Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    Pinned
    • Discussion
    The War Room III: From British Invasion to British Implosion
    • HeroOfTime5 wrote:

      Avalanchemike wrote:

      probably mostly true given schumer has rolled over twice like a trained show dog for mcconnell giving trump dozens of judges "so some senators can campaign" as if they can't just fucking go and campaign on their own like ted cruz is.
      Schumer didn’t really have a choice. They are the minority and the GOP can get any justice through that they desire.
      Either Schumer fights a long, futile battle against the nominees and miss a month of campaigning or he can make a deal to fast track the process and get some time to campaign.

      As much as a I love Beto, Cruz has a pretty good chance of winning. I can’t say the same among democrat senators from Red States .
      Of course he had a choice, that's just something apologists say to make excuses. What ever happened to the "resistance", is this resistance? Not only doing nothing to slow down the nomination of these judges, but actually speeding up their nomination so that the usual steps towards confirmation aren't applied. You don't resist your opponent by helping them.

      What Schumer could've done is draw out the process so that each nomination takes as long as he can legally draw it out for, exactly what the Republicans would've done and in fact did do when the Democrats were in office. But as usual in the US there are weak Democrats and strong Republicans, which predictably results in republican victories.
    • Sólsetur wrote:

      fitting that this is the last article Jamal Kashoggi will have published for the Washington Post after the Saudi's executed him

      washingtonpost.com/opinions/gl…ml?utm_term=.cf3ba5e8b98f
      Fitting indeed. The article hit the nail on the head.

      The Saudis rule like a mafia gang. Simply kill the critics without repercussions. Also beheadings every other day, and a couple of months ago a crucifixion.
      But they (or just the crown prince) are idiots for ordering an international assassination on a prominent figure. As sad as this is for Kashoggi and his family, the Streisand effect is in full swing, and the whole world is reading critique on Saudi Arabia. Hopefully it is a step towards freeing the Arab world of 'a thousand years of tyranny' (as Kashoggi put it).

      Unfortunately most prominent countries (Trump) don't want to pick a fight with the Saudis, knowing the financial stakes and that they play hardball.
      With oil prices having decreased massively over the past few years, and the world looking for other sources of energy, I hope the era of ridiculously rich Arabs funding wars/radical groups + foreign powers starting conflicts in the Middle East for financial gain will slowly come to an end.
    • john_marston wrote:

      Meanwhile, Twitter feminists pointing out the real issues, lmao. Won't be surprised if someone lost a job over this too.

      indy100.com/article/sofitel-ho…ge-remove-twitter-8577176
      I hope someone did lose their job over it. It's 2018, there's no excuse for this kind of bullshit.
      PM me about the LGBTA+ discord server | #WontBeErased

      gender of the moment: | pronouns: it/its
    • Imo the advert is just lazy, dumb stereotyping with 0 effort. I seriously doubt this was malicious but I hope somebody was reprimanded and will be educated about what they did wrong and so they won't do it again. It kinda defeats a lot if we're still seen as, and portrayed, as baby ovens that just knit and cook and buy shoes.

      Though I'm not sure why this is being brought up, its nearly a month ago now? I remember discussing this and the company has responded, they apologized, pulled the advert, and hopefully they learned their lesson. Are we just finding anything to say "lul feminism" to or something...? Next are we going to get hit by some like, "meanwhile feminists are tying themselves to trees to get the right to vote *links to an article from 1910* lul feminists right??"
      :: makes the :3 face a lot ::





      The post was edited 3 times, last by Mercedes ().

    • Honestly its the Financial Review paper that sticks out like a sore thumb and makes the picture look dumb (as well as questioning the motives behind it). It'd be alright maybe if he was just reading like a car magazine and her the fashion one, cause then at least the tone would be consistent of a couple relaxing in bed and enjoying their interests, but shoving "super-serious, look-how-important this looks" newspaper into the guy's doesn't even fit in with what they picture seems to be going for. And who the fuck reads newspapers anymore anyway.

