Eddie’s ex girlfriend is lovely and all, but she deserves that really sweet doctor she met, who just wanted to help Eddie and was never an asshole to him.
I am firmly behind Venom and Eddie going on a double date with them but I disagree with Sony’s little no homo “we’ll get her back” line.
Sony is usually garbage at making movies, but it at least tries it’s best to make that sweet money, and I’m telling you execs at Sony, 2018, and whatever year you release the next movie, monster fucking is the new hip trend for kids these days.
You go all the fuck in next time, no dancing around the obvious symbiote Brock love fest in the room.
It’s what Tom Hardy wants, it’s what the people want, for once in your life, give the people what they want and go balls to the wall.
If Deadpool can do it, and be defiant of marvel’s LGBT erasure, then venom can do it, let’s go.
Don’t push Anne out of her good relationship for your “no homo” shit Sony. Let Brock and Venom be in love cowards.
And let’s be honest, Brock is a goddamn mess.
Anne is well adjusted and has a well adjusted and nice boyfriend who does the right thing, and isn’t bitter or jealous. He genuinely worries about Eddie’s wellbeing even though thats his girlfriend’s ex because he’s just that nice of a guy.
Anne is a good friend and a good emotional support, she doesn’t need to be his girlfriend to help him.
Besides Brock is like that weird ex boyfriend who went off the rails and ate live lobsters in the lobster tank of a fancy restaurant.
He needs a ride or die weird boyfriend who’s all about that life.
At most I can imagine Anne just doing the thing where she’s like listen he a messy bitch but he’s still my friend cuz he’s just That Messy Bitch Friend of mine.
I also want to point out that Brock living with Venom reminded me of a person living with the effects of a mental illness and trying his best not to hurt any of the people around him.
I think Anne loves him, but should not have to deal with the emotional burden of “fixing” Brock, when she’s got her own life to live and a boyfriend who offers her the emotional support SHE needs.
So I am pro Anne getting what she needs and pro Brock getting what he needs…
Which in universe, is befriending the symbiote living in his body.
Anyone else tired of the 3 guy 1 girl character setup in literally every movie ever?
It’s because at roughly that ratio is where men feel that men and women are represented equally.
There was a study done and when there was 1:1 male/female the male audiences felt as though there were more too many women. In general the men studied perceived things like 3 guys to 1 girl as more representative of the world.
That disgusts me.
There have also been studies in which it was found that men think women talk much more than they actually do – if they have to share equal air time with a woman they think they’re not getting a word in edgewise.
Imagine being so used to privilege and prioritization to think that the equal treatment of others is an unfairness to you.
peter parker, expressing his affection as any teen would: thor i would die for you 🙂
thor, gripping his shoulders with the intensity of ten thousand burning suns: i would never let that happen
peter parker, later that week: i would die for you loki
loki, looking him dead in the eye: you will.
drax: [really bad joke]
peter parker: mr. drax? I would die for you
drax, with a pause spent determining that peter is probably joking and then a hearty guffaw: but my muscles and fighting power is several times your own! your death would be meaningless!
peter parker, in the middle of battle with no regard for his own safety: i would die for you
t’challa, who has lived with shuri long enough to know exactly what answer peter is looking for: then perish
Peter parker, jumping in front of steve: i would die for you mr. rodgers
Steven Grant Rodgers, a known idiot, somersaulting over peter: not if i die for you first
Peter Parker, one night over dinner: I would die for you aunt may
Aunt May, a worried mess and 100% done with this shit: not if you’re grounded for life you won’t
Peter Parker, out of the blue: I would die for you
ppl are so annoying “you can’t paint ur bedroom pink you’re an adult” i did not spend my entire life waiting to grow up and control my life to paint my bedroom beige
I had a sales woman in furniture store try and tell me not to buy a hot bubblegum pink loveseat because she wanted me to “think about the future”
Bitch, I am thinking about the future. I already got a hot bubblegum pink couch at home and now I need a loveseat to go with it.
when I first bought my house, I announced my decision to paint my bedroom purple. I had wanted a purple bedroom for thirty damn years, you fucking bet I was gonna have one now. My friends decided, for some reason, that I meant what one of them referred to as “14 year old girl purple” (through what’s wrong with the colors a 14 year old girl chooses, I don’t know, even if they’re not what I want as an adult). They didn’t believe me until they saw the color on the actual wall, even thought they helped me pick out paints. My mother, meanwhile, decided to get worried that if I painted my bedroom a “dark purple”, it would be “depressing”. As if, with an entire house to live in, I would spend all my time in the bedroom, which I wanted to be dark because I would be sleeping in there. In the damn dark.
