Okay, so I must have still been at work when this commercial dropped because as soon as I got home and on social media it seemed like everyone on my TL all saw this commercial in the same living room.

In just a few short hours have been many articles written critiques put out there about the hypocritical tone deafness of this ridiculous commercial. They’ve covered such things as:

The blatant co-optation of national Black Lives Matter widespread protests, yet this commercial is overwhelmingly white, unless POC are used as props. Take, for instance the black male stock characters carefully placed to dap Kendell up and *look urban*.

This idea that all the protesters rallying for Black Lives who have been tear gassed, steamrolled, and unlawfully arrested only needed to put a smile on their face and hand police pepsi cans in order to earn respect.

Obviously everyone’s question: Who the fuck wants anyone associated with the “Keeping Negroes in the Sunken Place” Kardashians leading ANY type of revolution?

But I really want to focus on what I saw in the last image. The protest signs labeled “join the conversation.” As I stated earlier this is clearly co-opting Black Lives Matter. It completely bastardizes the purpose of protest from “we are literally fighting for our lives to” “lets kindly ask you to have a nice dialogue.”

I really hate this idea that all people who fight for their humanity need to do is kindly sit down and have a nice conversation with racists, bigots and abusers. Obviously this is a commercial and commercials only want to make money and could give a shit what message they co-opt to do it. But this time, in this national climate, where the point of protest needs to be crystal fucking clear, this sanitation of resistance paints with a broad brush.

Tons of things are coming to a head in our political climate, and this certainly does not help. I wonder what the organizers of recent Womens Marches & Strikes are thinking about this…

Time to unite and fight the right, not collude and be co-opted

I’m appalled by WoLF and other radical feminists walking into the co-optation trap with the Heritage Foundation and Fox News. We are in a political emergency. Now is the time to unite and fight the right, not get in line with them. If radical feminists are going to stretch outside their comfort zone to try to win protections for women, the Heritage Foundation is not where to go to achieve that end. Finding common cause with liberal feminists and trans people is difficult work, but possible and necessary. Many trans people do not recognize their own lived experiences in the rhetorical excesses of the extremist trans activists–and many do not find their real interests represented by these extremists’ current campaigns. Many, many liberal women feel ill at ease with their own interests being run over–they are simply afraid to stand up or second-guessing themselves. Many are unsure and confused, watching and making their decisions about where to stand based on who else will be standing with them.

If WoLF’s interested in coalition work, it could make bridges there. But as we’ve seen, they’ve been unwilling even to listen to other radical feminists when we’re also detransitioned women. These collusions with the Right are exactly the type of wildly off target actions we’ve tried to question and interrupt in their strategy approach, brought to a worst-case scenario conclusion. I watched the Heritage panel discussion in horror as a Fest dyke spoke about transwomen infiltrating Michfest–as though the likes of the Heritage Foundation had not also infiltrated and tried to shut down Michfest, infiltrated the Land and the message boards, tried to dig up some salacious s&m content in order to paint us all as perverts–and as a sinister threat to women and children. The right doesn’t differentiate much between those they consider perverts and deviants. When the Right says they’re concerned about who is using women’s accommodations, don’t think for a minute that lesbians, gay men, or anyone who gets mistaken as such will not be harmed by their “solution.”

WoLF are working with one of the women who passed HB2 in North Carolina. To my knowledge, she’s the only one in their so-called “coalition” who has been part of actually passing legislation on this issue, and it was HB2. Do they not understand what HB2 is?

It’s not just a bathroom bill, but even if it had been, you gotta ask the question–who will be hurt by this law in North Carolina? Safe bet Black lesbians will get hit the worst. Not white autogynephiles, primarily–they’ve got their white male privilege to insulate them. It’ll come back on Lesbians. Butch dykes. Bearded women. Flaming gay men, particularly if they’re Black. Getting everyone on high alert about “evil interlopers” in the bathroom does cause additional hardship for anyone who is perceived as ambiguously sexed, trans or not.

But it was not just a bathroom bill. HB2 eliminated rights and employment protections very broadly–removing anti-discrimination protections on the basis of RACE, SEX, NATIONALITY, RELIGION. It removed any chance of legal remedy for any such discrimination in North Carolina. It removed all protections on lesbian and gay rights to public accommodations. It banned any future ordinances which could try to win them back. It eliminated minimum wage standards and health insurance standards for public contractors. It eliminated family leave policies, child welfare protections, and requirements for workers to be allowed to take breaks. It banned future ordinances to reverse those losses.

And the blond lady on the panel with Miriam Ben Shalom and Mary Lou Singleton–Kami Mueller–you know, the one who could barely conceal her distaste for those she sees as freaks whether they be lesbian, gay, or trans–spoke proudly about how she helped pass that legislation. She told a story about being a mom against having her children, nieces and nephews forced into co-ed bathrooms and against insane gender ideology being forced on them in school. And that story was the ammunition she brought to the battle for HB2. That’s a nice story, I guess, if you ignore why she has an issue with these things. But it’s not the story of what HB2 actually is. Or who she actually is. She’s not some random mom who happened into a conflict with her kids’ school. She’s been working in PR and strategy for the Republican party, organizing against women’s reproductive rights, and generally doing Focus on the Family-esque campaigns for her entire career. In fact, both of the right wing women who participated on that panel are PR and Communications professionals. The WoLF women…do not have that background. They have so badly underestimated the right wing women. This is no equal coalition between individual women from different walks of life. This is a power move by the right, co-opting the only visible feminist resistance in order to entirely neutralize any chance of its message gaining traction or appearing reasonable.

Nobody of conscience is going to stand with WoLF when it cozies up to the elite power-holders on the right. They are allowing themselves to be co-opted and used. Being co-opted isn’t just about what you believe or what you say. It’s about what you represent, what you have been willing to compromise, and what you are being used to accomplish. It doesn’t matter what anyone says. It matters what end you’re serving. Just like HB2 wasn’t about the compelling stories some women told about protecting the legal category of “female.” The right’s only interest in that legal category is as a mechanism of control and repression.

It says a lot when WoLF can see their way clear to “common cause” with those whose stake in this particular issue is the repression of women, including lesbians; gay men; and anyone they mistake for one of the above. Please understand who we are talking about here. The Heritage Foundation is funded in part by the Koch brothers and the DeVos family, was instrumental in selecting Trump’s transition team. They did oust Jason Richwine for being too overtly white supremacist, but I think that was strategic with regard to his being too obvious about it, not a real difference in values. Now that “MAGA” is the order of the day, the game has changed on that front too. The Heritage Foundation’s current leadership is a Tea Party guy who has been taking them in an even bolder direction than their usual.

It’s not clear whether there are direct ties with The Family, but these people are of that ilk. The Family are the US-based right wing political organization that brought Uganda its “kill the gays” bill. These are people who want a theocracy here in the US, and they are closer to achieving that than they have ever been. Many of them literally think lesbians, other “bad women,” and gay men should be stoned to death.They are anti-poor, anti-worker and white supremacist as a matter of course. But they’re getting savvier about how to represent those values. They have dressed it up pretty and they are smiling politely to your face. For now.

