#brett does discourse | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

skyhawkstragedy · 2 years

Text

Time to revisit my pre-season rankings bc I’m bored

(Replacing Marvin with Joseph)

01 | Taylor: I think my biggest fear with her was that she was going to be another Azah - talk a big game but while they’re an amazing person they’re not so much the best game player. However, she is the perfect example of Big Brother being about adaptability. For someone to start off the game as a social pariah and then work just enough to survive the next week all while keeping their integrity is an amazing feat. She probably has the most unique run when it comes to her social game; most winners would slip in to being manipulative and cutthroat, but Taylor stayed a lawful good till the bitter end.

02 | Joseph: Look at him being where Marvin was preseason 🤩 I put him in the bases tier but I wasn’t sure what to think of him other than he’s the guy I simp for throughout the season (kinda like a Brett or Travis type). Pooseph opened the door for him meme-wise and then he turned 25 and came out guns a-blazing. This is a MAN. I will fight every last person on here for him. This is a warning.

03 | Michael: Well he is right about where I put him pre-season 😂 He treaded between being boring and being a huge source of entertainment and watching him break records and win everything they gave him was astounding. Giving Maddie Ziegler vibes tbh.

04 | Turner: I did not expect to like this guy so much. So much more worthy of continuing the strength of the maknae line than Paloma. With him I saw… snafus. But I also saw someone who unapologetically acted his own age and took pride in being the youngest in the room. Thanks for proving me wrong and not being boring.

05 | Jasmine: I thought she was gonna be another Jessica and she ended up being another Raven 🙃 I don’t even know why she’s this high, I still think she’s extremely annoying, but I appreciate someone who’s dedicated to creating content. Thanks for the memes I guess.

06 | Brittany: And a crackhead she was indeed. I’m not entirely sure what makes her deserve this spot. She’s been up and down and she never had a game for me to fall back on when it came to her redemption, but her post-eviction actions push her past some others.

07 | Kyle: …huh.

I put him in his own tier bc I wasn’t sure where to put him. He didn’t annoy me immediately like Alyssa & Pooch but not without lack of trying! I think he has the weirdest run out of all the HGs. I grew to really like him and then he kissed Alyssa and Icarus flew way too close to the sun. Then he showed his ass and offended just about anyone who wasn’t white and it was over for him. If anything I do appreciate the discourse his stint in the game brought with him (both in regards to the Cookout and him being harassed/coerced by Alyssa).. I’m just wary of what’s going to happen to him post-season bc this is something that is going to linger with him forever. But if people can like Paul… there is hope.

08 | Ameerah: What a waste of potential. I’m still so angry. You were the chosen one, etc etc. I will say that my toxic trait is thinking she’s hot despite her being a flaming bitch. When it comes to the prejury though she is the lesser of five evils so that’s why she places as high as she does.

09 | Alyssa: Another surprise for me. From hating her for a good 7-8 weeks to being slightly tolerable towards the end. Taylor’s power. I think her best moments would be whenever she was with Taylor; they have unusually good chemistry (more than she does with Kyle if I’m being honest) and I think if she weren’t consumed with jealousy, they would have been unstoppable. Team First Kill indeed.

10 | Monte: I think similar to Alyssa he had 1-2 good weeks and then just devolved into an absolute Neanderthal towards the end. I had him as my winner’s pick and man did I end up dreading it. Thankfully the jury saw through him and gave the win to Taylor but I think I understand why he was my winner pick in the first place. During late pre-jury he seemed like a Jack of all trades. He had a decent social game, made the most of his first HOH, and proved to be an asset to the Leftovers. It’s just so sad that he chose incel behavior. Xavier was right; I would slap him on the back of the head and tell him to get himself together. Another batch of wasted potential.

11 | Indy: Another HG who had a few days of reprieved but was ultimately consumed by the plague of hate surrounding the house. I did appreciate that she let Kyle have it during his jury segment. That’s the Indy I wanted.

12 | Pooch: I didn’t expect him to move up from last place but it takes a special player to fuck up so bad that they become both relevant and irrelevant at the same time. I will say that his casting pic did NOT do him justice - his age was more believable on the feeds than in that picture.

13 | Paloma: The biggest disappointment here. People are going to take solace in the fact that she seemed like a Karen and that might have been her white side coming out but all in all her stint on the show was just tragic. If there’s one thing I am certain of though it’s that she should stay as far away from Daniel as possible. That guy is UNHINGED.

14 | Nicole: Thank god we had Joseph as AAPI/Middle Eastern representation otherwise I was gonna be convinced that casting was going to model minority the fuck out of Asians for the next few years. She’s just so aggressive and for what? She quit being a cop to be a chef and yet she still acts like she’s wearing that uniform and badge. It’s disturbing to say the least.

15 | Terrance: Gross. His obsession with vilifying Taylor and being insufferable with his comments about women just turned me off from him. Had one or two good moments but that’s not really enough is it?

16 | Daniel: Ugh. An absolute tool with anger issues and a serious obsession issue on top of that. Whoever casted him needs to be blacklisted from the industry.

#bb24 #Taylor did THAT

10 notes · View notes

wakeupthemembersofbylernation · 2 years

Note

Okay I think it’s over for real this time. Noah explicitly stated that Mike likes El so he’s not sure what will happen but he doesn’t write the script…

I know you’re a Mitt Romney, but yeah I wish he hadn’t said that 😔 It doesn’t spark joy, and even though what he said is virtually identical to what Brett said, people see him as the “captain of Byler” so what he said has more influence on discourse within the fandom. He could’ve said he’s not sure what will happen since he doesn’t write the script, which is objectively true, but I think the “Mike likes El” part can end up stirring all kinds of emotions and chaos, especially since the atmosphere is constantly volatile. BUT in no way is it “over for real this time.” I kinda freaked out when I first heard it, but there’s a big difference between him saying this a month before Season 5 comes out and him saying this now. If he said this then, I might agree with you. But now, the scripts haven’t even been written yet! It’s the difference between judging an election on the results from a swing state on Election Night verses judging it before the primaries even start. And even if Noah DOES know more than he’s letting on (which I believe he does), what is he expected to say? Byler WILL happen because Mike is actually queer, or if it’s the reverse, Byler WON’T happen because Mike is straight? No, he can’t say either of those things because that would be a big spoiler! What he said is what’s canonically true. I do find it interesting that he didn’t say Mike loves El though 👀👀. But saying “he’s not sure what will happen” still leaves it extremely open-ended. I still really really really wish he hadn’t said it AT ALL, because it fuels the fire for messages like yours. But we have TWO YEARS, and there’s bound to be epic highs and lows (of high school football) in that time period. Noah will probably say something that has us all freaking out positively in a few weeks. It will be a roller coaster for sure, but in no way is it “over for real” until the Duffers come out and say, “sorry guys, Mississippi is end game.”