I had like one, maybe two friends who were all like FUCK YEAH YOU PAINT IT WHATEVER COLOR YOU WANT, PURPLE BEDROOMS ARE AWESOME.
But when they actualy saw the finished bedroom, every single one of them was like, “Oh yeah, that’s really pretty.” (Well, the ones who supported me from the beginning were more like WOOHOO.)
And the moral of the story is: Fuck ‘em, please yourself. Either they’ll come around, or you can safely ignore every question of taste they opine about for the rest of time.
This applies to other adulting activities, too. When I was a kid, I decided that I wanted to have a wedding cake made of doughnuts. When I got older, I figured that I would be “mature” about it and get a traditional cake, which the older adults approved of. Now that I’m 25 and facing the possibility of actual marriage in the near future, I’m just like “marriage is a social construct but it comes with tax & insurance benefits, so just give me that goddamn doughnut cake.” If they don’t like it then they don’t have to come to my wedding.
If nearly a decade interviewing the wealth managers for the 1% taught me anything, it is that the ultra-rich and the ultra-poor have a lot more in common than stereotypes might lead you to believe.
In conversation, wealth managers kept coming back to the flamboyant vices of their clients. It was quite unexpected, in the course of discussing tax avoidance, to hear professional service providers say things like:
“I’ve told my colleagues: ‘If I ever become like some of our clients, shoot me.’ Because they are really immoral people – too much time on their hands, and all the money means they have no limits. I was actually told by one client not to bring my wife on a trip to Monaco unless I wanted to see her get hit on by 10 guys. The local sport, he said, was picking up other men’s wives.”
The clients of this Geneva-based wealth manager also “believe that they are descended from the pharaohs, and that they were destined to inherit the earth”.
If a poor person voiced such beliefs, he or she might well be institutionalized; for those who work with the wealthy, however, such “eccentricities” are all in a day’s work. Indeed, an underappreciated irony of accelerating economic inequality has been the way it has exposed behaviors among the ultra-rich that mirror the supposed “pathologies” of the ultra-poor.
In fact, one of the London-based wealth managers I interviewed said that a willingness to accept with equanimity behavior that would be considered outrageous in others was an informal job requirement. Clients, he said, specifically chose wealth managers not just on technical competence, but on their ability to remain unscandalized by the private lives of the ultra-rich: “They [the clients] have to pick someone they want to know everything about them: about Mother’s lesbian affairs, Brother’s drug addiction, the spurned lovers bursting into the room.” Many of these clients are not employed and live off family largesse, but no one calls them lazy.
As Lane and Harburg put it in the libretto of the musical Finian’s Rainbow:
When a rich man doesn’t want to work
He’s a bon vivant, yes, he’s a bon vivant
But when a poor man doesn’t want to work
He’s a loafer, he’s a lounger
He’s a lazy good for nothing, he’s a jerk
When the wealthy are revealed to be drug addicts, philanderers, or work-shy, the response is – at most – a frisson of tabloid-level curiosity, followed by a collective shrug.
Behaviors indulged in the rich are not just condemned in the poor, but used as a justification to punish them, denying them access to resources that keep them alive, such as healthcare and food assistance. Discussion of poverty has become almost impossible without moral outrage directed at lazy “welfare queens”, “crackheads” and other drug addicts, and the “promiscuous poor” (a phrase that has cropped up again and again in discussions of public benefits over more than a century).
These disparate perceptions aren’t just evidence of hypocrisy; they are literally a matter of life and death. In the US, the widespread belief that the poor are simply lazy has led many states to impose work requirements on aid recipients –even those who have been medically classified as disabled. Limiting aid programs in this way has been shown to shorten recipients’ lives: rather than the intended consequence of pushing recipients into paid employment, the restrictions have simply left them without access to medical care or a sufficient food supply. Thus, in one of the richest counties in America, a boy living in poverty died of a toothache; there were no protests, and nothing changed.
Meanwhile, the “billionaire” in the White House starts his days at 11am – the rest of the morning is coyly termed “executive time” – and is known for his frequent holidays. “Nice work if you can get it,” quipped an opinion piece in the Washington Post.
