This is going to be interesting! I don’t think we’ve ever seen shouto as the leader of a group before. They’re going up against another student who got into UA through reccomendations, and class B’s strategy sounds like it’ll be interesting too. I can’t wait to see how this fight plays out.
And:
We know he has plenty of weaknesses, but considering that the list of things class B knows about todoroki is that he:
1) froze everyone and a bunch of giant robots in the first round of the sports festival
2) helped completely destroy the arena in two of his fights and froze like half of it once on his own
3) has fire now
I’d be terrified at the idea of a straightforward fight too XD
I love Michelle Obama, but I always thought “when they go low, we go high” was the most absolute bullshit thing ever. Being the bigger person feels nice and smug and like something you can put on pinterest, but it doesn’t always win nasty wars. And I hate that it’s like that– of course I do.
It’s like whenever people ask to stop seeing negativity in an election and focus on the issues. Well, sometimes they’re tied together. Sometimes calling your opponent corrupt because your opponent IS corrupt is the issue. I think people are just afraid of negativity. It feels uncomfortable and gross. It doesn’t feel like The Power of Positive Thinking or The Secret or whatever crap Deepak Chopra might be spouting.
And, anyway, the person who disrupts the paradigm is not always rewarded for doing that.
All of this is to say I always have my claws out, and I’m not afraid to strike, and I am not ashamed.
Honestly if you’re female and you’re called for jury duty and during the elimination process you’re asked if you’ve ever had any adverse experience with a man (harrassment or rape or any other male violence) just fuckin lie and say no. Then vote that fucker guilty
Women survivors are barred from serving on a jury but rapists are not even questioned. There can be no doubt that this is a major reason rapists walk free. Men have never played fair. It is time for women to start beating them at their own game. Our lives depend on it.
As someone who wants to be a prosecutor one day… I agree.
OK NO. NO NO NO NO NO. I am a defense attorney. I am a woman. I am also a sexual assault survivor. THAT BEING SAID I HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS POST ALL WEEK AND IT’S SOOOOO FUCKING WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS.
It’s wrong not for any bullshit rape apologist shit, btw, it’s wrong BECAUSE THIS SHIT WILL LITERALLY FUCK YOU OVER AND FUCK OVER ANY RAPE VICTIMS TOO. Here’s why:
(bear in mind this advice is gonna be MD specific since that’s where I practice)
1) FIRST THINGS FIRST. Don’t fucking lie. Don’t you dare fucking lie when you’re being questioned at jury duty. Why? OK well first: you’re swearing to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. What that means is yes, you will face criminal charges. Criminal charges which, btw, will keep you off of any juries in the future.
Here’s the thing, people (the law enforcement authorities and the defense counsel) WILL be able to find this out especially if you have ever filed a formal police report and/or spoken publicly about it. Yes, even on facebook. This ALSO means that if the fact that you lied about this is found out mid-trial it’s grounds for a mistrial with prejudice, if not a straight dismissal. Which means that hey, look, EVERYTHING HAS TO START ALL OVER AGAIN, THIS TIME WITH NEW JURORS.
2) The second thing is this: in many states, you don’t just get dismissed after answering affirmatively. The voir dire process in MD works like this:
A) prosecutors and the defense come up with a list of questions to ask potential jurors. These are typically a combination of blanket questions you would ask at any trial (ex: have you ever been convicted of a crime in this jurisdiction) and specific questions tailored to the hearing in particular (like the question above). Both attorneys get the chance to view each other’s questions and object to any particular questions that the other team may have.
B) So we’re at jury selection. Both attorneys argue preliminary whether or not questions get to be asked or not, submit the questions to the judge, and decide how to do the striking. (all at once submitted on paper, or alternating).
B1) “striking” means asking to get rid of a juror. A strike can be peremptory, i.e., you can strike for whatever reason you want and don’t have to justify it, automatically. Or you can have a strike FOR CAUSE. There are a limit to how many peremptory strikes/challenges you can have, depending on the jurisdiction, and the type of crime. And you may or may not have to justify those strikes and turn them into “for cause.”
