Before Steven was born Amethyst used to say ‘fuck’ all the time & so when he was a baby Greg had to sit her down and explain that she has to stop swearing around Steven because he’s young & impressionable
So Amethyst is like “but that’s my favourite word, when will be stop being young & impressionable so I can say it again??”
And Greg is like “uhh I don’t know, 15 I guess? 15 is probably old enough”
“Got it”
flash forward to Steven’s fifteenth birthday and he is woken at dawn by Amethyst yelling “wake the FUCK up Steven it’s FUCKING TIME”
& he spends the entire day losing his mind
Steven: w-what’s happening
Garnet: *deadpan* Amethyst just got her favourite word back
Amethyst: *running around the house* FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK
Greg: what’s going on
Amethyst: you said once Steven was 15 I could say fuck again
Greg, who only hazily recalls the conversation in question: ……i DID?
Amethyst: *runs outside* FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK *distant sounds of spooked birds*
Pearl: Steven the *whispering* F-word is a bad word that Amethyst USED to say before-
Steven: I know what fuck means Pearl
Amethyst: *stopping dead in her tracks* WHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATT??
Pearl: who taught you that word mister!!
Steven: um… Lars and Sadie… *mumbling* five years ago…
Amethyst: I’ve been denying myself my favourite word for FIVE YEARS for NOTHING??
Greg: uh even if he knows what it means it’s still not really appropriate for you t-
checking the timestamps, all of sexygirlmax2019’s posts have been made today they’re formatted impeccably like bot messages and posts but they’re just a little off
this isn’t a bot this is a human controlling a blog acting like a bot all of the links?? aren’t porn links mysterious bit.ly links to this site: https://max2019.neocities.org/ if you “click here to instantly transport” you get taken to > /seraphim.html if you click it again > /cherubim.html again > /thrones.html …which returns a “Page Not Found” error
Porn Bot ARG
So I ran the mp3 you could get from /cherubim.html through a sstv scanner and got this back
Which is just straight up the image from /seraphim.html.
But the it’s weird, when I went back to /cherubim.html the page changed from a picture and an mp3 download to this:
And when I clicked on that I was taken to /firstsphere/thrones.html which looked like this:
When I clicked on THAT I was taken to /secondsphere/dominions.html and greeted to this disturbing image:
The last eye was apparently clickable which took me to /secondsphere/powers.html which looked like this:
the text on it reads: “H.U.R.L
Hierarchy of Uniform Resource Locators”
??????????
So /dominions.html just changed to this:
and /powers.html changed to:
BUT since making this update, the file for the image is no longer there! So it looks like:
Clicking on the (now missing) picture, it takes you to /secondsphere/light1.html which looks like:
Clicking that takes you to /secondsphere/light2.html, whick looks like how /powers.html looks:
Clicking that takes you back to /secondsphere/light1.html, which has JUST NOW gotten worse:
WHAT THE FUCK??
/secondsphere/light1.html’s image is now clickable, leading to this:
/secondsphere/light2. that’s clickable too:
/secondsphere/light3! at this point, i’m thinking the light pages are just gonna go on forever.
until i click light3′s image:
/secondsphere/virtues.html! i’m not joking when i say that that is all that’s on the page.
but it’s clickable.
we’re onto /thirdsphere now. i can’t identify the poem shown, and no results come up for it on a google search.
let’s keep going. this is an interesting rabbit hole if i’ve beer been down one.
i feel like i should mention that this is a gif [TW FOR GLITCH EFFECTS]:
i do indeed feel like going to a happier place today. let’s click:
there’s a reason i included the tabs in the screenshot this time.
before, it just showed the url, so no title was set. the gif isn’t clickable, so this is the end of that rabbit hole for now.
looks like they’ve found us, apparently. if anyone can find any hidden shit on those pages, let me know.
Dr. Michelle Martin is a researcher and professor at California State University, Fullerton. She has a Masters of Social Work, Masters in Global Policy, and a Ph.D. in Peace Studies (Political Science). She teaches Social Welfare Policy in the Master of Social Work program.
The following is her write-up on the separation of families at the border. She dispells a lot of common myths going around and provides sources which are linked. This might be helpful in your personal debates and discussions.
———————————————-
There is so much misinformation out there about the Trump administration’s new “zero tolerance” policy that requires criminal prosecution, which then warrants the separating of parents and children at the southern border. Before responding to a post defending this policy, please do your research…As a professor at a local Cal State, I research and write about these issues, so here, I wrote the following to make it easier for you:
Myth: This is not a new policy and was practiced under Obama and Clinton.
