#quit policing good faith identities | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

useless-catalanfacts · 11 months

Note

One thing that really shocked me when I visited Madrid is that some people seemed genuinely offended when I said I only spoke Catalan. I'm from Germany and my boyfriend is Catalan. As he has a very strong Catalan identity and is very much an activist for the language it made sense for me to learn Catalan instead of Spanish. I don't speak it very well yet, but enough to make casual conversation. Trying to have a conversation with an acquaintance when visiting Madrid, I threw in some of my basic Catalan when English didn't fully work (not to piss her off, because I had no idea it would, but simply to make myself understood as English was failing us and I figured the Catalan might be easier and closer and sometimes even the same words as Spanish). This led to a lot of questions from the friendgroup, but this one person seemed personally hurt that I had chosen to learn Catalan and NOT Spanish. She argued that all Catalans spoke Spanish anyway and that my mindset was childish and "excluding the rest of Spain just to make a point". I thought this was such a strange way to look at it. I know this person is not representative for all of Spain, but I thought it was really worrying that some people think like that. She seemed convinced that there was no purpose of learning Catalan beyond "making a silly, political point" as if there wasn't an entire culture and history that came with it. As if Catalans speaking Catalan were like... being difficult on purpose and not.. you know... practicing their f*cking culture and living their damn lives. Good thing I actually am childish, and spoke exclusively in Catalan to her for the rest of the evening.

That's exactly how many Spanish people see it, it's a shame but your story doesn't surprise me. When I was a teenager I went for a few days to do a thing with other teenagers in Madrid and they reacted in a mix of disgust and offence when they heard me speak to my parents in Catalan on the phone. And I've heard quite a lot of other people explain very similar situations. It also reminds me of a video I shared a while ago (post here) where Judit Mascó explains that when she's working in Madrid and she answers the phone to her mother or friends calling, her co-workers told her it bothers them that she speaks in Catalan to other people, when she's not even talking to them.

Many Spanish people just can't understand that Catalan people would like to continue speaking our language, period. They are so convinced that Spanish is superior, that they believe that for our own good we should want to abandon our language and assimilate to theirs, and if we don't, well, then the only possible reason is that we're doing it for the sole purpose of excluding them, as if they were the centre of our lives.

They can see how they use their own language (Spanish) for their family, friends and the rest of their lives, but they can't give us the same amount of humanity and respect to imagine that we can want to speak our own language for the same purposes as they want to speak theirs. No, according to them, we must do it for bad faith proposes.

And let me say: you are doing very well in learning Catalan for your boyfriend. If your boyfriend speaks Catalan, I assume it's most likely that his family and friends speak in Catalan too, it's normal that you'd want to learn the language they use. This will bring you closer to his heart, because you can understand the words with which he has grown up and that are around him, it strengthens your bond. And it gives you the opportunity to communicate with other people around him and participate in conversation. Why would you not want to learn the language? Why would you, instead, want to learn a different language, and does that Spanish person expect you police what your boyfriend and his family/friends speak so not to exclude you (when you would have been the one to decide not to integrate)? It's just such a self-centered way of thinking from them.

#ask #anonymous #català #catalan #sociolinguistics #minority languages #coses de la terra #languages #langblr

731 notes · View notes

comradekatara · 11 months

Text

i think it’s a really good character detail that sokka and toph both love eating meat, because it does serve as a good shorthand to a contemporary audience to signify their relationship to masculinity that also makes sense within the worldbuilding and is consistent with their characters.

like obviously sokka’s diet is meat-based. he lives in a part of a tundra that is (implied to be) frozen over year round. eating meat is a part of his cultural identity. but it’s more than that. katara also grew up eating mostly meat, but it’s not a part of her identity the way it is for sokka. and that’s because being a hunter and providing for his village is crucial to sokka’s conception of who he is. he was “the only man” left, and he felt like it was his sole responsibility to provide ample food for his people, mostly elderly women and young children. throughout the show we see sokka fail to hunt and forage for comedic purposes, whereas we don’t actually see his successes, but that doesn’t mean it’s not implied. he wouldn’t be as effortlessly proficient with a boomerang as he is by the pilot if he hadn’t been practicing on animals over the years. he clearly has a lot of experience hunting, and the pressure he feels as “the sole provider” for his tribe is something that he is also takes great pride in, as if the knowledge that his father had enough faith in him to hunt alone and make sure his people didn’t starve is very precious to him and any challenge to his identity as “the meat guy” is a great blow to his ego.

when he calls himself “the meat and sarcasm guy,” he is being facetious about parts of his identity that are in fact very important to him. meat: he comes from the south pole, so meat is important to his culture; he is a hunter, and it was his role to provide for and protect his people. sarcasm: he’s used to not being taken seriously, as the brother of a waterbender, as the only warrior left behind, as the token nonbender of the gaang, by people throughout the earth kingdom who see a water tribe boy and assume the worst about him before he even opens his mouth; he uses humor as a coping mechanism, for example, in that very moment, when he starts talking to himself while trapped in a hole, genuinely concerned that he might die, but staying glib and flippant nonetheless. it isn’t just eating meat that is part of his identity, but providing it as well. if he isn’t feeding his people, if he isn’t keeping them safe, if he isn’t giving everything he has to protecting them, then is he even a warrior? is he even anything at all?

as for toph, she grew up never having to worry where her next meal was coming from. she probably didn't even think about how food was prepared until she started traveling with the gaang, probably didn't even know the name of her cook(s). but when it came to dining, she was undoubtedly policed by her parents on how to eat. sit like this, hold your chopsticks like this, chew like this, only eat so much at a time, be proper, be discreet, be ladylike. the contrast between how toph eats and how sokka eats in "the blind bandit" is played for laughs, but as we've just established, sokka is someone who knows what it's like to not know where your next meal is coming from, and who also knew that if he wanted to eat, and if everyone else in his village wanted to eat, it was his responsibility to go out and kill an animal, so when someone offers him free food, he will not hesitate to eat as much of it as possible, table manners be damned. toph has never experienced food anxiety, but living in high society under the thumb of her ableist parents who excruciatingly monitored all of her behaviors is why she relishes eating as impolitely and as much as possible. if eating as little and as discreetly is a marker of femininity of a certain class (note how zuko says to jin "you have quite an appetite for a girl" because he's never seen a woman who wasn't from nobility eat before), then toph rejects her oppressive high society upbringing and its forced femininity and embraces masculinity by loudly proclaiming her love of meat.

in the US, eating meat is seen as a sign of masculinity despite the fact that most of the purported "alpha males" who claim that meat consumption is masculine did not actually hunt and cook that meat themselves (you may as well be a drag queen etc). nevertheless, when the audience hears sokka or toph claim they love meat, they do register that it indicates their complicated relationship to masculinity. sokka always felt an immense pressure to be masculine due to the fact that he was the sole warrior left in his tribe and believed that it was his responsibility and his alone to protect, defend, and provide for what was left of his people. meat signifies masculinity to him because he was actually hunting it himself, and being a good hunter is part of what "being a man" (an ideal he feels incredible pressure to live up to) means to him. toph feels a pressure to be masculine due to her rejection of femininity, which she associates with the submissive, meek, shallow ideal her mother performs and expected her to perform as well. she associates masculinity with strength, power, and agency, which she desires even as her humility, cunning, and ability to go underestimated are such a crucial component to her strength in the first place. when she claims that she loves meat, she's celebrating her ability to eat without being policed, she's embracing her gender nonconformity, and she's probably mirroring sokka, since she's still figuring out who she is, and he is her role model.

