tagging it as both because it's relevant

What’s good in a debate or an argument:

  • Giving an alternate perspective to the other person’s positions/beliefs
  • Giving and explaining relevant sources about an issue
  • Criticising the other person’s positions/opinions/etc
  • Debunking incorrect claims or outright lies
  • Pointing out and criticising hypocrisy

What’s fairly neutral in a debate or an argument:

  • Being sarcastic and/or bitchy
  • Annoying or childish name-calling
  • Tagging someone else to show them what’s going on/so they can offer their insight and/or add additional sources
  • Adding gifs or silly memes

What’s unacceptable in a debate or an argument:

  • Suicide-baiting
  • Threats of violence
  • Deliberately going out of your way to genuinely trigger the other person (especially if they’ve expressly stated that a particular thing is a genuine trigger)
  • Mocking the other person’s appearance
  • Any anonymously-sent abuse or genuine harassment or encouraging others to send abuse or genuine harassment
  • Falsely claiming that the other person is a bigot/abuser/paedophile/etc over literally nothing but their fictional likes
  • Randomly accusing the other person of being a bigot/Nazi/etc without any actual reason or genuine proof

amazonqueendianaprince  asked:

...or, you know, some of us think Cap is and was right about the whole thing because we're also opposed to the real-world implementation of similar fascist legislation such as The Patriot Act and it has nothing to do with liking him more?

That quote basically says, yes oversight is the right ethical and logical choice, but Cap is a good person, and that puts us in a quandary and I am saying that that is bad math.

It’s also a similar bad math that comes up in A LOT of 616 CW discussions, where Captain America himself (and the anti-reg side) essentially takes the position to non-metas that they should accept that metas occupy a position above the law/beyond equal prosecution by the law, because, you know, they’re different, and their circumstances are different, but you trust CAPTAIN AMERICA, riiiiight? Let the metas judge their own and police their own, what do you need the Constitutional right of equality under the law for? Obviously, this base position is immediately complicated by the clusterfuck of everything else in CW, but I’d argue that that’s deliberate. It’s one of the reasons I’m not a fan of the event, because I really like Cap, and I hate the things it makes him argue and I find them antithetical to him as a character.

I also don’t exactly get why so many people find a difference of opinion on a comics event, or, apparently, an actor’s opinion on an upcoming film none of us have seen as a personal challenge? I mean?? Yes I hate fascism? And the Patriot Act? And I think Cap’s political position is largely wrong in CW though I understand why, as the plot is manipulated, he fights? These things are not incompatible?

I get what you’re saying, but I’m responding to the quote as written and many, *many* other posts and comics CW itself, which initially sets up the problem as a constitutional legal problem of supers as American citizens whose identities allow them to avoid legal repercussions and prosecution and that’s constitutionally unacceptable under the law. Once that actually gets stated, there’s a problem.  

I’m not talking about the Patriot Act here, which I abhor, because it wasn’t part of the quote or what I was responding to, and I think the CW treatment of post-9/11 politics was really terrible, tone-deaf, and inconsistent in its understanding of xenophobia** and power dynamics. 

behind the cut

 for long rambly stuff about comics CW that’s more for future reference to point anyone to should they ask.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

please don't post thomas pictures on his own in the dove tag when there's no relevancy !! love your blog, but a lot of people aren't his fan and i don't wanna block you since i like your other posts x

Im not angry but its disappointing you would hate someone you dont know so much that it cant be tolerated. I dont like Ryan but I would never ask any blog to not post him in Doves tag. I dont even post Ryan with Dove except in her cute gifs. It is relevant to me tag her because he is her bf and I love them together.  As do very many and have created blogs featuring both of them. Its also sad that this is my blog and I enjoy being here without drama. Im a 21 yr old grown woman and I just feel its childish to put your own hang ups on me. I appreciate VERY MUCH the compliment but I will do as I wish with my blog. Because it is after all mine. I hope you will understand, but if you dont. I understand the block. TBH I cant believed I would be blocked over something so simple. But thats okay x

*also I plan on posting more of him when I ever I see something I like, such as a today. Just a warning bc I have more I am planning to post today. Not to make you mad, but because I had already planned it. 