FALSE. The policy to separate parents and children is new and was instituted on 4/6/2018. It was the “brainchild” of John Kelly and Stephen Miller to serve as a deterrent for undocumented immigration, and some allege to be used as a bargaining chip. The policy was approved by Trump, and adopted by Sessions. Prior administrations detained migrant families, but didn’t have a practice of forcibly separating parents from their children unless the adults were deemed unfit.
Myth: This is the only way to deter undocumented immigration.
FALSE. Annual trends show that arrests for undocumented entry are at a 46 year low, and undocumented crossings dropped in 2007, with a net loss (more people leaving than arriving). Deportations have increased steadily though (spiking in 1996 and more recently), because several laws that were passed since 1996 have made it more difficult to gain legal status for people already here, and thus increased their deportations (I address this later under the myth that it’s the Democrats’ fault). What we mostly have now are people crossing the border illegally because they’ve already been hired by a US company, or because they are seeking political asylum. Economic migrants come to this country because our country has kept the demand going. But again, many of these people impacted by Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy appear to be political asylum-seekers.
Myth: Most of the people coming across the border are just trying to take advantage of our country by taking our jobs.
FALSE. Most of the parents who have been impacted by Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy have presented themselves as political asylum-seekers at a U.S. port-of-entry, from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Rather than processing their claims, according to witness accounts, it appears as though they have been taken into custody on the spot and had their children ripped from their arms. The ACLU alleges that this practice violates the US Asylum Act, and the UN asserts that it violates the UN Treaty on the State of Refugees, one of the few treaties the US has ratified. The ACLU asserts that this policy is an illegal act on the part of the United States government, not to mention morally and ethically reprehensible.
Myth: We’re a country that respects the Rule of Law, and if people break the law, this is what they get.
FALSE. We are a country that has an above-ground system of immigration and an underground system. Our government (under both parties) has always been aware that US companies recruit workers in the poorest parts of Mexico for cheap labor, and ICE (and its predecessor INS) has looked the other way because this underground economy benefits our country to the tune of billions of dollars annually. Thus, even though many of the people crossing the border now are asylum-seekers, those who are economic migrants (migrant workers) likely have been recruited here to do jobs Americans will not do.
Myth: The children have to be separated from their parents because the parents must be arrested and it would be cruel to put children in jail with their parents.
FALSE. First, in the case of economic migrants crossing the border illegally, criminal prosecution has not been the legal norm, and families have historically been kept together at all cost. Also, crossing the border without documentation is typically a misdemeanor not requiring arrest, but rather has been handled in a civil proceeding. Additionally, parents who have been detained have historically been detained with their children in ICE “family residential centers,” again, for civil processing. The Trump administration’s shift in policy is for political purposes only, not legal ones.
Myth: We have rampant fraud in our asylum process, the proof of which is the significant increase we have in the number of people applying for asylum.
FALSE. The increase in asylum seekers is a direct result of the increase in civil conflict and violence across the globe. While some people may believe that we shouldn’t allow any refugees into our country because “it’s not our problem,” neither our current asylum law, nor our ideological foundation as a country support such an isolationist approach. There is very little evidence to support Sessions’ claim that abuse of our asylum-seeking policies is rampant. Also, what Sessions failed to mention is that the majority of asylum seekers are from China, not South of the border.
Here is a very fair and balanced assessment of his statements: [ source ]
Myth: The Democrats caused this, “it’s their law.“
FALSE. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats caused this, the Trump administration did (although the Republicans could fix this today, and have refused). I believe what this myth refers to is the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which were both passed under Clinton in 1996. These laws essentially made unauthorized entry into the US a crime (typically a misdemeanor for first-time offenders), but under both Republicans and Democrats, these cases were handled through civil deportation proceedings, not a criminal proceeding, which did not require separation. And again, even in cases where detainment was required, families were always kept together in family residential centers, unless the parents were deemed unfit (as mentioned above). Thus, Trump’s assertion that he hates this policy but has no choice but to separate the parents from their children, because the Democrats “gave us this law” is false and nothing more than propaganda designed to compel negotiation on bad policy.
Myth: The parents and children will be reunited shortly, once the parents’ court cases are finalized.
FALSE. Criminal court is a vastly different beast than civil court proceedings. Also, the children are being processed as unaccompanied minors (“unaccompanied alien children”), which typically means they are in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS). Under normal circumstances when a child enters the country without his or her parent, ORR attempts to locate a family member within a few weeks, and the child is then released to a family member, or if a family member cannot be located, the child is placed in a residential center (anywhere in the country), or in some cases, foster care. Prior to Trump’s new policy, ORR was operating at 95% capacity, and they simply cannot effectively manage the influx of 2000+ children, some as young as 4 months old. Also, keep in mind, these are not unaccompanied minor children, they have parents. There is great legal ambiguity on how and even whether the parents will get their children back because we are in uncharted territory right now. According to the ACLU lawsuit (see below), there is currently no easy vehicle for reuniting parents with their children. Additionally, according to a May 2018 report, numerous cases of verbal, physical and sexual abuse were found to have occurred in these residential centers.
