Ah, seems Grandpa Shade is still a little sensitive ; 3;
Heading into headcanon territory here:
Since Ganondorf still retains his memories from his past selves, he remembers Time and the battle they previously had. When Time became Hero’s Shade, he was given the memories of all the previous Links, as well as maintaining his own (I wrote out a prompt about this, but you guys won’t get to see for a while). I’m pretty sure Ganondorf must have taken some part of the Hyrulean Civil War, whether it was actually participating, or just sitting back and watching. But, he had to have been there. So, it’s no surprise that he knows what happened to Time’s poor momma, and it seems Time still holds some grief about it.
I wonder if he ever got to see his parents again in the afterlife…
I think we should be very clear on this… this country was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment… It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn’t founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can’t lose that in this country. We’ve got to get it back.
Spider-Man’s dialogue in Civil War sounds like it was written by someone who’d never met a teenager since they were one. “That really old movie? Uh- uh… Empire Strikes Back”? I wanted to smack him right then.
im so fucking tired of this shit. im so exhausted of defending my humanity. im honestly done with yall.
you sit around and talk about how like “we’re haram” and that “we’re sin” but ~oh~ wait!! you still “hate the sin not the sinner” and still are so ~gracious~ to ~accept us~
WELL GUESS WHAT. I dont need ur fucking bullshit idea of acceptance. yall might as well admit to how bigoted you truly are.
did you know that we are LITERALLY DYING BECAUSE OF YALL??!?!! we are literally KILLING OURSELVES because of you. we are lonely. we are isolated. we are abused. we are victimized. we are faced with violence. we are faced with marginalization. we are faced with exclusion. every. fucking. day. and yet we are the same people that will fight for all yall when it comes to institutionalized racism and islamophobia. we defend the same people that wouldnt lift a fucking finger for us.
I have had depression and anxiety all of my life because I have been fucking policed for just my innate being every fucking day of my life. my parents think im literal trash because im not the straight man he wanted.
so honestly? SHUT THE FUCKING FUCK UP! This is not a debate. this is not a discussion. I am not having a ~civilized dialogue~ about you about my HUMANITY. this is real and you better fucking embrace it 100% or jump the fuck out of my life.
save me the bullshit. please. just admit how much you hate us. at least be honest. I respect that a whole lot more than fake ass tolerance. shit.
When you-know-what happens in Civil War, I expect Steve to sit with the Carters in the front row. Those now grown kids were raised with stories of the brave and selfless Steve Rogers. He could have been their father, he’s practically family!
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ended its annual term with two decisions upholding free-speech protections, capping a year that saw conservatives largely prevail over the court’s liberal minority.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Ronald Reagan, played the crucial role this term, joining the conservative block to shield businesses like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and AT&T Mobility from class-action suits, and siding with liberals in such areas as individual liberties. Sixteen cases this year, about one-fifth of the total, were decided by a 5–4 vote, with Justice Kennedy joining the majority 14 times.
The court’s free-speech rulings illustrate the ideological split among the justices. While broad majorities of the court have voted to affirm protections for such long-recognized forms of expression as picketing, movies and now videogames, conservatives have outvoted liberals to confer First Amendment rights on business and void campaign-finance regulations that advocates say promote fairer elections.
“Change on the Supreme Court happens in long slow arcs, but the direction of this arc seems pretty clear,” said Stanford Law School Dean Larry Kramer. “The court has been moving in a pretty strongly conservative direction, and I don’t expect it to change.”
The court voted Monday to strike down a California law banning the sale of violent videogames to minors, holding by a 7–2 majority that it violated the First Amendment. Earlier this term, the court voted 8–1 to deny a grieving father’s right to sue picketers who celebrated his son’s death with obnoxious placards outside his funeral.
But virtually every campaign-finance decision involving free speech, like Monday’s ruling against the Arizona Clean Elections Act, has come down to a 5–4 vote along ideological lines.
The Arizona campaign-finance law, which offered extra public funding to state political candidates who faced well-heeled opponents, was ruled unconstitutional for infringing on Americans’ right to express themselves freely in election campaigns.
The opinion, by Chief Justice John Roberts, found that a program that gives matching funds to publicly funded candidates, who agree to limits on their spending and to take part in a candidate debate, was unfair to their privately financed opponents.
