Past Imperfect

I’ve shared this recipe before and I have to say that it is one of the recipes of all time.

i’m not a political strategist, but i am someone who’s spent a lot of time in maine for camping/hiking reasons. outside of the artsy enclave that is portland and maybe some of the resort towns around the MA border, it’s a very red state. collins is a five time incumbent who has done a lot to secure funding for things like police and fire stations. by many measures, she’s popular and is on good standing with her constituents.

Olivia Colman reads a letter responding to an unsolicited penis photograph

Henri Fantin-Latour (French, 1836 - 1904), Fleurs (Narcisses, Jacinthes, Coucous, Fleurs Jaunes, Giroflees), 1873

Sometimes when an action makes NO sense to us ("he's like a stupid alien"), it's bc we are not understanding its true motivation/purpouse. If his goal was control, financial pressure and limiting her options due to lack of funds, it makes perfect sensie to buy the truck.

This is classic abuser behavior: maneuver the partner into a situation where they feel trapped and cannot escape. The timing on this is too perfect; he saw her gaining agency & power in the relationship and moved to short circuit that.

I am SO GLAD she got out.

If this happens to you, try reaching out to friends & family first. Chances are they've been watching your situation and are aching to help, but have felt powerless. I can't tell you how many times I've watched this scenario unfold. Ask. For. Help. Nobody will judge you, and they're probably waiting for you to make a move. People notice abuse and want to help.

if you feel truly alone, start out with some free online resources.

All eyes are on Maine this week. Political operatives in Trumpworld tell Inner Loop they hope embattled senate candidate Graham Platner will stay in the race as long as possible—the state’s electoral chaos can only help Republicans, they claim.

Platner, a US Marine veteran, overcame a string of controversies to easily win the Democratic primary last month. Platner is supposed to face incumbent Republican Susan Collins in the general election in one of the nation’s most closely watched races in November, but a litany of Democratic officials are now calling for him to drop out.

On Monday, a woman in Maine accused Platner of sexual assault and told Politico that he had once forced her to have sex over her objections. (Platner’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment, though it previously denied the allegation in a statement to Politico.)

Platner had previously been accused of mistreating women, had covered up a Nazi tattoo, and was linked to multiple offensive online comments. Over the past 24 hours, Democrats from Senator Bernie Sanders to Senator Chuck Schumer have called for him to step out of the race.

Trumpworld operatives say their hope—unsurprisingly—is that Platner stays in the race, given his increasingly toxic political brand, his growing horde of political enemies in his own party, and the knock-on effects on his fundraising operation.

Basically, it’s a dumpster fire, and Republicans are all but making s’mores.

“Platner should stay in and fight the liberal lobbyist establishment!” one strategist jokingly told Inner Loop. Like others interviewed for this story, they spoke candidly on the condition of anonymity.

Once again. I can understand the kneejerk impulse here, I do. It sucks to imagine, say, a creator scrolling online coming across some needlessly vitriolic post about something they worked on. But anyone is allowed to go "That's dickish" and move on, or people can engage with "I think this is oversimplified blah blah" if they want to but at the end of the day it isn't some kind of crime against the hobby or a fandom or even a singular person if someone just shoots off "This sucked I wasted my night" in their own accounts.

Like. A lot of people are trending towards thinking I'm talking about the importance of constructive criticism and like, sure, I think that is probably a more interesting avenue of analyzing something's flaws, but once again if you're not like, addressing an artist or interested in doing a deep dive that doesn't mean you're Not Allowed to be flippant or quick to judge. It's kind of startling how many times I've seen someone be like, "I can't stand this album" on their blogs, untagged, had that shit shared, only for it to come across someone's feed and for them to respond with "Why? What's wrong with it? People are allowed to like it, why are you being so negative, why are you tearing people down for no reason, this isn't even real critique," as though the intention in the first place ever was or ought to have been substantive critique in the first place.

OK sometimes you don't like a certain art style. That's fine. Doesn't mean the art is bad, it's just not to your tastes.

That doesn't give you the right nor even a reason to be a dick on the Internet because you don't like something. If you want to be a dick, do it to someone who has time and energy to give it back. Because at that point you deserve shit in return.

If someone is outright asking for constructive criticism, that still doesn't give you the chance to be a dick. It means they want help learning something they're putting time and effort into.

Why do I need a "right" or "reason" to post anything online? Why is it that my enjoyment of something is intrinsically justifiable, but my lack of enjoyment requires justification? And based on whose standards? If I can thoughtlessly tweet out a "This album rocks," without expecting people who hate it to demand a longform review from me to explain my enjoyment, I'm not sure I understand why I can't say "This album sucks" without having to go into the trenches about its positive qualities and negative ones. Why do I need to formulate every opinion I have in the form of an art school critique addressing nobody at all?

Why can praise be thoughtless but criticism must, at all costs, be formulated in art school constructive form in case the creator happens to see it and get their feelings hurt or a fan finds it harmful? Particularly when someone could very well have their feelings hurt by thoughtless praise of something as well! I'm not even trying to claim a more substantive form of criticism isn't more interesting or more valuable for one's interpretive abilities. I just think this notion that there is a moral obligation in all online spaces-- no matter how siloed-- to tiptoe around the potential hurt feelings of a hypothetical audience that may or may not even be courted, is at best stultifying for any real plurality of opinion and at worst enabling people whose insecurities about their own hobbies lead them to confidently dictate what people say in whatever passes for privacy in an online space nowadays.

I dunno, I've read works of brutal polemic that I've found immensely creatively engaging, thoughtful, and substantial in its knowledge of a particular form or medium. I've read works of praise I've found miserably trite. Why is the former not allowed to exist because of its dickishness? Why is the latter beyond critique itself?

Why do you think someone being a dick is "expecting" someone to listen to your opinions? Why do you think that person is "expecting" any sort of audience at all? I am critiquing the inherent assumption that people who are "rude," however this is defined (and I believe it is ill-defined specifically because so much of this is conflated with whose feelings are hurt rather than the actual substance of whatever hypothetical comment is centered here), and have repeatedly emphasized in multiple places that there is a difference between approaching someone and insulting their tastes and creations versus airing an opinion in the (admittedly, increasingly decreasing) privacy of an online space.