breaking news: the last surviving bostonian has been cleft in twain by a blade forged of pure philadelphium
it is crazy to me to see people acting like francois arnaud is some creepy ugly old man trying to ride his co-stars' coattails like. girl that's francois arnaud
i understand WHY but it is still wild to me that each reimagining of spock completely fails at the task. his character is so CLEARLY written, the things that make him compelling are like, given whole episodes. and yet every time they remake him, they whittle him down to "angry and smart."
anger is not a defining characteristic of OG spock. he has it, like everyone, but the emotion he struggles most with (which has FILMS dedicated to it!!) is LOVE
bring back my loverboy spock
A grinch? *takes a long pull from a whiskey bottle* Yeah, I killed one. Found it in an alley, matted fur, bloodshot eyes, had a dead who in its jaws. Poor fucker had tried to touch it with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole. Shoulda been forty. *takes another long drink, slams the bottle down* Held its throat shut till its limbs stopped thrashing. Saw the light fade from its eyes. Didn't even realize till it was over the damn thing took one of my fingers. After that, I swore to myself, I was done. Threw my who-hatchet in the lake...
shane, mid-panic attack, styling his hair all neat and changing into a linen dress shirt and respectable shorts to go face the music with his parents as a way of saying look im still your Good Boy im still your golden boy son is such a gut punch every time i think about it
oh shane........
thank you for this addition, let's all die
Addams Family Values (1993) dir. Barry Sonnenfeld
horror movies are so much scarier when the actors look like an average sampling of the human population. and the house is a little messy
when everyone has veneers and the house is pristine and tastefully decorated: (in the back of my mind) these people were hand-selected for visual appeal. this is a set. this is a story
when the actor has a little acne and there are dirty dishes in the sink: aaaaahhhhh this is just like Me and My House ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!
when everyone has veneers and the house is pristine and tastefully decorated: (in the front of my mind) these people had it coming
exiting a uquiz halfway through when it becomes clear the creator's narrow and immature world view and cultural knowledge leaves them totally unequipped to tell me which peanuts character i am with any degree of accuracy or insight
If I were a Democrat who wanted to run in 2028 and had even a shred of moral clarity and understanding of where we are at this time in history I'd be salivating at the prospect of running against the podcasting governor who's hosting ben shapiro in the year 2026
in a kill it with your sword kill it with your sword amen mood today
Trans women getting arrested for petty crime.
On my mind while reading on Liddy Bacroff, who went through multiple Weimar/Third Reich prisons and passed at Mauthausen.
(From "Liddy Bacroff [...], 1908-1943," Room of Names, Deceased of the Mauthausen Concentration Camp, Mauthausen Memorial.)
Man-Woman's theft, crossdressing, and forging of papers to avoid police surveillance (nice).
But what ultimately got her killed was that bar incident in March 1938. Some onlooker reported her for being "a man in women's clothing." For sitting at a fucking table.
And a diagnosis ("death sentence") from a doctor:
"Tranvestite to [her] core."
Thinking on dress/gender transgression from 1840s onward in US and Europe, often penalized and prosecuted via "anti-disguise" laws.
Explicit outlawing of crossdressing came with anti-crossdressing laws of St. Louis in 1843, Columbus 1848, and Nashville 1850.
What of the anti-disguise laws, though? Also referred to as "anti-mask" or "anti-masquerade" laws.
New York, in 1845, passed what would become the template for anti-disguise laws.
About the same time. Why? What else was happening?
Consider the spectacular anti-rent riots of 1839:
And then consider New York's anti-disguise laws:
And now we have stuff like this:
(From 2025.)
And then take a look at how Clare Sears frames this development in the 1840s:
["Several states did, however, pass anti-disguise or masquerade laws that encompassed cross-dressing when enforced. In 1845, for example, New York’s state legislature passed an anti-disguise law that made it a crime to appear in public with a painted face or when wearing a disguise designed to prevent identification. Passed in response to rural workers who wore women’s dresses and masks while participating in anti-rent protests, the law was later used to criminalize a wide range of cross-dressing practices. Similarly, in 1874, California’s state legislature passed a masquerade law [...]. As with New York’s anti-disguise statute, local police repurposed California’s masquerade law to arrest multiple people for public cross-dressing over the next one hundred years." (Sears, from March 2023, in Jacobin)]
Sorry for (what is, coming from me, now becoming) the refrain, always pointing out the entanglement of medical pathologization, crushing labor dissent, vagrancy concept, and criminal-making legal devices.
Like, in just five years' time:
1834: Slavery Abolition Act comes into effect (but slaves required to continue laboring as "apprentices" for four years) as Workhouse Act/Poor Law Amendment Act requires "vagrants" and the poor to work minimum number of hours. 1835: Municipal Corporations Act requires nearly 200 English boroughs to establish police forces. 1836: Thuggee and Dacoity Suppression Act in British India targets "any gang of Thugs" with life imprisonment. 1837: Establishment of Irish Constabulary, "Britain's first national police force". July 1838: Vagrancy Act makes "joblessness" a crime. five days later in 1838: technical legal emancipation of Black slaves under "apprenticeship" in British Caribbean. 1839: County Police Act and Rural Constabulary Act encourage judges to establish local/rural police forces.
Conflates a lot.
Of course, race. Peter Boag examines crossdressing law in the western US in the nineteenth century; see his chapter “”He Was a Mexican”: Race and the Marginalization of Male-to-Female Cross-Dressers in Western History."
Sears also authored Arresting Dress: Cross-Dressing, Law, and Fascination in Nineteenth-Century San Francisco. She describes a continuum of the policing of "public visbility of problem bodies."
Apt setting, since San Francisco passed the 1867 "Ugly Law:
“Any person who is diseased, maimed, mutilated, or in any way deformed so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object, or an improper person to be allowed in or on the streets, highways, thoroughfares or public places in the City of County of San Francisco, shall not therein or thereon expose himself or herself to public view.”
Pop media making a game out of deducing "the truth," inviting everyone else to play along. From San Francisco again:
"Can You Tell at a Glance Which Are Men and Which Are Women in These Pictures?" (The San Francisco Call, 21 May 1911)
Imperative: becoming co-conspirators.
Regarding the anti-"ugly" and anti-vagrant law templates from California, here's a headline:
("Strangest Union in the World Uncovered Here: League of Beggars, Crippled, Sightless, Epileptic and Deformed," Los Angeles Times, 1913.)
Today, we've got San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland--the whole US--crushing "vagrancy" and severely punishing the homeless. Outlawing of "disguises"/masking at public demonstrations. Sweeping "anti-drag laws" and "bathroom bills" reasserting crossdressing/predator-in-disguise stuff.
Disguise, duplicity, masquerading, eluding, evading, etc.
Maybe I, Transvestite-to-Her-Core, do support subterfuge broadly. (Subterfuge Broad, name for life-affirming persona?)
Thinking about whoever it was in the Hamburg tavern who reported Liddy for sitting at a table. Should've shut the fuck up.