Miriam Ben Shalom noted that she wasn’t being yelled at and was treated respectfully at Heritage Foundation, whereas radiqueers shouted her down at the last panel discussion she participated in. The Heritage crowd might not be yelling, but it’s only because they know how to cook a frog–and what they are up to is far, far more dangerous. WoLF’s strategy is to set aside “differences” to work with them.

But WoLF–despite its stated value of female solidarity and the greater salience of sex over “gender identity”–could never and would never do the work to make common cause with, say, transmen. Hell, they couldn’t even work with radical feminist detransitioned dykes. We were ready and willing to talk to them about refining their strategy into something less allergic to nuance and help equip them to bridge subcultural differences–but instead they’ve doubled down on their bludgeon tactics, metastasized their strategy into something dangerous to most women. It’s very telling that they got down with Heritage instead of ever listening to the likes of us.

It’s not a “coalition” when you’ve walked into the den of patriarchal power and handed over the collective credibility of radical feminists in an attempt to make a devil’s bargain. Do not think for a minute that a right wing think tank and social engineering force would champion your radical feminist cause if they thought it would actually help you win. Understand–at this political moment, if all you have to say to the Heritage Foundation is “look, we have this one thing in common, for opposite reasons”–you are basically asking the big mean daddy to protect you. That is never gonna work in favor of women, of female human beings, collectively. And make no mistake about which women will be hurt first and worst.

And because WoLF’s the only big public radical feminist organization, by extension they’ve allowed any women who organize or write under that banner to be co-opted as well, unless we speak up loudly enough to say no to this. Fox News is pretty loud. The Heritage Foundation is pretty loud. WoLF have made our work–those of us who actually try to organize on points of female solidarity, regardless of political difference–next to impossible. And maybe that was the point, at least from the right’s perspective.

But I’m interested in doing the opposite of what they’re doing. I actually don’t care about calling it radical feminism. You can call it whatever you want. Call it George. I care more about what it accomplishes in our lives than in the name. I have plenty of common cause with many who believe radical feminism is anathema, though they may not truly understand it. (Allying with the right will not help them understand.) Regardless, I can hold those disagreements, some of which come down to semantics, far more readily than a “disagreement” over whether female human beings ought to have bodily autonomy, or a “disagreement” over the human rights of women, including lesbians; gay men; people of color; Muslims; or Jews.

Credetevi forti. E se vi dicono “questa è l'età in cui ti senti invincibile ma non lo sei” dimostrate che è il contrario. Dimostrate che siete invicibili. E se vi dicono “questa è l'età in cui ti senti unico ma non lo sei” voi continuate a sentirvi unici. Continuate a sentirvi diversi, speciali, ognuno con il proprio stile. Amatevi. Ma prima di amare qualcun altro amate voi stessi, sceglietevi sempre. E se vi dicono “è egoismo” voi non credeteci. È semplicemente autostima. Abbiate cura del vostro umore, non trascuratelo, è importante. Se siete tristi non optate per droga, fumo, alcool. Non rovinatevi. Optate per una spalla su cui piangere. Optate per la famiglia, per gli amici, per lo psicologo, per una persona incontrata per strada. E se vi sentite soli non fatevi del male. Scrivete a qualcuno, affrontate la timidezza, siate voi stessi senza stancarvi mai e sopratutto senza odiarvi. Cercate di capire che il dolore serve, che i periodi bui esistono e accettateli. Soffrite ma non troppo. È normale, è esperienza. Se non vi sentite mai abbastanza, se non vi piace il vostro aspetto fisico, se non sopportate il vostro carattere: amatevi. Trasformate i vostri difetti in pregi, cambiate se volete farlo ma fatelo per voi e non per gli altri. Tutti hanno qualcosa di speciale.


🔪STALKER🔪//2DOC SMUT(not really)

2D looked trepidacious while consistently visually examining the whale in the window. He turned to his room, sighing.

“Nothing fascinating..” He verbalised, genuinely bored and unamused.

“There’s nothing exciting going on in this imbecilic plastic beach.” He laid down on his bed and commenced humming some musical composition.
He bit his lip, endeavouring not to think about the bloody bassist. “But he’s so hot…” He verbalised, blushing in abashment and consistently visually examining his hard erection. “..G-Go away…”
He squirmed, optically canvassing the room around him.

No one was there but him.

He sighed in relief, unzipping his pants and taking off his underwear.

Meanwhile​, Murdoc was ambulating to The singers room to wake him up and record. He peeked through the door, endeavouring to visually perceive if he’s slumbering or not.
His eyes widened as he visually perceived the singer rubbing his dick and shoving a dildo into his ass. “M-Mu–ah!” He moaned.
“…H-Holy Shit….” Murdoc verbalised, blushing. He took out his camera and took a picture, which made 2D yelp and hide under the covers.

“Hehe…Wot a lil’ coward…”

He ambulated over to his room, and locked the door. He optically canvassed cyborg noodle, to see if she was charging.
Still charging.
He looked around to visually perceive if anyone else was there, and opened an hidden door abaft his closet. He stamped the picture on the wall with all his other pictures of 2D he surreptitiously took.
There was a secret Murdoc had hidden from 2D.

Everywhere the singer went, The bassist privily followed. Every time the singer would slumber, the bassist would optically canvass. And Anytime the singer physically contacted himself, the bassist would get aroused visually examining him.

He chuckled, prehending a picture of 2D singing.
“One day you’ll be mine 2D..

No matter how long it takes.”

~The next day~

2D yelped, waking up from his slumber. Murdoc threw cleaning supplies at him. “I require yew to clean my room.” The singer groaned. “Why con’ yew make tha’ imbecilic robot do it?” Murdoc growled at him, grabbing his arm and stuffing 3 fingers in his mouth. “LOOK, STU. I DON’T HAVE ENOUGH TO FUCKIN’ PLAY WITH YER ASS, SO JUST GET ON WITH IT!!!

AND IF YEW TOUCH THAT CLOSET DOOR, YEW WON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ‘LITTLE MURDOC’ ANYMORE ‘CUS YOU’LL BE DEAD!!!!” He relinquished the fingers from his mouth, slamming the door shut. 2D’s ocular perceivers turned white, as he put on his apparel, went on the hoist, and ambulated towards Murdoc’s room.

“Ugh… let’s just get this over with so I con’ go back to sleep…” He opened his door and prehended a sponge. He dipped it in the soapy water, starting to emaculate the walls. After a few hours, he was finished. He turned to the closet, curious.

“Don’t do it 2D! Murdoc verbally expressed not to do it!”
“Do it, 2D! Open it and optically discern what he’s obnubilating!” His thoughts​ frustrated him.
He couldn’t stop cogitating that room.
But it couldn’t be bad to take a peek, right?
He opened the door, and visually perceived a bunch of habiliments. “W-Wha?? Why would Murdoc be scared of knowing that he has clothes?”


