Tumgik
#((we don't really see many of his politics in action but he rules more through emotion than through reason))
kereeachan · 2 months
Text
Black Characters Month 1: Aldin and Jiminez Hoffman
Tumblr media
[First Image: Aldin Hoffman of Girl Genius wearing his most common expression: extreme anxiety. Aldin is a young black man with his black hair in locs pulled to the back of his head. He has square glasses, a green coat, and a high collared white shirt whose collar is fastened with a golden emblem with a book on it. Over that there is a black vest with many buttons]
Tumblr media
[Second Image: Jiminez Hoffman of Girl Genius, heroically leaping into action. Jiminez is a young black man with short straight black hair held back by goggles. He wears a lavender collared shirt with the front open to his chest and the sleeves rolled to his elbows. He also wears blue pants and silver boots. He wields what appears to be a knife in his right hand and a steampunk enhanced hammer in his left]
Ah, the Hoffman brothers, one of the delights of the Paris arc of Girl Genius. Paris is when the series really kicked the diversity up a notch, mainly because the entire huge ruling family is black, but so are these two wonderful gentlemen! Well, Aldin's a gentleman. Jiminez is just a nice guy. Of the two, Aldin is my fav but they're both great.
The Hoffmans are introduced through Jiminez, a young hero of Paris. Being a Spark (aka Mad Scientist) Jiminiez is often the more destructive sort of hero, but his heart is always in the right place. He even ended a multi-generational war between two kingdoms of the under-city! ...Which meant those kingdoms might team up and attack Paris, but they managed to avert that in the end. He's kind of the embodiment of the phrase "pure of heart, dumb of ass."
We meet Aldin later, at the Incorruptible Library beneath Paris, essentially Europa's greatest library that stays neutral in the face of political madness that is caused by a continent run by Sparks. Aldin is as far as we know not a Spark himself, but often ends up dragged into his brother's shenanigans anyway. This is the main cause of his crippling anxiety, but don't let that fool you: Aldin only worries about potential problems. Once the problem is here, he's quite competent at dealing with it. He also has a reputation of being kidnapped and dressed up by villainesses, and who can blame them? We see the whole party in the Paris arc captured at one point and put in Slave Leia bikinis--the man is built.
Together they are a team to rival the legendary heroics of the Heterodyne Boys (entirely against Aldin's will, mind). They aid Agatha in the depths of Paris, though Aldin also has a secret mission from the Library at the same time. Meanwhile Jiminez found true love and revealed that he's been adopted as the prince of the Mole People's Kingdom because of his heroics. We also see in later flash-forward comics that in the future, Aldin will become Agatha's librarian in Mechanisburg, which is probably just as good as true love in his eyes.
All in all a hilarious, badass duo. As Dimo puts it, their way of fighting is called "Heroic Freestyle" See?
Tumblr media
[Third Image: The Hoffman brothers in battle with a giant red and gold serpent clank, or robot. Aldin screams "JIIIIIM!" at the top of his lungs in a spiky word bubble, while upside down in the clank's mouth. His feet hold the upper jaw while his hands grip the lower, only his body strength keeping it open. Aldin's expression is more annoyed than terrified. The snake's front teeth appear to be made of green syringes. Jiminez is in the background, wearing a complex steampunk helmet that covers his eyes with goggles and wielding a crowbar to attack the clank. He yells back "Hang in there Aldin! This is one tough Clank!" in a speech bubble. His striking the beast is stylized with the onomatopoeia of "Klong! Klong!"]]
13 notes · View notes
queenfredegund · 1 month
Note
What made Chlodechildis I influence so threateneing that her son took actions to avoid his consorts from having a similar influence to that his mother had?
We don't know it for sure. It's important to remember that, for the posterity, Chlodechildis has been depicted in sources as a pious and humble spouse, a devoted mother and grandmother, and more importantly, as a saintly figure. Which implies that she was also a retired woman, far from the madding crowd, and engaged in prayers and foundations. Neither Gregory of Tours or the unnamed author of her vita give us real explanations about her political life, and when they're alluding to it, they often rely upon her sons, implying that they put her on a thight-spot.
This is mostly because chronicles from that period are not really an everyday record, but more an essay about power and the dynastic transmission of it: what interested chroniclers was not really the actions of their contemporaries or their predecessors, but the way the power of their kings kept maintained and get expanded. Therefore why Chlodechildis is just presented as the christian spouse of a king and the burgundian mother of others, because this is just what chroniclers want us to remind about her: that she promoted Christian faith under the Frankish ruling, and that she is the main reason why her sons engaged in a war against their Burgundian neighbors. That's all.
Now, for her real influence, we certainly can imagine it and draw conclusions from the silences. First of all, she was the widow of an important sovereign and had been associated to his power through their marriage, which is seen in their common foundation of the Church of the Holy Apostles (now the Abbey of Sainte-Geneviève de Paris, and the site where Chlodovech was buried). Which implies that she certainly enjoyed throuhgout her married life a great network of allies and subordinates who respected her. This is visible for example when, as a retired queen, she exerced a significant amount of authority to influence bishops' nomination in her favor (at leat for three of them). She was also the titular head of the family, as the elder woman of it, and the sources doesn't provide any informations over possible co-wives or particular concubines from Chlodovech's entourage, letting us to believe that she was probably the only consort of him to enjoy influence and power of her own.
And, you see, that's probably that which frigthened her sons: that she wasn't a woman among others, she wasn't a consort among others, but she was THE consort, she was the only widow of Chlodovech that mattered politically and religiously.
It is difficult to understand what was the final straw between them, because Gregory of Tours is mostly building a story when he says that Childebert and Chlothacar grew jealous towards their mother and nephews, but I personally think they could have been suspicious regarding the amount of supports their mother could gained for their nephews, and how she could, possibly, exist as a sovereign by herself. She had too much of respectability and authority to be left whithout male supervision, at leat this is what we can imagine.
Now, to the question of determining if Chlodovech's sons really tried to forbidde any specific authority for their wives, this is quite tricky, because the situation was different in many ways. To begin with, let's remember that Chlodechildis was a young widow, and that she outlived Chlodovech for at least 30 years! This is a long time living without a husband, when some of other consorts died before theirs or shortly after. Others didn't have sons, and so were naturally displaced, lacking important connections with the new king. So, all in all, this is rather a question of: what worked for Chlodechildis that didn't worked for the others?
In fact, Merovingian kings didn't expresselly forbbide their wives and mothers to play a role in politics, there is not law stating of that, but morality and social conventions actually worked in that way, and perhaps Brunehilde and Chlodechildis were actually challenging a social position in a time where this was impossible...
2 notes · View notes
aipilosse · 1 year
Note
I've seen people say Maedhros doesn't get any characterization, which is understandable. But I really do think people minimise or underestimate the amount of information we get about him through the texts? I think we get fairly enough to establish a good impression of what he must be like, from passages scattered throughout the works, rather than a few descriptive adjectives that a few other characters get. I want to write more about this in detail, but I would like to know what you think about the whole characterization debate since I disagree that he doesn't get enough. I think he gets much more characterization than both Finrod and Fingon, with the former getting much narrative focus rather than characterization and the latter getting neither.
Anon, I was just recently thinking about people minimizing or underestimating the amount of information we get in the texts in general so this ask came at the perfect time!
...but I don't think saying that Maedhros doesn't get any characterization is an understandable statement at all, actually. So I guess, yes, I totally agree with you that there's clear traits we can get from the Silmarillion. I also agree that he gets more than Fingon, who suffers a bit I think from having inconsistent explicit and implicit characterization in the Silmarillion. For instance, we're told:
No oaths [Galadriel] swore, but the words of Fëanor concerning Middle-earth had kindled in her heart, for she yearned to see the wide unguarded lands and to rule there a realm at her own will. Of like mind with Galadriel was Fingon Fingolfin’s son, being moved also by Fëanor’s words, though he loved him little.
Fingon yearns to rule a realm at his own will, really? I would argue we then see little political maneuvering on his part and he spends the rest of the story playing the role of the heroic prince -- bold and eager for battle, but with no indication he would prefer to be king. This is made even more obvious when you consider that his younger brother *does* go off to rule a realm at his own will. You could explain this by saying the journey across the Helcaraxe squashed any desire to rule on Fingon's part if you wanted to, but I suspect this is rather an inconsistency likely borne out of the evolution of Fingolfin and Fingon into separate characters.
Honestly, we don't really see Galadriel acting on this desire to rule a realm at her own will until the Second Age, but in her case that can be explained by the patriarchal society she's in.
Anyway, back to Maedhros and Finrod! I think Maedhros may get more explicit characterization; there's the notable line, "for since his torment upon Thangorodrim his spirit burned like a white fire within, and he was as one that returns from the dead," and several others referring to his fiery spirit and vigilance against Morgoth. But I do think that due simply to being the central character in several more storylines, Finrod might have more overall characterization? But I just realized I’m definitely including the Athrabeth and the Lay in that calculation, and I’m a lot less sure without those works. But he still has plenty of characterization in the Silm! Founding Nargothrond, finding the Edain, throwing his crown on the ground, killing a werewolf with his teeth and bare hands -- the narrator isn’t saying “Finrod was ambitious and curious, and saw himself as a man of honor” but that’s what his actions say.
For either Maedhros or Finrod, anyone who says there's little or no characterization we can draw from the Silmarillion is talking out their ass tbqh. They have plenty of agency and 'screen time' as it were, unlike characters like Amrod and Amras, and don't suffer from conflicting characterization like Fingon.
Which brings me to a larger observation I suppose; I see the idea that 'we just don't have any details' about characters floated pretty often. Not only is this not true for many characters, but I've seen this used as a reason why female characters aren't written about, which is such a threadbare excuse? If you're not interested in a character there's no shame, but I would say Aredhel, Morwen, Nienor, Galadriel, Idril, and Elwing all have the same amount or more characterization as Maglor yet he’s far more of a focus of the fandom than any of them. Again, this isn’t to shame anyone into liking female characters (a very ineffective strategy even if that were my goal!) but just to say, hey, be honest about why you like the characters you do. 
I had this whole thing written up about why people would even say we don’t have any details or why fandom acts like the Silmarillion is this dense unknowable book from which hardly anything can be derived, but it got out of hand and really my own annoyance with this phenomenon is a mix of very real observations about how hard it can be to talk about things with people steeped in fanon (like I literally will have no idea what’s going on sometimes just because I don’t know where every single Feanorian is at all times according to agreed upon fanon), how there’s this deep history of misogyny in fanon that influences how people talk about characters to this day, how this layer of false complexity deters even knowledgeable people from talking about the stuff they’re interested in, and then there’s my petty, bitchy self who’s annoyed because there’s a lot of works out there I don’t like and don’t understand because it seems to me counter to the material I am actually a fan of, which. The fact that fandom does not cater to the likes and dislikes of one Aipilosse is not a real problem lol!
I think I’ll just say that this pseudo-reality where there’s tons of people who *insist* we can’t know a thing that we can very much at least draw reasonable conclusions on isn’t a good thing, no more than insisting that there’s only one way to interpret a thing and if you don’t you’re a bad fan is a good thing  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
20 notes · View notes
laveyanist · 9 months
Text
Final Fantasy XVI Ramblings~! (spoilers)
I'm not done with the game yet, a little over 50% of the way through so I might mute this in case someone sees it and feels a need to say 'so and so dies at the end' or anything like that because people are incapable of just letting people enjoy things on their own but- (here's your warning, this has started to get long as I'm writing it. Basically a disorganized essay.)
TL;DR w/o spoilers - the game has heavy left-wing political themes that I'm enjoying but really hoping they don't undermine in the late-game.
This game has been absolutely fucking insane. Like, in all the best ways, but first and foremost has been how HEAVILY political it is?? And unapologetically communist to boot? Holy fuck. I don't know how many games in the series were this political, the only one I've ever finished was XV so I can't speak on this being a prescient theme throughout the entire franchise or just a part of XVI and VII.
Having a literal commune run by a violent anti-imperialist who they very cleverly turned into a direct reference to the Punk subculture as a main character? Genius. (There's a line of dialogue, maybe it was his actual nickname as well, where Cid refers to himself as Cid The Vicious... Y'know, Sid Vicious.)
The very direct killing of the planet by the mass exploitation of its resources is nothing new to the series, VII being the first to come to mind, but it's definitely interestingly more prescient than ever, but also a lot more on-the-nose this time around. Normally I'd criticize that aspect of it, but it's pretty necessary with how media illiterate I've noticed people becoming... Plus I'm really looking forward to whenever it is the game sends me into an area that's succumbed completely to the Blight (I think that's what it's called) because it established early on that magic doesn't work there, and that sounds like foreshadowing.
I'm a bit worried that by the time the game ends, it'll undermine the revolutionary spirit it seems to foster by turning Clive into some form of 'look at this everyone, he's going to be corrupted and lose his way, iPhone Vuvuzela 100 trillion dead' communist caricature. It'd be pretty disappointing to build this narrative about revolting and breaking the shackles of exploitation by the ruling class and undercutting it at the last minute. Clive's dialogue sometimes feels like it's a potentiality, as they've made a point to engage with the reality that before anything get's better it's going to get much worse for the exploited class during this revolution, but it could also be used to vilify him in the narrative as well.