We don’t hear much about laziness, drug addiction or promiscuity among the wealthiest members of society because – unlike Trump – most billionaires are not public figures and go to great lengths to seek privacy. Thus the motto of one London-based wealth management firm: “I want to be invisible.” This company, like many other service providers to the ultra-rich, specializes in preserving secrecy for clients. The wealthy people I studied not only had wealth managers but often dedicated staff members who killed negative stories about them in the media and kept their names off the Forbes “rich list”.
Many even present themselves as homeless – for tax purposes – despite owning multiple residences. For the ultra-rich, having no fixed residence provides major legal and financial advantages; this is exemplified by the case of the wealthy businessman who acquired eight different nationalities in order to avoid taxes on his fortune, and by the UK native I interviewed in his Dubai apartment building:
“I am not tax resident anywhere. The tax man says ‘show me a utility bill’, and the only utility bill I can present is for the house I own in Thailand, and it’s in a language that the European authorities aren’t familiar with. With all the mobility going on in the world, international marriages, governments can’t keep up with people.”
Meanwhile, the poor can end up being “resident nowhere” because no one will allow them to stay in one place for very long; as the sociologist Cristobal Young has shown, the majority of migrants are poor people. In addition, the poor are routinely evicted from housing on the slightest pretext, frequently driving them into homeless shelters – which are in turn forced to move when local homeowners engage in nimby (not in my back yard) protests. Even the design of public spaces is increasingly organized to deny the poor a place to alight, however temporarily.
It is as if the right to move around, to take up space, and to direct your own life as you see fit have become luxury goods, available to those who can pay instead of being human rights. For the rich, deviance from social norms is nearly consequence-free, to the point where outright criminality is tolerated: witness the collective shrug that greeted revelations of massive intergenerational tax fraud in the Trump family.
For the poor, however, even the most minor deviance from others’ expectations – like buying ice cream or soft drinks with food stamps – results in stigmatization, limits on their autonomy, and deprivation of basic human needs. This makes life far more nasty, brutish and short for those on the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder, creating a chasm of more than 20 years in life expectancy between rich and poor. This appears to some as a fully justified consequence of “personal responsibility” – the poor deserve to die because of their moral failings.
So while the behavior of the ultra-rich gets an ever-widening scope of social leeway, the lives of the poor are foreshortened in every sense. Once upon a time, they were urged to eat cake; now the cake earns them a public scolding.
you can freeze whole ginger if you want – make grating it a bit easier, and it lasts longer
do not mess around with the expiry dates on meat. Food poisoning is no one’s friend.
You can freeze hard or semi-hard cheese if you need to – once you thaw it, however, semi-hard cheese (like cheddar) tends to crumble easier.
If you’re worried about your bread going stale, my trick is to freeze the loaf as soon as you get it home, then using the bread from frozen. It’s easier to make sandwiches for lunch from frozen bread, and any bread slice will thaw quickly on the counter when you’re ready to eat (and it retains freshness)
If you’re a young person like myself (I’m still claiming that for now), then you’re probably not in the habit of reviewing everyone who will be on your local ballot during an election. In fact, for most of my adult life I only cared about the presidency and sometimes the house and senate. I’ve only become increasingly interested in politics in the last few years. So I don’t blame anyone for not being very informed about candidates that aren’t making the news.
That being said, I’ve learned that my lack of interest is a large part of why I don’t see the changes I’ve been so passionate about since I was a teen. I knew what I wanted to happen, but the truth is that I didn’t understand how to make it happen. One of the ways we can do this is by paying more attention to our state and local elections.
Let me tell you about two positions that make a huge difference in your community, yet they usually run unopposed. Your local sheriff and DA are incredibly important in shaping your community and dispensing justice or injustice.
The District Attorney especially has an amazing spectrum of powers that include being able to pick and choose who to prosecute and how harshly. Why do police keep getting away with murdering black men and kids on camera? The DA. If we can elect progressive DAs then we can curb racial prejudice in the justice system, harsh sentencing for low offensive, especially traffic tickets and other minor ordinances, and so many reforms that are needed. Bottom line, paying attention to both of these positions will make a big difference.
Other positions such as your state governor and state legislature effect you directly and are the people most likely to create or ruin job opportunities for your industry. Pay attention to these people. At least get a brief overview so you know who you’re voting for.
Let’s show up this November in mass numbers, because this is the most important midterm election in a long time, and the 2020 election may be the most important of your lifetime.
べんきょうしなければならない 