2D eyes widened, as he expeditiously obnubilated abaft the attire and closed the closet door. “M-Maybe he won’t Know I’m gone…” He bit his lip, shivering in fear. 2D felt a knob turn, opening a hidden door. “W-Wot the….” He turned the light on, and gasped at his revelation. “A-Are those… pictures of…
He looked trepidacious, as he optically discerned some pictures edited with Murdoc on it. He additionally optically discerned notes about wanting to fuck him, which made him blush. “T-This is genuinely weird…”
Suddenly, he auricularly discerned the closet door turn. 2D yelped, his ocular perceivers turning white again. “I gotta hide!” He whispered, expeditiously turning the light off.

“WHO’S IN THERE!!?” the bassist yelled. He slammed the door open, examining the room. He didn’t optically discern anyone. “I guess it was my imagination.” He shrugged, turning the light on. He sat on his chair and turned on the computer, clicking on videos and starting to optically canvass a video of the singer physically contacting of himself. 2D peeked abaft the photos, and blushed in abashment and exasperation. “WHY DID YEW RECORD THAT?!!” He screamed. He realised what he verbalised, and expeditiously put his hand on his mouth. Murdoc paused the video and ambulated over to where 2D was. He pushed the photos away, exposing the singer. He prehended his neck and slammed him on the floor. “YOU’RE SO DEAD.”
Suddenly, after one punch, everything went ebony.
2D woke in an ambulance, aurally perceiving doctors talking and someone screaming in anger.

He aurally perceived someone tase the person. The screaming sounded very familiar, though.
“M-Muds?” He went up, and gasped. The singer saw two police men apprehending Murdoc. “W-WAIT! DON’ ARREST ‘IM!”
He endeavored to get up, but he descried there were bruises All over his body, and he couldn’t authentically move that much. A nurse walked in, holding a syringe. “W-WOT ARE THEY GONNA DO TO 'IM!!?” 2D screamed. “Send him to prison, of course. Isn’t that man the reason you have all those bruises on your body?” She pointed to them. 2D sighed. “I-I…I guess so…” Tears expeditiously fell down his face. “..it’s just…. i love him…”
The nurse looked revolted. “Why would you optate to dote someone like HIM?!”
“WOULD YEW JUST SHUT UP?!!!” 2D screamed. Murdoc consistently visually examined the singer, worried. “C-Can…I talk to him one last time?” The police nodded, ambulating him to the blue haired angel. “W-what do you optate with him?” The nurse verbalised in a low, menacing growl. “EXCUSE ME?!! OH, I’M SORRY, I DIDN’T REALISE HE WAS YOUR FUCKING BOYFRIEND!!”
The nurse stood up, punching the bassist in the face. “GET THE FUCK AWAY FROM 'IM, YEW BITCH!!!” 2D yelled. The nurse backed away from Murdoc, clenching her fists and going back in the drivers seat. The police persistently optically canvassed each other, secretly chuckling. The bassist sighed, sitting down on a chair. “Wot I wanted to verbally express afore that sodding bitch insulted me, I just wanted to say that…i-i…..

I LOVE YEW OKAY?!!” He yelled, blushing effulgent red. The singer chuckled scarcely. “Ever since we’ve been here, I can’t stop thinking about yew. I suddenly grew something​ for yew, I couldn’t stop stalking yew….yew looked so beautiful and adorable at the same time everywhere yew went…and now I’m apprehended, because I almost murdered yew. I’ll miss yew, So much.”
“B-but Murdoc I….I love yew too…” He smiled, blushing marginally. “Y-You’re just saying that….”
“No.. I’m not. The reasons why I physically contacted myself were because of yew, Murdoc. It’s just yew looked so sultry…. every time I saw yew I went crazy… so I endeavoured to stay tranquil….when I heard information regarding yew going to prison, my heart dropped. It Felt-it’s just that-i…i…”
He pressed his lips against Murdoc’s, pushing him to the bed. “I want yew so bad, muds……” 2D moaned, while the bassist licked his neck. The police yanked his cuffs, which made him get away from the singer. They ambulated over to the police car. 2D cried as he optically discerned Murdoc wave to him goodbye. He waved back, holding his sheets proximate to his ocular perceivers.

It’s been 3 years since 2D last saw Murdoc, and he has been dejected ever since. He would verbalise with cyborg​ noodle about it, but it never helped. He had been living in plastic beach for a while, and had been dealing with an abundance of dejection. He can’t stop thinking about him ever since.

“I just want him back….”

2D was in his bed, taking his pills when he suddenly visually perceived the door open. “Been some time since we last saw each other, faceache.” The bassist was tattooed, and had a deplorable haircut, exhibiting his forehead.
The singer expeditiously turned to him, smiling and hugging him tightly. “I missed yew so much! I thought I lost yew…”
“I missed ya, additionally, dullard.” He held 2D’s ass tightly, smirking. “Oh..is that wot yew wanna do after we meet each other after 3 years apart~?” He purred. “I guess so.” Murdoc sticked his tongue out, moving his arms towards the singers waist. 2D put his head behind Murdoc’s, crying tears of joy.

“Welcome back, muds.”

Words: 1500

anonymous asked:

in response to your post about WoLF, I have a few questions, if you would like to answer them I’d be interested in your thoughts. I get where you’re coming from, although I disagree (as of now, anyway). What would you say to someone who thinks that it is dangerous to make the “progressive gaze” the yardstick of “good organizing”? In other words, you said that working with right-wing women and speaking at the heritage foundation is the “worst case scenario” of coalition strategy—is this for any

(con’t) other reason than because it looks the worst to progressives? Andrea Dworkin’s famous conclusion in Right Wing Women was that the right and left see women as objects, as property, and defend the property rights of our owners. The right wing sees females as the private property of men (fathers, husbands) and the left sees us as the public property of men (prostitutes,strippers,pornified girlfriends). If Dworkin’s analysis is taken seriously, it makes no sense to see working with the left  (con’t) as any more “pure” than working with the right. Both sides are actively opposed to radical feminist politics. Co-optation is a danger in both cases, although I actually personally think it is less likely in working with the rights, but there is no evidence that this has actually occurred. To me, “worst case scenario” would be actual co-optation, in which WoLF began to compromise its political analysis or goals in favor of right wing analysis or goals. (con’t) That’s my definition of a worst case scenario, not looking bad in the eyes of progressives, who already hate us and actively harrass and no-platform us. All that said, I sympathize with your view, and don’t know enough details about what has happened between WoLF and detransitioners to understand the context you gestured at. I suggest it isn’t a zero-sum game;WoLF can do this and it can do that, both. Sorry for the length of this ask. Thank you for your work with disidentified women.       

Hi anon, thanks so much for writing. I really appreciate this message and I’m so glad to have the opportunity to clarify. Thank you for asking. I’m definitely not concerned about “the progressive gaze.” That’s not the reason I think this is a worst case scenario, at all. I’m concerned about power. How power works. Who has the power, and how it’s being used. I’m not concerned about how it looks, but what it DOES. Who is going to end up benefiting, who will get hurt.

