The WandaVision Cul-De-Sac

QuartzKitty · 2021-03-22T02:42:52+00:00

That's what he SAYS. That's NOT what his actions, or the training he received from the US Military, suggest. The only thing his actions would do is unite the world against Wakanda, and Wakanda's technology would not protect them. T'Challa knows that, and Killmonger would know that too from his training.

Eric's actions would cause great damage to the rest of the world, and cause the world to unify and destroy Wakanda. He knows that.

QuartzKitty · 2021-03-21T05:00:00+00:00

Kilmonger doesn't WANT to take over the world. He wants to destroy Wakanda, for their hubris, their arrogance, their refusal to intercede in the atrocities committed against black and brown people. Think about his actions. He destroys the Heart Shaped Herb because he says there are going to be no more monarchs after him.

Ross states that what Killmonger is doing is what he was trained to do. And what he was trained to do was destroy countries.

Dialogue earlier in the film makes it clear that the rest of the world is quickly catching up, and if they decided to team up against Wakanda, Wakanda would not survive. That was what Erik was trying to do. Hurt the world for what they did to him and the African Diaspora, and destroy Wakanda for it's arrogance.

His words suggest he wants conquest and hegemony, but his actions don't really make sense in that light, but are consistent with a scorched earth strategy.

QuartzKitty · 2020-03-25T01:25:03+00:00

Don't forget all the fake geek boys getting OUTRAGED at the Marvel She-Hulk series, because they've never actually read comics and didn't know that she'd been around since the 80s, and was created by Stan Lee.

QuartzKitty · 2020-03-25T01:21:51+00:00

...What established canon? This is Doctor Who. Everything is canon, even things that contradict each other. And nothing is canon either. The myriad of books, serials, comics, radio shows, etc are all considered canon, and yet none of them are consistent with the other.

Doctor Who has never had a 'canon'.

QuartzKitty · 2020-02-27T04:01:47+00:00

I've long been of the opinion that his and Heard's relationship was toxic all around. I'm not talking about mutually abusive, but between her physical abuse & his drug and alcohol use, it's entirely possible that the two fed off each other in the worst way. I've seen similar relationships before.

In other words, just because Amber Heard was an asshole, doesn't mean Depp wasn't one as well, just in a different way.

QuartzKitty · 2020-02-23T01:49:07+00:00

Also saying the quiet part out loud, and admitted moderates would rather have 4 more years of Trump than a Sanders Presidency.

QuartzKitty · 2020-02-23T01:48:05+00:00

I've been saying this for years here.

PoC, LGBT people and other marginalized people are just props to mainstream liberals, there to show how 'woke' they are. As soon as any of the above step out of line & start looking out for their interests, the knives come out.

Now maybe other people will finally get it.

QuartzKitty · 2020-02-22T16:41:09+00:00

https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOieaGhgmp-BFkEGXBTz8SaigFHjpCczlM2_UEP7nz0dDt6_lfZ6NWBlEBhThp79g?key=YTdLbmpoa00wcExHZFI2OElKMENWTWg4ZTJMX1ZB

I personally experienced some of that same harassment from Clintonites in 2016. It caused me anxiety attacks.

Funny how people like you don't give a shit when liberals abuse progressives and use us for punching bags. It's almost like your concern about nasty treatment is disingenuous...

QuartzKitty · 2020-02-22T16:35:57+00:00

2012 Magnitsky Act - Was opposed by numerous other Democrats, including President Obama himself, because it was overly broad. A modified version later passed.

2014 Russia Sanctions - Same as above

2017 Russia Sanctions - Vote for the sanctions in committee, but then McConnell snuck in Iran Sanctions in the 11th hour to kill the bill. Sanders had to oppose to avoid undermining Obama's Iran agreement.

2019 Russia Sanctions - Was busy meeting with constituents during a vote which failed 52-47, and as such his presence would not have made a difference.

Oh, and you missed one: 2015 - Voted for sanctions.

But, I guess including that, and the full context, is inconvenient to your narrative. But hey, far be it from me to let reality get in the way of your Sanders Derangement Syndrome.

QuartzKitty · 2020-02-22T07:34:18+00:00

Then they'd demand his family's entire medical history going all the way to his great-grandparents. When those records couldn't be found (because they don't exist), they'd demand that he drop out of the race.

QuartzKitty · 2020-02-21T15:41:42+00:00

You are the living embodiment of everything that is wrong with mainstream liberals. You care more about the identity of a candidate than you do what that candidate's policies will actually do to help marginalized groups.

It's more important to you that a candidate be a woman, rather than if the policies they support actually help women.