#analysis #sokka #toph #sokka&toph #i feel like i've always alluded to this but never probably expanded on it. so! here we are #i love analyzing the gender politics in atla so much #it is genuinely so fascinating and underrated #could talk abt it forever

323 notes · View notes

burst-of-iridescent · 10 months

Note

Hello! Zutarians like you are the reason why I am moving further away from Zutara. the way you talk rudely to people who disagree with you is really upsetting. The anon who wrote to you (or several anons) did not show rudeness and spoke quite politely, but you literally immediately started being rude, talking arrogantly and familiarly. the fact that someone does not agree with you does not mean that you need to talk rudely, arrogantly or point out mistakes in English to people (it may come as a shock to you, but a lot of young people do not have the opportunity to get a good education and do not have the opportunity to know English perfectly, especially if it is not their native language). thank you, you completely ruined zutara for me.

do you think it's polite to come into someone's inbox just to mock an edit they spent a lot of time and effort on, which they tagged appropriately for the express purpose of making sure no one who enjoyed kat.aang would see it? do you think it's polite to then follow up with an unasked-for essay in response, one that misappropriates the legitimate issues faced by women of colour to tear down a fictional ship? do you think it's polite to invalidate the racial identity of an actual woman of colour just because she doesn't agree with your opinions? do you think it's polite to keep anonymously bombarding strangers you don't know online with condescending, bad-faith arguments that don't take into account anything they're trying to say?

do you think that perhaps, just perhaps, after dealing with all of that for 24 hours straight, people might not feel inclined to be cheery and pleasant to the person responsible for it?

the fact that someone does not agree with you does not mean that you need to talk rudely, arrogantly or point out mistakes in English to people

i couldn't agree more. that is why i am perfectly willing to engage in polite, civil discussion with people who are actually arguing in good-faith, and who don't harass me online or associate with others who do.

i have no idea why you seem to think i criticized that anon's english by the way; if that is from my "pay attention in english class" remark, i was referring to media literacy skills (a fair point to make, considering that's exactly what they came into my asks about). not once did i ever remark on their grammar, spelling, or anything else about their english, nor do i feel the need to.

but if it's more important to you to blame and tone police me instead of the person who's been harassing me for the last two days, then please know that i'm not the one ruining zutara and zutara fandom for you.

you're doing that just fine on your own.

#the discourse #for anyone in my asks confused about what's been happening: this is your summary #this will be my final word on the discourse and i will not entertain any further asks #whether you're pro or anti

58 notes · View notes

turtrose · 2 years

Text

Honestly, I find it also quite telling that it is always demanded of mspec lesbians to historically prove their right to exist as their identity. I just feel like, with all the stuff about "transgenderism is a modern trend" and "xenogenders & neopronouns are a modern trend", and all of us always needing to prove with history that we exist, it becomes quite obvious what lesbian exclusionism and lesbian separatism is: just another form of denying people their identities.

The moment you demand someone to prove their identity based on whether it is "new" and "modern" or actually historically documented, you are a shithead, because 1) no one has to prove their identity to you 2) no one's identity has to be around for a longer time to be valid 3) a lot of queer history has been erased, so there's that 4) a lot of queer history is very normative and focused on binarist views on queerness

I am radically inclusionist, because I am convinced that it helps no one if we exclude people based on prescriptivist definitions of labels. The "radical" has been assigned to me by people who wanted the good sound of "inclusionist", but didn't feel like committing to actually including everyone. Yet still, I will take that term with pride, because in our anti-queer society as well as a very policing queer community, yes, it seems to be a radical act to not exclude.

And that is also why those going against me hate the idea of "including all good-faith identities", because it is a pure principle that you can either commit to, or not. The moment you start making exceptions is when you betray that principle. Which is also why there are no "inclusionists" who exclude mspec lesbians. Because they are, as result of their exclusionist stance, exclusionists.

Even less surprising then is the entire force that is used against the word "queer". Its usage as liberating term exceeds by far the use it allegedly found as a "slur". Heck, people use "gay" ten times more as a slur, especially nowadays, and I don't see people going against the reclamation of that term. No, the people taking issue with "queer" that I have encountered so far were, by majority... too young to even have experienced the alleged great usage of it as a "slur". They take issue with the word, because unlike acronyms like LGBTQIA+, it also conveys a stance - that we are weird, yes. By which is meant, yes, we go against norms. We go against regulations of a gendered heteronormative patriarchal society. Our identities may fall in line with their views here and there, but we don't adhere to them, because we are who we are without bending ourselves to what others want us to be. This spirit goes against everything exclusionists and separatists try to do. This spirit is much more common here on tumblr, so no wonder Twitter exclusionists don't feel welcome here at all (and they shouldn't!).

The only reason why history is brought into this entire matter in the first place is that they've tried to use history against us. They've tried to use revisionist radfem history to exclude us just like lesbian separatism has done in the past. Only for them to be proven wrong by those who managed to dig deep enough into the history of the lesbian label. And yet, still, we don't need that history to prove our validity. Because we are here, we are queer, and proud of all that we are, not giving up any of our identities to please others.

#queer #radinclus #inclus #inclusionism #lgbt #lgbtq #lgbtq+#lgbtqia+#lesbian #bi lesbian #mspec #mspec lesbian #this ended up way longer than intended #queerness #gay #monosexism

103 notes · View notes

mcknotanniegrey · 7 months

Text

I know I'm in the minority and the show ended 2 years ago, but I've gotta get my Lucifer thoughts out somehow.

(Spoilers below)

So I finished the show and I expected to be disappointed based on what I was seeing of the internet's reaction to the ending... but i was pleasantly surprised to discover that I loved the ending. To quote Jeremy Strong, i thought it made sense dramaturgically. It was emotional, beautiful, and written with love to the original myth, the show's narrative arc, and the fans.

Like literally everyone got a happy ending, the show stayed true to its therapy concept and character arcs and growth, Lucifer and Amenadiel both learn from their father's mistakes and make different choices, Chloe is Amenagod's consultant and lives her human life feeling fulfilled, and still a Deckerstar happy ending! That's incredibly difficult to wrap up so much character development and the series as a whole in a "happy ending" way while also staying true to the integrity of the art.

The years Chloe and Lucifer spend physically apart (but still emotionally together) echo the myth of Hades and Persephone, staying true to the eternal love story with the bittersweet yearning and the reunion. What's a few decades when you're looking at eternity? It's as Rory said, that time is a blip in their existence. After the time loop is resolved, the whole family can visit and be together again. We get cake & eat it too!

There were some things I have critique for, of course. Amenadiel discovering racism again and his investigations felt out of place on their own; but I can justify this arc to myself for a few reasons: 1) it echoes the journey both Amenadiel and Lucifer take realizing that the entire system is flawed and how they want to change things if they had the power/authority to do so 2) there's a social responsibility I'm sure the showrunners felt about a police procedural show, given how we know these shows affect perceptions of police and in fact are used as propaganda that affects the public's perception of the current (and past and still happening now post-show...) events. It makes sense that the writers and actors would want to comment on this while also being quite hopeful in aligning with the show's themes about change and improvement. The system is terribly flawed, but there's still hope because we can change things and confront the injustice. 3) Amenadiel can't solve systemic racism for humanity because we need to do it ourselves. Amenagod fixing this would be the cheap way out narratively and also pessimistic in its messaging that IRL we can't do anything without the divine stepping in and undoing our mistakes. 4) Chloe wouldn't be happy being only Mrs. G, wife and mother. She is the Detective and both she and Lucifer realize that this part of her identity is integral; neither of them want her to have to sacrifice this. By being Amenagod's consultant and continuing her career as lieutenant, Chloe still has her independence and own identity outside of being Lucifer's partner. She's able to live a fulfilling human life without commuting back and forth from earth to heaven/hell.

Another critism is that all of the main characters were romantically paired up by the series end, when that doesn't have to be the ideal ending for someone at all. It sucks that we had to make sure Ella finally got a good boyfriend, as an example, especially when her arc confronting her own darkness and refinding her faith felt much more important and emotionally poignant in my opinion. But I can also see how this choice was probably made to support the fans and give favorite characters a happy ending, rather than only appealing to the Deckerstar fans.