When I say that WoLF’s already been co-opted, I don’t mean that the WoLF women have all changed their minds about abortion access or lesbian rights just because they are working with women who oppose their stance on these issues. I’m saying that it doesn’t matter what they believe, they are being used by powerful men on the right to achieve the very forms of social control that they seek to oppose. They’re being played.

This isn’t a case of finding common cause with individual conservative women. WoLF might think so, but if so, they are naive. A right wing think tank and social engineering force, the Heritage Foundation, has decided that it’s useful to have radical feminists and lesbians representing their agenda. These people are theocratic fascists, with more institutional power than they have ever had before. They are making use of the left’s weaknesses and devolution into fascist tactics to present themselves as pluralistic and reasonable by comparison. They have an end game in mind. And they are only too delighted to have lesbians and radical feminists unwittingly working against their own interests to achieve that end game. The right sure relishes its tokens. They love it when they can get us to do it to ourselves.

Getting us to do it to ourselves relies on desperation, fanaticism, and/or a corrupt analysis on the part of the collaborators. If the goal is women’s liberation, how will that be achieved in collaboration with white supremacists? I didn’t simply mention white supremacy as a way to signal “these are bad people” and cause a knew-jerk reaction. I mentioned it because the aims of white supremacy and the aims of women’s liberation are in irreconcilable conflict with each other. This is not merely unethical but a serious strategic error.

One of the bitterest obstacles to feminist organizing is when white women universalize their own experiences to the detriment of the interests of women of color, to the extent that those interests do not always align. WoLF teaming up with Heritage does nothing to heal those divisions and in fact doubles down on the very things that compromise female solidarity across racial lines. This is dangerous and it is very destructive. There is the issue that for the most part, only white women would even consider making such an alliance and think it could possibly be in their own interest. You can say this is a matter of “optics” but the problem here is not that it “looks bad” for the most highly visible radical feminist organization to collaborate with white supremacists. The problem is that it betrays a severe lack of recognition about the relationship between white supremacy and the control of women. White supremacists seek to control women in different ways depending on our race, but always with the same aims in mind: absolute white male power. Any radical feminist action that does not take this into account will only play into that agenda. The white male supremacists are utilizing an old ploy about white women as “needing protection” in this case. Their problem with compromising the legal category of “female” is not the same as my problem with it. In fact, it’s the opposite. For them, the lack of coherence looks like an obstacle to complete control. For me, it looks like an obstacle to solidarity and liberation. But it’s the white male supremacists who are in a position to enact “solutions” to this problem—not the lesbians and feminists. Their “solutions” will result in even less power all for us.

The right is in power. They’ve been very successful with co-opting the language forms and tropes of the left, and repurposing them in infuriating, confounding ways to create new double binds for all of us struggling for better lives.

When I talked about HB2, I think of that as potentially the template for what they want to do more broadly. They’re dividing the left, possibly beyond repair. (And it’s worth mentioning the possibility that the fringiest leftist elements–think Dave Muscato–are either actually right wing plants–trolls–or true believers who have been influenced by right wing psy ops.) If HB2 is the template, then we all need to be afraid. Using the absurd excesses of “trans activism” as a pretext, while also playing on the homophobia of many, they dismantled rights and protections very broadly, impacting all workers, immigrants, people of color, lesbians and gays, and women.

So I’m not concerned about purity. I fully appreciate the limitations of the left, believe me. But the thing is, I’m talking about making coalition across disagreement with people who share the same material oppressions and trying to win specific battles on points of agreement. I know that’s what WoLF thinks they are doing, supposedly. But they’re not. WoLF has an issue with leftist gender ideology, but their friends on the right, who hold a frightening degree of power right now, have their own gender ideology. They don’t call it “gender identity” but it absolutely is. The difference is that their version of “gender identity” relies on social roles and appearance being in what they deem “congruence” with one’s sex. That’s why they think sex matters; it dictates your place in their order. Those “nice” right wing women are PR professionals. The men behind them are “playing nice” to get us to go along with them against our own interests, when actually they’re preparing the way for controlling and perhaps killing us. Or maybe they can get us to do it to each other. WoLF speaking to the mixed crowds where radiqueers yelled them down was a far more effective tactic for forging alliances against this most dangerous enemy. Women who see that start to understand the real power dynamics at issue. This “alliance” obscures the truth of those power dynamics, utterly.

The truth is that WoLF is being used by one group of men against another group of men–the two groups are vying for domination and the right-wing men have realized that WoLF are a useful tool against their left-wing male rivals. It’s a patriarchal dogfight and women like us are nothing but fodder in that larger game these men are playing with each other. Women are their pawns. Women on the left are the pawns of the leftist men; women on the right are the pawns of the right-wing men. I would like to see radical feminists step out of that position and work with and for women.

I brought up the issue of detransitioned women and WoLF, and surely it is only one example of many, but it’s the one I’m familiar with. Basically I think it’s extremely telling that WoLF has been able to get past their differences with right wing women, apparently even right wing men, but not willing to listen to us. I know some of us tried hard to get through to them, not out of some special snowflake ego trip like they repeatedly accuse (because they cannot/refuse to understand us in any other way), but because having been insiders in the queer scene, we had insight into what unintended consequences their well-meaning but ultimately harmful strategies and messages would have. And insight into how best to make common cause with other women with whom we may have political disagreement in some ways though we share a political predicament.

Honestly, a lot of women who have issues with trans shit have stuff to work out about what is really in it for them. The deference WoLF is showing to the right is chilling. It’s so much easier to give your wrath to your sisters than to the patriarchal power. So much harder to fight the actual power. I’ve seen WoLF recognize this in the other direction–that trans activists scapegoat feminists for harming transwomen when the real harm is being done by men. So how come WoLF gets so deferential in the presence of the white male supremacists (male and female) yet they’ve repeatedly failed to respect women like us as equals and sisters, but are only comfortable with us when we are Exhibit A’s, resources to be extracted according to their pre-existing agenda? How come they’ve been too invested in political “purity” to make inroads anywhere else on the left, but they clearly have a totally different standard of what’s acceptable enough, when it’s the right? It’s a power move. WoLF wants power and thinks they’re going to get some by standing next to it. It gets them attention, not power.

Clearly, the reason they were more motivated to work with these right wingers than with, for example, detransitioned women is an issue of power. Working with a group of marginalized women–especially women coded as “crazy” dykes–doesn’t give you the kind of money, power, status, and media exposure they are after. What it gives you is organized female solidarity. If that’s your priority, then that is everything. But they want what power they believe they will get by aligning with Heritage. It’s as naive as thinking that having sex with a powerful man makes you more powerful.