LIKELY FALSE. The ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on 5/6/18, and a recent court ruling denied the government’s motion to dismiss the suit. The judge deciding the case stated that the Trump Administration’s policy is “brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency.” The case is moving forward because it was deemed to have legal merit.
the types of classic doctor who fans! tag urself i’m one and two
[image is a doctor who tag yourself meme.
first doctor fan – ships Ian/Barbara – their fav story is That One Obscure One That No One Else Liked – hated the 2017 christmas special – does the Lapel Clench™
second doctor fan – ships Two/Jamie and/or headcanons Zoe as an ace lesbian – tried to play the recorder once -shouts everytime they see a crab – loves recons and no one knows why
third doctor fan – has a folder on their computer dedicated to the Brigadier – gets emotional over the greatness that is velvet jackets – tried to do Venusian Akido at least once – forever mourning Roger Delgado
fourth doctor fan – made the scarf™ – probably bitchy about Adric – reads Douglas Adam – will kill a man for Jelly Babies
fifth doctor fan -has actually tried to wear celery – misses the TARDIS family format – headcanons everyone as gay – makes fun of Peter Davidson
sixth doctor fan – adores The Coat
™ – knows Doctor In Distress off by heart – probably born 1999 or later – definitely queer
seventh doctor fan – desperately in love with Ace McShane – has read Lungbarrow – cried watching the last episode of Survival – watched The Hobbit just to see Sylvester McCoy
eighth doctor fan – has listened to more BFAs than Classic Who episodes – loves all the EDA companions – considers the TV movie a work of art – follows @johannesviii on tumblr]
If someone tells you they have a disability, please for the love of god don’t try to say you have the same difficulties, unless you’re actually disabled. You don’t, and I promise you, we hear that shit alllllll the time; it doesn’t feel like empathy, it feels like intentional ignorance.
For example, I have a pretty serious memory disability. But I’m smart and talkative and 27, so when I tell people I’m disabled, they almost never take me really seriously. They tell me “haha, me too” or “oh, I forget my keys all the time.” No. That’s not how it works for me. I have memory loss to the extent that it seriously affects my relationships and functionality. I don’t even have the same sense of time as you.
My disability makes me different from most people in crucial ways and that’s why I tell people about it. I’m not looking for you to tell me how we’re similar because 1) I know those things already because I have to and 2) that’s the precise opposite of what I’m trying to tell you, for both of our benefits.
So just don’t. If someone tells you about their disability, just acknowledge it. We know it makes you uncomfortable, but we’re telling you for a reason. So please, just listen. It’ll be way easier.
sincere question: what kind of response would you like to receive instead of forced sympathy? bc i’m rlly bad at communicating w people so any help would be appreciated /o
A sincere answer, albeit a long one.
I have chronic fatigue. I have not been well rested since the mid 1990s, aka before most people on tumblr were born. This leads to EXTREME cognitive difficulty. I need a calculator for simple addition unless both numbers are under 4. (that’s right, I need a calculator for 4+3) I am so tired that I have black spots in my vision. I am prone to just straight up collapsing. And that’s not even touching on the pain that comes with it.
When people say “oh, I had to pull an all nighter once, I get it,” what I hear is “I think you’re exaggerating. It can’t possibly be any worse than pulling an all nighter.”
The appropriate response is simple – show me that you understand that what I’m describing is truly above and beyond what is normal. That can take several forms – “holy shit that’s fucked!” if swearing is your style. “My god, I can’t even imagine,” if it’s not.
“I had to pull an all nighter once, but I couldn’t imagine going without sleep for *that* long.” That’s good, you’re relating it to your own experience WITHOUT crossing the line into “it can’t be worse than my experience!”
However. (This is the important part.) Most of us don’t just announce this information randomly or for laughs. I noticed in your tags (if I read them correctly and can remember what I read correctly) that you said you’re neuroatypical. Why would you add that information? I’m guessing that it was to let people know before responding to you that you aren’t on the same page as a neurotypical. It was (I’m guessing) because you wanted people to modulate their response to you rather than holding you to the same standard as a neurotypical.