"Though every soul in the realm may judge my actions heresy, I am certain my cause is just." - a line that sent a chill through me and honestly can be read as foreshadowing a brutalist reign, or just accepting that he'll be viewed as Guevara or Castro or any other revolutionary who the west vilifies for the struggles of their countries after we sanction the fuck out of them.
(Also, this is a bit of theorycraft but the abilities map being a big circle that's slowly being surrounded by each eikon I gather the problem from, and the nickname of Mythos given to Clive has me speculating that Clive's eikon isn't Ifrit. Clive is gathering power to become the Knights of the Round. I really really hope that's what their going for and if so they did a really good job setting up that reveal!)
5 notes · View notes
hellsbellschime · 2 years
Note
I don't hold as strong hatred for the Targaryen as you do (don't really hate any of the characters, I like how complex they all are), but yes! It is very GRRM to make prophecy the downfall of a person.
I think it's interesting that they put that prophecy reveal in the same episode with the dream Viserys had of a true male heir with a crown, and how he sacrificed his wife for the heir that died anyway. They said that Aemma would have died anyway but he made that call because of his prophetic dream/dragon dream (as the Targaryens are known for them) , so his belief in his own dream lead him to basically murder his own wife.
For the thing with Targs passing down this knowledge down heir to heir, it's very interesting isn't it? Very politically motivated to retain power, I love the idea that this need to hold power is what truly starts the downfall of the House Targaryen.
Makes you wonder how much is true? How much of the original prophecy has changed after so many retellings? Is it lost after the dance? After so many quick changes between kings and queens did they continue to pass it on? Did Aerys tell the story to Rhaegar or did he discover it himself separately? Did all that secrecy lead to Rhaegar's actions that put the final nail in the coffin of the Targaryen house? I wonder if Aegon I just saw that Targaryens were involved and went oh well better rule them because we have dragons and we're best, then told all his heirs like 'mmm.. actually we are to be kings or we dead'. Others such as Melissandre also believe that an specific person must be king for them to defeat the long night in her case she believes Stannis must be king. The use of prophecy or religion as a way to gain political power is again something like to explore. So many questions so much potential.
I disagree with how some people think that suddenly this knowledge of the prophecy makes Aegon's conquest any less bloody or more noble. It was still very much about political gain, I do think it explains why perhaps the three of them were so willing to leave most of their Valiryan traditions for Westerosi ones, perhaps to make them settle faster into power?
In the books it was already speculated that the Targaryens were aware of this, so I wonder how it would all play out in the books. With Daenerys, Jon and young Griff set to all be in the same continent I'm sure it will be an interesting situation (specially if Daenerys does kill Aegon for being a Blackfyre)
As for the show I hope they develop it and play with it even more, the og show was so afraid of anything magical they rarely touched all the prophecies in the books.
-
All in all I'm so happy that I get to talk about this world again.
I actually don't hate them, I love them as villains, far more than a lot of the other ASOIAF villains, but the fact that I see them as villains is a hot point of contention with people who love them as saviors.
And when you phrase it that way that's a VERY VERY VERY INTERESTING parallel to Azor Ahai and Nissa Nissa and I can't imagine that was unintentional. The fundamental concept of sacrificing SOMEONE ELSE for the greater good is a fascinating one, and seeing it not only play out in a very visceral and terrifying way, but to see that Viserys' belief was incorrect anyway, is really pointed to me.
It also paints the entire Targaryen dynasty in a more interesting light, because it begs the question of what they were doing in service of this imagined destiny and also likely demonstrates how radically differently they all interpret that destiny and see themselves within it. Like, this would mean that Maegor the Cruel and Baelor the Blessed and Aegon V and Jahaerys and Rhaegar all did what they did because they knew this prophecy and believed themselves to be the most important part of it. And, not only did they do a lot of fucked up shit, but look at how absurdly different their choices all were. Honestly even just talking this through now makes me way more excited about this whole prophecy concept because that is an incredibly interesting avenue to explore.
6 notes · View notes
ffcrazy15 · 9 months
Note
why are you pro-life in your bio? is it like satirical or do you actually believe in that stuff?? i grew up catholic so im very curious to see what ppl who stuck with that think!!
Hi, thanks for asking, and so politely too! Nope not satirical, and yes I really am pro-life.
Every human being is a person, and there is no other qualification to be a person than to be a human being. I believe this firmly and wholeheartedly, not only because it is logical, but also because there is no example over the course of human history where the people deciding that some human beings didn't count as persons turned out to be the good guys.
Since it is clearly true that the fetus is a human being, it is therefore also clearly true that a fetus is a person. It is unethical to intentionally kill innocent people; abortion is intentionally killing an innocent person, and therefore abortion is unethical.
Another clearly true moral rule would seem to be that, when we choose to do something that we can reasonably predict will make others dependent on us for their survival, we have an obligation to take care of them until they can either take care of themselves or we can find them another caretaker. To use an analogy I heard recently, if I go rock climbing with you, I have the right to choose not to hold the other end of the rope. But if I do choose to hold the other end of the rope for you, I don't have the right to revoke that consent once you're already up in the air and the fall could kill you.
This is especially true when we choose to create, or risk creating, new human life. It's the Dr. Frankenstein principle: Frankenstein had reason to believe that his experiments to build a person could, in fact, create a new person; therefore, when they did create a new person, he had an obligation to take care of Adam (his creation) until such a time as Adam could take care of himself. By failing to do that, he rightfully incurs the condemnation of the reader (and all of Tumblr, from what I've seen) for what is essentially child abandonment.
The same principle applies to the way humans usually make new people—i.e., through sex. If I choose to risk creating a new human person, which sex is known to do, I have an obligation to take care of any people my actions create until they are no longer dependent on me for survival.
Those are the reasons I'm pro-life; none of them are necessarily religious, and non-religious people also hold these same beliefs. You do not have to be Catholic or religious at all to believe that all human beings are people and have human rights, including unborn humans.
There are many other issues which fall under the pro-life category which are well worth discussing, including but not limited to the atrocious way our society treats pregnant people and parents, especially poor parents; poverty; women's rights; disabled rights; migrant rights; workers' rights; prisoners' rights; medical bioethics; end-of-life matters; and so on. I assumed you were specifically asking about the abortion issue, but I'd be more than happy to discuss these other issues or abortion further, or point you in the direction of further resources if you're interested. :)
Thanks again for such a polite ask, it's always appreciated!
1 note · View note
moonandblossoms · 2 years
Note
If you had a chance to rewrite Naruto what would you change?
I guess so many are obsessed with rewriting Naruto but since your question was genuine, I will give this a try.
I feel that Sasuke did have a lack of inner monologues. I will give him a lot of inner voices so that his actions might sound understandable. However, I would make sure that I don't ruin the complexity as well because that's what really makes him special. I really see him as a peak and a well-written character, but just a few changes like these might do.
I would want Sakura to be given more justice as the female MC. Her hate doesn't make sense but I feel it's because she isn't criticized in the right way. I would give her all the cool-healing abilities which Naruto had with his Kurama. I will make her a bit OP as well. I would want her to be understanding and caring for Naruto from the start. Not fully, but with some of her bratty aspects still left over so that she gets a space to develop.
I don't want Sakura to fall behind Naruto and Sasuke but ONLY after gaining the Byakugou, because it may ruin the rules of medical ninjutsu as well. I would want her to grow more mature and better developed. Definitely, she came a long way but some small adjustments would always do.
I wish Sakura was a healer right from the beginning of Naruto. She would know the mystic palm technique with a small genjutsu technique. She will become something more than just another Tsunade. She will just have a few techniques so she isn't a complete fodder in part 1. Add that to the achievements she managed to do as a genin, it will be great to see.
It would be better if Naruto's epilogue was extended because we had a few blanks unfilled. It would be good to see how the five Kage would respond to Sasuke being redeemed. And a meeting for five kages to set up peace and tranquility will give a lot more base to the ending.
I wanted to see more of Team Taka after the war. Also, a few moments where Team 7 is going out after the war. It will be nice to see if Naruto and Sakura visit Sasuke in the prison.
It would be good to see how Sai and Sasuke develop trust in each other.
I wanted a stronger foundation and a better prominence with screentime for Hinata and Naruto's relationship. I would want to see Hinata working for the Hyuga clan (as the heiress) in Boruto too. It will make them relatable because they both would hold some of the most important positions in the village. Housewife is not bad, that's the toughest job but Hinata is potential for something more.
I wanted some screentime and relevancy for Hinata too. I would love to give a lot of insight into the Hyuga clan history, politics, and good practices of the Hyuga lore through Hinata. It will be cool to see Hinata developing a rivalry with Neji, just like how Naruto viewed Sasuke but with less severity. It will be a good way to see Hinata and Naruto relating to each other. I would love to rewrite Last in a better way.
Hyuga needs a Byakugan upgrade. That would be cool to see.
Yamato needs a better ending. I feel sorry for him because he is watching over Orochimaru. It felt so punished for Yamato though he is the one who deserved justice.
I wanted some Gaara and Sasuke friendship too. I wanted Sasuke to bond with other characters like Neji, and Shino. They all seem to have cool yet poise-type personas. They can form a good team.
The wedding arc could have been expanded a lot more. It will be nice to see if Sakura had bought Sasuke to the wedding since he is Naruto's best friend. That would have been a nice surprise gift for Naruto. The wedding could also be used to develop SasuSaku.
SasuSaku needs some more development. I personally find them the best in Naruto, but there are a few things I am willing to see. I wanted a whole conversation for Sasuke and Sakura after the battle in the valley, to just clear the misconceptions about their relationship. I would want Sakura to explain the reasons behind why she loves Sasuke, and Sasuke would tell why he wasn't able to return his feelings during his darkness. A nice conversation would have done.
I wanted some SasuSaku novels to be animated so that they are a bit more likable, yet not ruining the uniqueness in their relationship.
I wanted to see some side characters getting development and enough attention in the powerhouse. It's still sad to see that they had to depend upon their predecessors (edo Hokages) to win the war. I would want them to be a major reason and the major powerhouse in winning the war.
I wanted to see Hebi, team 8 and team Gai having their bonds explored more. I think team 8 is a bit oddly built, hence I would further dive into them and make them more justifiable. Team Gai is built well, but I need more screentime for them. Hebi is one of my favorites too, but I wanted to see more for them.
Temari, Neji, and Rock Lee needed more development in Shippuden. I think their importance just regressed there because they were great in part 1.
It would be nice to see a Temari and Tenten rematch in the Konoha crush arc. Tenten would train harder to also get better and stronger, not only as a training partner for Neji. I wanted to see her defeating Temari to prove that she isn't garbage. That will make Temari more likable and understanding. The whole fight will develop their characters beautifully. Their friendship will be cute to see.
I don't want Tenten to sit as a shopkeeper. I would rather see her working in the Military force of Konoha or teach basic weaponry and space-time ninjutsu for academy students.
Neji would live or get an epic death arc. I'd prefer him living and marrying Tenten, maybe.
I wanted a Suigetsu and Karin romance too lol.
I wanted to explore more of the Ino-Shika-Cho love stories- ShikaTema, SaiIno, and ChoKarui. All these three relationships deserved more depth and screentime. A lot of knowledge and history behind the legendary trio will be good too.
Gaiden needs to be fixed a bit as well.
Sakura and Ino's friendship needs some fixing too. I love seeing them as friends, but it needs to be bought out more mature and powerful than it was.
Some battles in the war arc could have been good too, like:
-Suigetsu vs. Edo Mangetsu
-Juugo vs. Edo Kimimaro
-Kankuro vs. Edo Sasori
Or even a Konoha 11 vs. Edo Akatsuki (with every member defeating an Akatsuki member could be good as well).
I want Konan to be revived in the war arc. That was a huge injustice to her. Females need a bit more airtime and development with some side male characters like Choji, Kiba, Shino, etc.
If possible, I will reduce the power gaps between characters and some less dependency on Hashirama's cells.
It would be good to see Kakashi and Guy having a lot more depth and screentime in their relationship. KakaGai definitely needed love from the authors themselves lol.
Damn it was too big. I wanted to write more if I had some, but these are the major things I wanted to see happening.
Nevertheless, I love Naruto to date and I find Kishimoto as a very brilliant author, though he had some flaws in place.
25 notes · View notes
karlmarxverstappen · 2 years
Note
Aah, I think it's mostly Sewis(Seb) stans who hate on Max here, shouldn't be a big deal. I have had to unfollow so many of them, because I thought those were Seb blogs, only to realise they mention Seb when they have to discuss how great Lewis is lmao, and other than that it's to thirst over Seb. I don't think they care about the racing aspect enough to have a nuanced take on drivers, their racing and the rules&regulations of the sport. It is also very clearly the group that thinks there is only one driver on the grid who is a great racing driver, and everyone else should just let him win, but that's what 8 years of dominant machinery and no competition does to people and it is of no use when Lewis himself pushes the underdog narrative lol.