Ask yourself: What’s in it for Heritage? What’s in it for Kami Mueller? They are in a triumphant moment in terms of their political power. They are not desperate. They are not so desperate for allies that they have to reach their “hands across the aisle.” So ask yourself what they stand to gain from this “alliance.” They turned out a very disciplined, carefully “respectful” audience for that talk. They are organized; they have the money, the strategy, and the political clout. Think about the nature of their great show of “respect.” Think about the alt-right strategies we’re seeing–the new breed of white supremacists who deny that’s what they are, who show up pressed and neat, “respectful” to everyone. Think about what they’ve been able to accomplish by those means. The left is far, far too focused on Correct Language and How Things Appear. The right is using that focus to slip under the radar like an abuser who knows how to say all the right things to keep you hooked.

But the right paved the way for this insanity on the left to begin with. The left’s gender politics are reactionary, yes—but it’s an unholy amalgam of backlash against feminism and reaction against the Christian right.

And the movement for women’s liberation as we understand it does need to have more popular support than the current population of “radical feminists.” Once this “coalition” is over, then the right utilizes its results to enact its horrors on us all. Who are we going to stand with then, to fight it? Who is going to stand with WoLF at that point, when they are the collaborators who helped make it happen? How will the vast majority of politically engaged women interpret that result? How will that compromise the ability of any of us to fight patriarchy as feminists, to fight under the open assertion that the material reality of our sex is a basis for solidarity?

When the “solutions” brought by the likes of Heritage mean one kind of control and repression for white women and a very different kind of control and repression for women of color—particularly Black and indigenous women—how will that not be another example of failures of solidarity on the part of white women? How is this not a betrayal?

And won’t the lefty misogynists have a perfect example “proving” to the many, many misguided women (whose hearts and minds we need to win) that any acknowledgment of sex, not gender, is harmful to us all?

If the goal is women’s liberation through female solidarity, this is not the way.

We find that the dominant white group has basically three ways of dealing with black movements in this country: co-optation, elimination and segregation. Let us contrast, for example, the Black Panthers and the NAACP. Clearly the Black Panthers, at least in terms of their rhetoric, reject both the economic means of the system and the Anglo-conformity as a value. To any group that rejects these means and values and tries to substitute others, the dominant white group response with elimination or destruction.  On the other hand, the NAACP, which accepts both the economic means of the system and the values, meets the white response of co-optation. Co-optation leaves them white dominated, but it does permit them to survive within the context of the black subordination and white superordination. SNCC is a third example: it now rejects the economics means and values and purports to be substituting others. It has met with the same response as the Black Panthers - the machinery of elimination and destruction has been put to work against them. By contrast, the Urban League accepts economic means and values of the larger society. It has met with the response of co-optation within the context of white domination. CORE, at present, accepts the economic means but rejects the Anglo-conformity as a value. The dominant group response to CORE and other groups with this particular mindset is segregation - a kind of containment. Finally, the Black Muslims who accept the economic means of the society but rejects the Anglo-conformity as a value and substitute other values in a nonrevolutionary way, have met with the dominant group response of segregation which at the present time conforms with the Muslim policy aims.

The Black Revolts: Racial Stratification in the U.S.A. The Politics of Estate, Caste, and Class in the American Society by Joseph W. Scott

clearly the #blacklivesmatter movement is going down the road of segregation and that’s not a bad thing. we need to get as far away from white people as we realistically can if we are to know true freedom and peace.

me paying $13 for shipping on a lipstick: “Capitalism grew on top of patriarchy; patriarchal capitalism is stratified society par excellence. If non-ruling-class men are to be free they will have to recognize their co-optation by patriarchal capitalism and relin- quish their patriarchal benefits. If women are to be free, they must fight against both patriarchal power and capitalist organization of society.” (Hartmann, Heidi. “Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Job Segregation by Sex.” Classes, Power, and Conflict, 1982, pp. 446–469., doi:10.1007/978-1-349-16801-9_22.)

Iggy profits from the cultural performativity and forms of survival that Black women have perfected, without having to encounter and deal with the social problem that is the Black female body, with its perceived excesses, unruliness, loudness and lewdness. If she existed in hip hop at a moment when Black women could still get play, where it would take more than one hand to count all the mainstream Black women rap artists, I would have no problem. Iggy would be one among the many. But in this moment, she represents a problem of co-optation. She represents the ways in which hip hop is on a crash course to take exactly the path that rock ‘n roll took such that 20 years from now, people my nephew’s age, will look at the Macklemores and Iggys of the world as representative of Hip Hop Culture, with nary a Black soul making their top ten list of hip hop greats. This kind of cultural appropriation of Black women’s labor and creativity for white women’s gain, white men’s gain and Black men’s gain, is not new at all. It is the oldest race tale on American soil, remixed for a new era. And I ain’t got no love for that.
—  Brittney Cooper contributing writer at Salon
Black Panthers vs. “Co-opting” struggles

From Black Against Empire:

[Begin Quotation]

The Party also keenly understood that the Black Liberation Struggle needed nonblack allies, particularly progressive white allies. An editorial in the Black Panther explained why this alliance was important: The increasing isolation of the black radical movement from the white radical movement was a dangerous thing, playing into the power structure’s game of divide and conquer. We feel that in taking the step of making the coalition with the Peace and Freedom Party, we have altered the course of history on a minor, but important level.”

From its inception, the Black Panther Party had embraced both an uncompromising commitment to black liberation and a principled rejection of a separatist black politics. The coalition with the Peace and Freedom Party, which a number of black nationalists criticized, illustrated both. Explaining the Party’s position to its expanding black base was critical. “Because our Party has the image of an uncompromising stand against the oppression of the white power structure on Black people, we could take this step without getting shot down with the charge of selling out.”

As the Black Panther Party promoted the “Free Huey!” campaign, it built on emerging alliances with students and white antiwar activists, advancing an anti-imperialist political ideology that linked the oppression of antiwar protestors to the oppression of blacks and Vietnamese. Bobby Seale elaborated this position at a January 28, 1968, rally at UC Berkeley supporting students who had been arrested during Stop the Draft Week. Citing Newton’s article “On the Functional Definition of Politics,” Seale spoke to the crowd about self-defense power and the parallels between the Vietnamese and the black American liberation struggles. He pointed out that the antidraft students were locked up right alongside Huey Newton in the Alameda County jail. He made common cause with the students, arguing that the antiwar demonstrators faced a plight like that of the black community:

Black people have protested police brutality. And many of you thought we were jiving, thought we didn’t know what we were talking about, because many Black people in the community probably couldn’t answer your questions articulately. But now you are experiencing this same thing. When you go down in front of the draft [board], when you go over and you demonstrate in front of Dean Rusk, those pig cops will come down and brutalize your heads just like they brutalized the heads of black people in the black community. We are saying now that you can draw a direct relationship that is for real and that is not abstract anymore: you don’t have to abstract what police brutality is like when a club is there to crush your skull; you don’t have to abstract what police brutality is like when there is a vicious service revolver there to tear your flesh; you can see in fact that the real power of the power structure maintaining its racist regime is manifested in its occupying troops, and is manifested in its police department—with guns and force.