Because if you were neurotypical, I would not have interpreted your question as sincere. I would have read it as sarcastic, belittling, and patronising. But you’re not neurotypical, and so I believe you that it’s a sincere question, and so I’m giving you a sincere answer.
When I tell someone I’m disabled, I do it for the same reason.
“Please don’t be offended if I yawn while you’re talking to me, I mean you no disrespect but I have chronic fatigue.”
“I’m sorry I forgot your birthday, I have memory loss stemming from my chronic fatigue.”
“I’m sorry for asking you to do me a favour, but while it’s a simple thing for you, I’m unable to do it because of my disability.”
I tell people I’m disabled… Generally because I need something from them. Usually that thing is understanding. Sometimes it’s slightly more practical, but that’s more of an offline interaction thing.
If someone tells you they’re disabled, the best response is “Is there anything you need from me? Is there anything I should know?”
So I had the strangest dream this weekend and nobody understands me so I need to share it with you because you might. Press J to skip this post if you can’t deal, I will accept this.
In my dream I was standing on the back deck of a rural cabin that overlooked a beautiful Vermont/Scottish Highlands landscape of unspoiled wilderness. It was a crisp, perfect autumn morning. I held a cup of cooling coffee in my hands as I leaned against the railing and scanned the perfect rolling hills in the midground, behind which the great patterned mountains with their snowcaps marched on until they blended with the horizon: #aesthetic
As I gazed at a distant meadow clearing in the trees, a pair of brightly coloured humanoid creatures emerged from the woods and began to dance for each other. It was an esoteric, beautiful mating dance, a strange combination of instinct and choreography. I felt awe washing over me. I marvelled. I felt a deep sense of wonder and peace as I observed this vanishingly rare encounter that I had never thought to observe in person. These animals were instantly recognisable but had never been studied in the wild. I felt incredibly humbled and privileged to witness this behaviour – I knew that I was the first human witness to observe this behaviour – and I reached for my phone, wondering if I should film it, so it could join the scholarly record, where it NEEDED to be. This could change everything. But then I held back – something told me “no,” to let the creatures have their privacy.
Ok, I can’t go any further without telling you that they were Teletubbies.
A red one and a yellow one. I know. I know. Stay with me here.
The cryptids melted back into the woods. My subconscious drew a discreet veil over the rest of their mating ritual, but I knew instinctively that this had been a dance of courtship. I was busy pondering the implications, because they were critical. You see, although the creatures were instantly recognisable as Teletubbies, as I had studied them, even at a distance, I had an incredible realisation.
They were adult Teletubbies.
This realisation dawned on me and in my dream I understood it fully. The ones that we know of – the captive ones that we have seen on television – are juveniles. In fact, they are the equivalent of toddlers. When you see the adults this becomes obvious. The garbled speech and silly movements of the four captive Teletubbies we know are the babbles of babyhood, a private primal toddler-language brewed up between sentient beings who have never encountered an adult of their own kind.
The adult Teletubbies have more branching, complex antlers and shaggy coats. They are less brightly coloured. They are terrifyingly large. Their strangely human faces, emerging from the thick fur, are unquestionably adult; remote, serene, reproachful. Their television screens are glitchy, esoteric and unknowable. They are cryptids whose public exploitation has undermined their rarity and their strange, alien dignity.
In my dream my feelings of awe and peace turned to great sadness at the fate of the captive toddler Teletubbies. I realised that I had to be the scientist who brought this discovery to the world and raised awareness of their plight. And I also questioned: are Teletubbies like axolotls? Do they exhibit neoteny? (Axolotls, the cute aquarium pets with flaring gills, are actually juveniles of an amphibious species – if given the right conditions they’ll grow up into land-dwelling black newts. But they can breed in their aquatic juvenile form, and most spend their whole lives in this form. Deprived of their wild potential, will the Teletubbies ever mature? Or are they merely experiencing a long childhood, natural for a species that is unimaginably long-lived?)
So in my dream my husband came out onto the back deck and I began to share these discoveries with him and before I could even bring up the axolotls he just said “what the fucking fuck” and went away again.
I woke up disgruntled and unable to capture the feeling of peace and sadness. I then tried to explain this to my husband in the waking world, and he said “what the fucking fuck” and walked away before I even got to the explanation of the Teletubbies being toddlers, which just goes to show that you never know someone as well as you think you do.
Anyway I’m sure you guys will join me in this knowledge. And also I’ve googled it and apparently the Teletubbies reboot features infant Teletubbies, so clearly they are getting more from somewhere and the time to question this is NOW
I’m gonna go ahead and be a film snob and talk about why this is one of my favorite shots from TOS. (I could also say that it’s one of my favorite scenes, because the entire scene actually consists of a single shot.)