The majority is reaching these results, said Northwestern University law professor John McGinnis, because it views free speech not only as a traditional civil liberty, but also as something akin to a property right. “Conservatives are much more comfortable understanding the First Amendment as a liberty right that’s not so distinct from rights of property,” he said.
In both of Monday’s cases, dissenters argued that state laws were reasonable responses to legitimate public concerns.
Nearly half the court’s membership has turned over since 2006, when President George W. Bush pushed the court to the right by appointing conservative Justice Samuel Alito to succeed moderate Sandra Day O’Connor. Although the four eldest justices are in their 70s, none has indicated interest in retiring, suggesting that today’s lineup could remain in place at least into the next presidential term.
The 2010–2011 term lacked the kind of blockbuster decision that spurs law professors to rewrite their case books. The next term, which begins in October, is likely to be different. The court already has slated high-stakes cases involving broadcast indecency, union dues, food-safety regulation and government tracking of suspects by GPS device.
Even more dramatic cases are in the pipeline, including challenges to California’s ban on same-sex marriage and the federal health-care law championed by President Barack Obama. If recent patterns continue, Justice Kennedy likely will cast the deciding vote in the most contentious of those cases.
This term, Justice Kennedy joined conservatives to block a wrongly convicted man from suing the prosecutor who sent him to death row by withholding exculpatory evidence. Yet Justice Kennedy drew on liberal votes for his majority opinion requiring California to release inmates if it failed to raise prison conditions to constitutional standards.
Similarly, Justice Kennedy joined conservatives to limit a taxpayer’s right to sue over government subsidies of religious institutions, voting 5–4 that an Arizona law providing a 100% tax credit for contributions to sectarian school organizations could not be challenged for violating the constitutional ban on establishment of religion. But Justice Kennedy provided the fifth vote for Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s opinion buttressing Miranda rule protections for juvenile suspects.
Big wins by corporations in the class-action cases have fueled criticism from Democrats that the court tilts against consumers and workers. But not all cases have gone business’s way. Last month, the court voted 5–4 to uphold an Arizona law that puts out of business employers that repeatedly hire illegal immigrants. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which challenged the law by arguing it interfered with federal immigration policy, persuaded only the court’s liberals.
The decision, by Chief Justice Roberts, recognized a state role in enforcing immigration laws, suggesting that an even tougher Arizona measure that requires local police to apprehend suspected illegal immigrants, currently blocked by the lower courts, could find a sympathetic hearing at the Supreme Court.
The court periodically confounds predictions, and no justice can be neatly assigned to a lockstep ideological category. Last week, for instance, the court voted 5–4 for a robust reading of the Sixth Amendment right to confront prosecution witnesses. The majority opinion, by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, held that a defendant in a drunk driving case was entitled to cross-examine the technician who performed a blood-alcohol test.
While the court showed its “hostility to big litigation” like the Wal-Mart class action and a multistate suit seeking caps on power-plant emissions, Washington attorney Carter Phillips said several areas remain where the new justices’s views remain a mystery. For instance, the question of punitive damage limits created unusual coalitions in the past.
“We don’t know where [Justices Elena] Kagan or Sotomayor or Roberts or Alito” stands on the issue, said Mr. Phillips, who frequently represents business before the court. “That’ll be a blockbuster one of these days.”
All right, dudes. I am usually very much of the don’t like it, don’t read it feeling about fics; it’s way easier to close a tab than it is to make yourself miserable and then complain about it, after. But this fic, by septemberpoems, has crossed my dash a bunch of times, now, and I feel like we need to have a conversation about it. Because my issue with it isn’t a taste thing, per se; it’s the way that it uses history and culture– specifically my history and culture– to do what it’s doing.
Standard disclaimers apply: the author isn’t a bad person for having written it, you are not a bad person if you liked it, and everyone has blind spots we can’t see until someone points them out to us. My hope is that I can point out one, and we can have a civil dialogue about it. To be clear, though, I find conversations around the Holocaust fairly triggery, and will not hesitate to delete/defriend/disappear if this comes close to getting ugly.
So, first things first: if you’re going to write about the Holocaust, please tag for it. It was a campaign of state-sponsored murder that nearly wiped out a generation of Eastern European Jews. I know it’s become a pop culture product– a Spielberg film that’s the punchline to a Seinfeld joke– but that doesn’t change the fact that it was genocide, and it deserves the gravity we give to any other kind of violence.