B2) generally if, during a question, a juror answers in the affirmative, the judge will ask you to go up to the bench to privately discuss it with the judge, and both attorneys. In this case they will ask if you or somebody you know was a victim. They will also ask if the incident occurred in the same jurisdiction and possibly involved the same arresting officers. They will THEN ask you if you feel so strongly that it will affect your ability to be IMPARTIAL–that is, will you still be able to only consider the facts presented to you in the court, and be able to judge something as proven beyond a reasonable doubt or not, or will you be biased?
B3) If you say “I am so biased” then yeah, the judge will excuse you right away. But if you say “No I think I can do it. I can be impartial.” you’ll be asked to return to your seat.
C) The questions are now done. The attorneys then go through their strikes. Like I said, they have a limited number of the peremptory ones. And there are other limits too. You can’t strike jurors on the basis of a “protected class” (i.e.: race, gender, religion etc.) and anything that SHOWS that an attorney is doing so a can be objected to by the other attorney. There doesn’t have to be a “pattern” but that helps (i.e. striking three women in a row). Every time a juror gets called and somebody requests a strike, the other attorney can either object or not. So it’s up to each attorney to protect the jurors they want (and btw other than the questions, in MD, the info you get as an attorney is the juror’s name, age, job, and where they live, and their spouse’s job). If there’s a disagreement then the judge will hear arguments either way. If it’s a protected class argument, the attorney who has been striking has to come up with a different reason to justify and that’s got to be something UNRELATED to the protected class (ex: if you struck two Black guys in a row you can’t say “oh well I didn’t want THESE Black guys I wanted the other ones” because that’s still BASED ON RACE).
————
3) SO HERE’S WHY IT’S SO FUCKED UP TO EVEN SUGGEST THIS SHIT AS A WAY TO “SOLVE THE PROBLEM”
A) as I said above, you don’t want to fucking lie.
B) also BEING A CONVICTED FELON, BTW, AND OTHER TYPES OF CONVICTIONS, DISQUALIFIES YOU FROM BEING ON THE JURY. So…convicted rapists? yeah, they can’t actually serve. THIS IS LITERALLY A QUESTION ON THE JURY DUTY FORM AND IS A QUESTION ASKED AT EVERY STAGE OF SELECTION.
C) ALSO, in a couple of the posts I’ve seen they’ve mentioned this question was only asked for women. I’m not sure really if I, as an attorney, would have phrased a question in a gendered way like this SINCE IT’S BASICALLY BEGGING FOR A CHALLENGE AS A PROTECTED CLASS OBJECTION. So fine, if it’s asked gender neutral? That’s OK, but as I said, you won’t get dismissed instantaneously (at least not in MD) as it’s not one of those automatic questions the court asks (i.e.: are you a citizen etc.). And so (again, in Md, Idk about other states) If you say “yes I can be impartial” then fine. Sit your ass down and wait for an attorney to strike you.
D) so if you DO have an attorney striking you, I would ABSOLUTELY object to any attorney who systematically struck ALL THE WOMEN from a jury panel. Because fuck that that’s a protected class that fucking SO DEMONSTRATIVE of a violation of the law. IT’S GENDER BASED. Whoever the prosecutor was who allowed a defense attorney to get away with that shit just wasn’t doing their fucking job.
E) And in terms of this post? about nobody caring? Fuck that if I was a prosecutor I would absolutely ask if any person (”PERSON” DAMN IT NOT JUST MEN BECAUSE THE WIVES/SISTERS/MOTHERS etc. OF MEN WHO ARE ACCUSED OF RAPE ARE ALSO FUCKING BIASED) had ever been accused of rape or sexual assault or knew somebody who did etc. That’s just good lawyering. It’s sloppy not to do so.
F) And as a defense attorney, NGL, I would want to know the answer too, in order to make sure to challenge those strikes.
——-
I get it. I fucking get it. And some of these things will depend on how fucked up your judge is and how good the other side is. But this shit about “OH HEY JUST LIE” FUCK ME NO. DO NOT FUCKING DO THIS.
I’m so fucking furious that people are spreading this like it’s a good damn idea and something that will work. Honestly this is so fucking stupid and dangerous to me that I’m suspicious–is this for real? Or is this somebody trying to false information troll people?