I don't know, I guess I'm just so surprised that it seems (from reddit at least) that people hated the ending so much as to compare it to GOT - when David Benioff and D.B. Weiss clearly wanted their own show to be over and done without caring about the narrative arc at all - when it just seems so apparent to me that Ildy Modrovich and Joe Henderson clearly cared deeply about their show and wanted to give an ending that fit narratively/had integrity as a story and also was a love letter to the fans who'd saved the show to begin with.

#lucifer netflix #lucifer x chloe #deckerstar #amenadiel #succession #lucifer finale #its about the yearning

13 notes · View notes

denimbex1986 · 22 days

Text

One of my favorite movies of all time is the 1999 adaptation of one of my favorite books of all time, Patricia Highsmith’s 1955 novel The Talented Mr. Ripley. The book and film both follow grifter Tom Ripley when he goes to Italy to convince Dickie Greenleaf to return home after Dickie’s father believes Tom to have been his friend. Tom goes to Italy for the money, but finds himself obsessed with Dickie, leading to him murdering him and stealing his identity.

Netflix recently released season one of Ripley, which follows the same book, with the intention of subsequent seasons following the other books of the Ripliad. Andrew Scott (All of Us Strangers, Fleabag) stars as Tom Ripley with Johnny Flynn (One Life, EMMA.) as Dickie and Dakota Fanning (Man on Fire, War of the Worlds) as his girlfriend Marge Sherwood. It was created, adapted, and directed by Steven Zaillian, screenwriter of films such as Schindler’s List, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, The Irishman, and All the King’s Men, the final of which he also directed. Just those four are an exciting group of people—I was particularly excited about Scott and Zaillian—that I was looking forward to making one of my favorite novels into a series, which it suited quite well.

But let’s get into the actual show. It is shot in a noir-style black and white that is genuinely the most stunning show I have ever seen. The visual motifs are also very strong, with Ripley’s cunning work frequently compared to the masterful Caravaggio, with the light and dark contrast of the camera also mirroring the paintings and sculptures. I also quite like the use of seagulls against a white sky looking like crows flying, which is especially impactful at various points after Dickie’s murder. The numerous shots through doorframes and out from under tables add to the feeling of Tom being watched, especially when we are peering over the bloodstained bathtub as he is questioned by the police. We are what Tom is paranoid about. The screenplay is also good, as are most of the actors, though the only things that really make it stand out are the visuals, from the cinematography to the production design to the gorgeous Italian streets, with the black and white adding to it rather than making things feel duller. The whole vibe of the show is much darker than that of the movie, which is deeply unsettling, but the show is also fun in a lot of moments, until it’s really, really not.

The show tries to be a more faithful adaptation than the 1999 film, which is exciting. As I said, I love the movie, but there is always something wonderful about a well-done faithful adaptation. The problem with this is that in its faithfulness, every digression is very noticeable, and most of them make little sense. The biggest example is that Marge is Dickie’s girlfriend. This makes a lot of sense in the movie, but I don’t understand why the show does the same thing. The uncertainty of their relationship followed by it turning romantic is one of Ripley’s main motivators to kill Dickie as it is one of the things that he feels betrayed by. If Marge is already dating Dickie, the moment of betrayal when Tom finds out is simply not there, a moment which was a major turning point in the book.

One scene that is a major moment in the book, film, and show is the moment when Tom wears Dickie’s clothing and impersonates him in the mirror. In the film, there is no real dialogue, just singing along to music. In the book, the scene drags on for a long time and it truly makes your skin crawl. Tom not only impersonates Dickie, but pretends to reject and then murder Marge, refuting an imaginary accusation that the Dickie and Tom are lovers. Both are ended by Dickie coming in and asking “What are you doing?” The show seems to want to be more true to the book, having Tom enact breaking up with Marge, but it lacks the murder. While this moment in the book is deeply disturbing, the show is clearly leaning into a more disturbing angle than the movie and the pretending to murder Marge would fit right into the tone. While it feels natural to not include it in the movie, it really added to Tom’s characterization in the book and I missed it when watching an adaptation that was presenting itself as more faithful.

There was also a frankly unnecessary sequence of Tom nearly drowning from falling off of the boat after killing Dickie. It was more high-energy than the actual murder scene and dragged on for far too long. That scene is perfectly representative of most of my problems with the show: what Zaillian chose to emphasize. Some characters seemed to have THE IMPORTANT THING ABOUT THEM and other character traits were flat-out ignored, particularly smaller parts like Freddie, though it unfortunately transferred into the leads on occasion, particularly Marge.

Visual emphases on the motifs of water and Caravaggio were effective, but some scenes would drag on for a long time. There’s a difference between “slow” and “tedious” and this show occasionally went a little too close to “tedious,” though I will say that these are typically the moments that demonstrate the chilling apathy of Scott’s Tom Ripley. I wanted these moments to end and go on forever. Scott is able to do so much in the silence and he along with the cinematography make the moments both hard to watch and impossible to look away from. How can moments be both tedious and riveting? I both wish that they were gone and wish that there had been a whole episode of Andrew Scott in complete silence. The problem was typically the timing—this would be interesting, but he just committed murder. I don’t care about the boat. I know that Tom isn’t about to die, we’re not even halfway through the season.

The characters can feel like shells of themselves at times. They seem to know that they live in a black-and-white Italy. Marge is reduced to the simple character trait of “doesn’t like Tom” and Fanning plays her like someone who has taken a single semester of Acting I. Flynn’s Dickie is good, but it’s impossible to stop comparing him to the masterful and charismatic performance by Jude Law in 1999. And then there’s Andrew Scott’s mostly critically acclaimed Tom Ripley.

Andrew Scott is doing a tremendous job at what he’s doing. He’s terrifying and mesmerizing at the same time. But the problem is that his Tom has no charisma. I can’t watch him and say “I would let this man live in my house.” I especially can’t imagine letting him live in my house after he put on my clothes in my room and impersonated me in my mirror. The show makes a point of Dickie’s naivety, but there’s a point when I’m practically screaming at him to listen to his girlfriend and kick Tom out of the house. Where’s Tom’s one-man show? Where’s his funny way of telling stories? Why on earth does Dickie like him?

The thing that makes me sad is that I know that Andrew Scott could have done a book-accurate Tom Ripley justice, and a book-accurate Tom Ripley is the only way that a mostly faithful show could possibly work. The quieter, more genuine scenes hit home much better than any social interaction that was supposed to be positive or convincingly charming. None of the acting choices that I disagreed with happened in the final episode, however. Fanning was suddenly believable and Scott’s Ripley was perfect. I wish that this energy had translated prior to the final episode.

Zaillian being director, screenwriter, and producer is what truly hurt the show in the end. It feels like it was all his ideas and nobody to edit, meaning that every idea that made little sense was kept in. I am of the general opinion that, if the director is the screenwriter, there needs to be another screenwriter, or at least a different producer. This is just Zaillian. It feels like Zaillian’s project where he has certain views of the characters and the actors did those. Tom Ripley, one of the most fascinating characters in 20th-century literature, regularly falls flat despite being played by one of the best currently working actors in film and television. Seeing the credits ending with Zaillian’s name over and over gives the vibe of a passion project more than it does a fully realized show. There is so much potential there—both Scott and Zaillian are very talented people—and it is being squandered by the lack of creative diversity on the storytelling side. I want to love it, but I just like it, which is somehow worse than hating it. I want to have a strong opinion on an adaptation of one of my favorite novels, but aside from the visuals and some of Scott’s acting choices, no daring choices were made until episode eight. There are eight episodes.

So… do I like Ripley? Despite all of my criticisms, yes. Do I hope that this show gets renewed and we get to see more of the Ripliad adapted? Absolutely. A lot of the show was quite good. I’ve recommended it to multiple people and would watch it again with them. I hope that it gets better when Scott is acting alongside different actors and there isn’t a masterpiece of a film hanging over it, because no matter how hard you try, it’s hard not to think of the 1999 adaptation when watching Ripley. I will say one thing, though: Mr. Scott is certainly talented, but I am left wondering:

Is he Mr. Ripley?'

