🔥 | Latest

Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano @Alyssa_Milano Follow Ns NEWS MARIJU 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018 MAKEMAT 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes 主与玉丰丰 -- libertarirynn: vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt. At least I have a good argument. And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker. We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit. A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. Your counterargument is…insults. You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.  If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug. Another person who just insults and doesnt read. The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. “I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. “maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now? Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution. What she said ^ Also forcing people into legal slavery by arresting and imprisoning them for victimless crimes sure as shit sounds like persecution to me.
Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano
 @Alyssa_Milano
 Follow
 Ns
 NEWS
 MARIJU
 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018
 MAKEMAT
 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes
 主与玉丰丰
 --
libertarirynn:

vaporwavevocap:

cheshireinthemiddle:
napoleonbonerfarte:


cheshireinthemiddle:

pseudopupil:


cheshireinthemiddle:

hardboiledoldman:


cheshireinthemiddle:


hardboiledoldman:


cheshireinthemiddle:
But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. 
You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt.


At least I have a good argument. 
And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. 


A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker.
We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit.


A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. 
Your counterargument is…insults. 
You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. 
If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). 
And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. 

You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.
 If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug.


Another person who just insults and doesnt read. 
The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. 
If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. 
You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. 
The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. 
“I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. 

“maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now?


Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. 
There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. 
If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. 

It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution.

What she said ^

Also forcing people into legal slavery by arresting and imprisoning them for victimless crimes sure as shit sounds like persecution to me.

libertarirynn: vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardb...

Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano @Alyssa_Milano Follow Ns NEWS MARIJU 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018 MAKEMAT 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes 主与玉丰丰 -- vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt. At least I have a good argument. And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker. We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit. A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. Your counterargument is…insults. You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.  If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug. Another person who just insults and doesnt read. The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. “I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. “maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now? Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution. What she said ^
Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano
 @Alyssa_Milano
 Follow
 Ns
 NEWS
 MARIJU
 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018
 MAKEMAT
 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes
 主与玉丰丰
 --
vaporwavevocap:

cheshireinthemiddle:
napoleonbonerfarte:


cheshireinthemiddle:

pseudopupil:


cheshireinthemiddle:

hardboiledoldman:


cheshireinthemiddle:


hardboiledoldman:


cheshireinthemiddle:
But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. 
You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt.


At least I have a good argument. 
And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. 


A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker.
We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit.


A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. 
Your counterargument is…insults. 
You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. 
If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). 
And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. 

You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.
 If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug.


Another person who just insults and doesnt read. 
The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. 
If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. 
You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. 
The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. 
“I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. 

“maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now?


Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. 
There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. 
If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. 

It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution.

What she said ^

vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: c...

Crime, Jail, and My House: uncleromeo when I was 11, my (black) neighbor witnessed my house being broken into. she called the police to report the crime. I came home from school and the robber was still inside. I personally watched as a man I didnt know walked out of my home with our stuff. the police didnt show up for 3 days. when they did, they told us there was nothing the could do because we "staged the house". they claimed we hid our tv's and valuables to make it look like more was actually stolen. they never asked for a description, never visited the neighbor who saw the break-in, anf as they left, they told us that stolen property is almost never recovered and we should "buy more and get on with [our] lives" when I was 23, I was dog-sitting for a (white) friend. her neighbor called the police and said there was a strange black man in her yard. the police showed up in 5 minutes. 6 units, 12 officers, stormed the back yard as I was running around with the dog. some came through the house and I know for a fact that the front door was locked. they damaged around $5000 worth of property, took her dog to the pound, and me to jail. my friend had to cut her trip short and drive 4 hours back to get me from jail and explain to police in person that she knew me. because "that could be anybody on the phone". the neighbor was with her when she came. we had met several times before. she was neither embarrassed nor apologetic. moral of the story? too many of us have lived this. too many of us didn't survive. Wow
Crime, Jail, and My House: uncleromeo
 when I was 11, my (black) neighbor witnessed my house being broken into.
 she called the police to report the crime. I came home from school and the
 robber was still inside. I personally watched as a man I didnt know walked out
 of my home with our stuff.
 the police didnt show up for 3 days.
 when they did, they told us there was nothing the could do because we
 "staged the house". they claimed we hid our tv's and valuables to make it look
 like more was actually stolen. they never asked for a description, never visited
 the neighbor who saw the break-in, anf as they left, they told us that stolen
 property is almost never recovered and we should "buy more and get on with
 [our] lives"
 when I was 23, I was dog-sitting for a (white) friend. her neighbor called the
 police and said there was a strange black man in her yard.
 the police showed up in 5 minutes.
 6 units, 12 officers, stormed the back yard as I was running around with the
 dog. some came through the house and I know for a fact that the front door
 was locked. they damaged around $5000 worth of property, took her dog to
 the pound, and me to jail.
 my friend had to cut her trip short and drive 4 hours back to get me from jail
 and explain to police in person that she knew me. because "that could be
 anybody on the phone". the neighbor was with her when she came. we had
 met several times before. she was neither embarrassed nor apologetic.
 moral of the story?
 too many of us have lived this. too many of us didn't survive.
Wow