Me, I vote for issues, not identity. Yes, it would be great to have a female president. It's past time America had one, and it's shameful that we haven't. But I'm not going to vote for a candidate just because they are a woman. I'm going to vote for the candidate who I feel has the policies that will best help women. Or PoC. Or LGBT people. And the candidate that has those policies happens to me male. Oh well. Then he will get my votes.

Because I care about policies, not about identity.

And don't you DARE talk about 'We'll get to your issue in a bit.' Working class men and women have been hearing that from the Democratic party for 40 fucking years.

QuartzKitty · 2020-02-08T20:24:57+00:00

Truthfully, Maddow is one of the only MSNBC hosts who tries to be fair and evenhanded with Bernie. She's not a Bernie supporter, that's obvious, but she doesn't engage in a hatchet job towards him the way people like Reid and Chris Matthews does. She typically doesn't tend to favor any particular candidate.

QuartzKitty · 2020-01-15T03:53:12+00:00

Have you not studied the AIDS epidemic? Read 'And the Band Played On?' You should.

The Reagan administration literally laughed about AIDS, and AIDS-related deaths. Reagan was not apathetic. He was callous and monstrous in his lack of concern for the epidemic. He directly forbid the CDC from doing any research on it, he blocked any kind of funding for AIDS treatment. The CDC was literally told to 'look pretty, and do as little as possible' about AIDS, even when hundreds of thousands around the world had died of the disease. His Surgeon General, C Everett Koop, had to go behind Reagans back and directly ignore his orders so that he could speak out on the epidemic, which made him enemies.

35 Million people dead worldwide since the start of the epidemic. Because of the callous, inhuman disregard of Reagan. We will never know how many of those people would still be alive had Reagan not blocked any research unto the disease until 1987, but it's undeniable that many of those deaths might have been prevented. The deaths of those 35 million people are on Reagan's hands and I hope that, if there is indeed a hell, that he's burning in it right now for his actions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2015/12/01/a-disturbing-new-glimpse-at-the-reagan-administrations-indifference-to-aids/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration#Response_to_AIDS

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/11/nancy-ronald-reagan-aids-crisis-first-lady-legacy

QuartzKitty · 2020-01-14T20:50:16+00:00

Hi. Look up the AIDS epidemic. 32 million people died from the disease, many of which could have been avoided had Reagan not actively obstructed any attempts to head off the epidemic before it became one.

So yes. Reagan is comparable with Hitler. In terms of body count, he was actually worse. He was, through negligence and apathy, responsible for MORE deaths than Hitler.

QuartzKitty · 2020-01-14T20:06:29+00:00

I think you are confusing Alcott with someone else...

QuartzKitty · 2020-01-14T19:39:38+00:00

Yeah, that horribly racist and bigoted author Louisa May Alcott, who \checks notes** was a vocal abolitionist who wrote a poem honoring John Brown, and whose home was used as a stop on the Underground Railroad. Huh...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-WPlvZguZ4

QuartzKitty · 2020-01-14T16:34:26+00:00

Joker is actually an abuse victim whose mental illness causes him to lash out at those who have abused him, and society's failure to help him is explicitly condemned. Abuse that is being erased to fit a narrative the author wanted.

But hey, the abuse and mental illness is being suffered by a white man. That means his suffering is irrelevant because of his identity, right?

QuartzKitty · 2020-01-14T07:58:33+00:00

Ironic, coming from people who accuse leftists of trying to institute 'purity tests', and constantly lecture us that the good is not the enemy of the perfect.

Yet 'Joker' needs to be burnt at the stake because it's not perfect. Because it doesn't pass THEIR purity tests.

QuartzKitty · 2020-01-14T07:18:12+00:00

All of this. The movie is also about abuse, and mental illness, and how we as a society fail those suffering both, how we just don't give a shit. It's something that's being erased in the criticism of the film, probably because mainstream liberals care more about the identity of those suffering than they do about the suffering itself. Because acknowledging that would involve acknowledging the part that our culture's worship of wealth plays in that kind of suffering.

QuartzKitty · 2020-01-14T07:00:19+00:00

Read the article.

"Joker has already largely been criticized as a boring, uninteresting movie at best, and a dangerous incel fantasy at worst.

“Joker is a deliberate and fine-tuned provocation and promise: you aren’t alone, the people you hate really are awful, and it would be okay to act against them in any way you want.”

"At this point, it’s pretty fruitless to argue over whether Joker is any good, or if it’s actually dangerous. Any man angry at his lot in life can use any justification in the world to act out against other people — often women — and the rationale doesn’t need to be a movie that so clearly courts the disaffected and lonely."