And RB Seb would chew the entire grid and their fans alive for all he cared, and so would Ferrari Seb or any Seb if he is driving at the front of the field. They also for some reason only acknowledge his Ferrari career, which in their godforsaken essays is only to talk about how Lewis beat Seb in a championship fight that lasted half a season in both 2017&18 before Ferrari said we don't know what spark plugs are and don't understand how upgrades are meant to improve performance not make the car slow. Last season has really changed the perception people have of Sebastian. And again Aston being at the back of the midfield didn't help this year either. They act like he is some frail middle aged man, lol. I can bet on these Sewis-Seb stans turning on Seb and becoming Seb-antis if he has some luck and aston actually make a good enough car to be 3rd-4th fastest. They are already calling him a snake, because he did not launch a protest outside the FIA headquarters and say #IStandWithLewisHamilton.
People can chill out, especially Seb fans who care about racing, don't go near Sewis blogs, brain rot, lectures on morality while simultaneously abusing other people and fans is all you'll find.
Stay safe
beloved anon, my thoughts exactly!
seb is only dear to them and their whole sewis agenda now that he is not perceived as a threat to lewis' titles, but just as the harmless beekeeper grid dad who is driving a tractor and not really able fight the dominant cars. let's see how would they love their bromance if seb was pulling one of his rbr era stunts on lewis.
also, for some reason it gives them a giant sense of moral superiority to live vicariously through the actions of their faves in regards to human rights, climate change etc. flash news besties, your niche Internet "activism" that consists of just gushing about people that actually do something about important matters means nothing in the real world 😃
I don't watch f1 for the political views of millionaires that barely made out of high school, I just wanna see hot men go vroom vroom in circles. I actually do things in real life that changes people's lives for the better and I truly believe everyday I work towards making the world a less shitty place instead of feeling superior online because my meow meow is more woke than yours.
21 notes · View notes
oodlyenough · 2 years
Text
alright i've seen arcane twice through now, here are my opinion patch notes:
jayce is hilarious i can't believe fandom hates him so much lmao... arcane boldly asks, what if steve rogers shot a child, and i think that's very fun and sexy of them
fr though i do think jayce is one of the more interesting characters precisely because he's -- well partly because i feel like he realized he's bisexual two days ago and is making it everyone's problem, which is already great. but also because watching the square-jawed hero complex guy make a series of terrible decisions and go mad with power is a satisfying thing to witness. the story seems very aware jayce is doing a bunch of fucked up stuff, and i appreciate that. unhinged bisexual rights
i was also more into the political drama once i was following it closer. i think it's handled with relative subtlety most of the time and i like that! i hope it stays that way in s2, please god. also how tf does the council work, are people appointed? i guess? based on status/wealth? it certainly doesn't seem to be a democracy.
also i love ambessa. can't wait to see more of her.
i feel like mel's writing is... kind of underbaked. her words and her actions don't always correspond (eg "i've never been able to give back!" says the single richest person in a city with severe wealth disparity who has been in political power for a decade). i don't say any of this to drag mel, because i'm very interested in who i think she is/could be, but i find it hard to decipher if this is nuanced writing or just the story not really knowing what it's doing with her -- i guess we'll see what s2 does. i'm still pretty confident she'll survive the finale, not so much because i think she'll survive the entire show (doubtful imo) but because i think if they're going to kill mel she'll get a solo death episode and the finale/fallout of jinx's bomb has too much else going on. fingers crossed anyway, lol, i think it'd be shitty if she's just dead now before they did much with her
i understand like 25% more of what happened with viktor and happy fun ball but ... still not a lot. lmao. i don't mind them keeping it vague i guess but i hope future sequences are less outright confusing to me. why did it eat sky? why did it change his hand? was that on purpose? we never saw him having issues with his hand, right? who knows.
still love that dinner scene with jinx/silco/vi. as i was watching with @firstofoctober i was saying how great it is that everyone in the scene is saying stuff they genuinely believe even if that stuff isn't factually true. i know there's Discourse over how genuine silco was being but i really do think all evidence points to him meaning it/believing what he's saying, even if *we* know vi isn't going to betray powder, etc. likewise vi obviously means it when she says she loves jinx and they're still sisters etc... but i really don't think she has a proper grasp of who jinx is now, she's projecting baby powder and expecting she can flip a switch. it's good and sad and i like it a lot.
coming out less flatteringly on rewatch:
ep 1 is so boringgggggggggg these are so many characters and i only have to care about two of them
caitvi moves at breakneck pace lol. slow down ladies it's been 72 hours tops
heimerdinger is just terrible on rewatch imo lmao he literally never does anything to help anyone or anything. i'm pretty sure jayce only deposed him for being mean to viktor, but he was still right. i GET that his whole thing is being immortal and blah blah but like what if: some guy with no perspective on human existence wasn't ruling a city full of mostly-humans. depose him again jayce.
and my least popular opinion: caitlyn i just... i tried man. i dunno. i mean she's nice and stuff... katie leung is funny sometimes. i just feel like she is so uncomplicated compared to literally every other character, with the least compelling arc. and i think the story treats her with real kiddie gloves too, which i find grating. everyone else fucks up and makes mistakes and is punished narratively for it, but caitlyn is always right bc she is a nice good cop. okay. whatever.
17 notes · View notes
ms-hells-bells · 2 years
Note
hi! i was wondering if you read up on the latest news about the trafficking of women in china? it sparked a lot of outrage from what i've seen but i'm really concerned about whether anything will be done since the authorities are trying to cover it all up. here's something about it if you're curious: https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3167249/2-detained-china-after-trying-visit-woman-found-chained-hut
i saw that incident. so, it's more likely that it's the local/regional authorities covering it up. china is MASSIVE, so local affairs are typically left almost completely up to police and local court systems. but in rural areas, the environment for women is particularly terrible, which is why china currently has a crisis where not only do they have "too few women" (thanks to femicide), but all those women are moving to urban areas for opportunities (since they can't even inherent farmland and businesses according to rural tradition, it's given to sons), and so rural men are largely without wives. several things have been done by rural communities to 'fix' this, including economic propositions to women who move to the countryside (even the ccp themselves are starting to offer money), human trafficking from both within china (with the one child rule, rural families were exempt and allowed to have more children, but most could not afford multiple and tried to only have boys, but as rural girls got more scarce, a decent amount would adopt a girl that had been one of the many given up to orphanages, or even traded by another local family that wanted to try again for a boy but don't want to spend money feeding a girl's mouth, and they'd adopt them purely so that their son would have a bride in the future, and they wouldn't have that girl in school, she'd be forced to 'learn how to be a bride'), and from outside china as well, 'mail order brides', as well as straight up kidnapping.
why am i telling you all this? because it shows the attitude that many rural communities have in regards to women and marriages. many are willing to do anything to get those men brides, no matter how unethical, so i imagine the sentiment from the police and similar entities is "she's his wife, if we take her away, he has no wife and he needs a wife, he has 8 kids. it's his business, she belongs to him". they arrested the two women who tried to see the woman in an attempt to keep covering it up. the other big reason they're covering it up and then contradicting themselves, i believe, is fear of the central government.
the central chinese government needs these men to have wives in order to produce more rural workers, who are the backbone of china's foodbank and economy (these poor rural workers are also the ones who end up in the slave factories that produce their global empire of products. it's largely rural women and girls), they will essentially turn a blind eye to anything that goes on as long as 'things get sorted'. they will even tacitly aid by censoring social media, and try to keep things under control for as long as they can. BUT, if they are forced to notice something because an incident has gone public, particularly internationally, then they will often take action. because reputation matters to them above all else, and they will scapegoat smaller authorities, there's always more to replace them. it's not uncommon for the CCP to imprison and even sentence to death local authorities for corruption and other crimes (it also keeps lower level authorities in line through fear) . they need at least some illusion of trust and protection for the people to keep supporting them, as well as the international community to not completely see them in the same way we see other dictatorships. peng shuai was doomed because he was a former high ccp politician. this is just some man, and rural authorities.
currently, the chinese people are going crazy over this story. they are enraged, social media is going crazy. they are even consistently avoiding social media censors in order to keep spamming at any official account or post about this chained woman. there are popular police officer accounts from other counties and cities expressing public anger at the local police there, which is near unheard of, i have never heard of one branch of chinese police openly condemn another despite the ccp trying to block online talk about it. and now it has reached international attention. and i was right, i just read through your linked article, and after it blowing up, they have arrested the husband and two accomplices of his. they are panicking. they'll either wait until things quiet down and release the husband and his trafficked wife without charges, or they'll be pressured by the ccp to charge and imprison the man as a 'show of how the government deals with crime, there is justice'. it seems that the broader province that the county is in has announced that they're sending their own police to deal with it, so i think it'll be the latter. but i don't think we'll ever get the full truth, just whatever makes china look the best. because essentially, this story going public has embarrassed them.
11 notes · View notes
enderspawn · 3 years
Note
It's alright if u don't wanna answer this cuz this argument gets people really riled up but do you think c!Techno is a tyrant or nah?
Cuz many c!techno apologists argue that he isn't just cuz he's an anarchist but I've also read a lot of essays that go against it and it'd be really interesting to see ur opinion on this
i think he, in some contexts, can most definitely be called tyrannical, yes. a tyrant? no.
to avoid spamming ppl w discourse we've all def heard before (and bc this ended up MASSIVE (like 2.3k ish), but fairly in depth bc i didnt wanna speak out of bad faith and wanted to be EXPLICTLY clear-- oops), the rest will be under readmore
so heres the thing i want to preface: i used to really LOVE c!techno. i joined beginning of s2, right when exile started, and he was arguably my favorite character. since then though i've fallen out with him a LOT, to the point i almost... actively despite him at times (though mainly in a toxic kind of way which i can acknowledge is flawed).
in short, his actions started to speak louder than his words and i lost investment in his personal character struggles because of the actions he took (doomsday was my breaking point. i get feeling angry and betrayed, as well as seeking revenge against lmanberg, but his actions went too far for me to CARE and it hurt so many more characters as well.)
so when i speak, i come from a place of disliking him but also somewhat understanding the position c!techno apologists come from: i used to be one of them myself.
NOW, do i think he's a tyrant? no. for reference in my analysis, i try to look up the definition of terms to make sure they are utilized properly. while "tyranny" and "tyrannical" can have multiple uses, tyrant itself is a more specific term. to combine the top two definitions, a tyrant is referring to "an extremely oppressive, unjust, or cruel absolute ruler (who governs without restrictions, especially one who seized power illegally.)"
techno's position as an anarchist, imo, DOES indeed make him unable to be a tyrant. tyrants are rulers with very clear power over others from a structural way. anarchists are about the lack of structure or power over others and instead viewing the people around you as equals in power.
in forming the syndicate, they very explicitly worked to not designate a leader and instead make it so that no one would have any power over the others systemically. techno may have taken a integral role, yes, but it doesn't make him suddenly "the leader", its a role that wouldve had to be filled by someone (even if it was democratic to decide who to invite, they'd need someone to hand over the invite itself yknow? like no matter WHAT there needed to be A ROLE)
one could argue that he IS a leader in the shadow hierarchy of the syndicate (which, yes, is a real and professional term used in management courses despite sounding like it comes from a 4kids yugioh dub) in that everyone CONSIDERS and looks to him a leader without him having any actual structural basis behind it, but to argue that allows him to be a tyrant is in bad faith i believe. especially because to the people he would be "ruling", he ISNT oppressive, unjust, or cruel. they are his friends and support network and critical for a lot of his personal development (since feelings of betrayal and trust issues are critical to his character and why he acts the way he does). I wish we were able to SEE this develop more, but oh well.
but like i said: tyrant is fairly specific in definition. TYRANNY, and thus TYRANNICAL are not as limited. I've discussed their definitions here. originally, i made that post because i was angry at a take i had seen that claimed that, like you said, because techno was an anarchist and not part of any government or leadership position, he couldn't be tyrannical. to which i heartily disagree.
for something to be tyrannical, they simply must have an overarching/oppressive power over someone or something. it would not be inaccurate if i were to say that something is "under the tyranny" of a concept, because what it means is that something is under the power of another thing/concept. you can frankly call anything tyranny if it is widespread/overarching and you don't like it. mask mandates? tyranny, its forcing me to act in "rigorous condition". hell, theres even such things as tyranny of the majority in which people agree too much on one thing and it gives them unfair power or tyranny of the minority where people with minority opinions have too much power (thats a very grossly oversimplified definition of both, but it covers the base idea well enough for my point)
the point im making above isnt meant to be taken as "anything can be worked to be defined as tyranny thus it is a meaningless claim", it is that tyranny (and again, thus tyrannical) are very open and nonrestrictive terms.
to make it easier to define, alongside the definitions provided i want to add an explicit clause that is (imo) implied in the original definition: tyranny is... well, bad. that is to say if someone has power over a group but literally everyone is fine with it and agrees to it, its not tyranny. thats just a group of people getting along and one happens to have power over another. a leader does NOT equal a tyrant (as discussed above), so leadership should not be equated with tyranny.
thus as an example: wilbur acting as president (before the election) may have been "unelected" with power over his citizens, but no one was upset with that power. thus, he is not a tyrant and not acting tyrannically (as well as the fact his power was, arguably, NOT rigourous or absolute but thats another topic for another time). SCHLATT however IS a tyrant, as his power was absolute (he did not consult his cabinet) and forced people to comply instead of them complying willingly, thus he was acting tyrannically.
now to finally get to the damn point of this essay: where does c!techno lie? honest answer? it depends slightly on your perspective, but it depends a LOT on the future of the syndicate.
techno is incredibly clear in his goals: no governments, no corruption. in fighting with pogtopia, he is actively working to topple a tyranny-- he isn't tyrannical for doing that.
when he strikes out on nov 16th, it is because he opposes them forming a new government. when they oppose him and disagree, he launches an attack against them. is this tyranny? maybe, but probably not. he IS trying to impose his own physical strength and power (as well as his resources) over the others to stop them from doing what HE doesn't want them to do.
however its more nuanced than that:
1. hes lashing out emotionally as well as politically. he feels betrayed by those he trusted and he believed that they would destroy the government then go (i'm ignoring any debates on if he did or did not know that they planned another government, though it is a source of debate). but typically idk about you but i dont call tyranny for someone fighting with another person.