Wow

Hello, Internet, and Ironic: TYPOGRAPHICAL TONE OF VOICE 145 when did tumblr collectively decide not to use unctuation like when did this happen why is this a thing it iust looks so smooth I mean look at this sentence flow like a jungle river The popularity of this and similar posts both confirms that the describing a phenomenon widely recognized by fellow posters were neers and helped acculturate new users into the norms of the plat- form, such as signaling that a question is rhetorical or ironic by ask- ing it without a question mark. Ruhl cites another self-referential, widely shared, multiauthored post, this time from 2016. At first glance, it seems like it's primarily emphasis, but those examples example of different kinds of an interspersed in a neutral, minimal- are ist carrier sentence: i think it's really Cool how there are so many ways to express emphasis Completely different it's #wild TM on tumblr and they're all. #EmphasisTM WHAT HAVE YOU DONE The hashtagged, initial-capped, space-stretched, trademarked HEmphasisTM is a break in the system: it's got too many things ng on at once to be interpretable as more than a joke. But the reply all-capped WHAT HAVE YOU DONE, is simultaneously emphatic and minimalist: it signals strong feeling from the all caps and a rhe- torical question from the question syntax without a question mark. lumblr users were pography, but it wasn't just a Tumblr thing: it also started flourishing particularly self-reflexive about minimalist ty- allthingslinguistic: hi hello alert so that classic tumblr flowing jungle river post is now cited in a real book like an actual paper book and it’s called because internet and it’s all about the evolution of internet language and how TUMBLR DID THE THING and you can get it here
Hello, Internet, and Ironic: TYPOGRAPHICAL TONE OF VOICE 145
 when did tumblr collectively decide not to use
 unctuation like when did this happen why is
 this a thing
 it iust looks so smooth I mean look at
 this sentence flow like a jungle river
 The popularity of this and similar posts both confirms that the
 describing a phenomenon widely recognized by fellow
 posters were
 neers and helped acculturate new users into the norms of the plat-
 form, such as signaling that a question is rhetorical or ironic by ask-
 ing it without a question mark. Ruhl cites another self-referential,
 widely shared, multiauthored post, this time from 2016. At first
 glance, it seems like it's primarily
 emphasis, but those examples
 example of different kinds of
 an
 interspersed in a neutral, minimal-
 are
 ist carrier sentence:
 i think it's really Cool how there are so many ways
 to express emphasis
 Completely different it's #wild
 TM on tumblr and they're all.
 #EmphasisTM
 WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
 The hashtagged, initial-capped, space-stretched, trademarked
 HEmphasisTM is a break in the system: it's got too many things
 ng on at once to be interpretable
 as more than a joke. But the reply
 all-capped WHAT HAVE YOU DONE, is simultaneously emphatic
 and minimalist: it signals strong feeling from the all caps and a rhe-
 torical question from the question syntax without a question mark.
 lumblr users were
 pography, but it wasn't just a Tumblr thing: it also started flourishing
 particularly self-reflexive about minimalist ty-
allthingslinguistic:

hi hello alert so that classic tumblr flowing jungle river post is now cited in a real book like an actual paper book and it’s called because internet and it’s all about the evolution of internet language and how TUMBLR DID THE THING and you can get it here

allthingslinguistic: hi hello alert so that classic tumblr flowing jungle river post is now cited in a real book like an actual paper book ...

God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
feministscoundrel:
This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 

feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not ...