodybuilders fainting on the stage in the middle of their flexing routines, as well as several who outright died, because of cardiac arrest caused by their blood becoming too thick, due to long dehydration… And let’s not forget about Muscle Dysmorphia, colloquially known as “Megarexia” or “Bigarexia”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_dysmorphia Yeah, it’s a thing, but it’s barely talked about, since it’s apparently not manly to admit to having problems like that, which also creates problems with researching this particular disorder… So… Thanks Hollywood? I had no idea that most people who looked like this are dehydrated until I read posts like this. dehydrated to the point theyre about a day away from actual organ failureokay so chris hemsworth is a absolute god of a man, but hollywood says ‘thats not good enough’ and for the thor movie he has to spend several days having the juice squeezed from his body untill he looses about a gallon of whats supposed to be him so that he can do 2 days of shooting scenes without his shirt, after which he has to have recovery time before he is hospitalized because i am not joking about ‘one day away from organ failure’thats the benchmark- look at chris hemsworth and process that he is told he isnt suitable for a shirtless scene without prepping for three days and nearly fainting real feminism acknowledges the unhealthy standards that men are held to. radfems brush them off as non-existent guys, feminism is for you, too. it’s for all of us. I would hate to think of what Dave Bautista had to go through since he was shirtless the entire time as Drax. All that makeup plus dieting….yikes! Also, let’s not forget that men can get eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia too.
Af, America, and Apparently: Game Of Thrones's Natalie Dormer: men
 are as objectified as women on TV
 actor has joined the debate
 genders are judged equally on looks
 about objectification in TVand
 L4
butterflyinthewell:

shipperwolf1:

brunhiddensmusings:

fierceawakening:

guyveranimefan87:

eric-coldfire:

eldritchgentleman:

cruxofargon:

the-critical-feminist:

cishetwhiteoppressor:

Finally, a sane celebrity who doesn’t bend the knee to feminist bullshit.
Source

My god I love her.

I know people are gonna get salty af about this but by God she’s RIGHT.
When Brad Pitt did Fight Club, he was cutting weight for every single scene to maintain his physique at 155. I’ve you’ve ever cut weight, you know how horrible that must have been. He did it because they needed a “look”. 
Changing Tatum said his Magic Mike body doesn’t last for more than five days. He starved down and dehydrated his already fit physique for a “look”.
The male soldiers on Spartacus: Blood and Sand were eating pretty much chicken and veggies for every meal to maintain a “look”. 
Why is this such a big deal? Because all these characters are considered physical goals for men. These are actual unobtainable physical standards for men. Male body image issues get swept under the rug so often that some people don’t even think they exist.

You want proof? Just check out that scene in Captain America: First Avenger where Cap just transformed into that beautiful beefcake of a man. Agent Carter’s actress just HAD to touch them muscles, it was completely unscripted. 

Chris Evans had to wear shirts so small they physically hurt, and he dislocated a shoulder during the helicopter scene in Civil War. But who cares, girls got to wet their panties watching Captain America flex.

If we are talking about unrealistic physical standards of male fitness given to us by movies, I would like to mention Hugh “Wolverine” Jackman here.
Yeah, he is ripped, isn’t he?
Well, it is true, but to get that kind of definition, he went through 36 hour period of dehydration, which caused him to temporarily lose 10 pounds of “water weight”. 
Thus during the fight scene he was filming, he was a hair breadth from blacking out whole time, just to look unrealistically muscular.
As he said during interview with Steven Colbert, “If You go three days without water, You will die. Then, when You are halfway there they shout ‘Roll it!”
It’s the same with professional bodybuilders who get into periods of extreme fasting and dehydration to lower their fat-to-muscle ratio to inhuman levels, all in hopes of making their muscle definition a bit better.
According to experts, healthy body fat percentage for a healthy male ranges from 8% to 20%, depending on height, lifestyle and numerous other variables. 
Fitness model and professional bodybuilder Helmut Strebl also known as “World’s Most Shredded Man” as he supposedly managed to get his body fat percentage below 5%…
… But only when he partakes in competitions, since it is not humanly possible to live with such low fat percentage of one’s body for longer periods of time.
I mean, yeah, he keeps a draconian training regime, as well as a very strict diet even off-season, but looks much more human then…
There are documented cases of incredibly fit and muscular bodybuilders fainting on the stage in the middle of their flexing routines, as well as several who outright died, because of cardiac arrest caused by their blood becoming too thick, due to long dehydration…
And let’s not forget about Muscle Dysmorphia, colloquially known as “Megarexia” or “Bigarexia”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_dysmorphia
Yeah, it’s a thing, but it’s barely talked about, since it’s apparently not manly to admit to having problems like that, which also creates problems with researching this particular disorder…
So… Thanks Hollywood?