The new approach to draft resistance was compelling because of its universality. The black anti-imperialism championed by SNCC compared the plight of blacks in the United States with the plight of the Vietnamese and others throughout the world who were waging struggles against colonialism and imperialism. At SNCC’s invitation, student antiwar activists came to see themselves as fighting for their own liberation from the American empire. The imperial machinery of war that was inflicting havoc abroad was forcing America’s young to kill and die for a cause many did not believe in. Young activists came to see the draft as an imposition of empire on themselves just as the war was an imposition of empire on the Vietnamese.

SDS leader Greg Calvert encapsulated this emerging view in the idea of “revolutionary consciousness” in a widely influential speech at Princeton University that February. Arguing that students themselves were revolutionary subjects, Calvert sought to distinguish radicals from liberals, and he advanced “revolutionary consciousness” as the basis for a distinct and superior morality: “Radical or revolutionary consciousness … is the perception of oneself as unfree, as oppressed—and finally it is the discovery of oneself as one of the oppressed who must unite to transform the objective conditions of their existence in order to resolve the contradiction between potentiality and actuality. Revolutionary consciousness leads to the struggle for one’s own freedom in unity with others who share the burden of oppression.” 

The speech marked a watershed in the New Left’s self-conception. Coming to see itself as part of the global struggle of the Vietnamese against American imperialism and the black struggle against racist oppression, the New Left rejected the status quo as fundamentally immoral and embraced the morality of revolutionary challenge. From this vantage point, the Vietnam War was illegitimate, and draft resistance was an act of revolutionary heroism.

[End Quotation]

How different the discourse of the Black Panthers is from much of today’s activism, with its concerns for “co-opting” struggles, for parsing actions down to discrete authentic groups, for emphasizing the special and distinct nature of each struggle, incommensurable with any other group’s oppression, even when they are locked up in the same cells.

The revolutionaries of a previous generation thought exactly the opposite: the struggle must broaden, and the way to do that was to identify common oppressions, and further, to identify oneself as oppressed. This absolutely did not mean co-optation – the Black Panthers never abandoned black liberation, they simply understood that it would require a global revolutionary movement uniting many oppressed people against racist imperialism. They aligned with other groups who were on board with these politics – which meant breaking ties with reformist black organizations. The authors also stress how the Black Panthers actually led the antiwar movement: they pioneered draft resistance tactics, and agitated on college campuses, emboldening a moribund student left.

Foods for Fat Reduction

You may prevail surprised to bring to light that most of the food with-it your cupboards you thought “regularity foods” are without doubt spirit hint you fat.

Eat so fat loss is simple, right?

Rust less calories than you expend in a certain period of time and you lose ceremony… Drink more calories than you use and you gain weight right? Not so fast!

Howbeit the goods is true that your in every respect caloric commissions vs your caloric expenditure is guy of the zenith notable aspects in the custody or power loss… there are many factors that complicate this theory, such by what mode:

1. Calorie counting never works!

Almost nobody, and I mean nobody, can accurately count the calories. Controlled studies show that the majority on people (between 75-90%) consistently (and massively) under-report their calories consumed when they are invited to follow their calories.

I’ll show you why therm counting is completely obsolete.

2. Trying of mind is not easy

If your appetite and cravings are out of control, how can you control hunger and stay within your target calorie range for fat depletion? The problem is that the greatest number stand can not!

There is a trick that you can master that co-optation automatically facility your appetite and cravings.

3. Hormonal imbalances

If he eat unhealthy foods and you do not even know, this tank scatter the balance upon hormones in your body which leads me to overeat, cramp your metabolic rate, and other problems that may prevent you from burning fat the body eloquently.

If you read down subconscious self will see how you can reverse these habits that are causing hormonal imbalances, and turn your thing into a frippery flickering machine, as it was so-called to move.

And do not get me started on the “food cup”…

The commons pyramid is an absolute joke!

Almost every round MANES look upon their kitchen cabinets and refrigerator foul pertinent to food they conjecture “unlimited food”
It is not remarkable in order to see foods corresponding as:

Whole grain breads

Innards grains

Tofu or “Veggie Burgers”

ugli fruit whey

Skim milk


rice cakes


soybean oil, corn oil, canola oil, etc.

I see this pattern over and over just the same with pretty near all clients when I first eye their cabinets and they thought they were buying pap be good in favor of their health.

What they do not engender is that alter is with exactitude these foods that are sabotaging their tumid bereavement efforts, increasing their cravings, throwing their hormones out relating to whack, and more.

The witless solution to eating a healthy diet that promotes exhaustless loss

I’ll sorcerer you that eating for permanent fat loss.

With fact, if you choose the natural rights foods, and that you understand how these foods turn with your body, this method is a way in order to simplify you achieve automatically the right calorie level without the need against super count calories again.

A Theory of Pundit War

Anyone who spends any time on social media, especially Twitter, knows it’s an extremely contentious space. Theories abound as to why this is, often centered on the way that Twitter’s character limit imposes a kind of brusqueness. Critiques are boiled down to blunt instruments, arguments transmogrify into snark. Other explanations focus on the way that the share-and-like systems of social media turn debates into literal point-scoring matches, bending criticisms towards jokes that will resonate among one’s own pre-determined swarm of support. There is truth to both of these arguments, which, McLuhan-like, construct a theory of beef at the level of the medium by examining how the technical infrastructure of platforms determine the discourses hosted upon it. Here I would add a third, the way that the one-to-many/many-to-one communication mechanisms, constructed to be appealing to advertising, open the doors to floods of unwanted messages. Swarms and spam differ only in terms of their automation (thanks to guattari2600 for this insight).

However, these explanations lack something important: the social composition of these networks. To serve beef, one needs more than just a pot to cook it in. We need cooks, assistants, and so on: in short, who are the people involved in these beefs?

With apologies to the rigor that such an investigation would normally require, I will hazard an analysis. What we see in this beef is a bifurcation what used to be known as the profession of “journalism.” Much has been written about the ways that the Internet has worked to deprofessionalize (or proletarianize if you want to get Marxy and dramatic about it) journalism (Bob McChesney’s Digital Disconnect is a good reference for this), which, it should be said, has long been a rather amorphous group of people. A few – not unimportant! – professional codes and norms aside, little is required of a journalist other than that they be able to observe and write.

Many people can do this adequately, and with the internet, something else crucial is added: anyone can publish as easily as they can write. This led to a flourishing a blogs in the first decade of the 21st century, many of which were excellent precisely because they avoided the many aspects that had plagued journalism for years. Prominent among this was journalism’s reliance on advertising (and thus strict ideological limits as to how it could approach capitalism and commercial culture). This is well understood. Somewhat less understood is professional journalism’s symbiotic relationship with those in power. Professional political journalists need contacts, meaning access to powerful people, to get leads and scoops that other outlets don’t have. Politicians and other political elites need access to media platforms to spread their messages and consolidate their political bases. A quid-pro-quo relationship emerged where political journalism worked with elites – “objectivity” became a method to regulate any criticism that could threaten access. Of course, famous cases such as Watergate exist, but largely as the exceptions that prove the rule.

