Joined June 2009
- Tweets 1,654
- Following 355
- Followers 125
- Likes 472
225 Photos and videos
The Traitor’s Wife by Alison Pataki — 3rd Drawer Down
⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ☆ Viva la Revolución 🇺🇸
3rddrawerdown.com/book-revie…
2
Jun 11
I debated whether or not to post my view on this, but Jasmine Crockett is clearly retarded, biased, and ill-suited to be a congresswoman. So let's break down three of the biggest arguments and how claiming the ruling was racist rests on a selective reading of the facts and a misunderstanding of core legal principles.
Anthony entered a rival team's tent uninvited, ignored repeated requests to leave, issued a clear threat ("touch me and see what happens"), stabbed Austin Metcalf in the chest after a shove, and was convicted of murder.
First is the argument of self-defense, which the jury rejected given the described scenario.
Self-defense and Stand Your Ground laws do not grant a free pass to escalate a verbal confrontation or minor physical contact into lethal force. A shove does not justify drawing a knife and stabbing someone in the chest, just as a punch does not authorize an immediate shooting. Self-defense requires reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm and a proportional response. Anthony's actions crossed that line.
Second is the argument that the pocket knife was not long enough to be considered a deadly weapon.
This misses the distinction between carry regulations and criminal liability. Blade length rules govern what knives are considered weapons by their inherent design in order to regulate what can legally be carried in public. In a homicide case, any object qualifies as a deadly weapon if used in a manner likely to cause death or serious injury.
Even setting the knife aside entirely, the central fact remains unchanged: Anthony killed Metcalf, whether it was with a weapon, an object, or his bare hands. The means by which it happened does not change the fact that it happened. Minimizing the weapon is an attempt to overlook this reality and fails to explain how a young man ended up dead in the first place.
Third is the argument of intent, which might actually be the most reasonable argument: that Anthony did not intend to kill and that Metcalf’s death was accidental.
However, this was also rejected given the same described scenario. Entering another team’s tent uninvited, refusing to leave, issuing a threat, and stabbing a vital area suggest, at the very least, a reckless disregard for human life.
But it is possible to assume that the jury bought into this logic to an extent, weighing possible elements of accident or lesser culpability. The imposed 35-year sentence with parole eligibility halfway through is substantially more lenient than the life sentence prosecutors could have sought.
Framing this as racist ignores the specifics of the case and substitutes identity-based assumptions in place of accountability under legal standards that apply to everyone.
Jun 10
Rep. Crockett (D) says the knife used to kill Metcalf "was not a deadly weapon"
77
The hypocrisy is deafening.
The entire business model relies on the visual appeal of baristas in bikinis as the primary draw. Customers are explicitly invited to engage with an environment centered on attractive women serving coffee in minimal clothing. Expressing surprise or frustration at “weirdos” showing up, staring, or trying to sneak recordings ignores the predictable outcome of that marketing strategy.
You cannot reasonably expect the public to support a venue marketed around sex appeal and then treat normal male gaze or curiosity as shocking misconduct. The allure itself is part of the product as much as the coffee. Pretending otherwise creates a clear contradiction: profiting from objectification while decrying the very reactions it provokes.
Thick skin is a job requirement, as the baristas themselves acknowledge when noting that most customers are fine and the pay and tips make it worthwhile.
True professionalism in such a setting would involve clear boundaries and an honest acknowledgment of the trade-offs. Customers choosing a bikini cafe know exactly what they are getting, while those wanting a standard coffee experience have plenty of alternatives. Routine customer behavior should not be framed as an unexpected burden.
Jun 8
Inside LA's first bikini coffee shop - as baristas reveal how many 'weirdos' show up trib.al/fN5Pqtl
158
3rd Drawer Down retweeted
Jun 7
Another day of #stargate trending on here.
Let's keep the momentum. @AmazonMGMStudio you should really reconsider cancelling @martingero's Stargate series.
Give them at least one season! #savestargate
31
313
1,426
16,715
The core issue with your decision is not the abortion itself, it's the reasoning behind it.
Now I'm not here to argue pro-choice or pro-life, but by terminating the pregnancy due to the high likelihood of Down Syndrome, you're effectively sending a message to any future children you might have: that your love and acceptance will only be extended if they meet a certain genetic standard.