#byler #will byers #mike wheeler #stranger things 5 #noah schnapp

17 notes · View notes

underestimated-heroine · 2 years

Text

SEVENTH general reference post for favorite posts/ posts I want to reference

Someone really needs to stop me until I actually organize what I already have lol. If I reblog this, it's just to make sure I don't lose it. Everything's linked to my blog because it's the best, easy way for me to make sure nothing gets deleted. See pinned post for more

General

I'm going to hunt you down like a Lowland Gorilla

Dudeskull Thread

Shaolin Soccer

Great video essays reference

Coachella censor

Running up that hill

White boy folding himself into "black lives matter" TikTok

Tendinitis exercise

5 accents tiktok

Black people are treated like a sexuality tiktok

Critiquing dreams

Anonymity doesn't turn people into assholes

Writing resource nsfw thesaurus

It's okay if nationalists are treated worse than other people

Norwegian guy insulting "hot person" tiktok

Hozier "be wary" speech

The piss cloak

Very normal article about football

Bernie Sanders Tribute

Three bears And 10,000rats video

Guy who used only fans paycheck to pay sister's student loans TikTok

Baby T-Rex with dad video

Korean "fuckit-expense"

Ski resort newscaster woman falling video

Just like when you open your mailbox it will be explosively hilarious

"With me as teacher, kids can retake tests as often as needed"

Beatles Ghost art

Youre my girlfriend brah

Roger Fisher and the Nuclear Launch Codes

Davy Jones from the Monkees is Gay Drama (2)

Semen and Gay Uncle (1)

Yeah I killed him vid

Misanthropic female authors

Neocities

20% of the Korean Population died during the Korean War

Raven wolves mutualism discourse

In the tags age & wedding

Being an adult means living with regret and not allowing it to consume you

Prison labor is absolutely the new slavery

Zenitsu flip tiktok

Pup on soccer field does interview video

Lemon stealing whores video

I'm Mr. Sterlings vid & memes

Boundaries between creators and fandoms

Bohemian rhapsody in memes

Fudgers meaners post edit

Ant-Man Thanos ass post

Here's how u age when you're unproblematic

Orange juice w/ pulp

Idea of doubling down has ruined the internet

Easy-to-read bionic typefont for disabilities

"We need to drop the t"

Shinzo abe anime birth propaganda

Color theory

Morbius trailer tiktok

Confirmation bias quiz

Insane coffee shop story

Girl is this wheel of fortune or something

Alpha males eat spiders

"not very political" libertarian dude

Documentary on people in private security

Homophobic Christian lady tiktok restaurant

Tumblr deleted partyjockers drama may 2022 (2) (3) (4)

Wall-leaning tiktok

Disabled people deserve to have a high income with no strings attached

Mine

I want shinsou to go up against stain

Report bigotry

"lesbians and bi women are regarded with suspicion"

Ekko vs. Jinx Arcane Fight

Juno

Shounen Feminist Villain

Annoying does not equal immoral

Todoroki's favorite hero would've been all might anyway

Brett Fucking Toohey

Lmao (mhy)

My mom and the new lawnmower

"knock it off or die"

Me challenge

LoL 2017 cinematic trailer was the best I've seen

Todoroki making Bakugou his friend

Georgia O'Keeffe (for me)

Don't censor tags

Superhero stories can be enjoyable, but are inherently fucked

I'll apologize if I want

Chip & dale ugly sonic legal

Getting diagnosed with ADHD

Medical incarceration

Todoroki and Kaminari Friendship

Kaminari trying to convince Deku

Bones

On "it'll be okay"

On "HP always sucked anyway"

Morbussy

Hiroyuki sawano Elon musk baby names

Sports Festival arc sub

#you've underestimated the heroine #squirr3d away

6 notes · View notes

brettbarnesmj · 6 months

Text

On Jun 13, 2020, a tweet by Brett Barnes sparked controversy within the online community. In his tweet, he referred to another individual as "you're an idiot." This incident unfolded during a discussion between Brett Barnes and Julia Hartley Brewer.

The discussion began when Julia Hartley Brewer shared a tweet expressing her observations about a #BlackLivesMatter protest in Kettering. She pointed out that the protest was playing Michael Jackson's song "Black or White." In her tweet, Julia highlighted the controversy surrounding Michael Jackson's alleged abuse of young boys, questioning the appropriateness of playing his music during a human rights movement.

While Julia's tweet remained civil and focused on the perceived hypocrisy, Brett Barnes responded with a derogatory remark. This interaction between the two individuals quickly gained attention due to the conflicting viewpoints expressed and the use of insults.

It is worth noting that this incident is an example of how online disagreements can escalate and involve personal attacks. While such exchanges may occur, it is important to remember the significance of respectful and constructive dialogue, even in instances where differing opinions are voiced.

Brett Barnes has faced criticism for his derogatory remarks not only in this specific incident but also for his previous tweets targeting individuals like James Safechuck and Wade Robson. These incidents have led some to perceive him as a hypocrite, as he seemingly supports one group while making derogatory comments about others.

Online discussions can often become heated, and it is crucial to approach such conversations with respect and open-mindedness. Remembering the importance of civil discourse and avoiding personal attacks can contribute to a healthier online environment.

Please note that this post aims to provide an objective analysis of a specific incident and does not endorse or condone any form of online harassment or derogatory language. It is essential to promote respectful online interactions and focus on constructive dialogue while engaging in discussions of any nature.

0 notes

cognitosclowns · 2 years

Note

Okay, let's start some serious discourse here, which members of the team have games on their phones and what games do the ones that do play? I can totally see Brett having games like Cookie Run and The Battle Cats on his phone.

You're right we need Serious Discourse Very Professional *old man coughing* thank you for bringing this to my attention, anon

OK OK SO

Brett absolutely has,, just the most Basic, Classic Games on his phone <3 he is easily placated. Lots of very cute stuff tbh, they soothe him. Has definitely spent money on in-game microtransactions

Reagan’s phone is 90% utility and 10% for looking at memes <3 bc she may be an antisocial mad scientist but she and Gigi swap memes

Gigi fuckin helps in the development in half of all mobile games lmao and she can point out all the spots she put some extra Subliminal Messaging in as spice smdns. She doesn’t play any herself tbh - shes a very busy person!!

Glenn pretends he has nothing on his phone but <3 he totally does and it’s all cute little games.