#Ripley #Netflix #The Talented Mr Ripley #Andrew Scott #Steven Zaillian #All of Us Strangers #Fleabag #Johnny Flynn #Dickie Greenleaf #Dakota Fanning #Marge Sherwood #Patricia Highsmith #Caravaggio #Jude Law

2 notes · View notes

multitrackdrifting · 1 year

Text

Going to fire off a hot take for once but spoiler warning for Across The Spider-Verse underneath

So there's people on twitter saying that they feel that Spider-Verse is copaganda, and obviously, no person or representative of any community can speak on behalf of others - everyone is different but I feel like challenging this idea nonetheless because it doesn't hold that much weight.

There are a couple moments that might give people pause:

1) Gwen saying to her father that he's in his position so that bad cops can't be in his position (you don't have to spell out this dynamic, I'm not 5 y.o.). Basically "bad egg" rhetoric

2) Miles and Gwen's fathers are cops that are shown to be decent people but it's rarely if ever framed that it is because they are cops.

I think the notion that the movies (plural because the first movie is also accused of this) that it humanises police and is pro-police is just an argument by aesthetics.

In ATSV one of the major plot points is that Gwen's father completely rejects her role as spider-gwen because he had assumed Spider-Man was a murderer that had killed Peter Parker of her universe.

In criminology there's a phenomena that has a decent amount of literature studying "police culture", and the whole alienation and rejection of his interpersonal bonds in favour of his duties as a police officer [creating a literal us. vs them paradigm in ones own community], while it's not a literal attempt by the authors to discuss that idea it incidentally explains it either way how incapable he is to love his own daughter and fight to protect her because it conflicts with what he is tasked with doing as an officer of the Law.

Of course, I think it's just best to hand-wave a lot of these arguments as an overly critical look at a movie that is largely not about these cop characters rather than a story where they are present, and they're not particularly described in a positive light despite what Gwen happens to say to her father.

In the scene where she says that she's just being conciliatory because that's what she knows her father as, this detective that's raised her as a single-parent some "by the book cop" but the movie showed how flawed he was as a person despite supposedly being a "good cop".

If you can't take that in and like just be objective about it then you're not really interested in the dialogue and you're just saying thing because the aesthetics are there but the ideology is not.

I generally have a no discourse rule I try to adhere to but this shit is just ridiculous man, it's such a good and heartfelt movie with really careful character writing and it's mostly about fate, freedom & identity - not whatever some person on twitter is fixated on.

The copaganda you're actually scratching at is a symptom of the super-hero genre and its relationship with law enforcement & the military industrial complex (which the MCU is far more egregious with) - it's not a primary feature of Spider-Verse specifically.

You know what Gwen's dad does to mend his relationship? He quits his job as a cop because it's not serving the community if he can't even do right by his own daughter. And the whole spider-society trying to uphold and protect fate and prevent people from defying the canon is more of a commentary on power structures than anything, I don't even know how you can conceive of this idea unless you hinge everything on the comic book super-hero genre itself having somewhat uncomfortable elements of fascism that are nigh-inseparable from it [which means that every Spider-Man would be at the mercy of this very idea].

It's not gonna hold I'm afraid because that's not the angle of attack people are taking and honestly, it's very fake deep as someone who has actually read the literature they're doing a very flimsy job of explaining.

I criticise pretty heavily in my own analysis that taking a bad faith interpretation of a work that is not even saying the stuff you're alleging is not critical analysis, it's just an "ass pull" argument. Gwen's dad literally had her at Gunpoint and kept her there after he knew she was Spider-Gwen because his authority as a police officer overwrote his concern for her as his own daughter.

The movie showed more dysfunction with cops (and authority like the Spider-Society) than it did endorse them but if you can't understand that argument because you're fixated on the copaganda train then yeah like, there's no serious dialogue to be had with you because the mere shadow of an object, is proof of its presence even though it's not talking positive about the air force, or the CIA or whatever the hell which is super prevalent in MCU movies by comparison.

With my admittedly limited knowledge of the broader spidey canon, the comics aren't even anti-cop, but they tend to hate spider-man but he's just willing to work with them where it's logistically reasonable to do so - but that doesn't really act as a heavy feature of his stories in my experience. It is a heavy feature in the PS4 Spidey game (which is a good game but yeah this aspect is asscheeks).

Besides, a lot of the movie was about Miles fighting the Spider-society, I genuinely scratched my head for a while at seeing these takes..

There's a world of difference between ATSV & like Brooklyne Nine Nine, Hawaii Five-O or Law & Order or even just the average MCU film and its casual discussion of intelligence agencies and thelike.

Just another day on the internet where you get bludgeoned over the head for free.

P.S. I do not care to deliberate this, if you can't smile and enjoy a genuinely good movie then you're not the kind of person I want to talk to in the first place.

16 notes · View notes

morbidmobian · 7 months

Text

Info Post – 🦇

Call me Morbid, Corvid or Lykos. I am 18 years old and use He / They / It / Xe pronouns OR individual alters pronouns. I am a multiply disabled + disordered hcdid system. This blog will be used to reblog posts about queer identities and our disabilities / disorders, occasionally I'll make my own posts.

Read more to get to know us and our boundaries.

About me ::

As a collective we are transgender, transmasculine, genderqueer, xenogender, bisexual and aroacespec. My parts have their own identities and pronouns.

I have quite a few disorders and disabilities that impact the way I function and interact online. We are a part time cane user, struggle with tone and are often low energy. Please be patient when interacting with us.

We use plural and singular terms, and use the terms alters / parts. Do not use sysmate / headmate or anything else.

Most of us cannot understand tone tags and do not use them, they're only used by and to our partner system.

We are a HC-DID system, meaning we are a survivor of RAMCOA. We will not argue over the term HC-DID. We do not associate with the coiners actions. Do not tell us what terms to use. If you have an issue, you can simply block us. Asking invasive questions ("what programs do you have?" and such) will get you blocked without a second thought.

Account boundaries ::

As this is the internet, I can't prevent people from following or otherwise interacting with me. I do not have a DNI, but I will likely block people who are the following. ::

Anti good faith identities, pro endogenic / endogenic neutral [and other "-genics" that aren't traumagenic], pro/com shippers, transid / transx (like "transramcoa"), you use number names as a someone without number programming, you police what terms others use, you demonize PDs and other disorders for genuine symptoms [this also means demonizing all persecutors simply for being persecutors], you romanticize disorders, pro gun, anti abortion / "pro life", zionists, you use sexual pronouns without a non-sexual alternative.

Before you interact ::

Alters will typically not make themselves known, do not demand to know who is fronting. Do not demand any information on our system, members, programming, organization, trauma etc. Be a decent human being.

For more information, read our carrd or pronouns.cc. – 🦇

5 notes · View notes

cyarsk52-20 · 1 year

Text

Kristen Doute's Scene In The "Vanderpump Rules" Finale Was Actually Such A Full Circle Moment And I Am Seriously So Here For It

BuzzFeed Staff

We made it, folks. After nearly three months of #Scandoval consuming our screens, feeds, and lives*, we're finally on the other side of the Vanderpump Rules Season 10 finale. This is how I feel:

*Or maybe you're a normal person and you haven't made this show your entire personality since March 3. And to that I say, good for you!!! But the people who get it, GET IT. And the people who don't, DON'T.

It's been a wild ride so far, and the finale was 54 straight minutes of pure adrenaline and unbelievable moments. I laughed, I cried (like, A LOT), and I wondered why Tom Sandoval still INSISTS on wearing that godforsaken white nail polish.