2. he also may be acting with good intent again, in HIS EYES. if tubbo was part of manburg, whos to say he wont be just as bad? he, in his pov, is likely trying to stop another tyrant before they rise.
3. and finally, and tbh the most damning from any perspective: he gives up. he quickly leaves then RETIRES without intent to try and attack again until he is later provoked. tyranny is defined by it not just being power, but power being USED. if he doesn't use his power to try and impose any will, then he's not tyrannical.
Doomsday I am also not going to touch very in depth on for much of the same reasons. My answer is again a "maybe", depending on the weight you personally place on each issue:
1. he's lashing out as revenge for the butcher army and as revenge against tommy for "betraying" him (though this one we explicitly know he was ignoring the fact tommy did not want to go through with it, however he still did trust and respect tommy regardless so his feelings are understandable anyway)
2. he sees new lmanberg as corrupt and tyrannical (which is undeniable: house arrest for noncompliance, exile without counsel, execution without trial, etc), and thus obligated to destroy it
but also, theres the implicit understanding he's doing this to send a message: do not form a government, or else. its a display of force that also works to warn others unless they want a similar fate. phil even explicitly states that he is doing so to send that message, so one could assume techno is doing the same alongside his personal reasoning listed above.
what i just described is the use of a oppressive and harsh (physical) power in order to gain compliance from people (that compliance being 'not making a government'). does that sound familiar? exactly. it follows the definition(s) of tyranny given previously. technoblade is acting in a way that is, by very definition, tyrannical.
so the debate shifts: is he valid in doing so because he is trying to PREVENT corruption and tyranny. like i said, new lmanberg was undeniably corrupt at points. i held nothing against techno for trying to topple manburg, so does that apply to new lmanberg as well? short answer: i dont know. it depends on your specific opinion of what is acceptable. its like the paradox of tolerance: to have a truly tolerant society, you have to be intolerant of intolerance. to have a truly non-tyrannical society, do you need to have a tyranny enforcing it?
personally (and bc im a lmanberg loyalist /hj) i say it is. regardless of the corruption of new lmanberg, they are also giving a threat to EVERYONE. even those who are innocent, they are presented with the exact same threat and rule set: if you make a government, you will be destroyed.
(which, small divergence here, is part of why debating c!techno is so frustrating. so many times you end up hitting a "well it depends on your political views" situation and there ISNT a correct answer there. im here to analyze characters for fun, not debate political theory)
so: the syndicate then. this is where this debate really "took off" and i think its due to one very specific miscommunication about its goals and plans. the syndicate, upon formation, declares itself to stand against corruption and tyranny. when they are found, the syndicate would work to destroy it. so heres the golden question: what do THEY define as corruption and tyranny? if you were to go off c!techno's previous statements, seemingly "any government" is a valid answer. however, he also states he's fine with people just being in groups together hanging together.
what then DEFINES A GOVERNMENT for them? what lines do they have to sort out what does "deserve to be destroyed" and what does "deserve to exist freely"
this is a hypothetical i like to post when it comes to syndicate discourse:
i have a group of people. lets say 5 or so for example. they all live together and build together. any decisions made that would impact the entire group they make together and they must have a unanimous agreement in order to proceed, but otherwise they are free to be their own people and do their own thing. when you ask them, they tell you they are their own nation and they have a very clearly defined government: they are a direct democracy. does the syndicate have an obligation to attack?
there is absolutely no hierarchy present. there is no corruption present. but, they ARE indeed a government. is that then inherently negative? my answer is fuck no (see the whole "difference between a tyrant and a leader" thing above).
but THATS where the issue of this discourse LIES. in some people's eyes, the answer to that is YES. techno's made it clear "no government" is his personal view, but does that spread to the syndicate as a whole? do they act preemptively in case it DOES become corrupt? is it inherently corrupt because its a government, regardless of how it is ruled? the fact of the matter is because of how little we've seen the syndicate work as a SYNDICATE, we don't know that answer. so we're left to debate and speculate HOW they would act.
if the syndicate were to let that government exist, then they are not tyrannical. they are showing that they are working to stop tyranny and corruption, just like in pogtopia again.
if the syndicate were to destroy/attack that government, then they are tyrannical. simple as that. they are enforcing a rule of their own creation without any nuance or flexibility under the threat of absolute destruction.
miscommunication in debates comes, in my opinion, in the above. of course theres more points of nuance. for example:
would the syndicate allow a government like i had described with early lmanberg, where there is an established hierarchy but everyone in the country consents to said leadership? on one hand, there is no tyranny or corruption present which is what they are trying to work against. on the other hand, theres more a possibility of it occuring. perhaps they'd find a middle road between the two binary options of "leave or destroy" i am presenting, such as checking in occasionally to ensure no corruption occurs.
but if they were to destroy it without, for lack of a better word, "giving it a chance" they would be, in my opinion, tyrannical. they would be going aginst their words of opposing corruption and instead abusing their power to gain compliance.
your/others opinions may differ, again it depends on if you see it as worth it to possibly stop future tyranny or if a hierarchy is INHERENTLY a negative thing.
part of the reason so many blog gave up this debate, beyond not getting very clear answers for the syndicate, is because of the nuance present. there. is. no. right. answer. every single person will view it differently, because there is no universally agreed upon truth of right or wrong here. BUT, i hope this helps shed some light on the discussion and my thoughts on it
32 notes · View notes
roguestarsailor · 3 years
Text
You know what since we’re still in quarantine and i have nothing else better to do, i need to obsess over ACOTAR. I don't like a court of frost and starlight. For the longest time I couldn't figure out why I didn't like it. I aggressively read the book in maybe a day and I closed it feeling frustrated and annoyed. My version had A Court of Silver Flames preview so that definitely contributed to my annoyance greatly.
It's because it felt too perfect. Everything that had happened -- after the entire war was fought and won, they just go back to their normal lives? Yes there were hiccups and yes there were still aspects that made every IC character feel like their problems aren’t solved yet...but it didnt feel right. yes i enjoyed the snowball fight between the bat boys, feyre + rhys sexy time, and those little comfort moments too, the slice of life type things and seeing feyre accomplishing her goals and how hopeful the future seems BUT its too fast. the good parts of the book did not offset the bad parts of it.
Feyre literally accomplished pretty much every single goal she made back in ACOMAF just like that?? within a span of what a few months? a year?? She really came back from an entire war -- probably the first war of many since she's immortal and just like that, after her 21st birthday: she gets a whole entire estate, wants to start poppin babies, opens her art studio and starts teaching kids and then acting like she can rule an entire court?? the timeline is sooo short esp since its been brought up over and over again how everyone is literally 500 years old and have a super “messy” history and their changes seems to come super dupe slowly. but feyre, who has only lived 0.000000002% of her fae life, is out here thriving just fine???
the war devastated thousands of illyrian soldiers where its changing the politics of the illyrains and the faes, all of whom feyre has responsibilities over too as high lady. the mortal queens are still at large who left the humans on prythian to die which is why feyre was willing to go to war in the first place! what about the rest of hybern and their land and residents?? they wanted to enslave humans for social and economical reasons! then what about integrating humans w deep hatred and fear with deeply prejudice fae??? there’s also spring and summer court who are literally in ruins. thats literally so much. so idk how feyre is just chillin???? she gonna let rhys do all the hard work???
like feyre sit down. u should not be having a baby. esp since it took u literally a 700 pages to heal from those 3 months UTM. ur telling me shes gonna whole heartedly bring in a newborn in a war devastated world, with civil unrest (illyrains, other courts), with the messiness of human and fae integration, with trauma u and rhys will have to continue to overcome esp after THIS war??? even helping ur sisters w their traumas??
Tumblr media
this is a personal opinion on this subject (and maybe my thoughts will change on this later on; opened to other thoughts) but when i read the part about how that weaver/seamstress artist who made that dark quilt that feyre loved talked about how her mate of 300 years didn’t come back from the war and her biggest regret was that she didnt have a kid to remember him by i just thought ur kid isn’t some sort of memorabilia. don’t have a kid to keep the memory of ur mate alive; have a kid cuz u want a kid purely for the sake of having a kid. ur memories and photos and shit will keep their memory alive but its not having a kid. some primitive need to keep the genes alive maybe?? but the way it was phrased and then in turn how feyre was like oh i need  a baby pronto cuz rhys might die in the next war and regret not having a kid with him didn’t sit right with me. also the other couple were together for +300 years and have a rich life together, while shes been with rhys for literally two years THATS NOTHING IN FAE YEARS. thats still the honeymoon phase and also ur problems arent even close to being over!!!
everyone was shitty to nesta. in ACOMAF, we saw how much the IC went through and still did all they could to help feyre. what made them not think nesta deserve the same welcome? nesta is mean as a defense but did no one try to figure out what would help (amren got close but shes so under developed)??? feyre knows nesta feels too much and yet she continued to be shitty. continued to flaunt her wealth, her status, her familiarity/borderline know-it-all attitude about fae/night court, her ~estate~. forcing nest to the solstice party when nesta was literally like i dont belong, im looking at everyone through a window type of thing; the fire cracking triggering her, etc. what kind of power play was that when she made nesta come to her estate, where nesta could SEE how ~homey~ and how suscessful feyre is and fully see all the lovely paintings of everyone feyre loves that explicitly exclude her to tell her to fuck off to a war camp?? bro???? cas was a dick too and elaine was rude. i think a lot of his actions were meant to make her angry since anger keeps u fighting (as was the method of rhys for feyre in ACOMAF) but what he said was stupidly shitty and i demand that he apologize properly. elaine could have done more to help her sister but whatever. mor was definitely an ass too (and im upset for how little her character growth is). 
Tumblr media
Lucein. that man can’t catch a break tbh. im happy that hes w the band of exiles cuz he is whole heartedly accepted there. feyre was definitely an asshole to him even tho he helped as much as he could throughout the books. he tries so hard w elaine as well and it did hit my heart a bit when she was like gloves to work in my garden?? no ?? i use my bare hands see oNly aZiReL sEeS mE fOr WhO i Am. and at the same feyre is like flaunting her mate status to lucein which is mean as shit. its like this man can’t find love in prythain. then tamlin sending him his box of his things??? thats for sure brutral. tam was literally his partner through it all; savior of sorts even. no love from IC, no love from elaine, no love from feyre, no love from tamlin, no love from autumn court rejected everywhere! also HIS TRUE FATHER?? HEllo??? 
then on tamlin. i pity the guy! was i suppose to feel that way??? it felt like he is allowed to get a redemption arc and maybe i’ll even root for a redemption arc??? i was absolutely excited for freysand in ACOMAF but after ACOFAS, im like tamlin is....not completely bad??? his relationship w feyre was bad and the controlling parts were very much a no-no. i dont truly understand the dynamics of an abusive relationship but i can understand that it can be insidious and its the little things that hurt the victim. and i felt  feyre through ACOMAF and rooted for her to escape her abuser! but then it felt like i dont think he was doing any of those things out of malice. ill say tamlin is a bad leader and doesn’t know how to run a court outside of what he sees his father do. his understanding on everything is based on the traditions of the past which i think fueled most of the things he did i.e. not telling feyre she was in danger since maybe his mom didn’t do those war planning things. ACOTAR showed how he truly cared/loved and took good care of feyre and her family. he even talked about how he didn’t believe in the enslavement of humans! i think that tam wanted to preserve what he thought was the good (aka feyre + her love of painting) and get back a sense of control that he and his entire court lost while chained to amarantha. but at the same time, i think he truly thought feyre wasn’t safe. he knows rhys can crush minds and knows feyre can’t read/write so when he got that letter telling him shes safe of course hes gonna flip shit and made a deal w the devil (although those temper outbursts were DEFINITIVELY not ok!!!). he also didn’t listen and has sense of he knows best when feyre was not the type of person. but feyre destroyed his entire court. he lost all his sentries who literally went out to die for him during amarantha’s reign. he lost lucien too; his trusted right hand man. his people were cursed for 50 years and then continued to suffer UTM and was in the process of rebuilding too!  but just seeing spring court, WHO BORDERS THE HUMANS, be in ruins where his subjects left him, his people left him and hes all alone in the manson?? that was sooo sad. so im like why does what feyre did not feel satisfactory????? im mad that it didn’t feel right??? maybe there wasn’t a point where feyre talked to tamlin -- like really talked to him esp w her new found voice and power, etc. anyways, i dont hate tamlin and was like oh shit i think feyre fucked up a bit there.