Andre refuses to play mobile games from a moral standpoint, because it’s mostly cheap cash grabs

Myc honestly only uses his phone for hookup apps lmao, barely has it on him most of the time

THIS WAS CUTE TO WRITE <3

#andre beats mobile games w/ microtransactions to death with a stick smdnsd #he did high stakes elder scrolls hes an absolute dork #I DONT PLAY MOBILE GAMES SO I HAVE VERY LITTLE FRAME OF REFERENCE SMDNSDM BUT I HOPE THESE WERE GOOD #brett 'i only play mobile games' hand vs andre 'i thought you said you were a gamer' [redacted]#YES THATS A REFERENCE SMDNSD #sfw #brett hand #andre #dr andre #dr. andre #gigi thompson #glenn dolphman #myc #magic myc #reagan ridley #smack me if i forgot smb #KISS KISS #this was a nice break btwn all the smut-#SMNBDMSDNSMDNMSD

62 notes · View notes

1ddotdhq · 3 years

Text

💙 Thurs 24 Dec ‘20 🎂

Happy BIRTHDAY, Louis!! You are: golden, the end of June, perfect now, a rainbow paradise, the habit that we can’t break, and, most importantly, TWENTY NINE YEARS OLD! Fans, friends, charities and industry folks alike spent their day sending well wishes to Louis. Allontheboard put up a poem with only 1D titles to celebrate, Free My Meal, Bluebell Wood, Sandy Beales, Paul Arthurs (Oasis), and many more called him brilliant (or a legend, etc.) and wished him well. Helene, Eleanor and Krystle put up new pictures of them with him and sent him love. Eleanor was denied the opportunity for the usual “clubbing and pap pics” by COVID but got around it by posting an old vid of her and Louis from one of those outings... in 2017, for HER birthday, at a gay club. Why not just a cute cozy pic of their stuck-at-home celebrations?? Oh riiiight cause that's not a real thing lol. Charlie Lightening wished him a happy birthday and said that the LIVEstream was a killer way to end the year (it was!). And then the FANS!! Well, we spent the day trending various hashtags and tweets and reminding the world that Louis’ a KING and a BOSS and a KILLER musician, and only we got a special thank you from Louis- he came on twitter to say, “Thank you for all the birthday messages. The money you raised for all your individual projects is unbelievable. Love to you all x”. (Did the Brit Awards or Only The Poets have a Louis charity drive? No they did not, that's a thank you for US!) We also got the uncut/unedited version of an interview from early March 2019 courtesy of a fan, as a treat! Seeing him chatting cheerfully away, unaware that such a horrible tragedy is about to strike feels- to me at least- somewhere between uncomfortable and vaguely indecent, but if you can divorce it from that his physicality in the unguarded moments when the interview pauses is, always, a beautiful glimpse behind the curtain, and revisiting the familiar rote answers about how he hoped to have an album by next year, maybe, is exciting and satisfying, knowing that it finally happened and it's HERE and celebrated and complete!

The discourse about the TPWK video is raging (how dare HSHQ release a video about kindness? When they, themselves, are SO UNKIND to US POOR FANS by making random other people who are not their clients say things that we don't like??), and I’d like to take the moment to remind everyone that Jeff Azoff is not in fact feeding cue cards to people who AREN’T his client (i.e. Liam, Lou Teasdale, Brett and co., etc) and that we should all really reconsider claiming that there are shadowy figures pulling everyone's strings like puppets, rather than that this is an industry focused on financial gain and mostly indifferent to collateral damage. And besides all that, I personally would much rather have a video with Harry ballroom dancing than NOT! It seems that someone isn’t completely on board with us having that video yet, though: accounts posting it were gone after heavily on twitter for copyright violations, and if you don't believe us that lots of things happen that aren't directly managed by HSHQ, what do you call HSD getting caught up in the sweep? Clearly THEY thought their connection to HQ meant they were immune, and left the video up when the other UAs saw what was up and deleted it, but nope! Which works out great for us, an excellent birthday present for their least favorite guy, Louis (and for us fans, SUCK IT JERKS!) Jeff does do some things though, and protecting HSD is one of them, so I suppose they'll be back. And speaking of people who do their jobs, we found out today that Shia LaBoef (who was originally cast as Jack in DWD) did not leave due to scheduling conflicts, but rather, Olivia Wilde fired him because of abuse allegations. Good Riddance! Talk about a glow up for that role, Shia--> Harry is a serious upgrade!

Liam and Roman have another socially distanced and randomly cut advent alarm, which claims Liam being afraid of spoons was one of the truths in their little game though he has repeatedly told us that's no longer the case, SUS, and told all of us to get ready ‘cuz * sings * Santa Claus is comin’ tonight! (I’m singing it, but sadly, they didn’t). Liam DID play the part of Santa and gave LP Show DJ Deewan a lovely bottle of champagne to ring in the new year. And he’s not the only one who mentors and spreads love: Alone, an Irish charity serving the elderly thanked Niall (and his Modest!Golf partner Mark) for recent contributions, Casey Lowery shared the story of going clubbing with Zayn’s PA who then put him in contact with Zayn and got him his record deal (awwww I want more mentor!Zayn stories!!), and we got a behind the scenes shot of an old Z photoshoot! The gifts abound! So it looks like we’ve got lots to celebrate: let’s celebrate all of the lights for Louis, H’s sparkly jacket, Liam waiting for Santa Claus, Niall’s phenomenal Christmas Toy drive donation, and Zayn enjoying a Harry Potter filled Christmas. Happy Holidays to all!

#Louis Tomlinson #Harry styles #liam Payne #Zayn #happy Christmas to those who celebrate!#and a very happy Thursday for the rest of you!#anyways!#song of the day!#winter song by Sarah Barellies

193 notes · View notes

brettdoesdiscourse · 9 months

Text

If you care about creatives and artists at all, do not allow AI to take away their jobs.

Don't support AI art. Don't support AI writing. Don't support music made with AI. Don't support movies using AI. Don't support any AI that tries to replace real life people putting their heart and soul into their work and art.

#anti ai #anti ai art #anti ai music #anti ai movies #anti ai writing #fuck ai #social discourse #social #discourse #brett does discourse

1K notes · View notes

anamericangirl · 2 years

Text

I'm laughing at this person for calling themselves "Brett does discourse" when the first thing they do when someone responds in disagreement is respond and block. So not only do they know nothing about rights, they don't know what discourse is, either.

But anyway, this person is wrong. You should be allowed to make a health decision that directly (effects others is what I'm assuming the rest of this comment says).

The government should never, under any circumstances, force you to make certain health decisions, even if it's believed that it's good for people around you because that is completely authoritarian. This idiot has not thought this line of thought through because I'm sure they don't really believe this. Or if they do let me see them advocate for the government making smoking illegal.

But, also, the covid mandates don't make any difference to the people around you.

#idiot #this person thinks rights are just what they personally want to be true #brettdoesdiscourse

8 notes · View notes

skepticalarrie · 3 years

Note

ive been a larrie since like -13 or something so though i consider myself a veteran i haven't been active on tumblr for a few years, actually after 1D broke up. just check in once in a while. BUT with this babygate mess im intrigued again to lurk around until i remembered the birth certificate. I dont remember the discourse around it back then, it was a legal document tho for real? So even tho sonogram points to fake, the BC shows B did give birth? or can "Adoptive Mom" sign it instead of Biomom

Hi there! Everything points to the fact that the birth certificate was a real document, yes. Both the surrogate theory and the real birth certificate can coexist though, one thing doesn’t necessarily invalidate the other.