I had no idea that most people who looked like this are dehydrated until I read posts like this.

dehydrated to the point theyre about a day away from actual organ failureokay so chris hemsworth is a absolute god of a man, but hollywood says ‘thats not good enough’ and for the thor movie he has to spend several days having the juice squeezed from his body untill he looses about a gallon of whats supposed to be him so that he can do 2 days of shooting scenes without his shirt, after which he has to have recovery time before he is hospitalized because i am not joking about ‘one day away from organ failure’thats the benchmark- look at chris hemsworth and process that he is told he isnt suitable for a shirtless scene without prepping for three days and nearly fainting

real feminism acknowledges the unhealthy standards that men are held to. radfems brush them off as non-existent 
guys, feminism is for you, too. it’s for all of us.


I would hate to think of what Dave Bautista had to go through since he was shirtless the entire time as Drax. All that makeup plus dieting….yikes!
Also, let’s not forget that men can get eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia too.

butterflyinthewell: shipperwolf1: brunhiddensmusings: fierceawakening: guyveranimefan87: eric-coldfire: eldritchgentleman: cruxofargo...

Bodies , Soldiers, and Who: The bodies of hundreds of Italian soldiers who died protecting a strategically critical bridge (1943, colorized)
Bodies , Soldiers, and Who: The bodies of hundreds of Italian soldiers who died protecting a strategically critical bridge (1943, colorized)

The bodies of hundreds of Italian soldiers who died protecting a strategically critical bridge (1943, colorized)

Fucking, Love, and Sorry: So our local children's hospital re- cently redecorated, but I'm not too sure they really thought things out eternal-dannation: jhenne-bean: forlovefromfear: diasporanpapi: youthful-pills: ichigo-hiyoko: mintymaiden: gildatheplant: Literally any other colour would’ve been a better choice guys. I’d like to point out that the colour red has more positive than negative meanings. im sorry but this reply absolutely killed me red can mean whatever the heck you want it to mean, that is never going to change that this straight up looks like they DRAGGED A BLOODY BODY ACROSS THE FUCKING FLOOR 😂 Hi fun fact, colors do have meaning and there is a legit thing called color theory. Red does has more positive connotations than negative like the @mintymaiden said. Red is associated with more love, lust, passion than blood and death just like the chart shows you but If you want, here’s a link for you to check it out yourself. Also, check out “The Designer’s Dictionary of Color” by Sean Adams. Have fun learning something Xoxo -Designer What is Color Theory? I think y’all are missing the point here. You can theorize to Nebraska and back but that doesn’t change my immediate reaction which is that someone is literally dragging a corpse around I like that the presumption here is that “No One On Tumblr Has Heard of Color Theory, Let Me Explain in Depth” rather than simply acknowledging that the VISUAL EFFECTS of this particular color choice, applied in the manner it was, can still amount to “this is a hospital and that looks like blood” like, color theory doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If your design of choice for Blood Red Paint is asymmetric splatters and sploches against the wall, or in this case, a snail trail on the hallway’s floor, an infographic won’t override the viewers’ instinct. this post is the perfect summation of tumblr’s reading comprehension and critical thought abilities
Fucking, Love, and Sorry: So our local children's hospital re-
 cently redecorated, but I'm not too
 sure they really thought things out
eternal-dannation:

jhenne-bean:

forlovefromfear:

diasporanpapi:


youthful-pills:


ichigo-hiyoko:

mintymaiden:

gildatheplant:
Literally any other colour would’ve been a better choice guys.

I’d like to point out that the colour red has more positive than negative meanings.

im sorry but this reply absolutely killed me
red can mean whatever the heck you want it to mean, that is never going to change that this straight up looks like they DRAGGED A BLOODY BODY ACROSS THE FUCKING FLOOR 😂


Hi fun fact, colors do have meaning and there is a legit thing called color theory. Red does has more positive connotations than negative like the @mintymaiden said. Red is associated with more love, lust, passion than blood and death just like the chart shows you but If you want, here’s a link for you to check it out yourself. Also, check out “The Designer’s Dictionary of Color” by Sean Adams. Have fun learning something

Xoxo 

-Designer 
What is Color Theory?