You framed this child as disposable once their potential disability became known, prioritizing your own comfort. This is a damning statement on conditional parental love.
Let me present to you a hypothetical:
Imagine you try again and bring a seemingly healthy child into the world. Then one day that child takes a bad fall on the playground, suffers permanent brain damage, or injures their spine and ends up paralyzed. Will your love for them suddenly vanish because they are now disabled?
No one wishes for such tragedies, yet life is full of perils, dangers, and inconveniences. People endure life-altering injuries all the time, especially during childhood and adolescence. By ending this pregnancy, you are not protecting the child from hardship. You are eliminating them so that you will not have to bear the inconvenience of raising a disabled son or daughter. That choice reveals a willingness to discard life when it fails to meet your expectations.
Children are burdens even when perfectly healthy. From the moment they are born, everything you do shifts toward their needs. The selfish freedoms you once enjoyed disappear, replaced by sacrifice and responsibility. If you are not prepared to face such realities, including the very real possibility of disability or injury, then perhaps you are not prepared to become parents at all.
As for the backlash, this is what happens when you publicize your life.
As online personalities who have built careers sharing your lives, you should understand this basic truth. When you broadcast a highly controversial choice, people will respond forcefully.
Welcome to the internet.
Actions like this carry consequences, and the gravity of the decision made the reaction both predictable and justified.
I’ve never seen such hate and vitriol for two people grieving the loss of their unborn child and making an impossible decision.
The last 24 hours have exposed a side of humanity that is deeply disturbing. Being called “murderous pieces of shit, evil, compared to Hitler” and receiving NON-STOP DEATH THREATS.
Seeing my 6-year old dog with Stage 4 Kidney Disease be used as a weapon, manipulating my words and intent in a tweet or saying we’ll regret this decision forever and must repent to God is absolute insanity.
If you ever wanted to marvel at the depravity of people online, just check the replies on my latest tweet. It’s a shit-show of epic proportions. This is reflective of the current world and landscape we’re all living in.
What’s more troubling is a lot of these people use God or Jesus as their justification for threatening us and wanting to cast us into Hell…seems pretty hypocritical.
So many saying they would’ve kept the child, put it up for adoption or are suddenly ready to adopt a down syndrome child, that’s great! You can do all those things. However, many of the people throwing stones don’t even have children, let alone one with a condition and most likely will never do the things they say they’re going to do.
There has been some heinous shit said about my wife and I on some extremely large accounts…It baffles me that there are such trashy-ass people who have significant followings. If you can’t contribute anything meaningful to the conversation aside from insults then just don’t post.
On the other hand, there has been tremendous stories of people who kept their Down Syndrome baby and that’s awesome! Very courageous and they do look very happy! That is your choice and I support it. This was ours and we can do that. It’s very easy to accept the differences between us when it has no actual bearing on your life.
What shocked me most of all was that this story has become mainstream news…A couple’s abortion is suddenly newsworthy in 2026…?
There are over 1,000,000 abortions every single year for a myriad of reasons, this is happening on a DAILY BASIS and is the most common outcome for Trisomy 21, yet this one blows up and people are surprised…?
The reason this blew up is quite simple: IT’S BECAUSE NOBODY TALKS ABOUT IT.
I can’t blame people for not talking about these vulnerable experiences publicly because you see the disgusting backlash that ensues. It’s very divisive. Luckily, after 20 years on the Internet, this is par the course for me taking on the crazies, so I’m glad I can help further the conversation.
That’s exactly why I wanted to share this story. People still need to see vulnerability and hear the raw truth. There is real suffering going on and it is being done in silence and fear.
So many mothers have reached out privately commending us on our bravery to speak truthfully about this topic and we really appreciate that support! We want you to feel less alone in this and less ashamed.
There has never been a more important time to speak up and out about the things that matter. Do not let the vocal minority stop you from sharing your truth.
To those who have been affected by this or are confronted with a similar situation in the future, we have your back and please feel free to reach out. I’m sure this will follow us awhile especially when we try for a kid again in the near future.
(CONTINUED)
103
X feed is nothing but Stargate cancellation backlash.
@AmazonMGMStudio, you know not what you've done.
1
64
Yet another frustrating misstep in modern franchise management.
