Watching Ep1 Of TFATWS (because I'm A Masochist) And I Swear When Raynor And Bucky Are Discussing The

TFATWS ending

I haven't been able to go onto any Bucky posts because they're usually accompanied by John Walker antis, so I don't know if anyone's actually discussed this. But it doesn't sit right with me that we watch Bucky go through the entire season atoning for his past as the Winter Soldier, only for it to end with him still going by The Winter Soldier. This show really stopped caring about Bucky at the end, and we couldn't even stay for the apology to Mr. Nakajima they've been building up since the first episode. I'm already not too pleased that Falcon is no longer going to be a character, it would have been interesting to explore more into "Captain Falcon" or even retire the shield entirely instead of giving up his original name to an already existing character. Even John Walker gets to be his own character (US Agent). Quick rant: I don't know how people can look at the new Cap and call it representation, we had representation in Falcon. The show wanted to discuss race by having Sam represent a country that supposedly doesn't represent him, and in doing so, ironically rid us of an original black character in favor of a yet another white character (This is an observation on blackwashing, not an anti-white post). And before you say: "Cap is a black character", just remember, under every John Walker hate post, you'll find people quoting "There will never be another Steve Rogers". If you immediately saw John Walker as trying to replace Steve whenever he held that shield, it would be a double standard not to feel the same when Sam holds it. Both wanted to do something good with it, but only one got the chance to be taken seriously

Hot take: I unapologetically like John Walker, like, not even in a “he is morally gray and interesting” kind of way. He was brave and had good intentions, he just wasn’t as quick to search for peaceful solutions and had several realistic flaws such as being insecure, ambitious and quick to follow orders for the establishment. Most people (on tumblr) just hate him because he is white so he must be evil or symbolically represent male white priviledge or something, because he didn´t romanticize terrorism as the writers made Sam start doing, and because he “unfairly” got the shield (The shield the dumb ass writers made Sam DECIDE to give up so they could have that sweet drama? THAT shield?). People say that Steve Rogers would have never done what John did, not even after his literal best friend was killed in front of his eyes, ehem… did we even watch the same movies? Did everyone just forget about that scene in Civil War after Tony tried to kill Bucky?

His reasons for murdering that terrorist  guy that took part in the killing of his best friend and for wanting to apprehend a potentially dangerous group were waay more understandable than any of Karli’s actions AFTER she started killing innocent people “to send a message” while still claiming to have the moral highground instead of, you know, keep stealing and distributing food and medicines like they were exclusively doing at the beginning or something.

I get that it sucks the writers made the flag smashers the villians (I hate what they did with the good hearted and idealistic Sharon Carter as well), I myself would have prefered if Karli had been writen as an anti-hero or even new hero who teams up with Sam and Bucky, maybe the flag smashers could have been divided into different factions, some more extremist than others, and a government guy could have been the real or worst villain, but that sadly didn’t happen. The moment they wrote her blowing up that building full of unarmed people though, she was a self-righteous murderer just like Zemo, which would have been fine if that was the point of her character.

 I was very irritated by the way the show writers, via Sam, tried to minimize her actions and make us feel sorry for her, dehumanizing the people she had killed in the process. We barely ever see her victims, they are mostly faceless entities who don´t matter in comparison to “poor well intentioned baby Karli”.

 If the writers wanted to send the audience a message about “doing better” for refugees they could have done so by making the flag smashers the heroes that have been unjustly framed for the terrorist attacks (Which would have been an AMAZING plot twist), or writing them to be more complicated by making most of its members stand against the extemism of certain factions of the group, or by showing the good things they do, making them fight armed guards only. They should NOT have made terrorism seem “cool” and “trendy”, the deaths of civilians “necessary”, and the terrorists the “real” victims of… *gasp* being called… terrorists! The poor babies, noo, so offensive! The correct term is freedom fighters, nooo! 

Needless to say, the woobification of the poor baby terrorists didn’t work for me and I wasn’t exactly horrified by Karli´s death or impressed by Sam´s corny victim blaming speech where he doesn´t actually give any practical ideas on how to solve the refugee crisis caused by the snap but sure does love to say the government officials all, indiscriminately (Maybe AOCortez or someone was there? I mean, idk), deserved to feel powerless as hostages because that, apparently, will make them sympathize with the people that made them fear for their lives instead of, I don´t know, seeing them as way too unreasonable to negociate with??

