#the thing is he's reportedly a flirt and at this point i don't even know if i miss him or just that feeling | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

c-40 · 1 year

Text

A-T-3 116 Popol Vuh - They Danced, They Laughed, As Of Old

Ducktales Pt.3

What began as a quick diversion from writing about selling reissues to Americans has become a relatively long discourse on the UK government's 'small boats' narrative, hey but I'm enjoying it

I've not clarified the point I wanted to make about narrative yet, that is, narratives don't do well under scrutiny. There's no limit to the amount of stories you can tell about something and they have a tendency to contradict each other. The legitimacy of your whole argument is open to being trashed if a part of your narrative is proven to be a lie. But as we're about to see this can also be engineered to your advantage, it's a risk politicians are increasingly willing to take

This is where politicking has been cosying up to conspiracy theorists

On the 8th March 2023 the daily mail publishes an article written by Home Secretary Suella Braverman that puts in black and white "likely billions" of people are eager to come to the UK. It's difficult not to laugh at this. 'Billions' implies at least 2 billion, that's a quarter of the planets population Ms Braverman is saying are "eager" to come to the UK. That this is ridiculous doesn't matter, it would have been checked before publication, it was intentional. So why make yourself look so stupid? What Braverman wanted was for us to take two things for this article, 'a very big number', and 'coming to the UK.' The article received a 'backlash' from across the media spectrum (with right-wing papers reporting focusing on the 'backlash' itself,) the backlash was expected, 'a very big number' and 'coming to the UK' were talked about in every 'backlash' piece in the newscylcle for the following days. The original article has been changed to "tens of thousands" that's a reduction to 0.001% of the original claim. Remember the fuss over Diane Abbot getting some figures slightly wrong? well 'billions' was off one hundred thousand times. Even replaced with a more believable figure it still looks like a big number (still not as big as the difference between the two figures, not even close). This wasn't the first time Suella Braverman had flirted with faked figures, the day before (7th March 2023) she told parliament “There are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws. Let us be clear - they are coming here.” This is also entirely misleading https://fullfact.org/immigration/suella-braverman-100-million-claim/

Loaded language is popular with all tory MPs, it's as if they've been on a training course. Braverman stands out though, perfectly legal asylum seekers are called "illegal", last year she outraged people by likening asylum seeking to an "invasion", and in 2019 Ms Braverman went full far-right, anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. "As Conservatives, we are engaged in a battle against Cultural Marxism," she reportedly said. (imagine if Jeremy Corby or a member of his shadow cabinet had done that!)

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

Sports presenter Gary Lineker becoming the story is interesting for many reasons, most importantly the politics of offence effectively stopped all conversation about the government's illegal Illegal Bill at a critical time. The 47 words of Lineker's 'tweet' became column inches, some wrote-off the comparison he made to the language of 30's Germany as an example of Godwin's Law, but "there's no easy way to form a unified theory of Godwin's Law in the age of Trump and the alt-right."

We live in an age of mega-conspiracies that accommodate all different perspectives. 'Cultural Marxism' is linked to 'The Great Replacement Theory' with believers also weaving together conspiracies like 'climate change denial', 'anti-vaccination', 'anti-trans rights', and 'anti-5G'. When I've spoken to far-right protesters, protesting vaccinations, They've begun with 'The Mayan Calendar' and 'The Great Reset Conspiracy'

As well as being a rock group Popol Vuh is a text recounting the mythology and history of the Kʼicheʼ people, one of the Maya peoples

Popol Vuh - They Danced, They Laughed, As Of Old

youtube

Popol Vuh - Why Do I Still Sleep

youtube

#1983 #popol vuh #rock #progressive rock #munich #germany #80s music

0 notes

whysojiminimnida · 2 years

Text

Welcome To MiniMoni, or Jungkook Is Just Screwed Isn't He

Because let's be honest...

Cameron Phillip as Jungkook is not entirely wrong. But before we go barrel-rolling off to some toxic Jeonlous narrative that, well, okay, in this case it kinda DOES exist but only a little bit and it's not toxic, it's normal; Let's all enjoy twelve minutes or so of a nice compilation of some sweet and fun moments between Namjoon and Jimin:

youtube

Edited videos are always suspect to me unless I am (A) watching them for fun and not for evidentiary findings; or (2) they're not really trying to prove anything. But let's be reasonable here - nobody honestly thinks that MiniMoni are a thing, do they? Plus it's a really cute video with a lot of great moments. Props to the creator.