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO NOT DO THIS. Answer your questions truthfully and let the lawyers do their damn job. Yes, it sucks, but at the end of the day, people in this country are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. And your job, as a juror, is to ASSESS ONLY THE FACTS AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED TO YOU, AND TO SEE IF THE STATE WAS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THIS PARTICULAR SUSPECT DID IT. AND THEY DID IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
THe fact is, not all rape cases go to trial. And the ones that do, DISPROPORTIONATELY charge men of color (in particular, Black and Latino men). You cannot believe in equality, fight against racism, protect the constitution AND ALSo try to do this shit. It’s fucked up and completely inconsistent and yet another way to fuck with the justice system. doing this will probably allow more alleged rapists to go free than it will allow for equality in jury selection.
TL;DR: this shit is really fucking bad advice and not the way to actually go about doing things. stop giving people legal advice IF YOU AREN’T A LAWYER. ESPECIALLY IF THAT LEGAL ADVICE that will actually put them in jail, people.
Oh btw Yzma is a golden example of a likeable non sympathetic villain. The audience knows she is totally evil and pretty much un redeemable but the writers and character designers did such an excellent job of making her so likeable and visually appealing A fucking plus
Kronks redemption arc has yet to be rivaled nothing can ever fucking compare.
OP did u just fucking call Yzma “visually appealing”?????
In terms of character design Yzma is visually appealing, the artists did a great job picking out colours and perfecting her silhouette. Using those design principles, they created an expressive villain that is fun to watch on screen.
op is absolutely right in that observation, good character design is about good use of shapes, curves and angles. Yzma is a fantastic example of that.
A d we can’t sideline Eartha Kitt for literally breathing life into her character to the point of perfection. Yzma was really was an exemplary villain.
This is not history we’re talking about. This is a modern book, written by a modern author, for a modern audience. Modern norms are perfectly appropriate to use here.
Speaking of actual history though. Acknowledging that in the past people used a certain intellectual construct doesn’t mean that Ihave to recapitulate it at every turn when discussing the period. I do not have to accept it as good or right; I have to accept that it was. I have to be able to understand these concepts and how they applied to the social issues of the day. Good practice would involve situating the actions of contemporaries within that context. I’m under no obligation to share those beliefs or to repeat their premises as fact, not in my analysis of the situation. I should also be aware of my own biases in approaching that analysis.
There’s also room for other historians to disagree with my approach, because there’s no one way to conduct the study of history. Ideas about ethics and the role of empathy in the profession differ.
I thought about this a lot in the course of my PhD in history. My dissertation centred around a concept and a cause I strenuously disagree with.
hi okay if you don’t know any hijabis/muslims personally, you might be wondering how it “works” and im here to answer ur questions!!
Q: Do you like.. wear it all the time?? (re: do u shower in it?? do u sleep in it?? when was the last time u sAW UR OWN HAIR??? )
A: Nope! To put it simply, we wear the hijab when we are around strange men. And by strange I mean men who are not directly related to us. That means I can show my hair to women. It also means I don’t have to cover from my brother/father/uncle/grandfather/child. I would have to cover from my male cousins because you can technically marry them (note: this is only one of the reasons we cover! it’s not only to cover from possible suitors lol. Just bc I wouldn’t marry a gay man, doesn’t mean I don’t have to cover from him. The quran says to cover from men and not from women. that’s pretty broad and open for interpretation. I keep it simple for myself- I cover from all men and do not cover from any women, regardless of sexual orientation. This could differ from one hijabi to another). I also would not have to cover from my husband if I were married. Lastly, we don’t have to cover from any young boys who haven’t been “through puberty” yet. I guess it’s up to the individual to decide when that is as well.
Q: It seems kind of sexist to me that men don’t have to wear hijab, but women do…
A: Actually, men have their own hijab. (It’s not the turban you may see some men wearing, they are Sikhs, an entirely different religion.) Men have their own modest dress code to follow and are expected to follow the same rules the women do action-wise. Remember that equal does not have to mean identical. It wouldn’t make sense to ask men to cover their boobs or women to grow beards (we’ll come back to that later).