Without considering the surrogacy, Louis’ part in it alone on the BC is very easily justified, since many fathers mistakenly sign birth certificates convinced they were the father and then the child turns out not to be theirs.

With the surrogacy, is a bit more complex but yet it does sound possible. The surrogate theory we've being discussing for a while implies neither Louis or Briana are Freddie’s biological parents. He’s Brett and Tammi’s child, but they used a surrogate for that (Tammi was over 45 at the time). Which was a theory very much reinforced by the ultrasound being made on a fertility clinic. According to surrogacy laws in California:

If they placed a pre-birth order, their names went directly to the birth certificate and the gestational carrier name wasn’t considered. We're talking theories here, and I'm 100% not a lawyer or a doctor, but it's very clear to me that the people donating the eggs and the sperm for the in vitro fertilization don't necessarily need to be the same people placing a pre-birth order. So that would make Brett and Tammi the biological parents, but Louis and Briana the legal parents.

#just a theory #considering that birth certificate was ever filed in the first place #babygate #surrogate

19 notes · View notes

aion-rsa · 3 years

Text

How Ted Lasso Sneakily Crafted its Empire Strikes Back Season

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

This article contains Ted Lasso spoilers through season 2 episode 8.

Perhaps you’ve heard, but Apple TV+ series Ted Lasso was the subject of some dreaded Discourse recently.

Since the Internet is infinite and we privileged few in the media have nothing but time, a handful of features came out weeks ago essentially questioning what Ted Lasso season 2 was even all about. Many of these features were well-written, well-argued, and fair, but when filtered through Twitter’s anti-nuance machine (i.e. Twitter itself), every feature boiled down to the same reductive take: Ted Lasso season 2 doesn’t have a conflict.

In some respects, this take was the inevitable reaction to the metanarrative surrounding Ted Lasso in the first place. Despite drawing its inspiration from a series of somewhat cynical NBC Sports Premier League commercials, the first season of Ted Lasso was all about the transformative power of kindness.

Or at least that’s what we critics declared it to be. And I don’t blame us. Awash in a flood of screeners about antiheroes, dystopias, and the end of the world, the simple kindness of Ted Lasso seemed revolutionary. They made a TV show about a guy who is…nice? They can do that? But the inherent goodness of its lead character was always Ted Lasso’s elevator pitch, not its thesis.

There’s been a darkness at the center of Ted Lasso since its very first moment, when an American man got on a flight to London in a doomed attempt to save his marriage. And, as season 2’s brilliant eighth episode rolls around, it’s become clear that that darkness is what the show has really been “about” this whole time.

Season 2 episode 8 “Man City” (the title is referring to AFC Richmond’s FA Cup match against opponent Manchester City but also stealthily reveals that this installment will be all about men and their respective traumas) is quite simply the best episode of Ted Lasso yet. It also might be the best episode of television this year. Near the episode’s end, right before AFC Richmond plays a crucial FA Cup match against the mighty Manchester City, coach Ted Lasso (Jason Sudeikis) finally comes clean with his coaching staff. He’s been suffering from panic attacks of late. His assistant coaches hear him, accept him, and then head off to the pitch where Man City absolutely obliterates their team.

Man City destroys AFC Richmond. They annihilate them. Embarrass them. Stuff them into a locker and steal their lunch money. The final score is 4-0 but it might as well be 400-0. The coaching staff is rattled but the players are hit even harder. Richmond’s star striker and former Man City player Jamie Tartt (Phil Dunster) is forced to endure watching his scumbag father cheer for his hometown team from the Wembley Stadium stands at the expense of his son.

After the game, Jamie’s father, James (Kieran O’Brien), enters the locker room where he drunkenly accosts him for being a loser and demands that Jamie grant access to the Wembley Stadium pitch for him and his scumbag friends to run around on. When Jamie refuses, his father pushes him, so Jamie reflexively punches him right in the face. James is dragged out of the locker room by Coach Beard (Brendan Hunt), leading a stunned and traumatized Jamie Tartt standing in the middle of the room, as if in a spotlight of pure pain, surrounded by teammates too afraid to even approach him. And then something amazing happens…

Here’s the dirty secret about television: there’s a lot of it. Due to the sheer number of TV shows released each year, even the best of them are destined to become little more than memories long-term. Sometimes all you can ask from multiple episodes and seasons of television is to provide you with one moment, one line, or one warm feeling to carry with you into the future. I don’t know how much I’ll remember from Ted Lasso 30-40 years from now when I’m immobile and reclined in my floating entertainment unit, Wall-E style. But I know I’ll at least remember the moment that Roy hugs Jamie.

The great Roy Kent (Brett Goldstein) – a character so disconnected from his own emotions that some fans are convinced he’s CGI – embraces the one person in the world he is least likely to embrace. As Roy and Jamie wordlessly hug, it’s hard to tell which man is more shocked by the moment. Ultimately, however, it might be Ted Lasso himself who is hit hardest. Shortly after seeing Roy play father to the younger Jamie, Ted quickly exits the locker room and calls sports psychologist Dr. Sharon Fieldstone (Sarah Niles) on his Apple TV+-apporved iPhone.

“My father killed himself when I was 16. That happened. To me and to my mom,” Ted says, weeping.

And that, my friends, is what Ted Lasso is all about. Pain. And dads. But mostly pain.

None of us can say that Ted Lasso didn’t warn us it was coming. To go back to the discourse of it all real quick – I don’t blame anyone for not picking up on the direction that this show was so clearly heading in. Ted Lasso is, first and foremost, a sitcom. The beauty of sitcoms is that you welcome them into your home to watch at your own pace and your own terms. If having Ted Lasso on in the background so you can occasionally see the handsome mustache man who smiles while you fold your laundry is the way you’ve chosen to engage with the show, then great! Just know that season 2 has been operating on a deeper level this whole time as well.

Let’s take things all the way back to the beginning – back to before season 2 even began. You’ve likely heard the old philosophical thought experiment “if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Well Jason Sudeikis’s interviews leading up the season 2 premiere beg an equally as interesting hypothetical “how many times can one man mention The Empire Strikes Back before someone notices??”

Sudeikis referred to Ted Lasso season 2 as the show’s “Empire Strikes Back” multiple times before the premiere including in his local Kansas City Star and his technically local USA Today. The show even explicitly mentions the second Star Wars film in this season’s first episode when Richmond general manager Higgins (Jeremy Swyft) tells Ted that his kids are watching the trilogy for the first time. Sudeikis (who co-created and produces the show) and showrunner Bill Lawrence clearly want us to take the idea that Ted Lasso season 2 is The Empire Strikes Back seriously. And why would that be?

Think of how ESB differs from its two Star Wars siblings in the original trilogy. This is the story that features arguably the series most iconic moment when Luke Skywalker discovers his dad is a dick on a literal universal level. It also has the only unambiguously downer ending of any original trilogy Star Wars film. Luke is thoroughly defeated in this installment. Having one’s hand chopped off by their father and barely escaping with their life is definitely the Star Wars version of a 4-0 defeat.