(photo collage cr. @sherwynphilip)

Cute boyfriend-looking guys in couple fits, okay, I guess I could see it if like a Jeon Jungkook didn't exist. They do look very pretty together. And there's nothing they love more than a good selca.

Honestly, I could ship it if not for the existence of the Jeon half of the Jeon-Park household. And the possibility of Namjoon just not being into guys.... BUT WAIT I STILL THINK HE KINDA IS THO. The Jimin effect also exists and I really don't care who you are, it's pretty obvious that Joon enjoys Jimin's visuals, his intellect, his emotional support, his friendship and his ass affection.

Jimin has an ability to find the emotional center of people around him. He is reportedly highly emotionally intelligent and is a caregiver, a gift-giver, an encouraging, kind presence (when he isn't being a total Slytherin) to his friends. And I think Joon appreciates that about him. Meanwhile Joonie stimulates Jimin's brain, his artistic side, his sharp wit and his need for affection and praise. Namjoon has no problem giving Jimin what he needs in any of those areas. That they also happen to find each other attractive is not necessarily a bad thing, and in this case, a little chemistry goes a long way. They kind of provide each other a safe flirtation outlet, if that makes sense.

It is very normal and not weird for two close friends to also be like "yeah, would possibly hit that if it wouldn't gank up the friendship and/or if I wasn't already otherwise involved." Happens all the time and it's not exclusively masculine.

WHICH BRINGS US TO WHY JUNGKOOK IS JUST SCREWED OKAY.

Jungkook's first real guy crush was, apparently, Namjoon. This is based on stuff Kook has said about joining BTS specifically because of Joon, and about his thighs, and his basically spending 2012-2014 just following Namjoon around like a puppy.

So Jungkook admires/crushes on Namjoon and Namjoon admires Jimin who flirts with the world but is in love with Jungkook, this actually does read kinda like bad fanfiction. Or maybe good fanfiction. IDK y'all I just show up here and make observations and post shit. I can't be held responsible for what these grown ass men do in front of a camera. Or behind it for that matter.

The upshot is, Namjoon is aware that Koo crushed on him first. He is also well aware of the Jeon-Park situation having been thoroughly exposed via my personal favorite show, Namjoon In The Middle, for well over five years now. Six, really. Maybe seven. Whatever, HE KNOWS OKAY. They ALL KNOW. Nobody's hiding from anyone in BTS. These guys got their boundaries all trampled on before most of them were out of their teens, they don't even know how to act most of the time.

And Jimin is also aware that Jungkook liked Namjoon maybe better right at first and he is not above caressing a wow-thigh here or there if he needs to get a point across. And sometimes he do. I don't know what the point was on this day but something was going on.

But let's please notice, Jimin is not the only Slytherin in Bangtan. Not by a long shot. Y'all got to stop villainizing Jiminie when Namjoon knows exactly what's up and he's just letting this ride and encouraging it if not openly initiating. And it's not the only time.

Maddest I've ever seen Kookie was at this fansign, please ignore the overt misspelling of "avert" and understand that I have an image limit I'm working against here, anyway, boy was PISSED OFF. Namjoon just triggers him when it comes to Jimin. And I don't find this "toxic" behavior. This is normal behavior. Normalize the idea that sometimes in relationships, especially as-yet unestablished ones, insecurities happen. Doesn't make him toxic, makes him human, get off his dick okay.

Maybe he knows something we don't or maybe Jiminie kinda uses Joon to rile up his man or maybe, maybe, Namjoon is also sometimes a Slytherin. To be fair Joon is owed certain compensatory enjoyment for having to be the Jeon-Park Police but somehow he lets Jimin get by with shit and kinda dishes it Koo's direction, historically, and I haven't figured that out yet.

But ...

