Welcome!

I know to a lot of people on the left and in the LGBTQ+ community, he wasn’t exactly seen as a holy herald of progressive values. That said I think he was more helpful to our community than we have ever really given credit.

The Catholic Church is hugely entrenched in the past. They may not ever accept gay marriage within our lifetime. But if you compare Pope Francis to any other Pope that came before him, he did more to progress the Catholic Church than anyone else ever has. He constantly spoke out saying that the church needed to accept LGBTQ+ members. He has denounced laws that criminalise homosexuality. He supported same sex civil unions—which I was literally taught was evil and dangerous when I was in Catholic high school. Transgender people can be baptized and same sex couples can be blessed because of him.

He was never enough, of course. He has affirmed the teaching that gay marriage is not spiritually possible and prior to becoming pope he opposed the legalization of same sex marriage. He has said gay children should seek psychiatric care. He has also been even less accepting of transgender people than same sex couples.

Dear July,

“Skywalker lives! The seed of the jedi order lives. As long as it does, hope lives in the galaxy.”

But what’s interesting is that the camera is originally on Snoke, but when he emphasizes the word “hope” Kylo literally pops into the shot, like so:

Belle has Stockholm syndrome because she falls in love with the Beast, her kidnapper.

Woke:

Stockholm syndrome was coined to slander a woman who had been in a hostage situation but openly criticized the poor police response which recklessly put her in more danger and escalated the violence. She was then belittled and discredited publically by the police for this.

[ID: Gif image from Disney's Beauty and the Beast with Gaston leading a large group of villagers down the road holding a torch. The atmosphere is dark.

Wikipedia screenshot containing the following:

According to accounts by Kristin Enmark, one of the hostages, the police however was acting incompetently, with little care for the hostages' safety, which forced the hostages to negotiate for their life and release with the robbers on their own. In the process the hostages saw the robbers behaving more rationally than police negotiators and therefore developed a deep distrust towards the latter. Enmark had criticized Bejerot specifically for endangering their lives by behaving aggressively and agitating the captors. She had criticized the police for pointing guns at the convicts while the hostages were in the line of fire and she had told news outlets that one of the captors tried to protect the hostages from being caught in the crossfire. She was also critical of prime minister Olof Palme, as she had negotiated with the captors for freedom, but the prime minister told her that she would have to content herself to die at her post rather than give in to the captors' demands. Ultimately, Enmark explained she was more afraid of the police whose attitude seemed to be a much larger, direct threat to her life than the robbers.]

Excerpts from “See What You Made Me Do: The Dangers of Domestic Abuse That We Ignore, Explain Away, or Refuse to See” by Jess Hill

Here are some other facts you should know about Nils Bejerot: He had a major influence (this involved founding the "Swedish National Association for a Drug-free Society") on Sweden's zero-tolerance approach to drug use.

And he wrote "Barn, Serier, Samhälle" (Children, Comics, Society), basically the Swedish version of "Seduction of the Innocent"; an infamous anti-comics book by Fredric Wertham that led to the Comics Code Authority.

Bejerot described comic books as a "significant mental hygiene and cultural problem that concerns us all."

Hezu you have implicit biases against dark skin female character. You called isabela a bitch even though it's clear she suffer from unreleastic expectation from alma and throw that into mirabel, then you called kat elliot an asshole and jerk when she clear suffer from loss of her parent and being bullied, abuse, exploited. So please check your implicit biases don't forget racism and colorism too

But your rewrite of wendell and wild is nice i liked it

buddy, pal, sweet summer child Kat Elliot being abused is not an excuse for her to be an asshole and jerk to other people, especially not those who are constantly offering her help. Her own parents sat her down and talked about making better decisions and protecting people close to her. Isabela is a diva, someone who relishes the attention and praise but is essentially forced into keeping this role as the generational trauma and expectations of their family bear down on her. This is understandable. This is a well-written complex character. The moment I claim she is a "bitch" is when she can finally have the freedom she longs for, when her sister whom she shares a rivalry with actually saves her with the bell (or in this case, a crumbling house), causing a distraction that finally takes focus off of Isabela and interrupting her marriage contract, a contract that made her so upset and uncomfortable, she physically (with her nature powers) assaults her husband-to-be several times (it is played off for comedy but, it's not fair to him)