The Empire Strikes Back can safely be boiled down into two concepts:

Dads are complicated.

Everything sucks.

When viewed through those two conceptual prisms, so much of Ted Lasso season 2 begins to make more sense.

Episode 1 opens with the death of a dog and then leads into a classic Ted Lasso speech that could serve as this season’s mission statemetn. After recounting the story of how he cared for his sick neighbor’s dog, Ted concludes with: “It’s funny to think about the things in your life that can make you cry knowing that they existed then become the same thing that can make you cry knowing that they’re now gone. Those things come into our lives to help us get from one place to a better one.”

Things like…a father who you didn’t have nearly enough time with? Following episode 1 (and following just about every episode this season), Bill Lawrence took to Twitter to assuage viewers’ fears about a lack of central conflict this season. He had this to say about Ted’s big speech.

Look, Merrill. It was thought out, but the speech he gives after (Written by Jason himself – I loved it) is the core of the season, but we knew some people might bum out.

— Bill Lawrence (@VDOOZER) July 27, 2021

Sorry, truly. Ted’s speech after (which I love, but am obviously biased) is a big part of the season. But it sounds like you had a crappy thing happen recently.

— Bill Lawrence (@VDOOZER) July 28, 2021

It’s not. But Ted’s speech has big relevance. Stick around!

— Bill Lawrence (@VDOOZER) July 26, 2021

He also had this to say about dads.

Effin Dads, man. Love mine so, but he’s struggling a bit.

— Bill Lawrence (@VDOOZER) July 27, 2021

“Effin dads” and our complicated relationships with them are all over Ted Lasso season 2. In the very next episode, Sam Obisanya (Toheeb Jimoh) tells Ted “You know, my father says that every time you’re on TV, he’s very happy that I’m here. That I’m in safe hands with you.”

Ted smiles at this bit of info but not as warmly as you might expect. Because to Ted, a dad isn’t a reassuring presence but rather someone you love who will just leave when you need him the most. That’s why he’s been trying to be the perfect father figure this whole time. That’s why he did something as extreme as leaving his family behind in Kansas while he heads off to London. If giving his wife space was the only way to preserve the family and remain a good dad, then he was going to give her a whole ocean of space.

Moreover, Ted hasn’t just been trying to serve as a father figure to his son this whole time but to everyone else as well. Sam’s comment to Ted reminds him that not everyone has a good dad, which encourages him to bring Jamie into the fold in the first place.

As time goes on, however, the stress of being the consummate father to everyone in his orbit begins to wear on Ted. Throughout the entirety of this season, Ted Lasso appears to be trying to be Ted Lasso just a bit too hard. His energy levels are too high. His jokes go on too long. The same life lessons that worked last year aren’t working this year. AFC Richmond opens with an embarrassing streak of draws before Jamie’s immense talents set things straight.

It all culminates in this season’s sixth episode when Ted has his second panic attack in as many years. This time it’s in public during an important game. The experience sends Ted running through the concourse of the stadium until he somehow ends up in the dark on Dr. Fieldstone’s couch, instinctively, like a wounded animal.

It’s certainly no coincidence that this panic attack occurs on the same day that Ted received a call from his son’s school asking him to pick him up, not realizing that he’s an ocean away. In that moment, Ted can’t help but remember what it’s like to be left behind by his own father and subconsciously wonder if he’s doing the same.

Though the shallow waters of Ted Lasso season 2 may have appeared consequence free for half its run, beneath the surface was a tidal wave of conflict. Just because the conflict wasn’t taking place between a happy-go-lucky football coach and a villainous owner doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Game of Thrones author George R.R. Martin is terrible at meeting deadlines but great at writing. According to him (and William Faulkner, from whom he borrows the quote), the only conflict worth writing about is that of the human heart with itself. That’s something that The Empire Strikes Back understood. And it’s something that Ted Lasso season 2 does as well.

The post How Ted Lasso Sneakily Crafted its Empire Strikes Back Season appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3E4eqHF

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek

1 note · View note

brettbarnesmj · 10 years

Text

On May 17, 2014, Brett Barnes took to Twitter to express his frustration with the way some people perceived his friend, Michael Jackson. In his tweet, he stated, "the thing with you fools is, no matter what I say to you, you'll just twist it to go along with your 'views'." Barnes insinuated that individuals who held negative opinions about Michael Jackson were prone to distorting the truth to fit their own narrative.

It is important to address the misconceptions that can arise from such statements. While it is understandable that close friends and supporters may feel defensive when their idol is criticized, it is crucial to engage in open dialogue and consider differing perspectives without resorting to generalizations or insults.

Firstly, it is essential to acknowledge that not all critics of Michael Jackson base their views on bias or a desire to twist the truth. Like any public figure, Jackson's life, music, and legacy are subject to interpretation and analysis. Critics may express concerns about his behavior, controversies, or other aspects of his life. These opinions should be evaluated on their own merit rather than dismissed outright.

Secondly, assuming that all critics have preconceived notions and are unwilling to consider alternative viewpoints is an unfair generalization. Constructive dialogue can only occur when individuals on both sides of a discussion are open to listening and understanding one another. Making assumptions about someone's intentions does not further the conversation or contribute to a better understanding of the topic at hand.

Lastly, it is crucial to emphasize the importance of evidence-based discussions. Engaging in meaningful conversations requires relying on accurate information, verifiable facts, and credible sources. Baseless claims and unfounded accusations only serve to perpetuate misinformation and hinder productive discourse.

In conclusion, while Brett Barnes expressed his frustration regarding the perceived biases of Michael Jackson's critics, it is essential to recognize that not all negative opinions are rooted in twisting the truth. Encouraging open dialogue, respecting differing viewpoints, and relying on substantiated information are key to fostering a more nuanced conversation about public figures such as Michael Jackson.

1 note · View note

didanawisgi · 3 years

Link

Response to attacks from dr. David Gorski

Published on TrialSite (August 25, 2021)

My name is Geert Vanden Bossche. I received my PhD in Virology at the University of Hohenheim, Germany, and I have held adjunct faculty appointments at universities in Germany and Belgium. I also have worked in R&D and vaccine development for GSK, Novartis, and Solvay Biologicals. Next I was a Senior Program Officer for the Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team, and from there went to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI) and was the Senior Ebola Program Manager. Then I joined the German Center for Infection Research as head of the Vaccine Development Office. Currently, I work as a consultant on biotech/vaccine issues, and I also do my own research on “natural killer” cell-based vaccines. I have argued that immune escape due to the current COVID-19 vaccines is driving new variants as the virus evolves its way around the inoculation. Dr. David Gorski is a Wayne State University of Medicine (Detroit) associate professor in oncology and surgery. He is also chief of the breast surgery division. Gorski has launched several “hit pieces” about me and my views. In one article, he attacks the notion that vaccines have a part in driving variants. He also has criticized YouTuber/intellectual Brett Weinstein for supporting the use of ivermectin in our pandemic.