In the last couple of years, as the Jeon-Parks have grown up a bit and solidified their own bond, Joon has also grown up a bit. Because I don't think it really damaged his and Jimin's friendship, but I do think he and Jungkook realized that while they are never gonna be the tightest duo in Bangtan, they do work together, they do both love and care for Jimin, and they are friends. Just, not Jinkook-level friends. MiniMoni are always going to be one of the closer pairs, and Minkook is kinda... a little on the side-eye side. But still cute. So things have mellowed a lot. Jungkook in particular has mellowed a lot. And as of late 2021, MiniMoni are still MiniMoni-ing and the Jeon-Parks are still Jeon-Parking and all is well (including Namjoon, I hope, he should be testing negative for COVID like, soon, right?) So that's my take on those guys. Cue the cannons. I'll be behind the sofa if you need me.

#Youtube #minimoni #namjoon in the middle #it's my favorite show #fetus jeon-parks jeonparking #jeon parks jeonparking again #jikook #kim motherfucking namjoon #namjoon #also a whole park jimin exists #jimin is a bit of a slytherin #namjoon is also a bit of a slytherin there i said it #fight me #jungkook is just trying to breathe over here damn

122 notes · View notes

theangryjikooker · 2 years

Note

I came across the interview where the boys were asked who's good with the ladies and almost every one pointed to jungkook.

This kind of invalidates the theory among armies/jikookers (who believes it) that jungkook is a scarry cat in front of girls. I think that theory came up because of the initial rookie shows they did? Because technically if I see, JK is quite comfortable around girls. There are pics of his female hairdresser, make-up artist and he's all snuggled up and that's cute. I'm not trying to make it malignant. Girl and a boy should have that comfort level, I feel.

Now to the interview question, I don't know if the members understood it correctly but as an international audience I think that question was asked on the basis of dating/possible relationship/someone who can charm the girls/flirt and all that? And if members understood it correctly that would mean they might have seen jungkook behaving / being that way with the ladies (on occasion)? And if jikook are/were in committed relationship , I really don't think that was an appropriate answer.

On the other hand I feel they understood the question some other way. Like who's more famous among armies and no doubt jungkook is the famous one out of all in the world. (I find JM the most handsome and beautiful personally 😉) I do think it's armies part coz let's be honest most of the time they answer questions keeping army in their mind. And so jungkook was the automatic answer?

And the part where jikookers say jimin looked uncomfortable, it could be because of any of the one reason. The jungkook potential partner or why wasn't his name taken?

I don't know if I made sense in the ask but I would love to hear your views. Also it's been a long time, where are you? And how are you?

I'm the 70-30% anon from a long time back. 🤗

Hello, 70-30 anon, long time no see!

Sorry my reply is so late! Things are pretty quiet on the Jikook front, so I've kind of pushed this on the back burner. Everything is good, Twitter is a dumpster fire again because everyone is showing their anti-JM colors, which pisses me off, so I'm also avoiding it like the plague.

I think I know which interview you mean, and I think the boys understood what the question meant. That said, I think some Jkkrs had this idea of Jungkook when he was really young and when he was really shy, and they carried along that perception of him even as he got older. And the thing about being "good" with the opposite sex--anyone can answer that in a multitude of ways. It doesn't necessarily mean Jungkook is actively charming ladies left and right; like you said, they might have interpreted it to mean who's the most popular, which is Jungkook, and that's a completely valid answer. It was very much a fluffy question, though, so I didn't put any stock in it even if we were to hypothetically say Jikook were dating at that time. Given their profession, especially in their earlier years, there's sometimes a sense of obligation to answer fishing questions that appeals to a mass audience, regardless of their actual relationship status.

All that aside, Jungkook's confidence has skyrocketed since his youth. I wouldn't be surprised if he's "good" with women (or men) these days, but I don't know too much about his relationships with women to say that this is a fact, or whether or not he engages with them romantically because that's not my place to make that call. It's unfortunate that the boys aren't "allowed" to interact with women without consequences because it'd be a really interesting point of comparison. (I don't think people want to hear this, but there is this one video I saw of Jungkook who looked dazzled by a woman who was reportedly an employee at an event. And it wasn't a one-off glance; his gaze, coupled with a fond ass smile, was glued to her as she was doing something up in the stands/seats/whatever it was. Maybe he was amused by her? But that was probably the most blatant, positive "engagement" I've seen from him in relation to the opposite sex.)