When it finally matters most, when Isabela has the opportunity to be honest and true, she treats Mirabel badly. She yells at Mirabel. She says Mirabel "ruined her life" when Mirabel did nothing of the sort, if anything she saved her future by interfering. She smiles as she makes Mirabel apologize, delighting in making her sister grovel at her feet. She's arrogant and petty. She doesn't turn around until mid-song, out of the blue, when she finally confesses to everything. Where she doesn't want that marriage, that she wants to be free, and thus becoming a better person. It's merely that moment of her interaction with Mirabel that makes her awful. Had the scene been written better, or if they had gone with the original plan of Mirabel catching Isabela dating some other guy and blabbing about it to the other family members where Mirabel DID in fact, ruin her life, Isabela's reaction would have made more sense. She would not be presented as a bad sister if things had been tweaked.

To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar (1995)

If you’re younger, you may not know Patrick Swayze; he was Taken From Us in 2009. But Patrick Swayze was an icon of masculinity. Men were willing to watch romantic movies because Patrick Swayze was in them.

Patrick Swayze was fucking beefcake.

And this man didn’t just agree to do a movie where the only time he’s not actually in drag is the first three minutes, which involve stepping out of the shower, doing make up, and getting Dressed. He has ONE LINE that is delivered in a man’s voice, and it’s not during those three minutes.

And if you watch those three minutes, you see a stark difference between his portrayal of Miss Vida Bohéme and Wesley Snipes as Noxeema Jackson. (I am not criticizing Snipes’ performance. They were different roles.) Noxeema was a comedy character. Chi-Chi was a comedy character. But Miss Vida Bohéme was a dramatic role, played by a dramatic powerhouse.

When Vida sits down in front of the mirror, she sees a man. And she doesn’t like it.

Then she puts her hair up, and her face lights up.

“Ready or not,” she says. “Here comes Mama.”

And while Noxeema is having fun with her transformation (at one point breaking into a giggling fit after putting on pantyhose), Vida is simply taking pleasure in bringing out her true self. And when she’s done, she sees this:

And you can FEEL her pride.

“I grew up in the ‘70s and even within the street culture, there was a lot of flamboyancy,” Snipes told TODAY of his perception of drag before filming. “Pimps wore the same furs as theprostitutes wore.

“Some of the great musicians of the world, like Parliament-Funkadelic, were very androgynous. So it wasn’t really new for me to see men dressed as women or men dressed as drag queens.”

Snipes attended the famed LaGuardia High School of Performing Arts and then State University of New York at Purchase. He wasn’t a dance major, but most of his friends were. “That exposed me to the world of glam, vogue, drag, transgender and gay people, LGBTQ… but it wasn’t in fashion those days. But it existed and I was around it.”

Not only did “Priscilla, Queen of the Desert” pave the way for “To Wong Foo,” so did films like the 1968 documentary “The Queen” and “Paris Is Burning,” the 1990 doc that chronicled ball culture of New York and the various Black and queer communities involved in it.

Even though he was known for his action roles, Snipes’ portrayal of Noxeema wasn’t the first time he played a drag queen. In 1986, he made his Broadway debut in the play “Execution of Justice,” playing Sister Boom Boom, a real-life AIDS activist and drag nun who acted as the show’s voice of conscience. Snipes pointed out, “Sister Boom Boom did not have Noxeema’s makeup kit.”

On whether he got any pushback for stepping into Noxeema’s pumps, he said, “Not so much professionally but the streets weren’t feeling it, and there were certain community circles. The martial arts community… they were not feeling it at all.”