Lack of Expertise

In my view, Gorski is both stigmatizing honest scientists and seemingly trying to create socially-dangerous tensions between the vaxed and the unvaxed and between medical experts who hold different views on our current vaccines. Gorski creates false dichotomies wherein one is good (pro-vaccine, put faith in government) or bad (anti-vaccine, open to alternate views and arguments), and this type of discourse and rhetoric is incompatible with science.

Gorski is also largely scientifically illiterate in the fields of virology, immunology, vaccines, and evolutionary biology. He cannot see that both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated are involved in the evolutionary dynamics of the pandemic; his effort to blame the latter category is unfair and potentially dangerous. Dr. Gorski is quick to mix up unrelated topics to create parallels that don’t make sense. He unscientifically conflates or compares data about: live vaccines and inactivated vaccines; epidemics and pandemics; measles and SARS-CoV-2; herd immunity and vaccine coverage rates; efficacy with effectiveness in vaccines; and sterilizing immunity with transmission-reducing immunity.

He also unfairly lumps me in with antivaxxers when I am pro (beneficial) vaccines. Much of this is likely based on the fact that Gorski’s expertise is largely lacking. His professional expertise in breast surgery seemingly does not allow him to opine intelligently about the topics at hand. And he regularly gets tangled up in his own misunderstandings and contradicts himself. Also, he sets himself up as a maximal “pro-vaxer” despite the noted lack of expertise in the various disciplines that apply to vaccination during a pandemic.

Innate Immunity

Gorski possesses no understanding of the workings of innate immunity, i.e., innate oligospecific antibodies or natural killer cells. He does not know the difference between innate (i.e., polyreactive) and naturally-acquired (i.e., antigen-specific) antibodies. This is clearly reflected by Gorski’s list of ‘factors proposed to explain the difference in severity of COVID-19 in children and adults’. None of these factors could explain why not only children, but any young and healthy individual, could become susceptible to Covid-19 disease only a few months after they got asymptomatically infected. This can only be explained as a result of suppression of protective, innate antibodies by spike-specific antibodies (including vaccinal antibodies) as the latter outcompete innate antibodies for binding to SARSs-CoV-2. Gorski’s list, therefore, is completely irrelevant in regard of the overarching mechanism of natural immune protection against Covid-19.

He doesn’t have the wherewithal to understand the difference between naturally acquired immunity’s sterilizing cell-mediated immunity (CMI) and the S-based vaccines’ lack of CMI. He fails to see that there is currently no evidence of population-level immune selection pressure on CMI-mediated, sterilizing immunity induced in previously symptomatically infected persons. He doesn’t seem to realize that only a minor fraction of the population acquires protective immunity against COVID-19, whereas the vast majority are naturally protected by their first line of innate immune defense (a notion, he obviously didn’t even hear about).

Gorski specifically claims that younger people are now getting infected more because, “the variant is so much more transmissible and, therefore, the higher the percentage of the population that needs to be immune.” He doesn’t even seem to realize that these younger (<65 years) and healthy people (i.e., the majority of the population) proved to be immune during the previous waves. So why would they all of a sudden lose their immunity a few months later? Further hurting his credibility, Gorski refers to ivermectin as an “anti-worm” drug and wildly misrepresents the evidence so far showing that it can help with COVID-19. Again pushing the false either/or paradigm, he puts ivermectin in the “bad” category without any nuances.

Contradictio in Terminis

The doctor seems to miss the fact that, “spreading” SARS-CoV-2 relates to infection or pathogens, not to the disease they may potentially cause. Gorski seems to forget that despite the fact that all knew that the efficacy of these vaccines was not 100%, the primary goal of these mass vaccination campaigns was to generate herd immunity. Now, maybe Gorski doesn’t really understand what herd immunity is about, but it suffices to remind him that it relates to the observation that unimmunized people can be protected provided the vaccine coverage rate in the population is high enough to prevent viral transmission. Gorski is trying to make people believe that herd immunity would imply vaccination of the total population, which is almost a contradictio in terminis.

By going to ridiculous extremes to make his case, Gorki is basically just making himself ridiculous. He also lumps me in with folks claiming that stray spike proteins from the vaccinated are causing major harm, when I have never taken that view. He thinks that because a virus has a somewhat higher infectiousness, it will in no time dominate all other circulating variants, no matter the pressure that is exerted by the human population. All of the more infectious variants were isolated before end 2020. So why is it that only quite recently have the more competitive ones started to spread widely? For somebody who obviously has big holes in his knowledge of virology and basic immunology, it can, indeed, be difficult to understand that viral spread in a population is determined by the interplay between viral infectious pressure and population-level immune pressure. The most blatant example of this is where he contradicts himself in saying: ‘Vaccines is a selective pressure’. Per definition, though, selective pressure is known to drive immune escape. And thus, according to Gorski, ‘vaccinating as many people as possible as fast as possible’ is the way to go!

“Quo vadis, homo sapiens?”

It is simply impossible to achieve herd immunity with these vaccines for reasons I clearly explained in my contribution titled, “Quo vadis, homo sapiens?” No matter the level of uptake of these vaccines, they’ll never produce any kind of herd immunity, as they’re merely turning young and healthy people (who’re naturally capable of eliminating the virus) into asymptomatic spreaders. Secondarily, herd immunity has nothing to do with immune selection pressure. On the contrary: neither innate antibodies nor immunity induced by recovery from disease (i.e., the only 2 types of immunity that contribute to herd immunity) are spike (S)-directed, so they do not exert selection pressure on viral infectiousness (i.e., determined by S), in contrast to the immune response induced by vaccination. Gorki is among the many stubborn know-it-alls who pretend that further increasing vaccine coverage rates will stop the virus from spreading and further evolving. All this without any single scientific argument backing his statement. Substantial outbreaks are still taking place in countries with high vaccine coverage rates, clearly demonstrating that vaccine-induced herd immunity is a myth.

Gorski is also completely missing the point on the lambda variant. He stares at different variants in regard of their sensitivity to vaccine-induced neutralization whereas the key message of the publication I alluded to was that i) increased viral infectiousness is insufficient to ensure sustained viral transmission in a massively vaccinated human population (i.e., a population that exerts widespread spike-directed immune pressure on viral infectiousness and ii) that additional mutations in the N-terminal domain (NTD) of the spike protein may substantially contribute to the decreased neutralizing capacity of vaccine-induced antibodies against any given variant (as mutations in the RBD alone may not explain the decreased neutralizing titers). In other words, variants may incorporate additional mutations in the NTD to dramatically increase their resistance to vaccine-induced anti-S antibodies. This mechanism of escape neutralization is of course very problematic if it occurs in a variant that as already a high level of infectiousness (e.g., delta variant) as this may lead to a steep increase in morbidity and mortality rates in the population. Gorski’s conclusion that ‘there is plenty of reason to conclude that the vaccines offer considerable protection against at least severe disease from these variants’ is, therefore, anything but based on an understanding of the virus’ evolutionary adaptation to enhanced, widespread immune pressure on viral infectivity. As a matter of fact, a such dramatic combination of high infectiousness and complete resistance to wild-type spike vaccines has recently been reported https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.22.457114v1.full.pdf.