I'm not here to dispute Jikook or say that Jungkook's straight because again, I can't say that any of that is true one way or another. I don't know them. But I'd be a hypocrite if I ignored all kinds of evidence just because it doesn't align with my Jikook agenda. I'm saying that's what I saw, but do I think Jikook is any less possible because of it? No. But I also don't think Jkkrs should be making judgment calls about how Jungkook is around women because none of us personally know him.

I think I went on a tangent. Sorry if I didn't quite get to the root of your question, anon! Feel free to drop by again and correct me. :)

#TAJ asks #70-30 anon #jikook #kookmin #jeon jungkook #jungkook

5 notes · View notes

duanecbrooks · 7 years

Text

Yikes! New Behind-the-Scenes Book Brutalizes the Clinton Campaign 'Shattered,' a campaign tell-all fueled by anonymous sources, outlines a generational political disaster A new book by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes examines what went wrong during Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. By Matt Taibbi There is a critical scene in Shattered, the new behind-the-scenes campaign diary by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, in which staffers in the Hillary Clinton campaign begin to bicker with one another. At the end of Chapter One, which is entirely about that campaign's exhausting and fruitless search for a plausible explanation for why Hillary was running, writers Allen and Parnes talk about the infighting problem. "All of the jockeying might have been all right, but for a root problem that confounded everyone on the campaign and outside it," they wrote. "Hillary had been running for president for almost a decade and still didn't really have a rationale." Allen and Parnes here quoted a Clinton aide who jokingly summed up Clinton's real motivation: "I would have had a reason for running," one of her top aides said, "or I wouldn't have run." The beleaguered Clinton staff spent the better part of two years trying to roll this insane tautology – "I have a reason for running because no one runs without a reason" – into the White House. It was a Beltway take on the classic Descartes formulation: "I seek re-election, therefore I am... seeking re-election." Shattered is sourced almost entirely to figures inside the Clinton campaign who were and are deeply loyal to Clinton. Yet those sources tell of a campaign that spent nearly two years paralyzed by simple existential questions: Why are we running? What do we stand for? If you're wondering what might be the point of rehashing this now, the responsibility for opposing Donald Trump going forward still rests with the (mostly anonymous) voices described in this book. What Allen and Parnes captured in Shattered was a far more revealing portrait of the Democratic Party intelligentsia than, say, the WikiLeaks dumps. And while the book is profoundly unflattering to Hillary Clinton, the problem it describes really has nothing to do with Secretary Clinton. The real protagonist of this book is a Washington political establishment that has lost the ability to explain itself or its motives to people outside the Beltway. In fact, it shines through in the book that the voters' need to understand why this or that person is running for office is viewed in Washington as little more than an annoying problem. In the Clinton run, that problem became such a millstone around the neck of the campaign that staffers began to flirt with the idea of sharing the uninspiring truth with voters. Stumped for months by how to explain why their candidate wanted to be president, Clinton staffers began toying with the idea of seeing how "Because it's her turn" might fly as a public rallying cry. This passage describes the mood inside the campaign early in the Iowa race (emphasis mine): "There wasn't a real clear sense of why she was in it. Minus that, people want to assign their own motivations – at the very best, a politician who thinks it's her turn," one campaign staffer said. "It was true and earnest, but also received well. We were talking to Democrats, who largely didn't think she was evil." Our own voters "largely" don't think your real reason for running for president is evil qualified as good news in this book. The book is filled with similar scenes of brutal unintentional comedy. In May of 2015, as Hillary was planning her first major TV interview – an address the campaign hoped would put to rest criticism Hillary was avoiding the press over the burgeoning email scandal – communications chief Jennifer Palmieri asked Huma Abedin to ask Hillary who she wanted to conduct the interview. (There are a lot of these games of "telephone" in the book, as only a tiny group of people had access to the increasingly secretive candidate.) The answer that came back was that Hillary wanted to do the interview with "Brianna." Palmieri took this to mean CNN's Brianna Keilar, and worked to set up the interview, which aired on July 7th of that year. Unfortunately, Keilar was not particularly gentle in her conduct of the interview. Among other things, she asked Hillary questions like, "Would you vote for someone you didn't trust?" An aide describes Hillary as "staring daggers" at Keilar. Internally, the