“In fact, when the movie came out and they would come down the street, I would see them in Brooklyn sometimes, they started listing all my movies. I noticed they would always skip that one. I would correct them, ‘Now you don’t got the full count!’”

Lesser-known than his co-stars at the time, Lequizamo didn’t really anticipate becoming a transgender icon, but he did know that they were working on something special when they started filming.

“Drag didn’t really exist in movies,” Lequizamo, who was nominated for a Golden Globe for his portrayal, told TODAY. “There were straight men pretending to be women to get out of trouble or into trouble but this was not that. I was trying to make Chi-Chi a real life trans character and Patty and Wesley were trying to be real drag queens.” Never fully articulated in the film, Chi-Chi Rodriguez has always been perceived as transgender, something that ending up making an indelible mark on LGBTQ people in the late ‘90s as trans representation in media was limited.

“Chi-Chi was a trans icon, but she also showed us that gay men and trans women can both perform and work in drag side by side, and that those relationships are symbiotic,” Cayne explained.

“It was a powerful thing. I get lots of fan mail from LGBTQ teens telling me how my character helped them come out to their parents,” Leguizamo said. “They didn’t feel like they were seen, so that was a beautiful gift from the movie.”

Lequizamo also articulates that if “To Wong Foo” were cast today, a trans actor should be cast in his role. (And that just may happen, since Beane is developing a musical for Broadway.) “Anybody can play anything, but the playing field is not fair that way,” he said. “Not everybody is allowed to play everything. So until we get to that place, it is important for trans actors to get a chance to act which they don’t. In the project I’m doing, I’m making sure that the person playing trans is a trans person so we can make it legit, make it real. That just needs to be done right now.”

it was formative for modern society, too.

there are a lot of action fans out there who learned from their idols that respect doesn’t cost a damn thing to give. i know plenty of people who aren’t queer saw trans women and drag queens presented as people to them for the first time in wong fu. suddenly, strange and foreign queer identities that had only been presented to them as jokes if they’d even heard of them, seemed a little more relatable, and very human.

we’re all just people.

“It was all about accepting my ethnicity in it. I had my face done really light all the time. I have family members who have issues with self-hate and race and so their skin will be five times lighter than the color of their neck, and that always tripped me out, so I wanted to put a little bit of that into it,” he said. “At the end of the movie, my neck and my face matched. My face is much darker. So that was the arc. Chi Chi becomes polished but accepting of herself, mature, romantically grows. Instead of a taker, she becomes a giver.”

https://x.com/RichEisenShow/status/1734703529552699725?s=20

While Adam Driver is making the rounds to promote "Ferrari," he drops by the Rich Eisen Show and when asked about Ben Solo during the True or False segment, Adam spills the tea.

He doesn't get asked much about Star Wars so this is the first time I think he's talked about his character arc since TROS was unleashed upon us 4 years ago. And he drops the bomb that the Ben Solo thing wasn't planned from the beginning. That's right, Bendemption happened late in the game. He says that JJ Abrams told him the idea was Vader In Reverse (starts out vulnerable, ends entrenched in the dark side) and he kept that concept in mind throughout the time he filmed the ST, until they changed it with the last film. Adam has alluded to the concept of Vader In Reverse before but this is the first time he's gone into greater detail about it, including the revelation that the decision to turn Kylo from the dark side came during the third film.

This shouldn't be surprising to anyone who read the Duel of the Fates script and it explains why Ben hardly says a word during his scenes on Exegol. Abrams and Co. conceived of Kylo Ren as an evil bastard whose destiny was to get eviller; killing Han Solo was meant to be what sent him down the path of no return. Then two things happened: TLJ and Driver's commitment to humanizing Kylo Ren. People loved Kylo and Rey together (hence Reylo exploding in popularity) and they fell in love with Adam. They empathized with Kylo. So they changed course with TROS, a little. Kylo returns to the light as Ben but he is quickly dispatched once the big battle is over. I believe Ben's death was for two reasons: one, they were less invested and focused in Ben's part of the story than we were and two, there was always the intent to end the Skywalker line so Star Wars could focus on new characters. Remember, Rey essentially turned Skywalker into a title that could be transferred to anyone.