We’re curious to learn about Gorski’s predictions on how much protection the vaccines are going to provide against highly infectious variants that are completely resistant against the vaccines…

Vaccine efficacy versus vaccine effectiveness

Regardless of the fact that Gorski does not understand the difference between vaccine efficacy and vaccine effectiveness, he doesn’t even realize that the main issue is not whether or not the vaccine protects 100% or less; the real issue is that imperfect vaccines will enhance propagation of naturally selected immune escape variants, especially if high infectious pressure is combined with widespread immune pressure (due to mass vaccination).

Lies

If Gorski is unable to make his point otherwise, he’ll rely on lies:

I never stated that the emergence of more infectious variants was caused by the vaccines as Gorski pretends

I never stated that vaccines are ineffective, dangerous and that they make the vaccinated dangerous to the unvaccinated as Gorski pretends

#Geert Vanden Bossche #immunology #sars-cov-2 #covid-19 #covid-19 vaccine #selection pressure #viral escape #family medicine

1 note · View note

greatfay · 4 years

Text

I just keep seeing people posting their gd feelings all the time irt this upcoming presidential election and those feelings are SO valid sure, but there is never a point. Never a point! No thesis statement, no recourse, no solution to the problems. It’s always “but have you considered!! my FEELINGS!!” every fucking time. We all have some fucking feelings on the subject, but there are deaths happening NOW, there’s bullshit happening NOW, there’s no time for feelings. Get over your feelings!! It’s like some weird collective amnesia and everyone forgot what happened in 2016 or why having a Democrat president in that time was important (thanks for abstaining to vote so we’re stuck with Brett “Raped a Girl In College” Kavanaugh until he maybe croaks in 2054). It’s like ok sure you don’t believe in the system, I don’t either but that’s because I know the system. I don’t believe in the system because I’ve studied it, and I know that it’s not going to change unless we do one of two things: furiously organize on local and state levels to fill our government seats with halfway decent people to support social policy reform. OR. Nut up and go to war with our government and hang senators and representatives and district attorneys and judges for crimes against the people.

And that last one is never going to happen because you’re all a bunch of fucking pussies who cry-type dissertations whenever a character from whatever nerd shit you’re currently obsessed with does something morally gray. Fucking Steven Universe “Rose Quartz is a war criminal!” discourse bloggers are telling me that I’m just so awful and *naive* for suggesting they actually vote because it doesn’t matter and the only way to change the system is to FIGHT! You’re not going to fight. Y’all aren’t hood like some of us, it’s never going to happen.

Get over your FEELINGS because People Dying NOW > Your FEELINGS. And stop framing this shit as “white libs vs. people of color” some of us are pragmatic, some of us have to carve out our human rights step by step over the course of decades.

6 notes · View notes

quakerjoe · 4 years

Link

In the end, not even the Progressive Bernie Base showing up for Hillary in larger numbers than her own supporters did for Obama in 2008, could prevent the inevitable. A massively flawed candidate who failed to electrify the Democratic base and make the case to Rust Belt voters- why she is the better option than the Populist candidate spraying out anti-trade rhetoric.

Blame whatever you want. The blame rests squarely on all of us. But there is so many lessons to learn from the 2016 Primary and General Election. Populism and Progressive policy became the central topic. Healthcare is a right. The ultra-rich are KING in America, and they must be reigned in. Primary process should be more fair. Flowery platitudes aren’t enough to generate excitement for the poor to turn out, etc.

Literally ZERO of these lessons were learned. Even in the face of an ACTUAL Corona-virus pandemic, with over 30 million unemployed, more and more uninsured at the time of writing this- the Democratic party has done nearly nothing to fix the problems from 2016. Actually, in all my shock- they’ve made them worse. The Democratic party pulled every string it could. Bent over backwards to not only stop Bernie Sanders, but stifle Progressives and our policy agenda. All in an orchestration to crown their nominee just years after a 2016 lawsuit said the DNC can meddle how ever they like in their own “Democratic process”. All to push a man who did next to no campaigning in any states past South Carolina. A man who didn’t actually work for your vote, but instead- coasted on “Hope and Change” establishment nostalgia, for when times weren’t so chaotic.

So for pragmatism sake, let’s push all that aside for just one moment. We can debate all day about how “fair” Joe Biden’s path to the Democratic Nomination has been. But let’s view Biden on his own merits for his candidacy’s sake. What’s the incentive for Progressives to vote for Joe? Well- unless you’re sticking to the concept of the very first paragraph of this article, the answer is: There isn’t one.

If Hillary Clinton were a flawed candidate, Biden may just be the worst nominee in history. A long history of terrible behavior including coddling racists, racist behavior, repeated threats at slashing the safety net, warmongering for a devastating Iraq war that’s helped kill endless innocent civilians all based on a lie, the nomination of Justice Thomas and controversial treatment of Anita hill, the Obama administration’s failure to even pass a Public Option with a Super Majority government, while pushing a healthcare plan that was little more than barely a small step in the right direction.

Now- Biden stands as the presumptive Democratic Nominee, and with a sizable Progressive Bernie Base up for grabs, what has Joe Biden done to earn our vote?

Answer: Nothing. Well, at least nothing significant.

Three items come immediately to mind on what Joe Biden is doing to “reach left”.

1: Joe wants to lower the Medicare age to 60. By comparison, Hillary Clinton wanted to lower it to as low as 50.

2: Joe Biden wants to eliminate student debt for those making under $125K. By comparison, Bernie Sanders wanted to eliminate it universally.

3: Nebulously- Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders have created “working groups” on various policy issues focusing on education, criminal justice, climate change, immigration, the economy, and health care policy. As of yet, nothing has come of these “groups” on policy.

As the Primary was coming to a close, I as a Progressive- was completely open to Joe moving (not reaching) left on policy positions.

Overwhelmingly, if you ask Sanders supporters what they care about most, it’s Policy.

What will you do for the underprivileged working class people of America?

What will you do for my children and grand children facing a Climate Change future?

What will you do for your Mass Incarceration mess, ending the drug war, legalizing Marijuana, and freeing non-violent drug offenders?

What will you do for the upwards of 45K people who die each year because health care is not affordable?

The 67% of American bankruptcies being due to health care costs?

BUT. Sanders supporters also believe in principle. Consistency. History. Fighting for change. Decency. Human rights. We’re also majority young people (a group Joe Biden did not do well with). Perhaps these things could be talked out. But now there’s a bigger elephant in the room. One that establishment Democrats and Joe’s supporters are ignoring.