Q: I always hear about women being forced to wear it… That’s oppression and wrong.
A: I completely agree. “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion” (2/256). That’s taken directly from the Quran. Forcing someone to wear the hijab is a sin. Furthermore, many Muslims believe that hijab is not required/is only preferred/is optional. There’s a lot of interpretation involved in religion. It totally depends on the person and their own beliefs.
They way a Muslim chooses to wear their hijab also differs from person to person. Some women choose to cover their entire body. Some wear abayas (the black dress) and niqabs (the veil that covers the face). Some wear a simple scarf to cover their hair and dress “modestly” (this, again, depends on your interpretation of what modest means). Some just cover their hair. Some show a some of their hair. Some wear turbans. Some dress modestly, but don’t cover their hair. Some only wear it on certain occasions. (more here on the diff types of cover)
For men, some choose to grow beards (many believe this is just “sunnah” which means it is preferred, but not compulsory). Lots of men don’t follow the rules set for them. That can be due to personal beliefs, but I won’t deny the misogyny apparent in the Muslim culture (note: culture, not religion) probably has a lot to do with that.
Q: Do women only wear hijab for religious reasons?
A: No. I mean, that’s probably one of the most prominent reasons women choose to cover their hair, but there are many different factors. In many cultures, hijab is considered a thing of beauty. It’s a fashion statement (for Muslims, we’ll talk about cultural appropriation in a sec). It’s tradition. It’s a part of their identity. It keeps them in-tact with their religion and it identifies them as a Muslim to other Muslims. The reasons are endless, but I think you get the picture.
Q: I heard hijab is just keep men away.
A: As @angrymuslimah put so eloquently: Hijab is not to prevent men from looking at women or “protect them” from men. Hijab is not for men, or to help men control themselves – it’s for women themselves, to empower women. Men in Islam have a responsibility to lower their gaze and respect a woman no matter what she is wearing or what she looks like.
Q: Can women ever take the hijab off for safety reasons? (ie: heat exhaustion/possible attacks by islamophobes)
A: Totally! You’re obviously never supposed to compromise your health for anything, regardless of your religious beliefs. I once got asked if it would be okay for a women to remove her scarf when playing soccer in serious heat and my answer she could if she wanted to (again, she can do wtvr she wants), but playing soccer is optional. there’s a difference between wanting to play soccer and really having your life in danger. If hijabis choose to wear the hijab while playing soccer in 100 degrees, they’re badass and props to them for sticking to it even when it got hard, but that’s kind of the point of hijab. Again though, your health always comes first.
Q: I see hijabis sometimes and I want to compliment them/tell them it’s pretty, but I don’t want to be disrespectful.
A: It’s totally okay to compliment us! Please do! I live for the validation of strangers! For real, though. Just think about it this way, if you can say it to a non-hijabi and not offend her, you can probably say it to a hijabi. You can compliment anyone on their scarf regardless of where it is on their body.
Q: Can I wear the hijab if I’m not Muslim?
A: There is no specific way to wear a hijab. there is no specific fabric. We get our scarves from h&m and forever 21 like everyone else. There is nothing that identifies a hijab as a hijab except the wearer. So if you want to cover your hair for your own religious/personal reasons, you can do it! That doesn’t make it a hijab! The only thing that makes it a hijab is the wearer labeling it as a hijab. As long as you aren’t doing that, you’re not being disrespectful or appropriating our religion. (wearing it out of respect if you’re in a mosque or a predominately muslim country is also okay!)
I would however, advise against wearing it as a fashion statement. It’s not a style or accessory.
/So this got really long and I’m stopping here but I haven’t even really made a dent in the hijabi discourse. If yall have any more questions, you should ask your friendly neighborhood Muslimah! I promise, we won’t be offended, we just want yall to know the truth.
I know everyone wants this drama to get resolved ASAP so things can go back to being fine and dandy but hot damn, I am loving all this tragedy. I’m that bitch that fucking loves Titus Andronicus, Hamlet, and Timon of Athens. I fucking love tragedy and think it’s an incredibly difficult genre to write because some authors can go reeeeally off the rails and make things so atrociously cheesy/overblown that it takes away from the raw horror of it all.