Offscreen info & OQ development

If you have to TELL your viewers about the plausible offscreen info, you’re doing it wrong (in my opinion). I feel like OUAT season 4 cuts a lot of corners, especially when it comes to couples development, and while I totally understand that it’s an action packed show and there’s not a dull moment and the plot is carefully designed for consistency, there’s an accidental implication that relationships don’t require much communication, and that love is far more about destiny than about choice and getting to know the other person and discussing and getting through problems with them.

An example of this is Regina’s comment to Henry about how great it was when it was just him and her and Robin and Roland (somewhere in 4b). Regina came across in that moment as a mother who cared far more about sex in her vault (with a married man who pushed things with her even though she said she didn’t want to - not in a rape way but in a “I don’t respect your wish to do the right thing and I’m going to make it as hard for you as possible” way) than her BELOVED son. Henry has been Regina’s WORLD, and I found that scene particularly jarring. From what happened onscreen, the only time Regina really got to know Robin (in a non physical way) was when she was desolate and lonely and thought she’d never get to see Henry again, and Henry was in New York with Emma. So, this comment seems to discount Henry’s importance regarding the inclusion of another man, and son, in his life, or the fact that he might want to talk about it or not feel particularly brilliant about it.

Watching it again, and desperately trying to find a more positive interpretation in which I wasn’t furious at my favourite character’s parenting, I decided that this scene might have been intended as a suggestion that the group have spent time all together offscreen, and that Henry and Robin have some kind of amicable relationship. However, I’m still inclined to stick with my initial interpretation, and still hopeful that Henry and Regina will have a conversation about people’s happy endings not being all about who they’re sleeping with (which is a common misconception in teenagers, but as the author he probably should know that) and about the huge changes in their family.

To give the show credit, there has been LOTS of conversation and evidence and development about Henry’s family unit when it comes to his two mothers - they have both talked to him about the complexities of the relationship and spent a lot of time with him both separately and all together.

However, there is still a lot of relevant information/progression that does not take place on screen. As a student of film, I’m taught to interpret what I see in the text, but what I see has me expecting a huge fallout between Robin and Regina because Robin isn’t at all integrated in Regina’s life and doesn’t seem to care very much about her family or her morals or what matters most in her life. But instead, there are declarations that he’s her soulmate or true love. And yet, I’m still waiting for everything to crash and burn because I want there to be a reason for the way the story has happened!

OUAT has always impressed me with storylines, especially early on, and of course I LOVE the show (thank you!), or I wouldn’t be dedicating all this time to it! But I’m unsettled by the potential implication that all the development I’m waiting for is deemed plausible offscreen info, because that makes it hard for me to engage with the characters, and very hard to understand Regina and Robin’s relationship beyond an appreciation of the benefits of sexual compatibility.

And even then, I see so much to do with Regina STILL not believing she’s in control of her own destiny - she says no to Robin because he’s married, but he still wants to have sex with her and goes and kisses her again so she gives her body to him. Considering her past, this hints at psychological damage from the past sexual abuse she has endured (at the hands of her late husband). In part she still sees herself as the sexual object she was brought up to be, so she’s compelled to have sex with Robin because he wants to have sex with her, even though she previously stated she didn’t want to. She feels attraction and gives consent, but she is not in control. Then, after pushing for continuing the affair with Regina, Robin leaves with Marian! He makes no attempt to communicate with Regina or to fight for the love he’s supposed to feel. And yet Regina continues to fight for him, and takes him back. The only evidence based explanation for this is that again, Regina sees herself as an object, the property of men who desire her, and her difficulty in countering this is exacerbated by the fact that Robin isn’t abusing her (sexually at least, for me the jury is still out on emotionally), and she is attracted to him. Regina’s earlier relationship with Graham (which was all about her forcing control without actually having it for real) also fits in with this argument. As I said before, all this has me waiting for a meltdown, where Regina truly realises her value.

Please, please, tell me this makes sense to you as well.

anonymous asked:

Not to be that person but I'm just going to say it: if coming out in the near future is a priority for them (and I think it is) then they will make it happen when possible. That's all there is to it. if that's their priority, Louis isn't going to be told they can come out in November and then say no because of a movie like that, and the same goes for Harry.

agreed. and i’m going to link this ask from a couple of days ago and then this one from a few months ago because they’re both relevant to the conversation because personally i think a coming out would be an excellent source of positive promo for their projects anyhow.