But one of the most iconic moments was a surprise visit from someone we haven't seen on the show for quite some time. Someone who probably knows Sandoval's crusty, cheating ways better than anyone. Someone who isn't afraid to wear open-toed slides on camera...

That's right, I'm talking about KRISTEN DOUTE.

Kristen hasn't been seen on VPR since Season 8, because she was fired in 2020 for falsely reporting fellow former cast member Faith Stowers to the police in 2018.

FWIW, I stand by this. Actions have consequences.

BUT that doesn't change the fact that Kristen coming back on the show to support Ariana in her time of need isn't a RBFD (Really Big Fucking Deal™), and I'm sorry but it absolutely MUST be talked about!!! So let's get into it, shall we?

Right off the bat, there's the intricate web that is the dynamic between Ariana Madix, Kristen Doute, and Tom Sandoval. If you've made it this far in the post I already know I don't have to tell you, but these three have HISTORY.

In case you don't recall, Kristen and Tom dated for nearly six years before he and Ariana got together. They lived together and literally entered the show together as OG cast members in Season 1. It was a toxic, dysfunctional relationship for the ages that I'm thankful I can stream/relive anytime I want (sorry, Kristen). During their time together, Tom cheated on Kristen multiple times (and she did the same to him, but that's a different story). One of those times was when Tom famously cheated on Kristen with Ariana at the Golden Nugget in Las Vegas.

Never forget.

There may or may not have been other trysts between Tom and Ariana, but they both SWORE up and down that nothing happened. Ariana especially went to bat for Tom, basically pushing Kristen to the brink.

And once Kristen and Tom finally broke up for good, Tom and Ariana immediately started dating. Like, IMMEDIATELY. And here we are, nine years later.

Tom's actions and reasoning for cheating on Ariana and blowing up their life partnership are almost IDENTICAL to what he said and did to Kristen. I don't have time to pore over every little detail, so please watch and enjoy this lovely comparison video by TikToker and fellow Bravohead, Stephanie Tlejii:

TLDR: Kristen GETS IT. And in the years since Tom and Kristen's breakup, she and Ariana have actually become really good friends. She was literally WITH Ariana the night she found out about Tom's seven-month affair with Raquel. So who better to come and console her in her time of need??? Who better to bond over the collective trauma caused by this "worm with a mustache" who calls himself a bar owner???? No one, that's who. Not a single soul in all of WeHo or Valley Village. We see this immediately when they lovingly refer to Sandoval as "OUR ex-boyfriend."

This is the part where I'm gonna say there will be absolutely NO comments on this post being like, "How you get him is how you lose him!!!" when talking about this, because...stop it. First of all, gross. Second of all, Kristen literally shamed y'all for saying that on WWHL , and third of all, Ariana immediately acknowledges this after they sit down. It wasn't that Kristen was "nuts" or that Ariana was super special (even though she is, obviously). It's a pattern of behavior!!!!

Then, Ariana literally acknowledges that she spent years defending Tom against Kristen when she should've been doing the exact opposite. A huge moment of self-awareness and clarity!!!

And then Kristen is essentially like, "IDC about that, at least we're both rid of him." We LOVE women supporting women!!!!

After their chat on the couch, the two go into the backyard to do some kind of self-love spell. Kristen brought a shit ton of crystals and some kind of vibration tool, naturally.

For this Witches of WeHo ritual, Ariana writes down something she wants to manifest for herself: "true self-love." I'm not afraid to admit that this moment made me tear up.

Then, she burns and stomps out what's no longer serving her, aka "unrequited loyalty."

Finally, Ariana and Kristen close the spell with this iconic line:

And then they embrace!!! Two women who've been screwed over by the same narcissistic man, coming together to lift each other up and look forward to the days ahead, WITHOUT THAT LOSER.

In all my years watching VPR, I couldn't think of a more full-circle moment. And people agree!!!

Here's to both of these women living their best lives sans Sandoval! Now to gear up for the Season 10 reunion, aka SuperBowl parts 2, 3, and 4.

You can stream all of Vanderpump Rules , including the #Scandoval finale, on Peacock now.Kristen Doute's Scene In The "Vanderpump Rules" Finale Was Actually Such A Full Circle Moment And I Am Seriously So Here For It Kristen was with Tom for six years before he cheated on her with Ariana. Now, she's here to be Ariana's comfort and support!

Read in BuzzFeed: https://apple.news/AGGgKo9FyQWuTuQ-xaWmdxQ

Shared from Apple News

Sent from my iPhone

4 notes · View notes

thewitchfarhan · 9 months

Note

Hey! So this is coming from a place of genuine friendliness. I saw your post about not needing to respect others beliefs and that believing in x religion means you need to follow every rule and belief they have to a T.

This post was followed by another that advocated against policing other’s spiritual boundaries - I hope you can see the irony.

From what I understand, Abrahamic religions have not been nice you, presumably because you’re queer. I get that, trust me I do. I watched my mother become more and more Pentecostal and accept me less and less as she did so. There is no denying Abrahamic religions cause harm to queer people.

But there’s no denying my gay catholic friend either. Or my Muslim queer mentor. Or my Jewish trans masc hiking buddy. All of these people have fought with themselves to find the balance between their spiritual and queer identities.

When you cast blanket statements and put people into boxes (“I’m not going to give any respect to those who align themselves with modern religions or religious traditions that have discrimination imbedded into their doctrine. “) you are borrowing rhetoric from the same people that hurt me and you. People exist in a whole lotta gray area and tossing out anyone who’s a follower of Abrahamic religions discounts way more queer and disabled and POC and just genuinely good people than you might think.

You do not get to dictate someone else’s faith because you were hurt. We as a community (queer) need to allow each other to explore and practice faith in whatever way works for the individual. We’ve all been hurt enough - let us heal through the divine however we see fit.

Hi Anon, thank you for your ask. I can respect that this is your point of view, but it is not mine and I disagree with you strongly.

You don’t have to follow a every religion to a T to be a part of that religion, I can agree with that. However, as I said before, words have meaning and words have power.

I cannot speak on Judaism or Islam because those are not faiths I have any direct experience with, and I would never presume to speak on those faiths (hence why I didn’t include them in my post. I also never used the term Abrahamic in my original post, and this is because I have a great respect for Judaism - and also have been told/heard from many Jewish people that they do not like being grouped in with Christians and do not like the term.)

However, I was raised Catholic - and I was devoutly Catholic for many years. So when I speak about the Catholic Church it comes from a *very* informed place.

To call yourself a Catholic means something VERY specific. It is not a vague label, it is not up for interpretation, it is not up for redefinition.

Calling yourself a Christian? That can be vague and can be interpreted in an unlimited number of ways. But to call yourself a Catholic is to say that you are part of the Catholic Church - and if anyone is even peripherally familiar with The Catechism then they know how strict those beliefs are. By definition if you don’t agree with the catechism then you are not actively Catholic.

That isn’t my opinion, that is quite literally a foundational belief in Catholicism. I didn’t make that rule, they did.

I will not apologize or change my mind in stating that I’m not going to respect religions that have discrimination imbedded in their doctrine - and I don’t respect anyone who aligns themselves with such faiths. Why on earth would you want to align yourself with discrimination? What makes that any different then people aligning themselves with the Republican Party in the United States?

I’m not telling anyone *what* to believe, but I am saying how I feel about it and what my thoughts are.

Once again, I respect people’s right to believe what they want - but that doesn’t mean I respect the belief.

#religion for sale #religion-for-sale #former catholic

1 note · View note

arpov-blog-blog · 10 months

Text

......“Yes, the truth shall set you free,” DeSantis said. “Because woke represents a war on truth, we must wage a war on woke.”

It was an evangelical performance in a deeply evangelical setting. Anyone watching it might assume DeSantis was at home among evangelicals. But here’s the thing: He’s not one himself.