Now, I would have preferred for John Walker´s actor to play Lemar and viceversa, because I get that black characters get killed to motivate white characters far too often, so it would have been nicer to see it done the other way around for once. For John Walker to be the new flawed yet good hearted war veteran who has to redeem himself after making a huge mistake born out of pain for the loss of his friend, someone who has to develop and learn different tactics other than violence in order to defend people, someone who has to learn to question the status quo… and he just happens to be black like Sam. Their rivalry would not be even implicitly about race, but exclusively about differences in methods and about who gets the Captain America legacy. We could still have Bucky hating on him, the funny rivalry moments, no changes.

But sadly the writers needed a character to represent the white that didn’t deserve Sam’s shield but only got it for his race, or for looking similar to Steve, which is an important theme, but one that was perfectly explored already with the plotline about the original black supersoldier who was erased from history, and one that didn´t work for me because they made Sam give up the shield willingly BEFORE it was given to John, a war hero, so all I am getting is that simply being chosen for something important and accepting it because you think you can do the job, wanting justice for a friend, and not trusting terrorists to change their murderous ways is what made John “less than” Sam and Bucky.

I guess what I am trying to say is that John doesn´t deserve half the hate he gets and maybe if the writers had changed his race from the comic books then his character would have suffered less from being placed into a specific “personification of white male priviledge” box here on tumblr. No offence to the actor though, he was great.

That does answer my answer greatly, thank you for the reply and explanation.

For your only child MikeyAU Do Lieutenant or Brute have some reservations on letting Raph become a host for the armor? Like they got attached to him after a few years together.

I’d probably say that Raph is kind of in the same boat as Casey (who was also taken into the Foot at a young age) in that Lieutenant and Brute sort of take on a mentor role and they definitely care for his well-being, but aren’t proper substitutes for parents. They treat Raph less like their child and more like an employee (to emphasize this, Raph wears a disguise and works at the Foot Shack lol). Raph is pretty much given free reign around New York as long as he doesn’t attract too much attention to himself.

Also, because they are a cult, they see Raph’s destiny to become the Shredder as genuinely amazing; they aren’t doing it with malicious intent (not that that excuses it, of course, because it’s still bad for Raph) , but because it’s the highest honor one can have in the Foot, and since he works so hard, and is naturally durable, it makes perfect sense for them to pick him.

Hope that answers it!

okay… I’ll just make a new post with the update, since the animation is not working properly and I don’t wanna risk of accidentally deleting the old blog. (why is Tumblr so hard to use) All right so this is Brad from Lisa the Painful game. Suggested by @witch-gamer Feel free to suggest too of any indie close-eyed character you want, MAYBE I can add them in the group!

You’re the most recognised and internationally praised superhero, but you don’t fight any crime. Instead, you use your powers over stone and metal to repair the damage caused by the catastrophic fights other heroes get into.

Dany antis:

We have to understand that Mirri was devastated over her town and the abuse she suffered. To empathize. She’s a “hero” therefore, for killing a BABY.

We do NOT have to understand that Daenerys was devastated over the loss of her husband and child. She does not deserve empathy despite her losses. She’s “evil” for killing a grown woman who killed a baby.

We have to understand the culture of wealthy grown educated men who have subjected human beings to slavery for hundreds of years.

Oh, but they weren’t alive for hundreds of years! We can’t hold that against them!

But we also can’t deny them the benefit of the excuse that they’ve done this for hundreds of years.

We do NOT have to understand the culture of a teenage girl who is a Khaleesi of the Dothraki, who kills the wine seller for trying to kill her and her baby.

Because she killed him painfully. We don’t care that Varys suggested killing her with the tears of Lys, and remember that the victim dies an agonizing death. We don’t think about the morals of a painful death when the intended victim is Daenerys.

The same applies to when she crucified the slavers. We’re going to insist she did it indiscriminately, even though we know she didn’t kill a single woman who would have had less power, or child who would be entirely innocent, nor did she kill random civilians, they were all nobles. All slavers. But there are innocent slavers! Innocent slavers are definitely a thing.

The people who make laws that are not up to modern standards, like Daenerys, are evil.