rhys is a dick to nesta. which made me think, if feyre wasn’t his mate would he extend the same love and care to her???  i loved how he tried so hard to make sure feyre was ok. made sure she wasn’t breaking! all of it! but for nesta, he had the audacity to use his high lord voice and be an ass overall. even tho he can see how cas is fucken in love??? even just how he talks to cass feels off too. 
i’ll even go as far as to say because of how terrible ACOFAS was, it created this intense divide within the fandom. i remember reading the first three books and was absolutely 1) rooting for freysand  2) curious about the sister relationship and how it will be mended 3) i definitely didn’t hate nesta nor did i hate elaine either -- but i was adament about them talking it out with feyre for those tough times 4) saw a more realistic and charming healing arc 5) was rooting for feyre to be a stronger voice and grow into herself 6) love the dynamic of the inner circle + feyre
but after ACOFAS, I have this intense need to defend nesta and was super mad at how she was treated after the war and in turn a deep dislike for elaine for both her lack of agency, lack of grit that made all the other characters interesting, and lack of care for her sisters (who showed how much they would risk for her). i dont hate rhys but i was extremely not happy with him and his attitude and behavior. feyre became more arrogant and was acting like how asshole rhysand would act. like her life is perfect now and i was not rooting for her anymore. freysand didn’t feel like they have complimenting qualities that made them interesting in the first place but rather they are merging to become the same person but in a bad way. that mind reading thing was cute in the beginning but it became insufferable since all thoughts were shared so seamlessly it made reading feel weird. 
anyways those are my thoughts on ACOFAS. it was a 1/5 stars for me and im mad those events transpired. reading the other books made me excited to know what was gonna happen and i was truly ready to accept the characters as flawed and nuanced as they are. im not mad about character not liking each other but i am mad that everything felt off. ACOFAS just felt regressive in some parts and forced in other parts. i know not everything ends in a nice tied up bow but this book single handily ruined what i thought about these characters in the worse way possible. this book wasn’t suppose to wrap up all the problems that exists in the other books but it didn’t feel hopeful like i thought it would. it didn’t feel wrapped up and didn’t feel like i should be excited about the next books. theres so many missing pieces i feel that i think need explaining and at the same time, i think it introduced too many problems at once which made it feel like its jumping around everywhere. although im still excited for ACOSF because i love nesta, and nesta deserves so much better and i want to have hope that this bad ending will either make sense later on or it was just a blimp.
Tumblr media
109 notes · View notes
hyena-frog · 3 years
Note
I personally don't understand people who think that Virginia 'can't win on her own'. As if she has to prove herself or she is 'too nice' and has to learn 'how to violence'. Just because Sevro's solution for everything is cutting some fingers or worse, doesn't mean he is always right or that Mustang's work to keep that balance and play within the designated lines is not badass or interesting. She is the only demokratic ruler and her own people gave her absolute power of decision making to end the war at any cost. What's not great about that!?
If Virginia was indeed 'too nice', she would have perished long ago - last absolute cinnamon roll we saw was Julian and we all know what Society thinks about people like him. Just because she plays by the rules, doesn't mean she has no claws - she wiped a terrorist's memories away for fuck's sake. Now that the rules have been extended, you can bet your ass that she'll take more than one page out of Nero's playbook. After all, she said it herself, she tamed herself, but it's fun to let the lion out.
Agreed 110%! I don't understand people who give Virginia shit in general tbh. I mean, how do you not fall in love with her immediately? How are you not ride or die for her from the get-go? It boggles the mind.
Those arguments, being "too nice" or being unable to win on her own, are reaching and easily debunkable. The lack of reading comprehension. 😒 If you don't like her, then whatever. I may not understand how that’s possible, but it really isn’t necessary to make shit up, you know?
Virginia can't win on her own, huh. The nerve! Where would Darrow be without her? Dead. Many times over. He would have bled out after Cassius stabbed him if Virginia hadn't helped him. And it was Virginia who brought the Howlers back from the Rim weeks in advance of Darrow actually needing them, just in case. So many things would have gone wrong in Morning Star if she wasn't at Darrow's side (and if Ragnar hadn't gone out of his way to make sure she'd be there, the absolute legend).
Perhaps it's Darrow who can't win on his own? But that sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? All of his successes were achieved through teamwork. Darrow acknowledges this many times. It's the same for Virginia. While it's simply not true that she can't win on her own, it’s also untrue that the inability to win on your own is a bad thing. The whole argument doesn’t make any sense.
The idea Virginia still needs to “prove” herself despite doing so plenty of times already throughout the series is frustrating. The fact of the matter is, the success of the Rising relies just as heavily on Virginia's intelligence as it does Darrow's battle skills. The Solar Republic simply wouldn't exist without her. Fitchner never had a clear vision of what "after the Society" would look like and neither did Darrow for a long time. The war effort needs a conscience and a vision for the future, otherwise it's just endless bloodshed. Virginia helps Darrow see beyond the bloodshed. Plus, Darrow has no interest in politics. He'd be the first to admit he’s not good at the slow game of political maneuvering. But Virginia thrives in that environment. In Dark Age, Darrow even admits his current predicament is a consequence of not trusting his wife's way of running the Republic, and he vows never to do that again.
Sure, Virginia doesn't get into physical fights often, especially now that she is Sovereign. But politics is no less perilous a battlefield. I feel like because the political battlefield isn't as flashy and fast paced as a literal one, people forget the constant danger she is in, even before the Senate's betrayal. Silenius' Stiletto is a delicate tightrope act she has to perform every day to drag progress forward while keeping her opponents in check. This requires a level of self-restraint, clear-headedness, and badassery, that no other character can achieve.
Virginia is not "too nice." She is practical. And often, is it practical to play nice. Not every confrontation is best solved through violence Sevro. We all know the line: Virginia is the mustang that nuzzles the hand; people know they can work with her. That’s why the people chose her consistently for ten years, over literally everyone else in the solar system, to run this new government. And her steadfast resolve to gain Imperium legally, to not force her will on the people, proved to them again that she won’t abuse this ultimate power to end the war.
No, Virginia may be reasonable but that doesn't mean she is too nice. If she was too nice, she wouldn't have used her relationship with Cassius to protect her family. She wouldn't have shot Cassius in the throat with an arrow. She wouldn't have promised Ephraim he would "die shitting in a foreign bed" if he skipped about on their bargain to return the kids. She wouldn't have zapped the Duke of Hands' entire personality from his head. Like you said, she never would have made it this far if she was truly toothless. She's practical, and sometimes the practical solution doesn't require violence, but creative thinking.
Speaking of creative thinking, one thing Virginia doesn’t get nearly enough credit for is abolishing the death penalty immediately after Adrius was hanged. That wasn't her being "too nice" or too lenient on her caste. Yes, she feels life in prison is the moral option over the death penalty. But she knows her people. The punishment for the worst criminals in Deepgrave is a Gold's worst nightmare. Life in prison denies a Gold their desire for a glorious death, to be remembered through the ages for their deeds in battle. The Republic's justice system sends a clear message: "Mess with us, and you won't get your notoriety or fame, you'll only get obscurity and shame and sucking algae through a tube until you die naturally of old age." That to me is crueler than hanging.
Virginia’s mind is her greatest weapon, but more than that, her greatest strength is how she applies her intelligence. Her ability to read people, and to communicate, is greatly underappreciated imo. These skills require nonviolent interaction yet they yield great results. There are many examples of this. She used her natural charisma to gain Octavia's trust. She brokered an alliance with the Rim when she thought Darrow was dead. She held the Republic together for ten years despite constant, increasing animosity from the Vox. She refused to torture Lyria and was able to see she was not lying about being an unwitting pawn in the kidnapping scheme and was rewarded with information and a new ally. She figured out exactly what Sefi was planning for Cimmeria, even manipulating the situation to her advantage without Sefi realizing it. She knew Victra was going to bargain with Sefi for the kids, without being told. In her own words, this is simply what she does.
There is a quote in Iron Gold that caught my eye: "Communication is the soul of civilization." (532) Now, this line has nothing directly to do with Virginia. This is Ephraim trying to get a rise out of Gorgo. But it fits Virginia perfectly, doesn’t it? The Republic is able to exist as a civilization because it has such an amazing communicator at its center.
Virginia is such an excellent communicator that she is even able to get parties who refuse to communicate with her initially to reciprocate communication eventually. She convinces Sevro, Dancer, and even Victra to stop freezing her out and work together. She does this by speaking their "language." She knows exactly what to say or what to do to get them to finally listen to her. Revealing she already knows exactly what is going on works for Sevro, providing hard evidence of conspiracy works for Dancer, and proving her actions (showing her scars) works for Victra. This isn't to say she never makes mistakes. She shouldn't have called the Wardens on Darrow, for example, just as Darrow shouldn't have kept the meeting with the Society "diplomats" a secret from her and the Senate. But more often than not, her nonviolent communication skills yield valuable results.
As for Virginia apparently needing to learn how to use violence… While Victra and Sevro’s feelings were justified, their actions at the end of Iron Gold and the beginning of Dark Age were just wrong, wrong, wrong imo. Freezing out Virginia did nothing but delay the return of the kids. It's frustrating to think how much heartbreak could have been avoided if they'd just put their heads together from the moment the kids disappeared. And what exactly did Sevro's rampage through Luna's underground accomplish? Some dead Syndicate thorns, sure. But that tantrum put a huge target on Sevro's back. As Virginia said, one lucky sniper and boom, no more Sevro. What would Victra have done then?
While it may feel like Virginia would have achieved more if she just beheaded some people, she has a responsibility as Sovereign to consider the bigger picture. She has to consider the Stiletto. If the Vox saw her offing some fools it would have added credibility to their smear campaign. The people would have lost faith in her and think she turned into another Octavia. Whoever replaced her could use her actions to justify their own dictatorship. Violence was simply not practical for her until she legally gained Imperium. Now though… 😈
Virginia's over here playing 3D chess while everyone else is playing Connect Four, but this still isn’t enough for some people. After the clone gets the better of her, she gets flack for not being an omniscient god and just knowing her twin brother laid out a plan to clone himself ten years ago. Tut, tut, should have seen that one coming, despite the lack of evidence. If only she’d punched some people. (Can you see I hate this argument with every fiber of my being?)
In Dark Age, Ozgard says this about Electra and Pax: "She is better fighter. He is more dangerous human." (184) Well, Pax gets it from his momma. Pax and Virginia may not be able to throw devastating punches but in many ways, their intellect is what makes them the greater threat to their enemies.
Thank you for the ask!
43 notes · View notes
sicklove-stuff · 3 years
Text
𝕸𝖞 𝕸𝖞 𝕸𝖎𝖘𝖘𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖙𝖚𝖓𝖊 - FIC.
Tumblr media
Notice to all, this fanfic has content considered uncomfortable, sensitive and politically incorrect. If you don't like it, leave soon. - The fanfic shows content of masochism, sadism, rebellion, aggression ... It is worth mentioning that nothing here reflects on the wrestlers, it is just a drama involving their characters in the ring.
Made by Omoshi’ 
★ Undertaker “Ministry of Darkness” era | +18 | Y/N “your name”, will be “Sara”. 
Tumblr media
My best friend, Stephanie, when we were at the mall for the past few days ... She told me about a lunatic who claimed to be the minister of darkness with some companions, he wanted to marry her at any cost, however, I already knew that she was getting involved with another guy. This seems to be more disturbing than it looks, but whenever she describes it while we are choosing shoes in stores and among expensive clothes racks, it makes me crazy and my mouth water. - However, I can never express this to Stephanie, because she never seems to be happy to tell about it. I'm starting to sound a little bit possessive about this story that keeps me going, but poor Stephanie, she's having a misfortune.
I started thinking about it while I wait outside the company where her crazy father works, this backstage has never been so full of people that she thinks she can achieve something with me, despite the golden and virgin hair that I take care of very well, this is not an invitation. I snort by the mouth and start shaking my legs while I wait for her, she told me she had a party today ... It would only take a measly minute to say hello to her boyfriend, even though I repeatedly warned her that her boyfriend already had a girlfriend, she just giggles out of my face and pushes me in tones of fun ... saying it was better to live like this, in danger. What a stupid girl! - As time goes by I feel cheated, it's been twenty minutes since this has been happening. I bite my lips while anxiety overwhelms me, we're twenty minutes late from the party ... Just today that Stephanie hadn't robbed me of one of the few boys who had looked at me. It's her habit, stealing boyfriends ... Like she said, she feels dangerous.