Ron DeSantis is solidly Roman Catholic. A recent descendant of Italian immigrants, DeSantis counts a Catholic priest as an uncle and a nun as an aunt. He grew up going to Catholic school and attending Catholic mass every Sunday. And yet, until recently, many people weren’t sure whether he is still a practicing Catholic. When the Catholic magazine America reached out to his press team to clarify his religious denomination, for example, they got no response. Given that DeSantis makes faith integral to his political identity, it became confusing enough that the Orlando Sentinel published a story with this reveal:

So, what, exactly, is DeSantis doing here? Why was his Roman Catholicism essentially a secret? Faith can be no private matter for a Republican presidential candidate. As Politico and others noted recently, DeSantis’ presidential campaign has outlined educated white evangelicals as being his gateway to the nomination. So is this Catholic-evangelical two-step how he’s trying to court voters, and if so, is it a good strategy? What, exactly, is Ron DeSantis signaling to Republicans with how he presents his faith?

DeSantis has made it clear that Catholicism is not central to his image. Unlike President Joe Biden, who is known to pray the rosary and identifies proudly as Catholic, DeSantis keeps things generically Christian. Even the prominent Catholic masses he has attended could be justified by non-Catholics as political in nature: one at the culture war–infused Ave Maria University, and one at a “Blue Mass” for police officers who died while on duty. His fight against abortion certainly taps into a traditionally Catholic battle, but it’s a battle that Protestants co-opted decades ago. When he speaks of his faith in interviews, he speaks of “faith”—not the church’s teachings or anything more distinctly Catholic in flavor. If this choice is a matter of identifying as—or appealing to—a generic white Christian American, it doesn’t sound that different from his recent efforts to pronounce his own name in a less European way.

But from the way he speaks at events and in interviews, it does seem that DeSantis isn’t just trying to seem less Catholic. It sounds like he’s also trying to seem more evangelical—or at least one specific kind of evangelical."

0 notes

daniel306gaming · 1 year

Text

¿What if Bane killed Batman in the Dark Knight Rises?

To: Tom Hardy, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, DC Films

Intro

What if events went differently in the Nolanverse? What if Bane killed Batman in The Dark Knight Rises? In today’s fan fiction we’re going to be exploring what would have happened if Bane had killed Batman in The Dark Knight Rises. My inspiration for this fan fiction comes from the 1993-94 Knightfall story arc and 1999’s No Man’s Land with elements from the 2013 2 part animated film of The Dark Knight Returns while following the mythology of Bane and Batman and the timeline of the Nolanverse. Without wasting anymore time sit back and relax and enjoy the fan fiction.

Act 1

The events of The Dark Knight Rises are playing out the same as in the OG timeline. Batman and Bane were brawling after Selina Kyle led him into Bane’s trap. Bane revealed that he intends to fulfill Ra’s al Ghul’s mission to destroy Gotham. Batman fought with Bane before Bane gained the upper hand and crippled Batman’s back. He took Batman to an underground prison known as the pit where escape was impossible. Batman whose back was crippled and powerless could do nothing but being taunted by Bane that Gotham was in the brink of destruction. Bruce lost his conscious and fainted.

Act 2

Meanwhile, at Wayne Manor Alfred saw a letter from Bruce at Batman’s study room. The letter was directed to Alfred. Bruce told Alfred to search for a man named Jean-Paul Valley. Jean-Paul is a security guard at Wayne Enterprises and a former student at Gotham University majoring in computer programming. Bruce encountered him several years ago when he was investigating the death of Jean’s father. Jean’s father was murdered by the sacred order of Saint Domes a secret organization of assassins. Bruce had a brief encounter with Jean-Paul who at the time was brainwashed by the secret organization. He was known as Azrael at the time. Bruce as Batman fought with Azarel who was on a mission to kill other rival assassins who were the enemies of the order. Batman successfully defeated Azarel and showed him the true ways of being a hero. Batman told Jean-Paul that he had qualities of a good man and that he should not use his powers for evil. He should not let himself be controlled by the order. Jean realized that his actions were wrong all this while and decided to turn his back against the order. He stopped being Azarel and he was given a job as a security guard at Wayne Enterprises. Bruce told Alfred to search for Jean-Paul as he wasn’t sure if he’ll return in one piece after his fight with Bane. His chance of survival is low and he believes that Gotham needs another protector if Batman is gone. Alfred was shocked at the letter but realized that time is short. He needed to act fast to search for Jean-Paul to stand in for Batman.

Act 3

3 weeks have passed since Bruce Wayne has gone missing. He was still crippled and trapped in the pit. Alfred found out that Jean-Paul has quit his job as a security guard several months ago and the last of his sightings were on the streets of Gotham city. Meanwhile, Bane has begun his act on terror on Gotham City. He attacked Gotham’s police force and the prisioners of Blackgate Penitentiary were released and recruited into Bane’s army. The Scarecrow(Jonathan Crane) became the new judge of Gotham and Alfred knew that time was running out and he used Bruce’s technology to look for Jean-Paul. He eventually located Jean-Paul who’s currently a vagrant living on the streets. Alfred was unsure whether Jean was the right choice to be the next Batman but decided to believe Bruce’s words. Alfred tracked down Jean and told him that Gotham needs him. Jean said that Alfred was mistaken and that he’s just a vagrant who lost his job due to the situation in Gotham. Alfred rebutted and said that Batman trusted him and has faith in him to be the next Batman. He knew who Jean was and his identity as Azarel. Jean asked what happened to Batman to which he replied that Batman is no longer with us but Gotham must not be aware of this. Jean nodded and said that he will cooperate with Alfred. Alfred handed the key to Bruce’s Bat-cave and told Jean that everything is needed in there but the first thing that Jean needs to do is to prepare himself to fight Bane.

Act 4

3 months have pasted since Bane’s act of terror on Gotham has begun. Gotham’s police have been immobilized as they were trapped in the sewers. They were tricked with fake intelligence on Bane’s hideout and Commissioner Gordon mobilized the entire police force to hunt down Bane. However, when the police force arrived at the sewers they heard an explosion from outside. The bridges of the city exploded and caved in trapping the police force with no access in and out. Gotham’s police force were useless. John Blake was puzzled after the Batman had been missing during the past months. Batman should be protecting the streets of Gotham but he’s nowhere to be seen. Bane’s goons were armed with heavy machine guns and consistently patrolled the streets of Gotham City. There were only several police officers on the surface of Gotham such as Commissioner Gordon and John Blake. Bane gloated about Batman’s whereabouts and how Gotham should have been seized a long time ago. Gotham is already rotten to the core. Bane’s claims and men have taken control of most of Gotham City and their main headquarters were at Gotham Stock Exchange. Bane was able to gain access to Bruce’s assets after stealing his fingerprints. With Bruce’s wealth he was able to make heavy artillery and firepower for his goons. Bane plans to convert Wayne Enterprises’s fusion reactor core into a decaying neutron bomb. As he was discussing his plans with Dr.Pavel the scientist who is capable of converting the fusion reactor the alarms at Gotham Stock Exchange were alerted. Bane’s goons told him that the main entrance of the building has been breached and the guards have been knocked out cold. Bane told his men to prep up and be on standby. The lights went out in the building and the gunshots were fired. One by one of Bane’s men were taken out til only Bane was left in the room. Bane said that he was used to fighting in the dark and that this is merely something trivial for him. A flash bomb exploded near Bane and he was stunned temporarily. He felt something charging towards him and he flew out of a window. Bane and the intruder tussled across the hallway and Bane gained the upper hand and grabbed the intruder by the neck before slamming him onto the door. The backup lights at the building were up and Bane saw his intruder was Batman. He thought that he has already broken the bat and Bruce was stuck in the pit. Bane questioned Batman but Batman head-butted him before taking his batarang and stabbing it into Bane. Bane groaned in pain but sneered that such pain is already accustomed for him. He took the batarang out and threw it at Batman. Batman and Bane continued to brawl when Batman heard Bane’s goons storming back into the building. Realizing that he could not defeat them simultaneously Batman launched a grappling hook to the roof of the building and fled. Bane’s men were about to shoot at Batman but were stopped by Bane. Bane said that things are getting interesting and he told his men that he will be gone for a few days as he had to check at the pit. Batman returned to the Bat-cave and was furious. He was disappointed at his own self and berated his weakness. Alfred consulted Jean and told him that now he understands Bane’s strength. He needs to get back stronger to defeat Bane. Jean told Alfred that he needs a much stronger Bat-suit to combat with Bane and he would be training more vigorously. He figured that he needs to fight in an orthodox and street style against Bane. Bane is built differently and he needs to adapt. Alfred told Jean that there was an iron Bat-suit which Bruce developed as a prototype. It was never used in combat as there was no grave situation that required Batman to use that suit. Jean decided to equip himself with the Iron-bat suit to fight against Bane. Elsewhere, at the pit Bane was shocked to see that Bruce had successfully escaped from the pit. Bruce heard tales of how the child of Ra’s al Ghul was the lone escapee from the pit. Multiple inmates have tried to escape from it but have fell to their deaths. Bruce was inspired and decided to train himself for the past few months trying to muster his strength back and he eventually succeeded in escaping the pit and had been gone for several days. Bane wondered if Bruce was the Batman he faced but the previous Batman he faced at Gotham Stock Exchange was more aggressive. He decided to brush it away as the main goal of destroying Gotham was not far-fetched. Bane returned to Gotham and killed Mayor Anthony Garcia while he forced Dr. Pavel to work on the nuclear fusion reactor quickly. Bane knew that he had to act swiftly.