      But yeah, this is also several weeks old and the discussion over it has long ended, so bringing this up now is kind of pointless.
    • Friends, I'll be honest.

      I don't get the outrage behind the picture.

      Without context, I can't glean anything from the two people in the picture. The guy's holding a copy of the Financial Review...so what? That doesn't make him some economic mastermind. If all it takes is a few quarters to obtain a copy of that newspaper, anyone could procure one and read it. That doesn't speak to their understanding of financial matters or success in the field.

      The woman reading that [what is apparently a] fashion magazine -- we don't know anything about her. She might just think the outfits are pretty (which wouldn't be a bad thing in any way, shape, or form, as I'll get into in the next paragraph). She also might be a successful fashion designer doing research. She might be a talent scout looking for the next individual to bring under her renowned wing. She might be one of the designers or models involved in the work showcased in that magazine!

      Even if the optics of the picture truly are as they appear at their most basic--the guy taking interest in economics, the woman in fashion--that doesn't make the woman's interests or intellect shallow. Not by a long shot. The guy having a passion for finance doesn't inherently make him more intelligent or more successful. To me, looking at this picture and immediately interpreting it as disrespectful to women is sort of a baseless association that "economics are for more thoughtful people, while fashion is for simpler minds", and, if anything, that association is demeaning to the fashion industry and the women who take great interest in.

      I don't need to do extensive polling to be confident that there are many, many couples where the man has a passion for economics, while the woman has a passion for clothing, makeup, etc. That doesn't determine how insightful they are.

      I get that we want to (and need to) break the stigma of certain interests only being normal for specific sexes, but I don't think this image, on its own, purports that, and I think that taking umbrage with it indirectly purports the unfounded stigma that a particular interest determines your intellect or worth in society.

      I'm published! Check out -
      THE LEGEND OF LIGHT
      Book One, The Echoes of Light, available in Paperback and on Kindle - Book 2 out late 2018
      Read the first five chapters for free
    • She's holding a coffee table book. They're essentially picture books for adults; meant to drawn the eye as an aesthetic or be a conversation piece. They're not truly meant for reading.


      “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
      ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

    • I think what the issue is here, from my limited point of view, is that the idea of the woman being into fashion/clothing, typical “women” things, while the man being into finances, suit and tie job, which is associated with success per historical advertising, is a structure we’ve seen almost exclusively for a very very very very very long time. And because it’s something so normal, it’s barely been recognized until women have pointed it out as we try to change the norm. There’s no balance. If advertisements had a diverse range of women depictions in the past, I don’t think having this advertisement thrown in the mix would be as bothersome because it wouldn’t be yet another ad featuring an old and outdated structure. Because Mirren- it’s true. That ad does accurately represent some people and families. I certainly would be enjoying her book as I love aesthetics and fashion and honestly finances are completely over my head. But this type of advertising- which seems harmless, is a subtle reinforcement that this is still the default structure norm people refer to when trying to promote products. It’s not completely unequal- but it does feed into some steoerotypes. And yes, peoples mindsets should change if they’re thinking she’s not as successful or intelligent as him based on the books they’re reading- but a lot of these mindsets have come from suggestive advertising and forced steoerotyping which have subconsciously influenced our buy-in of those ideas. If we can change advertising and try to break certain stereotypes, it can hopefully get people’s mindsets to change along with that.

      At least that’s my opinion on the matter.


      "Defense against the dark farts, am I right?" -Pennington
      | This spot reserved for Dark Link Reigns |


    • nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/poli…ation-sex-definition.html

      This just makes me so angry, not only is it non-scientific, it's downright autocratic. I'm so fed up of people dictating what I can or cannot do with my body. I have a lot to say about this but I'm afraid it would get me banned from Zelda Universe because none of it is nice.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Mozly Alice ().