We don’t see a lot of bald expressions of emotion in film and television, especially if that emotion is fear or sadness or vulnerability. Dramas will give us some tears, but they always cut a way after a few seconds because a closeup of someone crying is deeply uncomfortable and most movies and TV shows aren’t in the business of making their audiences uncomfortable. It just doesn’t sell well.
But in this scene the camera never looks away. It follows Spock as he sits down at the table, and it circles him as he cries. But there are no cuts. We don’t even get music to create some distance, make it all a little more palatable; we just hear sobs and mumbled math equations.
It’s absolutely excrutiating. It would be excruciating no matter who we were watching, because we are so unaccustomed to seeing unadulterated emotion. And then there’s the fact that it’s a man. And that it’s Spock.
Fifty years later and this is still one of the most daring filmmaking decisions I’ve ever seen on TV (I of course can’t be exactly sure who made it, but I’m assuming it was the director of the episode, Marc Daniels). This shot lasts 1 minute and 45 seconds. We’re in the middle of space and in the middle of a high-stakes episode where the crew is going crazy and the ship is going to blow up or some shit and everyone’s lives are in danger, but we pause 1 minute and 45 seconds to have an uncomfortably human moment with an alien who doesn’t even want to be human, and it’s so awful and amazing.
Here is an excerpt from Bill’s Star Trek Memories.
As originally scripted, the scene would have begun with Spock walking down a corridor openly sobbing. At that point, we’d cut away and find that another infected crewman has begun frantically running around the ship, slapping graffiti paint jobs all over the walls of the Enterprise. In subsequent shots, we’d find several more crewmen beginning to lose their inhibitions, and just when the pandemonium is beginning to overwhelm the ship, we’d come back to Spock.
Spock is now riding in an elevator, crying. He gets to his floor, and when the doors open, the graffiti guy runs up and paints a big black mustache on Spock’s face. At that point, Spock cries even louder. Leonard continues:
Now, that’s very imaginative, very inventive, very theatrical and very funny, but I felt that it was not really significant or appropriate for Spock. I mean, Spock was crying… but so what? There was no context for it, no discernible root force, no underlying cause for what’s going on. You know, in a strange way, this one-shot extra who’s walking around doing the paint jobs all over the place is a lot more interesting than Spock, who’s weeping. It seemed to me like we were wasting some really strong dramatic possibilities, all for the sake of an easy sight gag.
So I said all of this to John Black, and I also said that what I felt we really need to do her was a scene in which Spock’s basic inner conflict, the human versus the Vulcan, rises to the surface and motivates his tears. I mean this draft of the script found Spock fighting through all this emotion in public, and I felt that would be a terrible thing for Spock, because he’s a very private person.
So I said to John, “I think Spock would look for privacy when he feels the urge to cry. When he can no longer resist his tears, he would probably look for a private place in which to battle it out within himself.”
And John’s reaction was very negative. It was typical producer/writer-under-pressure kind of stuff. “C’mon, leave it alone because I’m working on next week’s script. Shoot it, just shoot it.” This kind of thing. And he complained about hurting the rhythm of the script.”
I’ve got to break into Leonard’s story here to explain that “it hurts the rhythm of the script” is a sort of basic, all-purpose producer’s excuse that’s fed all too often to actors seeking script changes. Good, bad, legitimate, frivolous, it doesn’t matter. If a producer doesn’t want to deal with your suggestions, he’ll probably just tell you that what you’re suggesting “hurts the rhythm of the script.” It’s the TV producer’s equivalent of “the dog ate my homework,” or “the check is in the mail.” It’s just an easy, somewhat plausible excuse that generally has no basis in reality. With that in mind, Leonard’s determination and fiercely protective nature in regard to Spock drove him over Black’s head to Roddenberry.
I called Gene about it, and I told him just what I’d told John. In talking to Gene, I was very careful to be politically supportive of his producer but about an hour and a half later, here comes John Black out to the set. So now I’m feeling, “Ahh, this great!” I’m feeling that someone’s actually listening to me.
And Black was funny, he cam onto the set and said, “Let’s go talk someplace.” We went to my dressing room, and he said, “Okay, tell me your idea again. Daddy says I have to listen to you.” And I had already formulated a basic concept of the scene, so I said, “Look, John, just get me into a room, and write me a half-page, a quarter-page, where you see Spock walk down a corridor and slip inside a door. As the doors close behind him, he’ll burst into this emotional struggle.” And John asked, “Well, what’s this struggle all about?” And I said, “It’s about love and vulnerability and caring and loss and regret, versus C=pi-r-squared and E=m-C-squared. Spock is a scientist, he is logical, and he feels this can’t be happening to him. It’s that kind of struggle. It’s logic versus emotion. It’s rational control versus uncontrollable urge. With that in mind, going behind closed doors will speak to the basic privacy of the character.”