But the people who follow those laws, like Ned beheading a man for running away from the dead, or Jon who beheaded a man for refusing to follow an order, or Robb who threatened to hang a man if he didn’t join the war against the Lannisters, aren’t.

Daenerys may have warned the slavers she would show no mercy if they didn’t free the slaves and pay them reparations, but she should have given them a trial even though they own the system.

It’s true they were all slavers, but if she was punishing them for being slavers, she should have killed all of them. The fact she didn’t kill all of them shows it wasn’t about justice, so she’s evil.

But she was also wrong for wanting to kill all of them, and Jorah talked her out of it. The fact he had to talk her out of it shows she’s evil.

And then when Daario tried to talk her into slaughtering them Red Wedding style, and she refused, that’s also proof she’s evil because Daario represents her evil nature.

We can empathize with the slavers! Because we might have done the same thing! We all like to think we’d stand against slavery, but if it’s our culture we might not. And we might stand by while our friends torture 163 children to death to spite an abolitionist.

We say we empathize with the slaves, too, but it’s more we sympathize with them. We understand that they are victims. We don’t see ourselves in their place. We don’t empathize with the anger the parents of those children felt. They follow Dany blindly. They don’t understand choice. That’s why they follow her.

What we CANNOT empathize with (because we know we would NEVER) is a teenage girl who walked along a road lined with the corpses of children who were tortured to death to spite her. We know a GOOD ruler would be stalwart in the face of such horror and hold a trial. Because even though the slavers own all the systems in existence in that city, there’s no way a trial could have caused the death of lesser evil instead of greater. Trials are foolproof!

She should have killed them all or tried to have every one of them examined by witnesses who are profoundly biased. We cannot empathize with that.

Dany’s attachment to the Dothraki shows her savagery. The Dothraki are rapists and slavers and she lusted after her husband when he made that speech and so it doesn’t matter how she tried to fight rapists later. They are all terrible. The Khals are monsters and she loved one, so that shows she’s a monster.

Also, she’s evil for killing the Khals.

She was wrong for sacking Astapor and Yunkai but not staying to rule them. She made it worse because poverty is as bad as slavery and the freed slaves are not able to build their own society, and she should have known that. She was wrong for not staying and ruling them.

She was also wrong for staying in Meereen and ruling it because that makes her a colonizer.

She agrees to allow adults to sell themselves into temporary slavery, and that’s wrong, because voluntary indentured servitude is as bad as generational chattel slavery-except when it’s in Westeros! The rulers in Westeros are rightful, but Daenerys was trying to enslave them by having them bend the knee! She was using the privilege of her father’s name, and it’s different when the Starks do it.

Dragons are evil. They serve no good purpose and she’s evil because she has dragons.

Also, Jon should have a dragon.

When Arya met the Lannister soldiers, and Ed Sheeran, that was to show how she realized that they are not all bad. This shows that sometimes enemies are good. This will show that we should empathize with enemies. That Dany is bad because she doesn’t even though she agrees to help the Starks, whose father supported the man who murdered her brother, and was not disturbed by the murder of her niece and nephew. Who would have killed a baby, had he known Jon was her nephew. Who would have killed her.

This does not apply to Daenerys and her armies, of course. The North was one hundred percent right to treat her with hostility.

Daenerys considered killing Tyrion when she met him! This shows that she is willing to kill people just because they are related to enemies! She’s evil!

Even though she named Tyrion her Hand. Even though she agreed to aid the North with no strings attached once she saw the army of the dead. Even though she accepted Varys into her service when he’d tried to have her murdered. Varys being part of the plan to sell a teenage girl into sexual slavery was not evil because she turned that to her advantage.

Dany was wrong for even considering killing Tyrion despite the fact that she didn’t and ultimately named him her Hand.

She was wrong for killing the Tarlys even though they were oathbreakers who killed their own friends and attacked their liege’s home. Even though the punishment for oath breaking is death. Even though they refused to bend the knee in exchange for keeping their lives, lands and titles, which is standard procedure in Westeros. Even though they refused the Wall, where Tarly sent his eldest son.

She didn’t kill them for oathbreaking or murdering her allies. She killed them for not bending the knee! Even though she only attacked them after they did that, and she did not harm Jon when he refused to bend the knee, she allowed him to mine her dragonglass, and offered to provide men and resources to help.