Suddenly, everything was so ... empty? While I was lost in my thoughts, I did not notice the hours passing and the people passing too, it seemed that finally she would appear, or had she forgotten me there? Damn it. -When she lifted me from where she sat, a huge black box, to leave. I realize that everything is already closed, and everything starts to get scarier. Scarier, scarier ... Scarier. This is repeated more and more, more and more ... My head doesn't look very well. - Did something pull me?
When I look to the side, I notice that my whole skin is sweating, another hand wraps around my wrist, I look at my forearm, arm, covered in tattoos ... Demon tattoos, flames, just like Stephanie had said, that's ... It's realy true? When I go up to see who the face is ... The ordinary person's voluntary action is to faint with fear, or shout for help, but, I feel that I'm not that common, because that was the all dangerous guy that Stephanie was scared to death? He looked hotter than the ones she dated. - I could be stupid, I know, but my voluntary action was to smile a little, malicious smile. And again my mouth was full of water, but I stayed exactly in place, there was still "ice" inside me.
"Ah, I'm sorry, I'm Sara and ... I'm sorry if I was invading your area. BUT LET ME GO!" - Said while trying to let go, I liked guys like that but, it didn't seem to be very friendly, could it be that I've been thinking nonsense all this time and in the end, Steph was right?
He then pinned me to the wall. He was against his body, his arms were driving me crazy, and his psychotic look and his silence too, I soon tried to get quiet, that's when he brought his face closer to mine, bringing his mouth closer to my ear, God I never I had felt that sensation before. That's when I let out a heavy breath that he was pressing me against the wall. He then decided to break his silence.
"You are allied with that bitch." -He said, I was not surprised his voice was heavy with melancholy and rejection. As if everything in his life had gone ... Wrong? - "Do you want to end up like her? I always watch, she likes you, and my goal is to destroy all those she loves." -I managed to notice that he was laughing quietly and discreetly, just as if he was making fun of me. - "Sara ... Despite everything, beautiful name."
I didn't know if it made me feel hot, sexually and lovingly uncomfortable, or if it scared me, very scared. The misfortune that Stephanie always told me was, at that moment, my misfortune. Mine, my misfortune. I obviously tried to be reluctant to mind my own business, I forced my hand to keep him away from me, no one came around. It seemed to be not just a joke and a joke, the darkness was with this man.
"She does not love me!" - I pushed hard in an act of control over myself, successfully, I was away from him for a few centimeters, withdrawing my arms, unintentionally I ended up touching on a subject that I never wanted to get to ... "She betrays my confidence all the time, and I can only say that it's okay, when in fact it isn't! " - I couldn't believe what I ended up doing, I was confessing all my disappointment about my supposed best friend to a guy who supposedly wanted to kill and her family.But a long time ago, I didn't care about that, I did everything she wanted, so I could not live alone, while she lived surrounded by attention, people, appearing on television every Monday ... Surrounded by fans by simply to be rich, when in fact she was unbearable and stupid ... 
I know he wanted to cut me in half that hour, but, I think his plans had not worked out, he seemed very weakened. His hands weighed on my shoulders behind his back, he could do whatever he wants with me at that moment, since everything I carried over time I realized more of what was happening in my life, a lot of unhappiness and lies, I was always smiling and leaving, so as not to feel alone, when in fact I was more heartbroken than ever, Stephanie didn’t deserve to be with that boyfriend she was stealing from another woman who also loved him, as she told me, she deserved to pay for everything she complained.
"If you want to kill me, go ahead, my self-esteem is already in the trash. I don't have much to do anymore, because my biggest purpose in life has always been to be her shadow, SHE EVEN STEALS THE GUYS I WANT!" - Okay, I had already passed the point, but I hoped that he would soon get tired of me and leave, or just break my neck soon. That’s kind of suicidal.
Contrary to what I expected, he knew how to overcome my existential crisis at that time, I could feel his hands walking around my body, this was extremely strange, it was like he wanted to take advantage of me, but if I was there , I would not fight against the current, I did not know this guy, nor did I know his name, but his dark and evil aura made me crazy to the point of wanting everything he could offer me; so he knew how to select the phrases I said ...
"Do you steal the guys you try? Certainly because they are guys." - He said. A grip on the waistband of my skirt, and I just froze, and I then felt the fabric being slowly lowered ... And I then turned to face him in a feature of pure fear but micro-expressions said I wanted more than ever before.
"I ... I don't know your name ... What's your name?" - I asked while I realized that my skirt was already lowered to almost half of my thighs, I sweated coldly as I took a few steps back against a door. I was trapped.
"I have many names, many nicknames, but you can call me Taker. They currently have me as the Ministry of Darkness." - He came back to me and put his hand on the door handle that was supported, certainly if he opened it, I would fall back with all the strength I could, the moment I reasoned it, I already noticed it opening and my dancing feet losing their stability.I swallowed hard when I felt myself falling on the floor, an all dark room, some shelves, I couldn't identify what was there, I had fallen with my hips directly on the floor, painful as the impact hurt my whole spine in that tension, that tension and that horny I felt. I rolled my eyes when I heard the door being closed, nibbled on my lower lip ... I felt extremely strange, as if there was something burning inside me, the situation didn't help much anymore, my position with my legs spread and my skirt dropped even more , with my panties showing. When I least realized it, he would lower himself, and stay between my thighs ... I again gasped in suspense. I couldn't believe that what I was idealizing so much could actually happen. I can't sing victory before the moment.
"Oh, Sara ... Your drama is really ... Sad, but I'm not as sorry as I should be." - That sentence totally entered my being, while I already felt the fabric of the skirt go through the end of my legs, being accompanied by my panties that obviously could be a little wet. My cheeks went red as blood, from pure shame.I noticed him pulling something, it sounded like a blade, a ... A pocket knife ... And my immediate action was to grunt and stay static. The cold iron coming into contact with my skin, it made me shiver, but I was ... Liking, my side that I always hid, that of a crazy lover of good pain, if I said that to anyone it would be called a crazy bitch. And that was when I felt the blood flow, I closed my eyes tightly hoping for the worst, but, it had been a cut on the thigh, thin ... And then, he licked it.He licked my blood and my thigh, making other small cuts and licking them ...
 They were all very close to "that area", my intimacy, as if they were a path where it really made me shiver more than ever, my fingers stretched, a wave of enormous pleasure ruled me, I was practically out of my mind, I was no longer the Sara I knew. As he licked more, he got deeper, I could see that he had a huge tongue, he smelled, it made me extremely crazy; the fact that I was not seeing anything in the dark left me with "hands tied", he squeezed my thighs and I felt the blood drain more, but, he no longer licked the blood, he just licked my pubis and clitoris, I scratched the floor, the pure cold concrete trying to contain me more and more.That's when he said, after countless hickeys and licks ... 
"Don't hold back" - and laughed at me as he continued.Technically obeying his order, I moved the hands that were scratched on the floor to his hair, Taker ...
 Taker ... I repeated it in my head, Undertaker, Undertaker, of course ... I forced him against me, which made it more intense .. The first time I was having a moment like that, sensual, sexual ... What a misfortune Stephanie was missing all along. That room was already almost impregnated with my smell, I pulled her long hair, I could feel her beard ... until I couldn't help it, I splashed everything on her face. Once, twice, three times.I breathed as if I had run an entire marathon. That was when I decided to change the position and hold on to him, who had been kneeling, I held his waist and then let out the sentence: 
"You don't need Stephanie ... Forget her!"
He answered me...
"I already forgot.".
8 notes · View notes
anonymoustalks · 4 years
Conversation
The left has become absorbed by identity politics and is obsessed with race.. it scares me that they will create more racists than before they started
(6-17-20) You both like politics.
You: heyaa
Stranger: Hi
Stranger: How are you
You: anything you're interested in?
You: I am fine
Stranger: I'm interested in hearing opinions on things
You: oh, me too ^^
You: what kind of things?
Stranger: Politics is divisive, but in order to get a better understanding I wish to listen to both sides
You: awesome, I think that's great ^^
Stranger: :) thank you
You: do you have issues you care about most?
Stranger: The current fall of western society
You: fall of western society huh
You: can you elaborate more?
Stranger: Over the past few years we have seen western society devolve. Where once we were fairly united and we stood strong, we have become more divided and with the introduction of identity politics, that has just worsened till we have gotten to where we are now. China is currently pushing her borders, and yet with the US in flames and the uk following suit (along with France for that matter), noone challenges it
You: mhm *nodsnods*
Stranger: To speak out against the lunacy is to be called a racist and a bigot, not that that's anything new of course but those who are calling for these things seem to not really understand the importance and significance of their actions. I see this as akin to the 1920s Weimar Republic. They are pushing for things they don't want
You: you type a lot haha
Stranger: Sorry i am choosing my words carefully
You: mhm it's fine
You: so you think strong foreign policy is very important?
Stranger: I do. I am from South Africa, though I live in the uk. For those who live outside the us and Europe, we see the importance of Baro and the us on a geopolitical scale. China owns the east of Africa, if not central as well. The us has been the top dog preventing them and Russia from doing much for years, though that's going to change in the coming years
Stranger: NATO not baro* bloody autocorrect
You: oh okay I was wondering what that was haha
Stranger: If I may ask, where are you from?
You: the us actually
Stranger: I thought you might be given the time :) it's half 1 am here
You: yeah it's late!
You: so in your view, western countries need to have more of a spine?
You: is that basically what you're saying?
Stranger: Always. But history has a cycle.
Stranger: Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times
You: very fair
You: speaking of cycles, I think something that is floating around these days
You: is whether it's sort of like the beginning of the end of american hegemony
You: sort of like UK's empire gradually had its sunset
Stranger: This is what I am concerned with. All empires have their time in the sun, and all shall fade. I had hoped I would be dead before it happened. I made a prediction several years ago that should trump win in 2020 again, there will be civil war. I am unsure on my prediction of civil war, but I can see that he will win. Should there not be war, I give it another 2 presidencies before yourselves will fall, and ww3 breaks out
You: hmm the us is steamy right now, but idk about civil war
Stranger: It's been brewing for a while now by my estimation
You: that said I would not be surprised about China continuing to be more aggressive
You: that stuff with India yesterday?
You: ^^
Stranger: Without strong willed opposition, they will always push more overtly. They have done so in the shadows for years now
Stranger: And that's just one example
Stranger: They have intruded on Thailand air space as well
You: I don't think either democrats or republicans are very foreign-policy aggressive right now though
You: idk if your concern will be that much better with biden
You: clinton was a little hawkish but she lost 2016
Stranger: It would be much worse with Biden, or anyone from the left EXCEPT Tulsi Gabbard
You: oh you sounded like you didn't want trump to win lol
Stranger: I don't like him. But honestly, he's the best option out of what has been shown. Bernie is a socialist, Hillary is a warmonger, Biden will probably be a puppet. Who can stand? Hillary could be strong, but you would go to war. For all his faults, Trump has avoided war and conflict. He brought North Korea to the discussion table.
You: okay ^^
Stranger: I may not like him but he is effective, and has been a boon to you economy though as someone who works in finance, the next crash is due soon
You: fair enough although I think a lot of places are hurt by the coronavirus economy anyways
Stranger: Yeah.. the lockdowns are odd.. why quarantine those who are healthy? We have always quarantined those who were I'll first, and then those who go out and riot get a free pass? It's a bit confusing, and is a little bit of double think. Rules don't apply to you if you have the correct opinions it would seem
You: idk the US never really had forced quarantines
You: everything here was just you were supposed to do it
Stranger: The uk did, apologies
Stranger: Well not heavily enforced near me
You: we had college students going to beaches even though the quarantine was happening
You: because young ppl think they are invincible
You: and dumb ^^
Stranger: Hahaha yeah you aren't wrong in that
Stranger: But I have waffled on, may I hear your opinions on what we have discussed?
You: mhm, I disagree but it's cool yo~
Stranger: No that's great, it shows that we can discuss and hopefully come to compromise
Stranger: Thank you for being chill and relaxed
You: mhm I'm basically a hippie though so I don't usually take strong stances on international intervention
Stranger: That's fair and understandable. I used to agree with that as well for many years
You: I kind of think it's a little bit of a selfish position to take (the peace one)
You: in the sense that I don't want to deal with other people's problems
You: so in a sense it's kinda selfish
Stranger: It is and it isn't :)
Stranger: It's a moral good and a difficult thing. Peace only exists as reprieve from war. Humanity is a war like species, and peace only ever exists between them. And I applaud your pacifism
You: idk I'm not sure if it's always something to applaud
You: I think in a sense it's a kind of inaction
Stranger: A good thought experiment for you then, look at ww2
You: yup
You: I'm familiar with isolationism in history and its ramifications
Stranger: The us was neutral officially for years, and because they took no strong stance, the Nazis rose to power. Admittedly it was partly the fault of all the allies and ww1 but that's a digression.