interview was viewed as a disaster. It turns out now it was all a mistake. Hillary had not wanted Brianna Keilar as an interviewer, but Bianna Golodryga of Yahoo! News, an excellent interviewer in her own right, but also one who happens to be the spouse of longtime Clinton administration aide Peter Orszag. This "I said lunch, not launch!" slapstick mishap underscored for the Clinton campaign the hazards of venturing one millimeter outside the circle of trust. In one early conference call with speechwriters, Clinton sounded reserved: "Though she was speaking with a small group made up mostly of intimates, she sounded like she was addressing a roomful of supporters – inhibited by the concern that whatever she said might be leaked to the press." This traced back to 2008, a failed run that the Clintons had concluded was due to the disloyalty and treachery of staff and other Democrats. After that race, Hillary had aides create "loyalty scores" (from one for most loyal, to seven for most treacherous) for members of Congress. Bill Clinton since 2008 had "campaigned against some of the sevens" to "help knock them out of office," apparently to purify the Dem ranks heading into 2016. Beyond that, Hillary after 2008 conducted a unique autopsy of her failed campaign. This reportedly included personally going back and reading through the email messages of her staffers: "She instructed a trusted aide to access the campaign's server and download the messages sent and received by top staffers. … She believed her campaign had failed her – not the other way around – and she wanted 'to see who was talking to who, who was leaking to who,' said a source familiar with the operation." Some will say this Nixonesque prying into her staff's communications will make complaints about leaked emails ring a little hollow. Who knows about that. Reading your employees' emails isn't nearly the same as having an outsider leak them all over the world. Still, such a criticism would miss the point, which is that Hillary was looking in the wrong place for a reason for her 2008 loss. That she was convinced her staff was at fault makes sense, as Washington politicians tend to view everything through an insider lens. Most don't see elections as organic movements within populations of millions, but as dueling contests of "whip-smart" organizers who know how to get the cattle to vote the right way. If someone wins an election, the inevitable Beltway conclusion is that the winner had better puppeteers. The Clinton campaign in 2016, for instance, never saw the Bernie Sanders campaign as being driven by millions of people who over the course of decades had become dissatisfied with the party. They instead saw one cheap stunt pulled by an illegitimate back-bencher, foolishness that would be ended if Sanders himself could somehow be removed. "Bill and Hillary had wanted to put [Sanders] down like a junkyard dog early on," Allen and Parnes wrote. The only reason they didn't, they explained, was an irritating chance problem: Sanders "was liked," which meant going negative would backfire. Hillary had had the same problem with Barack Obama, with whom she and her husband had elected to go heavily negative in 2008, only to see that strategy go very wrong. "It boomeranged," as it's put in Shattered. The Clinton campaign was convinced that Obama won in 2008 not because he was a better candidate, or buoyed by an electorate that was disgusted with the Iraq War. Obama won, they believed, because he had a better campaign operation – i.e., better Washingtonian puppeteers. In The Right Stuff terms, Obama's Germans were better than Hillary's Germans. They were determined not to make the same mistake in 2016. Here, the thought process of campaign chief Robby Mook is described: "Mook knew that Hillary viewed almost every early decision through a 2008 lens: she thought almost everything her own campaign had done was flawed and everything Obama's had done was pristine." Since Obama had spent efficiently and Hillary in 2008 had not, this led to spending cutbacks in the 2016 race in crucial areas, including the hiring of outreach staff in states like Michigan. This led to a string of similarly insane self-defeating decisions. As the book puts it, the "obsession with efficiency had come at the cost of broad voter contact in states that would become important battlegrounds." If the ending to this story were anything other than Donald Trump being elected president, Shattered would be an awesome comedy, like a Kafka novel – a lunatic bureaucracy devouring itself. But since the ending is the opposite of funny, it will likely be consumed as a cautionary tale. Shattered is what happens when political parties become too disconnected from their voters. Even if you think the election was stolen, any Democrat who reads this book will come away believing he or she belongs to a party stuck in a profound identity crisis. Trump or no Trump, the Democrats need therapy – and soon.

#shattered #jonathan allen #amie parnes #the hillary clinton campaign #infighting #Trump #Donald Trump #Washington political establishment #book #voters #tv interview #email scandal #access #briana keilar #bianna golodryga #disconnected #the democrats #therapy

1 note · View note