I think y’all are missing the point here.


You can theorize to Nebraska and back but that doesn’t change my immediate reaction which is that someone is literally dragging a corpse around

I like that the presumption here is that “No One On Tumblr Has Heard of Color Theory, Let Me Explain in Depth” rather than simply acknowledging that the VISUAL EFFECTS of this particular color choice, applied in the manner it was, can still amount to “this is a hospital and that looks like blood” 
like, color theory doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If your design of choice for Blood Red Paint is asymmetric splatters and sploches against the wall, or in this case, a snail trail on the hallway’s floor, an infographic won’t override the viewers’ instinct. 

this post is the perfect summation of tumblr’s reading comprehension and critical thought abilities

eternal-dannation: jhenne-bean: forlovefromfear: diasporanpapi: youthful-pills: ichigo-hiyoko: mintymaiden: gildatheplant: Literall...

Fucking, Love, and Sorry: So our local children's hospital re- cently redecorated, but I'm not too sure they really thought things out eternal-dannation: jhenne-bean: forlovefromfear: diasporanpapi: youthful-pills: ichigo-hiyoko: mintymaiden: gildatheplant: Literally any other colour would’ve been a better choice guys. I’d like to point out that the colour red has more positive than negative meanings. im sorry but this reply absolutely killed me red can mean whatever the heck you want it to mean, that is never going to change that this straight up looks like they DRAGGED A BLOODY BODY ACROSS THE FUCKING FLOOR 😂 Hi fun fact, colors do have meaning and there is a legit thing called color theory. Red does has more positive connotations than negative like the @mintymaiden said. Red is associated with more love, lust, passion than blood and death just like the chart shows you but If you want, here’s a link for you to check it out yourself. Also, check out “The Designer’s Dictionary of Color” by Sean Adams. Have fun learning something Xoxo -Designer What is Color Theory? I think y’all are missing the point here. You can theorize to Nebraska and back but that doesn’t change my immediate reaction which is that someone is literally dragging a corpse around I like that the presumption here is that “No One On Tumblr Has Heard of Color Theory, Let Me Explain in Depth” rather than simply acknowledging that the VISUAL EFFECTS of this particular color choice, applied in the manner it was, can still amount to “this is a hospital and that looks like blood” like, color theory doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If your design of choice for Blood Red Paint is asymmetric splatters and sploches against the wall, or in this case, a snail trail on the hallway’s floor, an infographic won’t override the viewers’ instinct. this post is the perfect summation of tumblr’s reading comprehension and critical thought abilities
Fucking, Love, and Sorry: So our local children's hospital re-
 cently redecorated, but I'm not too
 sure they really thought things out
eternal-dannation:

jhenne-bean:

forlovefromfear:

diasporanpapi:


youthful-pills:


ichigo-hiyoko:

mintymaiden:

gildatheplant:
Literally any other colour would’ve been a better choice guys.

I’d like to point out that the colour red has more positive than negative meanings.

im sorry but this reply absolutely killed me
red can mean whatever the heck you want it to mean, that is never going to change that this straight up looks like they DRAGGED A BLOODY BODY ACROSS THE FUCKING FLOOR 😂


Hi fun fact, colors do have meaning and there is a legit thing called color theory. Red does has more positive connotations than negative like the @mintymaiden said. Red is associated with more love, lust, passion than blood and death just like the chart shows you but If you want, here’s a link for you to check it out yourself. Also, check out “The Designer’s Dictionary of Color” by Sean Adams. Have fun learning something

Xoxo 

-Designer 
What is Color Theory?


I think y’all are missing the point here.


You can theorize to Nebraska and back but that doesn’t change my immediate reaction which is that someone is literally dragging a corpse around

I like that the presumption here is that “No One On Tumblr Has Heard of Color Theory, Let Me Explain in Depth” rather than simply acknowledging that the VISUAL EFFECTS of this particular color choice, applied in the manner it was, can still amount to “this is a hospital and that looks like blood” 
like, color theory doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If your design of choice for Blood Red Paint is asymmetric splatters and sploches against the wall, or in this case, a snail trail on the hallway’s floor, an infographic won’t override the viewers’ instinct. 

this post is the perfect summation of tumblr’s reading comprehension and critical thought abilities

eternal-dannation: jhenne-bean: forlovefromfear: diasporanpapi: youthful-pills: ichigo-hiyoko: mintymaiden: gildatheplant: Literall...