Sam was not wrong for hating Daenerys for killing his father, even though he was an oathbreaker, an abuser, and threatened to kill Sam. Even though he said that nothing would give him more pleasure than telling Sam’s mother that her son died. Even though Sam knew of Dany’s great deeds from Aemon. It’s understandable that he would still mourn his father. Even if his father was a monster, we have to empathize with his anger.

YET Daenerys is dead wrong for calling out Jaime for murdering her father. Her father was a monster! How dare she feel anything about his murder! She had no right to object to Jaime’s presence at Winterfell, even though he tried to kill her on the battlefield and said straight out said he wasn’t sorry for all he’d done and would do it again to protect his family.

She was wrong for restoring the family name of the man who killed her brother and cheered the brutal murders of her niece and nephew. Because she only legitimized Gendry for personal gain, even though he could have done the opposite of joining her, and tried to take the throne himself.

She is wrong if she is good to the family of her enemies because she is self serving, and she is wrong if she’s not good to them because it’s not their fault.

The Starks are not wrong for judging Daenerys by her father’s actions even though she came to help save them. Sansa is not wrong for wanting to evict children from their homes because their families were traitors.

When the Starks are suspicious of the family members of those who’ve harmed them, it’s fair. They are being smart.

When Daenerys is suspicious of the family members of those who’ve harmed her, it’s proof of her being paranoid like her father.

When Sansa told Jon that the free folk should join their fight against Ramsay, that they owed it to him because he’d saved their lives, that was smart!

When she told Arya “you should be on your knees, thanking me,” she had every right to assert her accomplishments.

YET, Daenerys was very entitled to want the North to fight Cersei with her in exchange for her helping them defeat the army of the dead, even though Cersei was their enemy too, and she sent them a letter saying “come bend the knee or face the fate of all traitors.”

It was not wrong of Jon to tell the North he bent the knee to save them, even though she said she’d help before he bent the knee.

It’s Dany’s fault the Night King got a dragon even though the wight hunt was Tyrion’s idea and Daenerys did not like it. Even though Jon told her, “I don’t need your permission. I am a king.”

Dany held Jon prisoner even though he had to stay to mine the dragonglass and he stated that he did not need her permission to leave. That’s what being a prisoner means, right?

Daenerys went mad because her family was fraught with incest. This does not imply that Jon will go mad, because his mother was not a Targaryen (even though his mother’s parents were related). Generations of inbreeding unequivocally mean madness, but the ramifications of those generations are undone if one guy at the end of the line produces a child with a woman whose parents were also related. That’s how genetics work, right?

Daenerys is a colonizer. Even though she didn’t have any goal other than destroying the slave trade in Essos. She only did that for selfish reasons even though Yunkai trains bed slaves and neither Meereen nor Yunkai added to her military might. Even though she never forced her religion or language on them. Even though she renounced power over the cities when she left, so that the people could choose their own leaders.

The Starks were never colonizers! Even though the earliest Starks were First Men, who committed genocide against the Children of the Forest. The First Men called themselves the First Men, they did not acknowledge the humanity of the Children. Therefore, the Children were not human.

The First Men destroyed the Children. The Starks built a Wall to separate the dead from the living, but left thousands of living and Children of the Forest at the other side of it. The Starks destroyed the other families, established power over the area, established their religion and language as the official religion and language. The Starks became the Kings of Winter by bringing to heel, and sometimes extinguishing, other families. That’s fine because the Starks are good. That’s not colonizing! The Starks were always good! They killed the warg king and his sons and beasts and then married his daughters. That’s not rape, that’s marriage!

The Targaryens who adapted the Westerosi religion and language and did not in any way repress other religions or languages, were the oppressors.

Dany hardly did anything in the Long Night. Her armies and dragons did not thin out the dead army, making it possible for Arya to kill the Night King. Two dragons can only do so much against an army of 100k. Even though Dany’s army also was over 100K.

YET, she burned MILLIONS in KL (even though the population of KL is under a million and even though I just said she could not have possibly taken out much of the dead army.)

When Daenerys didn’t weep and wring her hands over her abusive brother’s death that was evidence of her turning “mad.” Even though he abused her, sold her, and pressed a sword to her belly and threatened to cut her baby out of her body.