The optimistic estimations of blogging immediately understood that bloggers and other people writing and publishing on the internet in non-professional ways had advantages over journalism. They were not beholden to advertisers, old-guard editors, or elite gatekeepers, and so new forms of discourse oriented to the contemporaneous could flourish. This affected not just political journalism, but everything from cookbooks to music criticism to so-called “hyperlocal” coverage.

There was a downside that was often ignored, but has loomed especially large since the financial crisis: these unprofessional writers wrote for free, and so acted as a kind of cheap competition to professional journalists. I wouldn’t go so far as to label bloggers as scabs. But after the internet, especially after RSS and social networks leveled so many diverse publishing outlets into interchangeable “content,” journalism faced a deep crisis in profits. The effects on the profession – layoffs, closing of papers, consolidation, deskilling, outsourcing and so on – are well known.

This isn’t the end of the story, however. The era of blogs is over. An array of initiatives sprang up to capture the energy of amateur journalism and writing. Major newspapers experimented with their own stables of bloggers – 538 had a brief fling with the New York Times, Vox’s editors originated in the Washington Post, which also purchased Slate (which had been run with Microsoft money – tech companies and telecoms have shown a good deal of interest in these new formats). In addition, many independent media outlets that originated or came into their own with the internet capitalized on this large reserve army of digital writers: Salon, Vice, Gawker.

The subsumption of blogging was not simply an act of co-optation or colonization. It was an act of restructuring, where the qualities of the former affect the latter. Sometimes good work is produced in these spaces, largely due to the enlarging of the political spectrum allowed in publication. Less beholden to traditional advertisers (due in large part to much smaller budgets), political ideas that would never be aired in a major newspaper had their own outlets: the much-remarked-upon “little magazines” of Jacobin, The New Inquiry, N+1 (we might also add the LA Review of Books, Alternet, Mask Magazine, Reason, and, more tentatively, the Neo-Nazism-for-millennials publication the Daily Stormer).

These new publications also had less need to rely on elite access for their content. More academic and theoretical in tone (in large part due to a massive overproduction of academics in the US), they didn’t need to rely on banal quotes from politicos, but instead could derive intellectual authority from references to Marx, Foucault, Derrida, Butler and so on.

But more than a reliance on academic credentials, the new style of publishing relied less on original reportage (which it couldn’t hope to fund anyway), and more on commentary. This was closely aligned to an academic training devoted to critique, but also derived from the citational practices of blogging culture, where posts frequently built on previous posts from within specific discursive milieus. 

There is also a mostly untold story of the socialization of many of these writers on massive message boards, such as Something Awful, where humor and takedowns were as prized as informative essays, if not moreso. All of these inflect today’s content, which is built almost entirely from a critical perspective, often veering into contrarianism for sheer effect: in current-day parlance, this is known as “a take.” (A “hot take” is simply a very timely take.)

[I also want to remark, though I am not sure where to place this, upon the ease in which the internet’s searching and compiling makes for doing basic research on issues. Google and Wikipedia and other search functions make it simple for someone uninformed on a historical issue or political figure to come up with countervailing perspectives, or to find an egregious lapse in ethics or judgement. To my mind, this is essential for the composition of deprofessionalized writers I am theorizing here.]

And so we have a bifurcation in online political content producers. The elite stable of journalists, beholden to the narrow official discourses of capital and the state remain. There are fewer positions in this class, and those positions are much less stable than they once were. This is due to economic factors, but also because, as individuals with long publication records, they are subject to the search-and-destroy techniques I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Then there is a vast, more amorphous group of writers, meme-makers, Twitter wags, trolls and so on: the amateur stable of political content creators. “Amateur” doesn’t quite capture it, really – these people are often paid (erratically) and hold technical skills, while working much more precariously. I prefer the term “deprofessional.” It’s a much more lively and irreverent group, and, as should come as little surprise, their anti-establishment positions mean they often espouse anti-establishment politics. That Bernie Sanders should be so popular in this milieu is not due only to their youth, just as the professional class’s sometimes-desperate puffing for Hillary Clinton speaks to its occupational responsibilities to the elite status-quo.

These groups meet and overlap in Twitter. Twitter is essentially a requirement for anyone working in online writing today. This is for multiple reasons. First, it is simply a good and cheap way to promote one’s content. But it is also, itself, the fodder for content. We have all read “takes” on “liberals” or “leftists” which seem to speak, not to the broad constituencies of activists and thinkers in these ideological camps, but to cliques on social media. Twitter is where a writer can interface with The Discourse in real time, and the more talented and ambitious can provide what are essentially opinionated summaries on the day’s tweeting and retweeting for a small fee at any number of online publications.

More than a fee, a publication record can become the means to transition to a more stable writing career. These deprofessionals can wind up in high places. Jeb Lund graduated from notorious Something Awful troll to bylines in Rolling Stone. Gossipy Gawker editors have wound up in more respectable investigative online publications such as The Intercept.

This means it is less clear that the right credentials – degrees, internships, references, all the hallmarks of a dedication to maintaining the status quo in order to benefit from it as you reproduce it – means having a journalistic career. This extremely contingent and rapidly shifting situation places a lot of pressure on the Professional Class. They are vulnerable. Hemmed in from the restructuring political economy of journalism on one side, they are easily shown to be humorless shills, holding boring hand-me-down political ideologies that have less and less appeal, and ultimately having too much skin in the establishment to provide ample critique. Every day on Twitter the mendacity and timidity of this class is revealed in screenshots produced by independent and pseudonymous content creators from the Deprofessional Class.

While vulnerable the Professional Class is not defenseless. There is nothing a hack will fight for like their career. The weakness of the Deprofessional Class is that they still need jobs, and many of them, while not having high-profile bylines in major publications, still work in the lower tiers of the media and information industry: freelancing, web and graphic design, public relations, teaching as adjuncts, the occasional full-time blogging position. They are vulnerable too, and increasingly we see the professionals attack the deprofessionals where it hurts: their jobs. Doxing, complaints of fostering harassment (almost always nebulous – these platforms are designed to subject people to messages they did not necessarily ask for), cries of poor decorum and the holding of “extreme” or “controversial” opinions: these can, and have been, grounds for lost jobs, hampered careers, reduced income streams.

This is the terrain of the battle in political discursive space. Enter at your own risk.

Ci facciamo un panino?

Con una persona puoi dire di sentirti davvero a tuo agio e di essere in sintonia quando entrambi avete pensato di non rifugiarvi nella solita pizzeria o ristorante ma optate per un panino con mortadella e salame da divorare su una panchina qualunque o anche sui gradini di scale strette situate tra due palazzi, senza preoccuparvi di niente. Non so, per me mangiare un panino e bere una birra o una coca ovunque senza essere comodamente seduti - come solitamente accade quando si programmano incontri - mi dà l’idea che ci sia molta intimità e un forte legame, rompendo quel classico formalismo.

Pokemon Go Headcanons

I love Pokemon Go, and since their official designs have come out, I immediately came up with headcanons and personalities for them. Me, as a new writer that’s still practicing, decided that the best way to practice writing dialogue for these characters was to use them to describe each other, and show you how I’d think they’d act. So, this is the three team leaders describing each other as I would write them.


