why be specially responsible

anonymous asked:

Is it significant that Jeff Sessions, the current Attorney General, had recused himself from testifying? What does that mean exactly?

The Attorney General recused himself from the investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia because he met with the Russian ambassador to the United States during the campaign while Sessions was a prominent Trump surrogate (and then declined to share those details when asked about them during his Senate confirmation hearing). There’s a clear conflict there because Sessions, as Attorney General and the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, is the Justice Department official ultimately responsible for the overall investigation and could very well be one of the subjects of the investigation. 

By recusing himself from the investigation, Attorney General Sessions basically is removing himself from any potential decision-making process regarding the investigation. That’s why the Deputy AG was responsible for appointing the Special Prosecutor and has been in a more public role than Deputy Attorneys General traditionally are.

antimena-pie  asked:

What I mean Is, the fact that all the Zombie heroes fit into 5 classes, 2 of each. And the Zombies fit into only ONE class. Do you think the Hero-tron was programmed to give the Zombie heroes 2 classes? Like how Super Brainz has sneaky and Brainy. Maybe the Hero-tron was made with the idea to give them TWO classes instead of ONE and that's why they're so special?

(Sorry for the late response. Life and laziness got in the way.)

If I understood correctly, you are saying that the Hero-tron gave the Zombie Heroes two classes while giving the regular zombies only one class.

Is that correct? (I may not continue this if you do not confirm anything)

anonymous asked:

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not here to stir up shit, but what was that post about?! Whining that people who you don’t share an opinion with do whatever they want to make it special to them? Why? Can’t you be responsible for your very own experience? Would it be so hard to let everyone be and enjoy things nevertheless? I wish everyone the best experience possible, but not if it means someone else has to change their ways, no matter what you personally think of them.

I disagree anon, and I thought quite carefully about how I worded that message because I categorically do not think I have the right to decide how anyone experiences fandom. I do think however that when a trend becomes so pronounced that the fairly extreme measures I take to manage my own experience in a positive way (my blacklisting/blocking/dash discipline is extensive) still fail to filter out habit, it’s worth speaking up. I don’t want or expect my thoughts to dictate to others but it never hurts to ask a question and raise a perspective. A healthy fandom should encourage discussion, disagreement even, and my expressing my opinion doesn’t mean that others aren’t entitled to hold another. 

And this wasn’t personal. At all. It wasn’t aimed at anyone, simply the habitual linkage of DD & GA in all things. I would very much like to enjoy a little lite Gillovny friendship fuckery on the side of my other interests. But I don’t want it as my main meal. And I don’t enjoy it being forced into every dish I order, diminishing my ability to enjoy the main ingredients in their pure form.

It’s irrelevant whether or not DD and GA are dating/have ever dated/may date in the future. My issue is with viewing either of them solely as they relate to the other. It’s the fandom equivalent to copying an irrelevant colleague into every work email, or adding someone’s spouse or mum to every group chat you have them in. 

I’d never congratulate my best friend for a good performance by sending her a gif of her boyfriend/a mutual acquaintance giving her a thumbs up. Because that would be weird and belittling, viewing her only as she exists in relation t him. I tell her good job because she did a good job, irrespective of the rest of her life. Now obviously Gillian and David work together, have history and that shared history is integral to the fandom, so to a point I expect them to be linked, but when the majority of the conversation I’m seeing about the solo work of one is evaluated in reference to the other despite their being no actual link… well that sits badly with me. 

I stand by what I said, because I do think the balance is out at the moment, and while I doubt my saying so will do more than attract this sort of anon, I still feel that saying something is the right thing to do. Let people’s achievements define them, instead of viewing them as attachments to people to whom they are or have been personally or professionally linked.

Originally posted by lanalikesnobanana

A comedian’s job… I think that we’re responsible just for being funny and being original. That’s where our responsibility begins and ends.
What about the responsibility of a fucking audience member? What about their responsibility to comprehend that they’re hearing something that they know is being said in humor and they know they have the ability to laugh—or not laugh—accordingly?

Why do bloggers, audience members, and special interest groups suddenly have zero responsibility for accurately interpreting the content of what they’re hearing? Why is it only the comedian that has a responsibility?

Why is it the audience has zero responsibility for willingly walking into a situation where they know they’re going to hear something that could be offensive, or upsetting, or objectionable, and still getting offended?

There’s no responsibility by them and their reaction. All of a sudden a room full of people who enjoy something are invalidated… And the one person bothered by it is suddenly the focal point where everybody goes: “You are right. You walked into a situation where you knew something could be made fun of but you are right to have gotten upset. And all of those people are wrong for enjoying it. And that person is wrong for saying it.”

When did comedians become someone you were supposed to interpret literally, word by word?

—  Jim Norton

Really, is it so hard to understand why Jews might not just nod along as they’re told about how privileged their experience is?

Let’s just take the twentieth century…

Got off to a smashing start with Kishinev. Then, pogroms, the Beilis trial, the Leo Frank lynching, Jerusalem, Jaffa and Hebron. The ethnic cleansing of Jews from Western Russia. The ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Afghanistan.The Soviet Union. The Evian Conference, the turning back of the St.Louis, the Wagner-Rogers Bill.  The Nuremberg laws, the death camps, and the murder of a third of all the Jews in the world. Baghdad. Then the ethnic cleansing of the Jews of nearly all of the Middle East and North Africa, another 900,000 displaced. The forcing out of the surviving Jews of Poland. The Doctors Plot trials. (Did we mention the Soviet Union? Continued persecution of Jews in Ethiopia. The Paris synagogue bombing. The Goldenberg restaurant attack. Refusniks. Arrests and executions in Iran. The LA JCC shooting.

And this is just a kind of haphazard Greatest Hits list. For one century. And this shit did not stop in 2000, either.

Looking at this, is it so hard to figure out why the response to “you get extra special treatment because you’re white, well, most of you, not all of you, but anyway, you’re rich and influential,” gets a response that is less “gosh, let’s examine our privilege!” and more “WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT NOW, EVEN MORE BLOOD?”

Especially when our presumed wealth and influence, half the fucking time,was used as a REASON to come and kill us?

Riot police use MRAPS during the Ferguson riots: This is why police need military equipment!!

FBI Special Response Teams use MRAPS during an armed stand off in Oregon:
This is a police state!