Final act

A few days later, Bane read out Gordon’s letter detailing Harvey Dent’s misdeeds to the public. All of Gotham City knew about Harvey Dent being Two-Face. Bane told Gotham that the nuclear fusion reactor from Wayne Enterprises has been completed by Dr. Pavel. It has been placed underground of the mayor’s residence and it’s impact of explosion could wipe out the entire streets of Gotham. Bane then executed Dr.Pavel live on tv. He and his goons then rolled out on Gotham’s streets while floating of their imminent victory. Elsewhere, Bruce has returned to Wayne Manor and realized about the situation of Gotham. He knew that he is not in his tip-top condition to fight against Bane but had no other alternatives. Bruce realized that the police have been caved in and trapped in the sewers. Bruce decided to head over there and remove the boulders that caved in. As he was doing it Jean-Paul the other Batman interrupted Bane’s parade and shot several missiles at their armed vehicles. Bane anticipated that Batman would interfere and told his men to shoot at Batman. Batman missed the bullets and fired several missile projectiles at Bane’s men. Batman then charge towards Bane but was held off by Bane’s guards figuring that his guards will be able to halt him for a while. Bane decided to load and prepare for the nuclear reactor. Bane was shocked when he saw the Batman easily knocked out all of his goons. Batman beat all of his goons up almost to death. What shocked Bane was that this Batman was much more aggressive than the previous times he broke Batman’s back. Figuring that Batman was just filled with rage Bane went and decided to fight with Batman. Batman with his iron Bat-suit was stronger compared to Bane. Bane landed several punches to Batman but to no avail. The iron Bat-suit was taken all the damage thrown to him. He grabbed Bane by the neck and slammed him across the armored vehicle. At the same time the police force which has been freed by Bruce Wayne were mobilizing themselves to fight against Bane’s goons. Commissioner Gordon told his men to suppress Bane’s goons quickly. Bane and Batman continued fighting although Batman was gaining the upper hand. Batman knocked Bane’s mask profusely causing him to bleed and groan in pain. Batman was about to land the final blow on Bane when he felt someone trying to stab him. He turned around and saw that it was Miranda Tate. Of course Jean wasn’t aware of her personal connection with Batman. She said that she was Talia al Ghul the daughter of Ra’s al Ghul and it is important for her to complete what her father could not complete. She said that it was her who escaped from the pit and not Bane. Jean was a little puzzled on what was going on but his rage to defeat Bane got the better of him. He ignored Talia and decided to land the final blow on Bane. Talia was furious that Batman ignored her and she took one of the goon’s machine guns from nearby and started firing at Batman. With his iron Bat-suit he easily deflected the bullets and turned his attention to Talia. Batman fought with Talia and defeated her easily. He then grabbed Talia and lifted her by the back. He told Bane that he recalled doing the same to Batman where he broke his back. Batman said that vengeance was inminent and he proceeded to break Talia’s back. However, his iron Bat-suit exerted too much force causing not only her back to break but her neck as well. Batman then throw Talia’s lifeless body to Bane. Selina Kyle who was there was shocked to see Batman killing Talia. She said that this isn’t like Batman to kill some one. Batman told Selena to buzz off and that the previous Batman could not get the job done. So it’s up to him to clean up this mess. Bane was devastated and charged towards Batman who was caught off guard. Both of them brawled and threw continuous punches at each other. Bane said that Batman took the only person he cared and for that he will pay the price. Bane and Batman continued fighting while the police were trying to suppress his goons. Bruce was at the war scene when he saw Batman and Bane brawling at each other. He realized that he needed to detonate the nuclear fusion reactor. Otherwise everything they fought for would be meaningless. Bane landed several hard punches that broke Batman’s face armor much to his shock. Bane told Batman that Gotham’s destruction is not complete without the death of Batman. He took a rocket launcher and fired at Batman but his iron Bat-suit was able to take the damage. Batman laughed and slated that a mere rocket launcher could not kill him. Bane stated that his plan was never to kill Batman with the rocket launcher but with his own bare hands. He stabbed Batman with a knife before snapping the neck of Batman. Batman tried to fight back but was powerless and within seconds there was no motion of movement from him. Batman was dead. Selina Kyle shot at Bane with the machine gun and Bane immediately fled. He saw that most of his goons are dead and Talia al Ghul was dead too. The only thing left was to detonate Gotham. However the remote from the nuclear fusion reactor was destroyed during his fight with Batman. Bane quickly went to the basement of the mayor’s residence to detonate the reactor on his own. Selena stared at Batman’s lifeless body and was unsure of how to react to his death. She was furious that Batman killed Talia al Ghul but was heartbroken that Batman was dead. She decided to remove his mask to embrace his lips one last time. However she realized that his lips were different. Selena then removed Batman’s mask and was shocked to see that it was a different man and not Bruce Wayne. That explains why Batman was aggressive and that’s why he even killed Talia al Ghul. She put back Batman’s mask and decided to find Bane. The real Bruce Wayne is somewhere but she isn’t sure where. At the basement of the mayor’s residence Bane was bleeding and his mask was somewhat destroyed. But he knew that he needed to fulfill Ra’s al Ghul’s last wish which was to destroy Gotham. On his way down there he saw someone wearing a Batman suit standing across the hallway. Bane was aghast as he has seen a ghost. If he has already killed the Batman above who could be this Batman. Bane realized that none of it mattered and he needed to complete his goal quickly. Bane and Batman clashed again but with the weakened Bane Batman easily defeats Bane. Batman threw Bane across the hallway and Bane was on the verge of death. He took a handgun and aimed at Batman. Selena came in time and landed a whip on Bane’s head causing the handgun to skid across the hallway. She took the handgun and aimed at Bane before firing right on his chest killing him for good. Selina went to Batman and hugged him telling her that she was terrified when Batman supposedly died up there. Bruce said that he was disappointed that his counterpart was killed but there are more pressing matters now. He headed to the room where the nuclear fusion reactor was stored and realized that Bane has set the bomb to explode even without a remote. Batman loaded the bombs into the Bat-jet and flew into the bay. He dropped the bomb into the bay far away from Gotham and the bomb exploded. The police and citizens were shocked to see a large explosion occurring from afar. The police found Jean-Paul’s Batman body and told Commissioner Gordon about it. Gordon was saddened by the fact that Batman has sacrificed himself to be defeated by Bane. He ordered the police not to remove Batman’s mask as a sign of respect for the caped crusader. The police later found Bane’s lifeless body at the basement and concluded that Bane either shot himself or he succumbed to his wounds. They were unable to determine who dropped the bomb into the bay as Batman was supposedly dead already after his fight with Bane.