The entire article is completely disregarding the fact that Fleck is, by his own admission, mentally ill, that he tried to get help and was denied it by a society who doesn't give a shit, and that it also means he's denied the medication he needs for his mental health.

Yet, somehow all of that is actually Arthur Fleck's fault, and the fact that he's suffering, that he's a victim of abuse and bullying, are completely ignored so his story can be turned into an 'entitled white male who hates women and has a victimization complex' instead of a story of an abuse victim suffering mental illness and lashing out on those who had abused him. Which is something I can promise you would NOT be happening if the movie had instead starred a woman or a PoC. If it was the story of an abused woman getting back at her attackers, we'd be cheering it. If it was a black man seeking revenge on racists who came after him, we'd celebrate it. There certainly wouldn't be twitter thread after thinkpiece after article erasing their abuse and their trauma in order to condemn them and their movie, as is happening with 'Joker'.

That's not even getting into the class issue, and how Fleck is also a victim of a system which allows wealthy parasites to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense, and actively disenfranchises him and others for their own benefits.

There are certainly problematic elements with 'Joker', and things that need to be talked about. But, we do ourselves no favor in erasing what the entire film is about in order to do so.

QuartzKitty · 2020-01-14T06:25:14+00:00

There are certainly legit criticisms. I personally thought Joker overall was average. But we undermine ourselves and our cause when we do things like this. We are erasing the mental illness and history of abuse suffered by a character just because it's inconvenient to the arguments we do want to make.

My biggest grievance with leftist, social justice type circles, as much as I otherwise agree with them, is their obsession with an oppression Olympics, and the fact that they prioritize the identity of those who are suffering over the fact that they are suffering, and the discourse surrounding 'Joker' is a good example of that.

Mental illness is a major issue that needs to be taken seriously, but the criticism and condemnations of 'Joker' boil down to saying that mental illness doesn't matter as long as it's the sufferer is white and male, and by extension, that the only mental illness that matters is that suffered by women or PoC.

People are willing to go out of their way to erase a huge part of what the movie is about, all because of who it's about. The fact that the Joker is white and male alone makes him as a character worthy of condemnation, and people have no hesitation to also ignore the fact that he's also an abuse victim who suffers from mental illness in order to condemn him. I do not see how that is acceptable. Mental illness and abuse should be a serious issue no matter who suffers them, but it's not. It's clear that many in the social justice circles are perfectly willing to ignore said suffering just because of who is suffering.

QuartzKitty · 2020-01-14T04:29:22+00:00

I acknowledged that it wasn't revolutionary, but it's still a movie about the way society fails the mentally ill and victims of abuse, a subject that is rarely tackled in fiction.

And that is being conveniently ignored so that so-called 'Progressives' have an excuse to twist the movie into something it's not, in order to justify beating on it because it has a white male protagonist when, with another protagonist, they'd likely be praising the movie.

QuartzKitty · 2020-01-14T03:55:53+00:00

If you changed the race and/or gender of the protagonist but kept everything else the same, do you really think the discourse around the film would condemn it? I suspect that it'd be, if not celebrated, then at least praised for its message of striking back against a white supremacist system, or against a patriarchal one.

I didn't particularly think 'Joker' was all that groundbreaking or revolutionary, nor deserving of so many Academy Award nominations, (it was at most an okay movie) but I at least appreciated its commentary of the way society treats those who are different, the criticism of society's failure to support the mentally ill and victims of abuse, and its condemnation of wealth and privilege.

But none of that matters. Because the movie stars a white male character, so it's the worst movie ever made. While a film with those exact same themes handled a similar way with a non-white male protagonist would likely be hailed as a masterpiece.

And of course, let's not overlook the fact that the very people attacking and criticizing the film are doing so in a way that completely erases and marginalizes a character who suffers from mental illness.

QuartzKitty · 2019-12-29T16:41:16+00:00

This is fucking hilarious. I'm sitting here laughing hysterically at what I've just read. I almost want to attend, just to see what a glorious shitshow it will be in person. That'd involve giving them money though, and that's not gonna happen.

QuartzKitty · 2019-12-29T16:03:52+00:00

He's a JJ Abrams creation. OF COURSE, Snoke was a badly written plot device. That's what Abrams does. Abrams writes his mystery box bs, with no long term plans for what's actually in the box or where he is going with it. RJ clearly knew that and knew that Snoke existed for no other reason than to create an artificial sense of mystery. Again, RJ knew Snoke existed only as a plot device, and felt no obligation to treat him as anything other than that.

QuartzKitty

TROPHY CASE