So John wrote that and some other stuff, six or eight lines maybe, and it was exactly what I needed. Spock was now able to slip inside a door, close it behind him, struggle for a moment, then cry. At this point, he would start babbling, and the cause of the internal struggling would become obvious. Problem was, when it came time to shoot this stuff, a whole new set of obstacles had to be overcome.
Marc Daniels, who was directing this particular episode, came up and asked, “What do you have in mind for this scene?” So, playing director, I said, “Just put the camera here, behind the desk. I’ll come in the door, I’ll walk toward you, I’ll come around, I’ll sit in the chair, and I’ll start this babbling conversation with myself, and I’ll cry. Now, if you’ll dolly around getting closer and closer we can meet at the end of the scene. We can see Spock’s entire breakdown in one long dramatic shot.”
Okay, now it’s five-thirty, I got out to get my ears and makeup touched up, and the time is important because we’re on a very rigid schedule. With overtime being so ridiculously and prohibitively expensive, we’d have to wrap each evening at exactly six-eighteen. Didn’t matter if you were in the middle of a sentence, come six-eighteen, we wrapped.
So now Jerry Finnerman starts to light the scene and it’s obvious that this will be our last shot of the day. I’m in the makeup chair, getting touched up, and now in comes Cliff Ralke, our dolly grip, who was always a very supportive person, and he says, “Excuse me, Leonard, but you’d better get out there, because they’re changing the shot you guys just talked about.”
So now Leonard comes out to the set, and the director has indeed changed the shot they’d just agreed upon. It’s important to note, however, that the reasoning behind this change, though not particularly sensitive to Leonard’s needs, was rational and perfectly valid. You see, as previously discussed, this shot would have entailed a one-hundred-and-eighty degree camera move starting from one side of the set, then slowly dollying completely around to the opposite end. This caused problems because the long, involved shot required a lot of lights and a time-consuming, involved setup that Jerry Finnerman didn’t think could be accomplished without going into overtime. Finnerman discussed this situation with Daniels, and together they decided that the most efficient way to shoot this scene would be in a series of brief cuts, each of which could be lit quickly and with relative ease.
They were going to have Leonard enter in a wide shot, then cut. Next, in a slightly tighter framing, they’d follow him as he crossed the set and sat down. Cut. An even tighter frame would catch the beginning of the speech, and they planned to cut once more, zooming to a close-up as Spock began weeping. This made sense in terms of production efficiency, but Leonard felt this shooting sequence would really damage the dramatic impact of the scene. He continues:
I said, “You’re going to lose the continuity and fluidity of the scene if you shoot it this way. I will not be able to do it as well, and I think the end result will just seem choppy and phony.”
By now it’s five forty-five, and with no time to debate the situation, they got hold Gregg Peters, our first A.D., who was the equivalent of the hatchet man. He was the guy who’d always call the six-eighteen wrap, and we all discussed the situation. Finally Marc Daniels said, “Let’s go for it. Let’s try to get it done.”
Now the lighting crew ran around setting up the shot, and I think it was about six-fifteen when they finally said, “We’re ready.” Marc had me walk through it once, and by now production types were standing around behind the camera, looking at their watches and saying, “He won’t make it. He’ll never do it.” So the tension was really mounting.
So basically I know this has got to be a flawless, one-take thing. Y’know, I’ve got one crack at it before they shut us down for the night. If I were to screw up, we’d almost certainly have gone right back to the cut-and-chop scenario come morning. Anyway, this was the scene that I’d asked for and fought for, and now the logistics of the situation were such that there was absolutely no room for error. There was a lot riding on this, and I wouldn’t have been so adamant in my battling if I hadn’t felt that this scene was extremely important. I felt like it merited my efforts, in that it truly defined, for the very first time, what the Spock character was all about.
Now the lights go on, the cameras roll and we nail it. They get the pan, get the one-hundred-and-eighty-degree dolly shot and the scene was ultimately worked really well in illustrating Spock’s inherent inner conflict. This went directly to the heart of what Gene and I had originally spoken about in regard to the character of Spock. It was an opportunity that I absolutely did not want to miss, and an opportunity to plant a seed in defining a certain edge of the character.