That the story changed over the course of the trilogy isn't that big a deal. There was no Chosen One prophecy until the prequels. Leia wasn't Luke's sister until Lucas wrote ROTJ. Han wasn't guaranteed to get out of carbonite because nobody was sure if Harrison Ford was going to come back. Instead of a tyrannical, ruthless bastard like Lee Pace's emperor in Apple TV's Foundation show, Kylo Ren gave us quivering lips, teary eyes, and mooning over the heroine who is supposed to be his enemy. When Rian Johnson introduced the bond between Rey and Kylo, Abrams and Terrio explained it as a dyad and made it prominent in the film. The kiss got put in because Reylo was so popular. Okay, fine.

The problem was they never should have made the Jedi Killer from early drafts Han and Leia's only child. As an old Star Wars fan who saw every film since 1977 and followed the Skywalker clan for over 40 years, I didn't want to see Anakin Skywalker's grandson end up even more evil than he was. What a huge bummer that would've been, even worse than if Rey was killed off. (For the record, I hated the whole Darth Jacen thing so much in the legends books I stopped reading them.) Abrams and Terrio probably realized it was going to be a problem returning to the idea that Ben was too evil to save; TROS already comes off as a tragic ending rather than a happy, triumphant one. And it goes against the whole message of Star Wars. So it ends up being Vader 2.0 and fans hoping Ben would survive were disappointed. I wasn't fond of the idea of exile or something as Ben's fate prior to TROS, but now I think that probably would've been the best outcome. It would've left a lot of possibilities to explore in future SW stories without having to come up with a convoluted explanation for bringing him back.

So. Here’s the thing. Given a cursory glance and applying today’s worldview to the song, yes, you’re right, it absolutely *sounds* like a rape anthem. 

BUT! Let’s look closer! 

“Hey what’s in this drink” was a stock joke at the time, and the punchline was invariably that there’s actually pretty much nothing in the drink, not even a significant amount of alcohol.

See, this woman is staying late, unchaperoned, at a dude’s house. In the 1940’s, that’s the kind of thing Good Girls aren’t supposed to do — and she wants people to think she’s a good girl. The woman in the song says outright, multiple times, that what other people will think of her staying is what she’s really concerned about: “the neighbors might think,” “my maiden aunt’s mind is vicious,” “there’s bound to be talk tomorrow.” But she’s having a really good time, and she wants to stay, and so she is excusing her uncharacteristically bold behavior (either to the guy or to herself) by blaming it on the drink — unaware that the drink is actually really weak, maybe not even alcoholic at all. That’s the joke. That is the standard joke that’s going on when a woman in media from the early-to-mid 20th century says “hey, what’s in this drink?” It is not a joke about how she’s drunk and about to be raped. It’s a joke about how she’s perfectly sober and about to have awesome consensual sex and use the drink for plausible deniability because she’s living in a society where women aren’t supposed to have sexual agency.

Basically, the song only makes sense in the context of a society in which women are expected to reject men’s advances whether they actually want to or not, and therefore it’s normal and expected for a lady’s gentleman companion to pressure her despite her protests, because he knows she would have to say that whether or not she meant it, and if she really wants to stay she won’t be able to justify doing so unless he offers her an excuse other than “I’m staying because I want to.” (That’s the main theme of the man’s lines in the song, suggesting excuses she can use when people ask later why she spent the night at his house: it was so cold out, there were no cabs available, he simply insisted because he was concerned about my safety in such awful weather, it was perfectly innocent and definitely not about sex at all!) In this particular case, he’s pretty clearly right, because the woman has a voice, and she’s using it to give all the culturally-understood signals that she actually does want to stay but can’t say so. She states explicitly that she’s resisting because she’s supposed to, not because she wants to: “I ought to say no no no…” She states explicitly that she’s just putting up a token resistance so she’ll be able to claim later that she did what’s expected of a decent woman in this situation: “at least I’m gonna say that I tried.” And at the end of the song they’re singing together, in harmony, because they’re both on the same page and they have been all along.