Blanche: “You would like me to describe Candela? She doesn’t appreciate when others speak about her when she’s not around, maybe you should wait until she returns and ask her yourself. However, whatever I say here, I’m sure I’ll end up saying to her anyway. She’s a very truculent woman. Sometimes maybe an exorbitant amount of so. If you exasperate her you will find yourself at the clemency of her well-trained hands and leniency isn’t facile to come by. Yet, I don’t mean to make her sound so godawful. Her aggression is not always so ill-willed. Other times- a plethora of the time, she’s a very caring person. She endeavors her hardest to be as amicable as she can be, even working through her short temper. She’s withal a very touchy-feely person; perpetually giving out hugs and kisses. The very first thing she does when you meet her is give you a moniker. It’ll always be something along the lines of ‘Love’ or ‘Hun’ or even ‘Babe’. Being plenarily veracious, her ardency leans more in that direction. Definitely a good ally, and a profoundly intriguing rival.”

Spark: “Candy is an amazing friend. I’ll tell you- she’s always willing to listen to what you have to say. She gives amazing advice too. Like, one time, when Snugs- she’s my Mareep, I named her Snugs- when Snugs was having a hard time sleeping, she helped me sing for her. It only worked for a little while and we had to ask Blanche for help, but Candela was definitely a great help too! Especially when it’s time to help the new recruits get started and teach them how to catch and care for their pokemon. And sure, sometimes she can get angry because she’s got a really short fuze, but it’s not very hard to calm her down if you can just make her laugh. Nobody can be angry when they’re laughing- believe me, she’s tried! And if a joke or two doesn’t work, just give her a good hug. She loves being touched like that… but now that I think about it, unless you’re me or Blanche, I don’t think it’s a good idea to even try something like that. Not unless you want a fist in your face. B-But of love- a punch is a kiss in her language, I promise!”


Candela: “Blanche is a total snooze fest. He’s really snooty and it’s almost impossible to get him to smile. And he’s a total snob. He spends money on things that I can’t even pronounce the name of and he’ll get real irritated if we touch or move things around. It’s like, he can’t just go to a cafe, it has to be a big ol’ fancy restaurant, with tablecloths and a dress code and- ugh! It’s like- I don’t even know how to explain it. It’s obnoxious and annoying. And yes, I already know they mean the same thing, Blanche spent so much time telling me when I used them both describing his cocky little Absol. It’s like they learn from the worst!- they being his pokemon. He acts like he knows everything… but I guess that’s fair considering he practically does. And he’s not all bad, I guess, he is incredibly strong- which is weird because all he ever does is meditate, it’s like, where did all that strength come from?! People just swoon when he walks by, even Professor Willow- which is weird because he’s like half a foot shorter than everyone. They just adore him and his cranky attitude and it’s like… just… ugh. I do too- but he doesn’t know, so don’t tell him, alright? I don’t need my rival knowing I think he’s cool, it’ll just inflate his big nerdy head.”

Spark: “Blanche is pretty cool- heh heh. It does become annoying when he corrects you all the time, but I know he doesn’t do it to be mean. I am pretty forgetful. Still he can be pretty -hehe… He can be pretty… cold- heh- no wait, come back I’m not done! He’s seriously not all that bad, definitely not as bad as a lot of people seem to think. Of course, if you compare him to Candela he can be a little stiff. But he’s just got space issues, so he doesn’t like overly crowded cafes and stuff. And, he gets touchy when you ask, but I’m sure he’s got that obsessive disorder, which is why he gets upset when me or Candela move his stuff around. So he’s not bad at all! There are times when he can be real friendly, like if we agree to do him favors or if we help him out a whole bunch, he cooks for us, or he’ll pretend to laugh at my jokes, which is pretty cool. And he smiles sometimes… only at his pokemon, but it’s usually really warm. Candela doesn’t believe me when I tell her I’ve seen it, so maybe one day I’ll snap a secret shot or something for her- OH a-and he’s like really clumsy! Like, so clumsy, he’s broken counters and tables and chairs, it’s like a whole different side to him. It’s really funny because he gets really flustered when it happens, but he doesn’t really know I’m there, so it’s like he’s embarrassed of himself while being by himself. And it’s actually kind of cute. He gives me… chills- hue hue hue- no wait, don’t go, seriously, he does and I don’t even know how to fix it, I don’t know what’s going on, please help-”


Candela: “Spark is the life of the party, even when there isn’t one. I tell ya, he’s the funniest thing- he’s the punniest thing, HA- don’t leave! I’m not as good as him, I got it. Anyway, he’s a good sport. He doesn’t mind when I give him hugs and kiss him on the cheek, unlike Blanche who straight up panics when I get too close. And he lets me play with his pokemon when mine are resting. He’s a real people magnet too. When we go out to help the new recruits get a hang of themselves, they all usually flock right to him. A friendly ol’ soul. But he’s awfully protective. I can’t count on my hands the amount of times he’s stepped in front of people running at me. Most of the time, they were just trying to be friendly, give us hugs or just greet us, but Spark is usually right there keeping them back. This is really good when Blanche comes out with us and some crazy overexcited fan tries to throw themselves onto him. He knows how to keep ‘em away. And just between you and me, I think there’s something going on between those two. Maybe it’s just a guy thing or whatever, but like, Spark is on Blanche like cold on ice. See what I did ther- come back here!”

Blanche: “Rambunctious. Sometimes maybe too rambunctious. He’s constantly telling ‘jokes’- he and Candela share the same juvenile sense of humor so it’s just double the frustration. He’s awfully forgetful as well, so I have to perpetually remind him of some of the rules around the center. Yet, he’s an amicable and allegiant comrade. He kens how to control himself when he requires to; if Candela or I are feeling ill, he’ll quiet down, or if he kens he’s making a mess, he’ll pick up after himself and his pokemon when he’s done playing. And I’m grateful for the avail he provides when I get caught up in the lab. Simple things like picking up orders I’ve made or training the incipient Mystic recruits when the research I’ve accumulated has piled too high. I’m always sure to recompense him, whether it be going out with Candela and him when they optate to catch a few more pokemon or train the recruits, giving him a few extra potions, sanctioning him to test out the advanced pokeballs Professor Willow has given me, or just cooking him a particular meal he enjoys. Outlandishly enough, he prefers when I sit with him while he eats, but it’s nothing tedious to me.”

thaxted replied to your post “heisenberg2020 replied to your post “There is a Transgender woman…”

The BC Liberals co-optation of the word “liberal” is so irritating and confusing and I’m sure that’s by design.

Well once upon a time the BC Liberals acted like Liberals, but they got flooded with Social Credit supporters and activists after that party died, entrenching it on the right side of the spectrum.

Them continuing to use the Liberal brand is pretty misleading. I wish they would change their name to something more fitting for a centre-right party. Most people don’t think of Liberal when they think of that political party and its actions.