“traps aren’t trans women, they’re effeminate gay dudes who crossdress to deceive and fuck straight guys”
ok but you’ve, just decided to counter an accusation of transphobia with “checkmate, i’m a huge transphobe AND homophobe. weren’t expecting that one hey?”. like you really thought your knowledge of fetish anime would make you look Less Gross
continually surprised how chasers think they’re getting away with: “my fetish isn’t trans women, my fetish is just identical in every way to trans women except closeted, or traumatised to staying in the closet and who doesn’t have the language or confidence to ask to be respected. also a cartoon usually.”
@clitcheese Traps (normally for the architype anyway ) are not trans, they are in fact Male biologically, and they identify as male as far as I know. They are simply gender roll nonconforming. Thus they are CIS and thus not identical to trans women. I think calling a cis man in a dress trying to trick men into sex trans is actually kind of degrading to trans women, but IDK that just IMO.
Of course this all ignores the high improbability of a trans woman
trying to deceive a straight man into having sex. Cause you know….
they know that they NORMALLY END UP DEAD OR BEATEN IF THEY DO THAT AND AS SUCH IT IS EXCEEDING DANGEROUS TO DO AS SUCH. Not to mention it’s really kinda shitty to deceive someone like that and trans people aren’t psychopaths who would do shit like that.
Another matter is that the fantasy of fucking a dude in a dress is…. well… pretty damn gay. They are still a dude after all and as a “straight” guy the moment the dick pops out you SHOULD theoretically be out the door and down the street. I think it bespeaks to sort of ingrained homophobia that has caused a rejection of a part of the self. The truth in such individuals I theorizes is that they are gay(or bi) and simply can’t reconcile that with there oppressive notions of manliness they have grown up with; thus they need to dress up the target of there desires as feminine to make it acceptable to there “manhood” or otherwise let go there toxic masculinity(and finally let the healing begin).
once more this is all IMO and I love hearing feedback and pointers and other points of views especially from people with a pedigree on the subject like you.
traps aren’t real. i can’t argue with you on the basis that this is a real thing that exists in real life. it’s a fetish label. you’re looking at a poorly done caricature of the oldest stereotypes of trans women and saying “see this isn’t transmisogyny, the real transmisogyny would be to think this has something to do with trans women” when it’s very clearly what cis people think of us.
and again, read the op again. very carefully. like it predicted, you’re trying to have an argument over wether this is a harmful stereotype of gay men as rapists, or trans women as rapists. like do you hear yourself? you’re still relying on homophobia in your post trying to defend a stereotype. let it go
steven universe spoilers
Pearl most likely never broke her programming. the phrasing of “so, for my last order to you as a diamond, please, let’s never speak of this again. no one can know” that she’s taken this long to break, and even then, through successively buried memories, and even then not really if you count the loophole that if Steven is Pink, she hasn’t told anyone knew.
She’s still obeying her diamond’s orders, she’s never really rebelled against anyone. It even makes sense for a Pearl’s orders to include putting her diamond above anyone else, even homeworld, and rebelling against homeworld only on her diamond’s orders isn’t rebelling against anything. the worst part is that people were meant to relate with Pearl, but now with this new revelation it’s like she never actually had any character development at all. even Peridot rebelled against her diamond and meant it, and she’s been on the show for half the time.
i remember saying about a year or two ago something like, “I really wish it’s revealed that it was Pearl who started the rebellion first before Rose joins in, because I really hate the trope of a perfect servant who never thinks of freedom on her own until someone tells her about it. esp bc Pearl would have been in the best position to figure out the diamonds themselves aren’t perfect"
and as flawed as Pearl/Rose was, it was relateable (lesbians relate to pining for someone unavailable, who knew). Rose was the one who helped free her from a life of servitude, but no, plot twist, that’s now the relationship between a slave and her owner that she’s fallen in love with.
i know the show is going to going to go further with developing this, but at this point it’s really hard to see anything other than how they turned the rebellion itself into a royal’s pet vanity project, and turned a main character from a rebel and war hero into a servant who was only ever doing what she’s told,, and hasn’t disobeyed a single order from her diamond until now.
people are claiming there’s a lot of evidence out there to prove the existence of “straight” people but if I’m being totally honest with you it’s a crackpot theory. and trust me, I know about crackpot theories. I’m the KING of crackpot theories, and I was coronated, and you can trust me on that.
so this is a thing people have been saying for a really long time, that realistically, these “straight” people would have been around since basically the beginning of time—we’re talking since the FIRST coherent human being, as we know them today. that within this kind of first iteration of human existence, we could have seen a really strong percentage of people who came out genetically “straight”
but we’re basing this off of theory, completely. these people who are, and this is controversial but whatever, who I am saying are essentially conspiracy theorists are claiming that it’s been proven based on analysis of this ancient DNA found in the early humans who were preserved in ice. but that’s just not true.