When Sansa smiled as Ramsay screamed, being torn apart by dogs, that was not a sign of anything bad. He abused her!

When Daenerys crucified the slavers even though a trial would have yielded nothing, because they had owned the entire system, that was a sign of her being a villain.

But Varys wasn’t wrong for trying to poison her before she did anything wrong because he sensed what she would do! Instinct > Trials. Unless the “instinct” is Daenerys’. Then it’s paranoia, even when the people she suspects of plotting against her are plotting against her.

When Arya killed two men, baked them into a pie, fed them to their father, slit his throat, smiled faintly as he died, cut off his face, then killed every one of his bannermen, with no knowledge of whether those men had been there at the Red Wedding, or whether they’d spoken against it, that was not a sign of her being a villain. Because if it’s a Stark, we understand complicity.

Besides, Arya is not a ruler. Only rulers do harm. Not explorers! Explorers who believe “I’ll never know her, she’s not one of us”, have never done anything bad in all history. Happy Columbus Day, btw.

Tom Holland does Rihanna’s “Umbrella” on Lip Sync Battle

Euromaidan Press

Top-10 Russian genocidal quotes about Ukraine

Vladimir Putin and Russian officials have left no room for ambiguity: they openly aim to erase Ukrainians as…

High-profile Russians have left no doubt in anybody's mind that they are intent on committing genocide in Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin and his ethno-nationalist minions are intent on wiping out the concept of Ukraine as a country. That is what genocide is about as defined Article II of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Vladimir Putin, along with other Russian officials and state-controlled media, openly declare their objective: the obliteration of the Ukrainian nation. The machinery of Russian state propaganda promotes a genocidal mindset towards Ukrainians among Russian soldiers today.  In Ukraine’s occupied territories, Russian forces are fulfilling their pledges through a series of atrocities, exemplified by the unearthing of mass graves and torture facilities in liberated cities such as Bucha and Izium.

You can see all ten quotes in the main link at the top of this post. But this is one that is particularly odious.

“[Ukrainian children] should have been drowned in the Tysyna [river], right there, where the duckling swims. Just drown those children, drown them right in Tysyna [river]… Whoever says that Russia occupied them, you throw them in the river with a strong undercurrent… Shove them right into those huts and burn them up… [Ukraine] is not supposed to exist at all,” Anton Krasovskyi, former Director of Broadcasting of Russia’s state-funded RT, said on 23 October 2022.

Putin and Company are basically Hamas-on-the-Volga. And we shouldn't be distracted by events elsewhere from the genocidal activities of Putin's Russia.

The Russian military’s aggression against Ukraine has resulted in numerous documented war crimes, as confirmed by international organizations, human rights NGOs, and Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office. The International Criminal Court (ICC) initiated an investigation into the situation in Ukraine on 2 March 2022, encompassing potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Furthermore, on 17 March 2023, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and the Russian Commissioner for Children’s Rights, Maria Lvova-Belova, on suspicion of a specific war crime: the illegal deportation of Ukrainian children from the occupied territories to Russia during the invasion.

Yep, Putin is a wanted war criminal. Despite that, there is a Putin Caucus in the US House of Representatives encouraged by Putin vassal Donald Trump.

If you are in the US, contact your representatives in the US House and urge them to make aid to Ukraine a priority. Any House member of either party is worth a message – though you may wish to skip any Republican with a grade below a C on this list.

For contact information and to find out exactly who represents your district, check out this site. Have your ZIP+4 ready.

Find Your Representative | house.gov

If your rep has been supportive in the past, a quick thank you is appreciated as well as good manners.

Support for democracy at home and democracy abroad are linked. People who are 2020 election deniers are almost always Putin apologists.

I gonna call Kaine Parker “Skittles” for from now on.

buttondown.email

The Internet Is About to Get a Lot Worse

We've all watched in horror as red states have banned books in schools and libraries. We've seen teachers fired merely for reading a book ab

11/30/23: KOSA is an anti-LGBTQIA+ censorship bill. It is essential you call THIS week. Tell them you are specifically against KOSA and especially against hotlining the bill.

Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected to the Senator of your choice.

Here is one that will send your reps a fax: https://resist.bot/