Epilogue

In the aftermath, Batman was declared as a martyr and the hero of Gotham for fighting for his life in defeating Bane. Commissioner Gordon told the citizens of Gotham that this is the time to be stronger and more united than ever before. Batman was a hero and will always be remembered as the caped crusader of Gotham. A statue has been erected in Gotham to commemorate him. If it wasn’t for Batman’s interference Gotham would have been wiped out from the explosion. Alfred has resigned from being a butler at Wayne Manor with the mansion being transformed into an orphanage. Bruce and Selina were seen enjoying their holiday retreat at a cafe meaning that both of them hung up their superhero identities. Meanwhile, Officer Blake quit the GCPD when he received a parcel with information containing about Batman and his Bat-cave. He opened a file with records of information on certain individuals that are gifted such as a boy who could transform into different types of animals, a woman who can absorb and redirect solar energy and a girl with dark magical powers. He was told to find them and assemble a team to protect the future of the world. He closed the profile and saw that the parcel was directed to Robin Blake indicating that John Blake’s legal first name is Robin. He went to the Bat-Cave and said that he would then dub this new team he’ll be forming as the Teen Titans…

THE END!

And that is going to be it for what if Bane killed Batman in the Dark Knight Rises. We saw that the movie still played out the same but there were some differences including Azarel being killed instead of Bruce Wayne and the Teen Titans were introduced at the end of this fan fiction. Anyway do make sure to be on the lookout for more what ifs coming soon. Take care guys and have a fantastic day. Peace out!

#dc films #nolanverse

1 note · View note

gothprentiss · 2 years

Text

i know this (the whole post i’ve screenshotted) is like probably, as discourse goes, quite helpful and compelling, if we assume that anyone still participating in the Queer vs Q Slur Discourse is doing so in good faith rather than to merely spell out their immovable beliefs in increasingly condescending terms but every time i see this i do think— are you sure this is what’s at stake?

like yes, sure, on one hand queerness is a great way to explore how difference is constructed against a nonexistent but enforced ideal. every oversimplified intro to theory book will tell you this— we’re all a little bit queer, proclaims some self professed Theory Expert who then will go on to say shit which wouldn’t pass even the most glancing homophobia smell test in the vacuum of space. and it’s true that some dude who only learned about bisexuality last year can also confidently describe himself as queer and claim that you are, too, because plenty of straight men very fruitily think strong women are hot. i promise i’m not making this up. any disability studies intro of any theoretical complexity should make the same central point: the normative body is not one which is actually common to all abled people, and the categories of the different and the other are constructed and enforced. i agree with this principle and am not trying to be dismissive but i do also want to point out that a lot of the time this is not being treated as an ethos or a political impetus but rather as an analytic. now you might say the three overlap— sure— but largely what’s going on here forms a larger scale deconstructionist project, which strikes me as being its own underlying ethic.

but my actual beeves are two.

first, i’m wary of the practice of— even just as an offhand comment— aligning queer as a broad term of identity— and now, irrevocably, of demographic— with queer theory. there are the obvious problems (which in this context are, i think, kind of beside the point but still relevant) of accessibility and anti-intellectualism. there is also the problem of what queer theory largely does. this is of course malleable and debatable but it is genuinely a project of deconstruction, which does not seek, ultimately, to assert difference as a unifying factor, except to the extent that it unifies all as different. this creates quite a notable difficulty as a way of stating or claiming an identity, because the binary of “normal” and “different” being invoked here is what this strand of theory is a useful tool for undermining. treating queer theory as synonymous with queer as a term of identity is like the new electric hummer (i’m being flippant). obviously there is also the fact of like— queerness means different things for different people. queer theory has different aims and philosophies. in all settings you run into the problem of a universal which also atomizes. this is probably a very useful thought process for a lot of people! as i’ve said, the capacity to accept difference without articulating frankly arbitrary ‘bad’ kinds of difference (i mean ‘don’t talk to me if you support he/him lesbians’ not like ‘i block pedos and terfs’, these being two distinct kinds of policing the conceptualization and expression of gender and sexuality, i have zero probz with the latter) is one that is really underdeveloped even among the Different community. but the problem is that that’s not the trajectory of queer theory— it’s a singular basic assumption for its practice.

the second thing isn’t really a beef so much as like… a thing to say. it’s that, okay, we’re articulating ourselves as different. we do so in order to insist on the importance, value, and normality of that difference. there is a widespread societal construct of normal, which is Good and Right and Moral. we seek to assert that we, too, are Good and Right and Moral, or that Good and Right and Moral do not meaningfully inhere in the practice or performance of sexuality and gender, or other things about these categories. does this identity have any meaning or coherence outside of that? now you might be like, jesus christ, who cares, this is our political reality and the discourse is still too much of a shitshow to be spitballing about our utopian gender and sexuality future. which is true! but think of it this way: out of gay and lesbian studies, out of gender and sexuality studies, we get the largely deconstructionist tool of queer theory. queer theory itself comes from a history of sexuality (both in the general sense that it’s enabled by the capacity to construct one, and it’s heavily enabled by foucault’s), and specifically from the fact that sexuality’s history is one which precedes and exceeds our labels and our capacity to assign them. so the question of what outcomes we imagine and desire in this coalition is also the question of our ability to articulate, beyond what we are, what the parameters of that we are. like this is just blah blah can we call sappho a lesbian-style discourse but at a more annoying lexile level. like if, and when, i call myself a lesbian, and queer, those are two different labels, with two different sets of implications for me and how i find community. how am i to conceptualize those identities beyond how they relate to me and my world? what sorts of histories can i construct or claim for myself and my community as a result? i’m kind of unconcerned with the issue of labeling as it relates to the past and the consent of those who we now perceive as voiceless, insofar as the problem there isn’t merely of labelling but of the ethics of historiography as a whole, on one hand, and the ethics and articulation of that label on the other.

and the other thing is that, like, are we required across history to identify ourselves in the negative space of society’s various enforced norms, and only ever by the impacts of its cudgel? (not conflating the two but) an interesting point of comparison is the work of someone like saidiya hartman, who i think would identify her work as african american studies well before calling it critical race theory, but also whose work is extremely formative in both fields and their intersections + collisions + entanglements(?). the legacy of enslavement is a historical record which extends in its effacement beyond the typical one-sidedness inherent in all historiography, and the critical practice hartman develops in response to the violent construction of this archive is fabulation, which is creative and generalizing. again, not conflating race and sexuality. different tools and methods and histories. the point really is just that theory produces histories in ways which are extremely important to how we conceptualize both community & justice, and what futures we imagine for those concepts, & i think hartman’s one of the more important examples of this.

this is long bc i’ve always kind of thought queer as in identity and queer as in theory are functionally different terms but with obvious and far-reaching interconnections, and i’m trying to substantiate that. maybe my point is that i don’t see the point of being like “i’m queer and that entails theory” when what you seem to mean is that, like, all labels have an underlying theory, rather than like, actual queer theory, or the obligation to engage in/with theory. arguably the point here is that in practice is not in theory, and the problem with theory is always of moving between the general to the particular, which i think is too rarely considered as a matter of time/history as well. what does articulating queerness mean going forward, and looking back? and if you’re like this Literally doesn’t matter then like, cool, awesome, so we agree they’re separate concepts because the question of history is inextricable from our capacity to engage in queer theory. as you were

#discoursing lmao #SORRY THIS SOMEHOW DIDNT POST AS A READMORE INITIALLY

1 note · View note