I am the daughter of a Polish Jew; my father’s mother emigrated between the wars, and I am lucky not to have to know how many relatives I lost to the Holocaust, back in the country where they no longer lived. I grew up in a community of Russian-Jewish emigres, not a few of them survivors of the camps. They were not, by and large, doddering old ladies leaning on strong young men to help translate the stories of what they’d gone through, looking for ways to talk about the hope it had given them. They didn’t talk about it much at all. One of them told me a story, once, of taking a shoe from the Holocaust Museum in DC, from the piles of slippers prisoners were forced to wear, which are now part of what’s on display. A guard yelled at her. She yelled back. These shoes don’t belong to America, she told him. They belong to every Jewish child. They belong to me.
I might be wrong about this, but I am pretty sure I’m right that the author isn’t Jewish. That’s fine. We all write fiction about things we know nothing about. But there’s a clear lack of research or understanding about what the Holocaust was and is to the Jewish community in that story that I found personally deeply painful. My father’s parents spoke Yiddish at home– not Polish. If Stiles’ mother had been a Polish Jew she likely would have, too. It’s a dying language. I don’t speak it. I worry about that fact a lot. We’ve managed to take a lot back from Hitler, but he murdered an entire language, with music and poetry and literature. He murdered a vibrant, sophisticated culture. It wasn’t Polish culture. Polish Jews had been ostracized from their countrymen long before the fact of the camps. That’s why my grandmother had to flee– because pogroms predate Hitler.
Then there’s the fact that Stiles has apparently never been given any kind of Holocaust education– that he has to have a gentile explain it to him, to sit him down to watch Schindler’s fucking List. I mean. I get it. The Sheriff wasn’t Jewish, he didn’t go to Hebrew school, fine. But does he have to sit around passively receiving wisdom from Derek, being spoon-fed his own culture, in which he had no interest until it became a means to a (fucking) end? White Savior Derek the Linguist gives me the creeps. The Jewish thing is complicated, I know, not precisely racial, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is a damaging and problematic trope.
It’s not precisely germane, but there’s also the Stacy issue: an original character who’s just a vile bitch designed to get in the way of Derek and Stiles’ Deep True Pure Love. Using women to keep them apart and the Holocaust to bring the together: not everything is a set piece for your OTP’s romance. If there were a more nuanced consideration of the role of the Holocaust in modern Jewish life, the way it made my grandparents’ generation rightly terrified of passing anything down to mine– that would be one thing. But instead the implication is that Stiles never learned because no one bothered to teach him, I guess because there were no Jews in his life, to speak for themselves.
I went through years and years of Holocaust education in school. I hated it. I argue all the time, now, that the modern Jewish community needs to abandon the insular paranoid obsession with it, as if we were the only people ever massacred. We weren’t. We aren’t. It was awful; it doesn’t make us special.
But it is ours. It is not your plot point to deploy casually; it is not your generic stand-in for diaspora angst. Every culture has its own lost lands and tongues and stories. When you try to tell them, you need to be sure you’re respecting those who can no longer speak, and those who are left, to listen.
You know what’s really cool about writing for tumblr? I actively want to read the comments because we get good contributions and civil critique and interesting dialogue. Now that WADTT posts are getting shared off of tumblr I have to remember that not everyone is as cool as y’all and not to read the comments.
It was so annoying that the media completely missed the point of the Stewart/Colbert rally to restore sanity and/or fear. “False equivalency,” “wasted opportunity,” “incoherent message” was the gist of the criticism, but what Jon was advocating for was civility, moderation, respectful dialogue, all of which have very little to do with ideology and nothing to do with partisan politics. People will always have strong, fundamental disagreements, but the point of peaceful co-existence isn’t agreeing on everything, it’s finding ways to disagree and still be able to talk to each other, treat each other with respect, try to see things from a different perspective, compromise and get things done. I thought it was a point well worth making, shame it went over so many people*s heads. And Colbert was satirizing the fear mongering tactics that the media so abuses, another relevant point.
I study communication. I know how to have a productive and civil dialogue with people whose views aren’t my own. I also know that this doesn’t obligate me to be in productive and civil dialogue mode 100% of the time.