use tools

Can be taught to speak (like parrots)

Have huge brains for birds

like seriously their brain-to-body size ratio is equal to that of a chimpanzee

They vocalize anger, sadness, or happiness in response to things

they are scary smart at solving puzzles

some crows stay with their mates until one of them dies

they can remember faces

SIDENOTE HERE BECAUSE HOLY SHIT.  They did an experiment where these guys wore masks and some of them fucked with crows.  Pretty soon the crows recognized the masks = douchebag.  But the nice guys with masks they left alone.  THEN, OH WE’RE NOT DONE, NO SIR crows that WEREN’T EVEN IN THE EXPERIMENT AND NEVER SAW THE MASK BEFORE knew about mask-dudes and attacked them on sight.  THEY PASSED ON THE FUCKING INFORMATION TO THEIR CROW BUDDIES.

They remember places where crows were killed by farmers and change their migration patterns.

Every day, I would watch Buck from my window until one day I opened it and started talking to him. He was small and gangly and he couldn’t caw right. His feathers were all over the place and I felt a kinship. So I made a deal with him. I told him that if he could do it, if he could fly, then I could find the strength to get up. Well… near the end of the season, after talking with him every day, I finally saw him get out of the nest. He went to the edge of his branch, braced himself, and jumped… and just before he hit the ground, he soared back up into the sky. I cheered harder than I ever had before.

That winter, Buck left the area. I was crestfallen. I felt like I’d lost a friend. But I was so damn proud of him. 

Cut to the next spring? I’m walking up the driveway one day when suddenly I hear a sound… a broken caw. I look up, and Buck is sitting in a tree above my head. He stared at me and puffed his feathers, then hopped down in front of me and cawed again. I was so damn thrilled, and I told him how proud I was of him. He ruffled his feathers and then soared off into his old tree. 

That summer? I heard two broken caws. One from Buck… and one from his chick.

i tried to get close and take a better look and one of them dived super low and tried to attack me. so i went back in the house and chopped some sliced raw meat and tossed it at him from a distance.

a few more times later, very soon after, they could tell i was trying to help, and did not attack me. i was “allowed” to walk up close and pick him up, he couldn’t drink water properly so i had to dip my finger in a bowl and stick it in his mouth.

i did this few times a day and it went on for about a week before he disappeared, i thought he recovered and left, but he came back the next day and lands on me, and i see him around the block quite often, and he would come sit on my shoulder for a few minutes and then fly away again. i feel like i’ve adopted a son.

As a side note, I volunteered at a rehab (Hope for Wildlife), where they were rehabbing a crow with a broken wing–who was named Russell Crow. He kept pulling his bandage off so a sleeve was cut off some old clothing and put on him like a little sweater. 

I'm speaking genuinely to gen z: your life is not a marketable product. you don't have to worry about your entire life being a trend and whether you'll be cringe to some imaginary audience. like it's okay. you're a person, not a product.

look at me in the icon. know that i am saying this with love, kindness, and experience: your generation does not have magical timeless taste. your taste in clothes and furniture and make up will age. the next generation will make fun of you. they will think your stuff is weird and cringe and then in their teenaged years, they'll start copying you anyway. this is literally what happens with every single generation.

and when that happens, you will be old enough to not give a shit. in fact, you may even DELIGHT in misusing their slang or trying out their styles SPECIFICALLY to see them roll their eyes or think you're being dumb. they will not pick up on the fact that you are laughing at them laughing at you. you will understand that it is SO MUCH FUN to do this. you will love the things you love, and you will roll your eyes at "kids these days," and you will see them insisting that THEIR taste is the be all end all of fashion/home design/makeup/hair.

to live well and authentically is to be cringe eventually

look how much fun they’re both having! yes!

and also this couple, who are both wheelchair users