Stranger: But war was thrust upon them officially by what happened. The peaceful stance can be taken from you, but that is not a bad thing in my opinion
You: yup
Stranger: What would you do if you could, at that time?
You: at that time?
You: hmm
You: it's not a question I've thought very much about
Stranger: I thought on that myself
You: and what did you conclude?
Stranger: My answer was intervention. Stop the Anschluss, the Munich agreement, the extremely harsh measures of the treaty at the end of ww1
You: oh yeah that was a terrible treaty
You: I kind of imagined myself as an average person though haha
Stranger: But I understand the reasoning at the time for allowing all those things to go through
Stranger: I am too
You: you would have protested your government signing that treaty?
Stranger: That's why thay generation was called the greatest generation. We the average man stood up and took up arms, because they believed what was right.
Stranger: It is difficult to say that if I lived in that time I would. Of it was today, 100%
You: mhm... war is frightening
Stranger: We cannot judge the past with the same moral standing we have today
You: of course
Stranger: And yes, war really is a horrible thing
Stranger: If peace was an option, I would go for it. Often times though, we have no control over that
You: mhm there is suffering in a lot of places, and violence that arises from suffering and hatred
Stranger: Look at the Nazis and the hatred of the Jews. That was extremely common all across Europe, the uk and the us. Many leaders in politics and business liked the Nazis initially. But just because something is common, does not make it right
You: I actually never understood antisemitism
Stranger: You are quite wise, and I agree with you. But the sad thing is, there will always be suffering
You: or why people hate(d) jewish people
Stranger: The scary thing is, many of those in BLM look up to a man called Farrakhan (forgive me on the spelling) who is a huge antisemite. Like he openly calls for violence against them. He gets away with it, because he is black. Why he hates them I don't know. They are hated I think, because they are the oldest abrahamic religion and the oldest monothesist one as well, from which both Islam and Christianity draw their teachings from initially
You: I just don't understand why they are hated
You: often by christians too
Stranger: Me neither, I find it abhorrent. They have been persecuted for thousands of years
You: yeah idk I just don't understand why
Stranger: I have yet to find out why. I know in Islam they hate them as it is dictated within their scriptures, though the exact wording I am unsure on. Christians I would think it's because they don't believe that Jesus was the son of God
You: I guess so
Stranger: But I may be entirely wrong
Stranger: Which I probably am
You: idk I don't know anything so I have no clue
Stranger: Hence why I like and want discussion :) we learn more through communication
Stranger: We become better the more we communicate
You: is there a reason why you dislike blm so much?
Stranger: I stand against identitarianism
You: so basically all those "pride" movements?
Stranger: I come from a racist country that segregated everyone and everything based on the colour of everyone's skin and I was hated for being the colour of my skin just for being born. I cannot condone movements that wish to implement the same things, as it will lead to suffering and hatred.
Stranger: I have nothing against being proud of your race, though I think the idea is a bit stupid. I have an issue with everything needing to divided up based on the colour of ones skin, I choose to judge someone on the basis of their character. I'm not perfect and there are times where I have been prejudiced but it is something I am consious of and wish to not do
You: mhm okay
You: I'm not sure if blm wants things to be divided up based on race though
You: I thought they were mostly against police brutality
Stranger: Some very much so are. Though I will concede that not all of them are, and I should tar everyone with the same brush. But as a counter to that, look at CHAZ in Seattle, they have segregated farms though calling them that is hilarious
You: I thought chaz is just a city block?
Stranger: On the police brutality, I agree with them and that reform must happen. Abolishing police is not a good idea. More funding is required, better training and better internal policies and structures to vette and review the officers is needed. Abolishing them will lead to anarchy. You are correct that Chaz is, but it is a microcosm showing the very things I stand against. I am against racism of all kinds, segregation is a form of racism. The us had a history where they did it too and agreed that it was wrong
You: mhm
You: I just wasn't familiar with blm as pro-segregation
You: that said, most blm activists are just really young
Stranger: They have been co-opted by those who are. And many activists are young white kids
You: I don't think mainstream democrats take them very seriously
Stranger: I'm not so certain. But I hope I am wrong
You: idk I mean these days who knows what kind media we each read
You: so I'm sure I'm in a bubble too
Stranger: They may see these things as a good and helpful idea, but the road to hell is often paved with good intentions
Stranger: Of course, and I hope I'm wrong. I recommend a variety of news sources, especially independent ones. A great one is a guy named Tim Pool on YouTube. He is a left leaning centrist guy who is upfront with his leanings. But he gives the news as it is
You: mhm I try to avoid youtube news
You: although idk if it's truly reliable to always go through bbc or ap or others
You: they are just mainstream
Stranger: BBC is very biased in my opinion. Tim used to work on mainstream media but he left. I would call him credible, he looks at news sources and verifies them. He's very milk toast and fence sits allot the problem with news is that all sides want to spin things the way they want it
You: mhm okay
You: is there any kind of mainstream media that you like?
Stranger: I don't trust any of them when it comes to almost anything except weather and sport scores. I will listen to what is said from various sources before coming to my own conclusions. I have lost all faith in the media since 2016
You: I see, I guess it ends up being hard to find something to trust
Stranger: Unfortunately it is. My reasons for it was both the elections in the us for 2016 and the brexit vote here in the uk. I was very similar to you then, very much so a hippie and very left leaning. I disagreed with Trump and Brexit, but I lost. But the way the media and society within the left handled themselves and the situation, that put me off completely and pushed me to become more conservative than what I was
You: interesting, although I'm not exactly following what made you more interested in conservative things
Stranger: The constant denigration of those who you disagree with. The treatment hat those people got, most of whom are the working class, upon the backs of which society is upheld. They are not racist or evil. They have a different opinion and different values. How does making a choice in a democracy make someone evil when neither side is perfect?
Stranger: The left preaches tolerance, except that it doesnt in reality
You: mhm yeah I don't like that
You: I don't think it is effective either
Stranger: All it does is polarize people
Stranger: And drive them further away from reaching g a compromise
You: right
Stranger: Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with Brexit, but as a democracy we made a decision. So now we need to exact that decision. I would have voted for trump despite my disdain for him
Stranger: Enact not exact*
You: I think there are a lot of people who think similarly as you do ^^
Stranger: There really are
Stranger: The left has become absorbed by identity politics and is obsessed with race.. it scares me that they will create more racists than before they started
Stranger: Constantly calling your opposition racist and evil will force them into being it
You: mhm I think there are some things to distinguish between social media left-wing people and people in everyday life I think
You: the vitriol is always much more amplified online than people are irl
Stranger: Oh agreed! Twitter is not real life, but it has started to bleed over
You: I live in a fairly liberal state, although I don't really think I have ever seen twitter irl
You: although I do think there is probably self-censorship occuring
You: in the sense that people are afraid of what their neighbors will think
Stranger: There is allot of that
Stranger: Anything you say will be used against you. Even if it's not that controversial
Stranger: People have lost their jobs for an opinion not done at work
You: that said, I don't think that's per say the "left's" fault though -- I just think that public opinion has shifted dramatically in the last 10 years
Stranger: Or how about the man who lost his job because his wife said something controversial
Stranger: I agree with you
Stranger: I really do
Stranger: Allot of this I do think could have been stopped years ago
You: I don't really like the lynch firing of people
You: that companies do for their public image
You: because the truth doesn't matter
You: it's just public image
Stranger: They do so because they are scared of the mob
You: but at the same time, I think public image is a thing because majority opinion really has shifted in the past two decades
You: opinions on homosexuality have swung dramatically in the US
You: ten years ago it was totally okay in public to be anti-homosexual
Stranger: Obama was against gay marriage until it was politically important for him to win the next election
You: but public opinion I think has swung really fast
You: yeah
You: I think he swapped at the first poll that showed >50% of americans supported it
Stranger: Yep! I find it hilarious that that was the case
You: yes but I think conservatives find this kind of fast change extremely uncomforting
You: I can understand that sentiment
You: also isn't it getting kinda late for you? ^^
Stranger: Conservatives are by their very nature are conservative. Change is neither malevolent nor benevolent, but we cannot look at change as universally good. Not can we disregard tradition
Stranger: It's 3 am and I can still keep going, I'm enjoying this conversation :)
You: I need to do the dishes eventually lol
Stranger: If you wish to leave you can by all means :) I won't hate you for it
You: I'm fine either way tbh
You: are you working right now? if you have work tomorrow you should prob go to bed
Stranger: It's up to you :) I can go for ages though my coherence Kay descend
Stranger: I'm sadly unemployed at the moment having lost my job earlier this year
You: coronavirus?
Stranger: Sadly yes
You: that's unfortunate, I'm sorry
Stranger: Not your fault :) so don't stress
You: so aside from Russia and China and the decline of western things, is there anything else that you stress about lol?
Stranger: The drive of censorship
Stranger: I have serious issue with censory
You: mhm
Stranger: And yourself?
You: mhm I dunno really
Stranger: That's good, though I would urge you to become concerned with censorship
You: mhm maybe
You: for me it's sort of a contextual concern I think
You: in the sense that it depends on your vantage point
Stranger: Opinions, art and books doesn't matter. Today it is their voice, tomorrow it is my voice. The day after it becomes your voice. Censorship takes away their rights to speak, and your rights to listen
You: mhm, what I mean is that my family immigrated from China
You: so my reference point of censorship is literal government censorship
You: in comparison the "political correctness" thing just doesn't seem as big to me imo
You: because 90% of it to me is sort of like a person's relationship with the neighbor basically
You: the US government doesn't censor what you can publish essentially
Stranger: That's fair enough, but this is where it starts. Things take time, and if anyone gives in (such as they have in several cases) that builds. In time that becomes the norm, there after what gets censored will not be at the choice of the people but of those who are in power
You: perhaps, although I kind of have faith in the 1st ammendment and the US supreme court
You: we barely have libel laws or defamation laws in the US because of the 1st ammendment
Stranger: I have seen calls to change and amend it. In the uk we have no freedom of speech, people have been arrested for jokes, what's been said on Twitter, etc. There are those who say that it's ok to censor this and that because e they are problematic or it would be good for everyone. But that is how it starts. The US has so much freedom
You: ahh... yeah I feel like it is different in the uk
Stranger: The uk doesn't care for free speech. It's very worrying and there are calls for even more censorship here.
You: mhm that sounds worrisome
Stranger: I guess I project it across to all western countries, and that is something we have seen recently
You: I don't think the US will lose the 1st amendment anytime soon, it's not politically realistiic
Stranger: Look at Amazon censoring books and movies being removed etc, this is how this begins. If it is allowed now, how can we stop it in the future
You: idk the status of free speech in other countries
You: actually this is a very interesting topic
Stranger: The us is one of the only countries that has it
You: do you think freedom of speech should be protected in private spaces?
Stranger: Codified in law that is
You: because technically freedom of speech for us is supposed to be only related to public government relationships
Stranger: I believe it should always be be protected
You: specifically "congress will make no law restricting freedom of speech" (paraphrased)
You: so you believe that private companies should not control what is said on their premises?
You: I mean it's fine if you believe that, it's actually just a bit further than what the current status quo is
Stranger: Yes. They are not above the law. Society may shun them, but they should not become involved. Outright calls for violence are against the law and that should be honoured, outside of that no they should not impose on pthers
You: hmm in the US this is where things get super complicated
You: because conservatives are also the ones who want content restricted/said in their religious schools too
Stranger: I've noticed.. and that has an effect on the rest of the world
You: basically "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech" being on the same political side here makes things very weird
Stranger: And yeah I am aware of that as well, though the pendulum seems to have swung to the other side now. And it will swing back to the other side again
You: kind of like "My store should have the freedom of religion to deny my patrons of being homosexual in my store" kinda thing
Stranger: Yeah it is hard but there is more to the opposite side than just the one thing
You: it's a weird convoluted thing when both are conservative issues
Stranger: That's a difficult one, but I would say that should be discussed and debated but the highest courts. I cannot say from a legal sense one way or the other, morally I can say that it's hard to decide. I think that everyone should get a choice but I am uncertain
Stranger: By not but*
You: mhm that's fine ^^
You: I just think it's very interesting because most laws here, they govern the relationship between between the government and the people
You: so our freedom of speech laws do not apply to amazon censoring books because they are a private company
Stranger: Which is the difficult thing
Stranger: They are protected by being a private company
Stranger: As it's not just them
You: maybe ^^ we have a free market though, so things that cannot be published on amazon will find an outlet elsewhere
You: provided there is a demand for it
You: that said, it also has some gray area with morality laws
Stranger: That is true but monopoloes make things harder to find
You: kind of like youtube banning pornographic content
Stranger: Yeah I can understand that morally, legally I don't know but I would assume that there is some laws regarding that
You: I mean I'm just used to many various sites having bans of various sorts
Stranger: The uk has some
Stranger: Yeah, but there are protections for them being platforms not publishers
You: I don't think there is any law forcing youtube to ban pornographic content; it's just a branding choice by the company
Stranger: If they are publishers, those protections don't apply
You: like I think they want to be seen as family-friendly
Stranger: Fair enough, would have thought there might be
You: porn sites are not illegal in the US lol
Stranger: Not family friendly, advertisement friendly
You: lol true
Stranger: Sorry I don't know enough to be able to say :) I'm happy to admit that
You: mhm aside from political correctness, I guess I just don't personally see a big problem with censorship in the US
You: although I think I have a different belief than you that I think it's okay for private companies to choose what they want to publish
You: even if the ban content
You: these companies still need to compete
Stranger: Them doing so is fine, but if they wish to be protected as platforms they cannot act as a publisher. I think that's the Crux of their protections
Stranger: It is something that has been going for a while though
Stranger: And I think Trump will have it in his campaign for reelection this year
You: okay ^^
Stranger: But I don't know, he has been interested in censorship and has said he is against it in the past
You: I think people mean different things by censorship
You: but that's just imo
You: there are almost no western countries that experience censorship by their governments
You: so people mean things like censorship at their workplace
You: although imo that's kind of less censorship and more on the political correctness spectrum
Stranger: True. That is very true. But if you don't stop censorship openly, then should it come from government you don't already know you can stand against it
You: but to me, that "political correctness" isn't anything new either; it's as old as time
You: like did we always worry about saying something that would offend our boss?