Joe Biden was credibly accused of rape.

Democrats spent months yelling about “Believing Women” during the Kavanaugh Confirmation hearings. Rightfully fighting for Christine Blasey Ford’s story to be heard- knowing it would be a fruitless task at the hands of a twisted Senate Republican majority. Now, establishment Democrats are making the media rounds with Biden campaign talking points with denials and every attempt to downplay Tara Reade as not a credible accuser, even as several corroborations of her story have surfaced, 1 of which was an archive video of who Tara Reade alleges is her mother discussing the issue with Larry King on CNN in 1993. Meanwhile, Joe Biden’s campaign has it’s surrogates and supporters on news networks shielding Biden. Nancy Pelosi downplays the accusations, Kirsten Gillibrand (who helped cancel Al Franken) is downplaying the accusations. Alyssa Milano, prominent #MeToo voice, who made a performative appearance at the Brett Kavanagh hearings, now wants to “change the rules” on the movement in favor of a sort of ‘Due Process’- a process that many perpetrators cancelled by #MeToo never got, in favor of protecting Joe Biden.

What this means to me is that Democrats think it’s perfectly fine to be selective on who and who doesn’t deserve to be heard and taken seriously, based on who’s on your team. As if it should be that easy to just shed your principles like Snake skin, hypocritically protecting one predator, while gunning for another that doesn’t fit with you politically.

In 2016, I was perfectly fine voting for the “lesser evil”. Now that the party has loudly stated that not only does my values, principles, and policy demands for the poor and sick of America, not matter- I should fall in line with a candidate that has helped endless innocent people die overseas with America’s imperial military reach, helped endless people die at home because they cant afford a doctor, said that he has “no empathy” for young people- the same young people that have to live and suffer under the conditions of Climate Change while he’s dead and gone, sexually assaulted and violated multiple women, said that nothing will fundamentally change for the same rich people who are now gaining BILLIONS under pandemic conditions while their workers get sicker, if they’re even employed at all.

Moderate establishment Democrats and voters tell me that Trump is the number one threat. That we need to “vote blue no matter who”. Just how “blue” is Joe biden? Just how dissimilar is Joe Biden and his supporters from Trump and his following? For all of the cries of the “angry Bernie Bros” online, I see countless accosting and abusive discourse examples from Biden supporters calling any dissenters “Russian Bots”, or “MAGA Hats”. Being told that I’m somehow a Trump voter by default, for not immediately supporting Biden. All this when all I’ve ever seen from “the Bernie Bros” is aggressively holding smear artists to facts and truth in a thick environment of misrepresentation of Bernie Sanders and his platform.

So- Why shouldn’t Progressives vote for Joe Biden?

This Democratic party doesn’t give a damn about you. Nor does it care about Progressive policy. The party and its supporters spend all this time, smearing Sanders and his base as “Not democrats”, angry “socialists who want free stuff”, “How are you gonna PAY for it?!” etc etc, all while claiming to support SOME form of our policy, and then dropping it the second it doesn’t feel politically advantageous. This party threw everything it could into stopping YOU. With tactics like voter suppression, using a silly app suspiciously funded and supported by shady actors in Iowa, taking WEEKS to give final results, running Super PACs against Bernie and our movement, fear-mongering about Bernie when he did win states, gas lighting the public on “elect-ability”, using a literal pandemic against Bernie to guilt him into dropping out while attempting to blame him for continued spread of COVID-19, while they sent voters to the polls and we didn’t.

And after zero policy concessions, zero good will, repeated demands we fall in line after more than a year of being slammed and disrespected, showing up for Hillary Clinton and then being blamed for her loss anyway, which is inevitable again if Joe loses? Are we just going to keep allowing that? Just how long do we have to hold our noses, voting for Moderate do-nothing lite Republicans who would sooner see you die, than provide you affordable and universal healthcare, because a Billionaire would stand to lose money. Even NOW, during a Pandemic this party has done next to NOTHING to secure the livelihoods of American citizens, as more and more die, get furloughed, and cant pay their bills. All while Trump and Republicans take credit for pitching more common sense plans (even though they want to send us all back to work/school to feed the machine).

This- is the “resistance” party? THIS is the best we can do? Performative rage against a fascist clown while propping up an accused rapist warmongering corporatist with cognitive decline and previous racist tendencies? THIS is what the party keeps telling us we better support or be shamed as somehow supporting the “bad guy”?

Listen, #NotMeUs- this will never stop. This party will NEVER stop using us as a prop for our ideas and passion, then throwing us under the bus when they think they no longer need us. They cannot continue to be allowed to drag us further to the right with guilt trips and shaming. They will NEVER take you seriously unto you take serious action. We’ve been preaching about “action” this whole campaign. Why should that “action” stop in the ballot box? Have some foresight for just a moment and envision how this plays out in future elections, unless you stand up and make them WORK for your vote.

I, for one will not vote for Joe Biden. But I wont shame you for your vote, no matter who it’s for. Why? Because the party did a terrible job at earning -your- vote. I’d maybe only criticize you if you don’t show up at all. There’s so many down-ballot candidate who need support. Even if you leave the President box unchecked, at least show up for the other races.

But consider: There are other options that have been stifled for way too long. Perhaps its time we give them a shot, no? Green Party is running Howie Hawkins and a platform that is much closer to our principles that Biden would ever try for. Justin Amash just jumped into the race if you’re a little more on the Libertarian side. Jesse Ventura is also discovering running on the Green ticket as well. Just imagine Jesse ‘The Body’ Ventura on the debate stage with Donald Trump? Popcorn for DAYS.

In order for us to be taken seriously, we must prove that we’re capable of holding the party accountable. Not voting for them is the ultimate accountability, and you get to keep your principles intact.

Now- to the ultimate argument you’d inevitably get: “You would be helping Donald Trump secure 4 more years”.

My response? You don’t have to bare the blame for that. You wont be at fault for Joe Biden losing any more than those who chose not to vote at all. It’s on the party to earn these votes. That’s how elections work. If you hate the candidate and don’t feel good about them as a person, why is it your responsibility to put them in office? To me- one of the most personal things a person has, is their vote. Not their dollars, or their Tweets. It’s checking a box for the person YOU chose to represent you. If that person doesn’t believe in hardly anything you personally believe in- why is it that they deserve your vote, again? How is it that they’re are somehow entitled to that vote? They don’t, and they aren’t. I’m looking at you too, Republicans.

In closing…

Progressives, I’m sorry to break it to you but- Medicare For All is not on the ballot. Taxing the rich is not on the ballot. Ending corruption and crooked politicians is not on the ballot.

But- ending a terrible two-party system IS on the ballot. Taking your personal vote back, IS on the ballot. In my opinion- the only wasted vote, is the one you were demanded in giving up to what you don’t believe in.

-LZ

https://medium.com/@legacyzero/why-sanders-supporters-should-not-vote-for-joe-biden-a9146bee189b

4 notes · View notes