But Yana? Yana is handling OC’s downfall with careful consideration. IMO, the mark of a truly great author is the ability to write both an MC’s rise and an MC’s fall—and honestly? I am loving OC’s rapid descent, the unravelling of his web, the crumbling of his throne.
I think it’s terribly dull reading about some untouchable Gary Stu who’s practically smothered in plot armor/plot convenience…I genuinely believe tragedy brings out the best of any visceral emotion and forcibly claws the protagonist (kicking and screaming if need be) to the revered alter of character growth. It’s probably why tragedy (when done right) can yield masterpieces.
Look say what you want about Lizzie in the latest chapter but if I was 15 years old and had just found out that the last four years of my life was founded entirely on lies I’d be pretty fucking upset too.
She’s coming to terms with terrible flaws in her own character that she never thought she’d have to address. She knows that she would have been happier had r!Ciel returned instead of o!Ciel. Now we as the omnipotent readers know there was more to o!Ciel’s decision than just her relationship with the twins, but she doesn’t. She sees herself as part of the problem. All she knows is that o!Ciel pretended to be r!Ciel and that she knows she would have been happier with r!C’s return. That’s what’s tearing her apart. She recognises that was selfish and horrible and that o!Ciel deserved better than that, whereas all the while she was just focused on her own happiness. She thought it was love, but she never thought of him.
But above all else she thinks everything the cult did was her fault. She didn’t want r!Ciel to die again, so she ignored the terrible things they did. Had o!Ciel never pretended to be his brother then none of it would have happened. And in her grief, in her guilt, she knows that if she’d cherished o!Ciel like he deserved none of this would have happened.
Yes, she was selfish. Yes, she ignored mass murder. And yes, she was fixated on love when there was so much more going on.
But that’s why she’s upset.
Everything was a lie. And the truth was her fault. That’s a lot for a fifteen year old to handle.
So let Lizzie cry. Her redemption arc is coming.
@kuro-von-shitsuji I hope you don’t mind me just adding one thing OP. 🙂 I pretty much agree with everything you say, from her not knowing why our!Ciel took his brother’s identity to considering that she’s the problem in the whole situation.
The full chapter is not out yet, so did Lizzie actually think as an 11 year old kid that she wanted one twin back over the other, or is she considering that she might have (had she known the truth) and the possibility is bothering her (because that would make her ‘cruel’ in her own words), we can’t be sure.
Whichever it is though, she’s crying because she’s blaming herself, which shows that she’s regretting how unfair/selfish she was or could have been towards our!Ciel. Which shows she doesn’t not care about him or his current situation, no matter how conflicted she is between the two boys.
Which implies reflection and redemption, as you said OP! 🙂
Lizzie is 15 years old and growing up is about realizing that your past self was immature and selfish on a lot of points and that you should strive to do better. No one should hold you responsible of things you did or thought when you were a little kid and didn’t know better, unless you show no reassessment, because no one is perfect.
Lizzie is growing up, so if anyone as a reader didn’t like her before (which is your right and all), you should be happy that she is learning and eventually willing to do better. 🙂
interesting that iroh says this to zuko in an episode that deals explicitly with authority brainwashing. also interesting that i’m depressed now!
also interesting that this is the angriest we’ve seen iroh yet, and the closest we’ve come to him calling his brother out.
i mean, sure, some of the anger is obviously him being afraid that his second son nephew will literally stubborn himself to death. but the crux of the argument, the emotional heart, is him pretty much explicitly telling zuko “your father did not do well by you, and it hurt you in the past, and it’s still hurting you now.”
iroh is fucking furious with his brother and at this point he’s barely even hiding it
wait god this makes it so much better when zuko asks if iroh thinks he should try to get along with azula because she’s family and iroh is like “uh no she’s the worst.” it’s like
zuko: you’re gonna tell me that family’s important and i have to love her because she’s my sister, right?
iroh, who is trying to gently help zuko realize that his brother is an absolute moral chemical fire of a human being & doesn’t deserve zuko’s devotion:
Stressed, Depressed, and Story Obsessed 