scientifically, there is precedent to say—definitively—that there was never any such thing as straight people. what you’re seeing when you look at this ancient genetic code is actually the degradation of DNA—we’re looking at these specimens preserved only by time and luck. so this genetic sequence has actually kind of gone through a sort of decomposition, even though it’s fairly preserved.
what these people are claiming is proof of “straight” people is actually just damaged, broken DNA. if these specimens had existed in that exact condition in life, they would not have survived. so what I’m saying definitively is that there is no such thing as “straight” people, outside of massively damaged and degraded genetic sequences that are too ancient to reconstruct.
there has never been a living “straight” person and there never will be.
hi—an actual expert here. i’ve completed my first year of my phd course in straight theory. i think the above summary is brief and doesn’t touch on what we know about the heterosexuals. essentially: almost everything here is incorrect and taken from conspiracy theories the internet has allowed to run rampant.
we do have examples of heterosexual existence dating back to older societies. admittedly, noteworthy academics have believed these examples to be decontextualised from their original performative cultural significance.
but heterosexuality is inherently performative. it is reactionary. the argument is barely biological and this is an oversimplification. especially given the events this post speaks of never happened! if you’d fact checked OP, you’d know that this “genetics” and “first humans” argument originated from a viral post on reddit.
heterosexuals MIGHT have existed, but we still don’t know whether this was due to their biology. at this time the only arguments we can propose are entirely psychological, historical or societal.
don’t believe everything you read on tumblr dot com.
oh goodness, okay. I guess you need me to clarify I’ve been working in straight theory for three years & have completed my PhD in anthropology. this is the field I actually work in, and have been doing research on early heterosexual concept since you were in high school.
we’re talking about the existence of straight people in the sense of actual, decisive evidence. whether or not people were made to act as “straight” for some reason or another, a performance or a try at social activity is not actually the same as a straight person existing. this theory you’re talking about is weak and honestly was created by some really determined hopefuls in the community. we can talk all day about how some people may have acted as if they were tigers, but that doesn’t mean they were actually tigers.
I understand your reasons for not citing any sources, given that you have none, but you have to understand that the work on this has been going on for several years and we have found no evidence to support the existence of a heterosexual human being in history or currently.
also, the argument is not from reddit. it’s based on an actual piece of scientific research which has since then shown up in many papers on the matter. just an example of one of them from the University of Edinburgh:
next time, how about you check your facts before you’re contrary? thank you! x
fucking thought provoking. let me begin with this: you have cited an outdated text by another extremist.
like you, fialovā suffers from oversimplification. her work as a whole references several untrustworthy sources, notably romanyuk. romanyuk was a politically charged man and held extremist beliefs. if you’ll remember, he was arrested in 2001 due to his compliance in a program primarily experimenting “with” (on) children. he was searching for psychic ability.
during his career he claimed to have contact with extraterrestrials and mathematically predict the coming of christ. should romanyuk uncharacteristically not have bullshitted his research, he would still be unreliable.
with him removed from our picture, who are we left with? from 1980-1998: taylor, davies and nowak. these three attended the same university, partnered often and based the groundwork of their research off neanderthals.
when nowak later (much later) analysed the dna of preserved early humans, he thought he’d discovered biological heterosexuality. the conclusion he came to was degradation of dna, yes—but one of the founding fathers of anti-heterosexual academia changed his mind. post-1998 he refused to rule out the possibility of ancient heterosexuals due to.. genetic variability, perhaps? migration of early humans? degradation of dna itself presenting a poor argument? nowak suspected a heterosexual mutation to have existed within pockets of early nomadic humans.
(on another nitpicky note: fialovā combats the anthropologist david müller, and repeatedly shows herself to be revisionist.)
but heterosexuality is displayed plainly in greek society through both art and writing. performative among the wealthy, the argument can be made that among them were hiding true heterosexuals. this would align with nowak’s migration theory, placing the group with the mutated gene in the right place and time period. a well documented example is the greek poetess anat of tegea. she wrote of romantic interest in men, and is thought to have taken male lovers before the practice became fashionable.
but anyway, thank you for reminding me we have years before the pretentious attitudes clear from our unfortunately shared field. 🙂
by the way—from the information you provided me and a skim of your blogs archives, it was easy to puzzle you out. unsurprisingly, you primarily source fialovā in your academic work and venture into even more unorthodox theory in your private life. unsurprising that you should use social capital to claim credibility. your misinformation relies on taking advantage of the impressionable through a cult of personality.