You: ^^
You: it's always been there
You: I just think people are uncomfortable because bosses have changed in the last few decades
Stranger: It's not just their work place. The new "town square" is has become online. Your freedoms online are not protected despite it being codified in law
Stranger: And you aren't wrong, and coming from China or at least your family, you bring an interesting perspective
You: I feel like in the US we have very little digital legislation
You: the US of is head of hear
You: *there
Stranger: The world needs a digital bill of rights, to protect us all and our data. But we won't get it
You: but I don't think we have anything guaranteeing that speech on the Internet is free by any regard
Stranger: I would argue we do
You: hm? which law?
You: I like most websites have ToS's and rules banning X Y or Z on their site
Stranger: Freedom of speech and expression
You: oh I mean in terms of law
Stranger: That is what I meant, so that we are free to speak and express ourselves. I also believe that our data should be private and cannot be sold and that should be protected. There are other things that I have heard but it's difficult to remember all those that were proposed
You: ahh
You: yeah we don't have those laws right now
Stranger: Today stuff is okay but you are not protected
You: although the EU has some privacy ones that we don't have in the US
Stranger: The EU doesn't care mostly
Stranger: Some laws only protect some information, I'm talking about all of our information
You: ^^
Stranger: Everything we post and do is tracked, monitored and sold
Stranger: We revel in it, "I was talking about cats/dogs and all of a sudden I got adds for cat/dog products"
Stranger: We hear that often
You: yup
Stranger: Also, with regards to our rights and things, who holds these companies accountable?
Stranger: Take google for example
Stranger: They have been caught tampering with the elections
You: well, again, we have basically no laws about this in the US so there is no accountability
Stranger: They openly censor news and opinions
Stranger: They are a monopoly
You: although some europrean countries have lawsuits whatever with them
You: yup they totally are
You: where are anti-trust laws lol?
Stranger: That's what I think Trump will be looking at, I would if I was in his shoes
Stranger: But they were given special protections
Stranger: Those need to be taken away, the large companies need to be broken up but governments are incompetent
Stranger: I don't trust them to do it well
You: mhm it actually reminds me of south korea actually
Stranger: I mean there are a few senators in the states that I think have the moral fortitude to do so, but I don't know
You: countries are loathe to break up companies that they're proud of basically
Stranger: Yep
You: like samsung in south korea lol?
Stranger: They wouldn't break them up
Stranger: It would do serious damage to the economy and blah blah blah
You: their revenue was like 20% of the entire country's gdp
Stranger: Yep it's a difficult argument
Stranger: And I can understand why you wouldnt
Stranger: That 20% could drop to below 1%
You: anyhow it is getting kind of late
You: it was nice talking to you
You: and you should sleep ^^
Stranger: Likewise! :) I needed to move my sleep schedule for a 24 hour race on the weekend anyway, sp thank you for occuping my time and mind :)
You: goodnight!
Stranger: I'm glad to have met another willing to talk, take care my good friend
You have disconnected.
2 notes · View notes
lastsonlost · 5 years
Text
Before anyone on the LEFT or RIGHT say anything this story is being covered by multiple Outlets.
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
That being said this story is STILL in development.
New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Saikat Chakrabarti, the progressive firebrand's multimillionaire chief of staff, apparently violated campaign finance law by funneling nearly $1 million in contributions from political action committees Chakrabarti established to private companies that he also controlled, according to an explosive complaint filed Monday with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and obtained by Fox News.
Amid the allegations, a former FEC commissioner late Monday suggested in an interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation that Ocasio-Cortez and her team could separately be facing major fines and potentially even jail time if they were knowingly and willfully violating the law by hiding their control of the Justice Democrats political action committee (PAC). Such an arrangement could have allowed Ocasio-Cortez's campaign to receive donations in excess of the normal limit, by pooling contributions to both the PAC and the campaign itself.
The FEC complaint asserts that Chakrabarti established two PACs, the Brand New Congress PAC and Justice Democrats PAC, and then systematically transfered more than $885,000 in contributions received by those PACs to the Brand New Campaign LLC and the Brand New Congress LLC -- companies that, unlike PACs, are exempt from reporting all of their significant expenditures. The PACs claimed the payments were for "strategic consulting."
Although large financial transfers from PACs to LLCs are not necessarily improper, the complaint argues that the goal of the "extensive" scheme was seemingly to illegally dodge detailed legal reporting requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which are designed to track campaign expenditures.
"It appears 'strategic consulting' was a mischaracterization of a wide range of activities that should have been reported individually," the complaint states.
The complaint was drafted by the conservative, Virginia-based National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC). Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti, according to the NLPC's complaint, appeared to have "orchestrated an extensive off-the-books operation to make hundreds of thousands of dollars of expenditures in support of multiple candidates for federal office."
The funds, the NLPC writes, were likely spent on campaign events for Ocasio-Cortez and other far-left Democratic candidates favored by Chakrabarti, who made his fortune in Silicon Valley and previously worked on Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign. But no precise accounting for the expenses is available, and the complaint asks the FEC to conduct an investigation into the matter immediately
Brand New Congress LLC does not appear to be registered as an LLC in any state, according to the complaint, but is a registered 527 tax-exempt organization. Fox News confirmed that Brand New Campaign LLC is a registered Delaware corporation, but Brand New Congress LLC is not.
Ocasio-Cortez's office did not return a request for comment. But Chakrabarti defended the set-up on Twitter, saying, "We were doing something totally new, which meant a new setup. So, we were transparent about it from the start."
Tumblr media
A separate explanation posted by Justice Democrats last year cast the arrangement as above-board. "The ONLY way to do work for multiple candidates legally at this scale is to create an LLC and act as a vendor," the group said.
In announcing the complaint the NLPC pointed to a 2016 interview on MSNBC, in which the 33-year-old Chakrabarti told anchor Rachel Maddow that he wanted to employ a "single, unified presidential-style campaign" model to "galvanize" voters nationally to elect progressives to Congress, while helping candidates avoid the stress of fundraising and managing their own campaigns.
Other legal experts also sounded the alarm on Monday, saying Chakrabarti's unusual arrangement raised serious unanswered questions.
Former FEC Associate General Counsel for Policy Adav Noti, who currently directs the Campaign Legal Center, told Fox News that it was a "total mystery" to him why Chakrabarti had established an LLC seemingly to take money from the PAC, rather than simply create a "normal venture," like a consulting business, to provide services for candidates on the books.
"Certainly, it's not permissible to use an LLC or any other kind of intermediary to conceal the recipient or purpose of a PAC's spending," Noti said. "The law requires the PAC to report who it disburses money to. You can't try to evade that by routing it through an LLC or corporation or anyone else."
Noti added: "What's so weird about this situation is that the PAC that disbursed so much of its money to one entity that was so clearly affiliated with the PAC. Usually, that's a sign that it's what's come to be known as a 'scam PAC' -- one that's operated for the financial benefit of its operators, rather than one designed to engage in political activity."
At the same time, Noti said, Chakrabarti had provided "long descriptions of why they structured it the way they did -- which is not something a scam PAC would do," because it only draws attention to the unusual setup. And Noti cautioned that there is a tendency for some groups to try to gain attention by invoking Ocasio-Cortez.
"But on the other hand," Noti added, Ocasio-Cortez's "explanations don't make a lot of sense on their face. I read their explanation multiple times, and I still don't understand. If you want to start a business to provide services to campaigns -- many of those are organized as LLC's, and you sell your services."
"I read their explanation multiple times, and I still don't understand."
— Former FEC Associate General Counsel Adav Noti
Instead, Chakrabarti "started a PAC, which has legal obligations to report all of is incoming and outgoing money, and then used the PAC to disperse its funds to the LLC," Noti said.
Added former FEC chairman Bradley A. Smith, in an interview with The Washington Examiner: "It's a really weird situation. I see almost no way that you can do that without it being at least a reporting violation, quite likely a violation of the contribution limits. You might say from a campaign finance angle that the LLC was essentially operating as an unregistered committee."
Last week, Anderson also raised concerns over Ocasio-Cortez's decision to announce, with much fanfare, that she would offer a minimum salary of $52,000 to her staffers, and a maximum salary of $80,000 -- far below the typical six-figure highs hit by chiefs of staff and other high-level congressional workers.
Tumblr media
Government watchdogs pointed out that federal law requires congressional workers making more than $126,000 a year -- which would ordinarily include Chakrabarti -- to file detailed forms outlining all of their outside income, including investments and gifts.
“Purposefully underpaying staffers in order to avoid transparency is an old trick some of the most corrupt members of Congress have used time and again,” Anderson said.
Speaking to the New York Post, Ocasio-Cortez spokesman Corbin Trent dismissed the FEC complaint, saying the campaign had consulted an elections lawyer and that all money was properly accounted for.
“It was payment for services. ... We believe that complaint is politically motivated, basically intended to create a political story,” Trent told the Post.
Noti told Fox News that Trent's explanation could be plausible -- and if so, it might help Ocasio-Cortez's team avoid civil fraud lawsuits.
"One possibility -- a strong possibility, based on the description they put out, is they just got really bad legal advice that somehow said they had to to do this," Noti said. "But regardless, when they decided to use the PAC form, which they did, they subjected themselves to all the legal requirements that come with that."
Election laws are complicated, Noti added, and there have been some erroneous recent reports related to Ocasio-Cortez's campaign. For example, FEC filings reviewed by Fox News show that Ocasio-Cortez’s congressional campaign paid the Justice Democrats PAC more than $35,000 from 2017 to 2018 for "web services," “strategic consulting,” and "campaign services."
While some outlets have incorrectly reported that federal rules generally prohibit PACs from providing more than $5,000 in services to campaigns, Noti told Fox News that the payments were likely proper so long as they were for the fair market value of the services rendered.
In terms of possible penalties, Noti said that Ocasio-Cortez's campaign could be facing FEC fines if it followed bad legal advice and made reporting errors. But civil or even criminal fraud statutes, as opposed to campaign finance laws, would potentially kick in if it were determined that Chakrabarti had intentionally tried to hide the money to use for illicit expenses.
Meanwhile, former FEC commissioner Brad Smith told the Daily Caller News Foundation's investigative unit that, because Ocasio-Cortez may have held legal control of the Justice Democrats PAC while the PAC was supporting her campaign, the two committees were likely acting as affiliated committees -- and therefore share an individual contribution limit of $2,700 that might have been improperly and repeatedly exceeded.
The Daily Caller News Foundation's review of archived copies of the Justice Democrats PAC's website and relevant campaign documents indicated that Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti "obtained majority control of Justice Democrats PAC in December 2017" -- and yet allegedly failed to disclose afterward to the FEC the fact that the PAC was supporting her candidacy.
Tumblr media
Monday's FEC complaint comes on the heels of a separate complaint by the Washington, D.C.-based Coolidge Reagan Foundation, which alleged last week that the Brand New Congress PAC may have illegally funneled thousands of dollars to Ocasio-Cortez's live-in boyfriend, Riley Roberts.
It was first reported late last month that the Brand New Congress PAC paid Roberts during the early days of the Ocasio-Cortez campaign. According to FEC records, the PAC made two payments to Roberts – one in August 2017 and one in September 2017 – both for $3,000.
The FEC complaint specifically cites the use of "intermediaries" to make the payments, "the vague and amorphous nature of the services Riley ostensibly provided," the relatively small amount of money raised by the campaign at that stage and "the romantic relationship between Ocasio-Cortez and Riley" in asserting the transactions might violate campaign finance law.
The Coolidge Reagan Foundation -- a 501(c)(3) -- is requesting that the FEC look into the payments for potential violations on relevant campaign finance laws that state that campaign contributions “shall not be converted by any person to personal use” and that “an authorized committee must report the name and address of each person who has received any disbursement not disclosed.”
And this is the story so far. Everything's not out yet so
DON'T JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS !
213 notes · View notes