After years of fans hoping for a proper return to the Stargate universe, the involvement of Martin Gero along with original creators like Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich felt like a genuine opportunity. For once, a studio appeared committed to respecting the source material and its dedicated audience. Instead, Amazon executives killed the project because they feared it would not achieve broad appeal beyond the franchise’s existing fanbase.
This decision perfectly illustrates a self-defeating logic in Hollywood.
By worrying that a show made specifically for Stargate fans might be “too niche,” Amazon has ensured the opposite outcome: trying to make something that appeals to everyone often results in a project that appeals to no one.
The one time they get praised for bringing in original creative voices with deep knowledge of the lore, those very credentials were suddenly treated as a burden that would hold the show back. It sends a discouraging message to longtime fans who have waited patiently for quality content that honors the spirit of the IP.
At its core, this cancellation reflects a lack of confidence in building upon established fandoms rather than diluting them for mass-market appeal. Stargate has always thrived on smart, adventurous storytelling with a loyal core audience. Sacrificing authenticity in pursuit of vague “broader” success rarely works. This feels like another lost chance to deliver something meaningful to the fans who have kept the franchise alive for decades.
EXCLUSIVE: The new "Stargate" TV series has been axed at Amazon.
The show was first announced with a series order in November 2025 and hailed from showrunner Martin Gero, who was a writer on "Stargate SG-1" and "Stargate: Atlantis." Sources say Amazon execs were concerned that Gero's take on the series would not have broad appeal beyond the franchise's already dedicated fanbase.
wp.me/pc8uak-1lHl5z
10
47,456
It took #Euphoria 7 years to release 26 episodes across 3 seasons. Hollywood, do you see the problem here?
89
This is a complete misunderstanding of cause and effect.
Star Wars' struggles stem primarily from Disney's creative and strategic decisions over the past decade, not from overly demanding or "fickle" fans.
Since acquiring Lucasfilm, Disney has delivered a string of inconsistent, poorly received projects that alienated large portions of the audience. From divisive sequels and convoluted storytelling to rushed spin-offs and shows that often ignored established lore, the studio repeatedly failed to maintain the sense of wonder, coherent world-building, and mythic tone that defined the original saga.
Disney has also never truly given fans what they consistently wanted: well-crafted stories that respect the source material, deliver satisfying character arcs, and prioritize entertainment over agenda-driven writing. Instead of building on the rich mythology of Star Wars, the company pursued short-term trends, rapid expansion, and frequent course corrections that created narrative whiplash. The result has been audience fatigue and lost trust.
When a once-dominant franchise produces multiple box office disappointments and declining viewership, it is not evidence that audiences are "too dumb to know what they want." It is proof that audiences know exactly what they want and are willing to withhold their support when they do not receive it.
Blaming fans for a studio's failure to deliver is a convenient deflection. Fandoms do not kill franchises; complacent or misguided leadership does.
Star Wars' troubles demonstrate that "giving the fans what they want" is not a flawed business model. It is a fundamental requirement for long-term success in entertainment. When audiences reject a product, it is rarely because they are fickle. More often, it is because the product stopped respecting their intelligence and emotional investment.
May 30
Star Wars is dead and fandom culture is entirely to blame for it. This franchise was always patient zero for this phenomenon and it only proves how fickle "giving the fans what they want" actually is as a long term business model. Audiences are too dumb to know what they want
1
3
10
26,359
May 30
THIS is how you respond to fan criticism.
Acknowledging that her Star Wars series and Terminator film were received poorly demonstrates refreshingly mature and level-headed self-awareness without defensiveness. Her willingness to say “these were jobs I said yes to” shows professionalism and accountability. This is exactly how public figures should handle criticism: with honesty, humility, and a sense of humor rather than blaming fans or external forces.
She recognizes that criticism of these shows was directed at the writing, creative decisions, and overall execution, not at her personally. When an actor takes on a lead role in a beloved franchise, they naturally become the public face of the project. However, that visibility does not mean every critique of the story, pacing, or script is an attack on the performer. The ability to separate one’s own efforts from the larger project’s shortcomings is a healthy and rare perspective in today’s entertainment industry.
Many actors throughout Hollywood need to take note. Accepting a major role comes with heightened scrutiny, but true professionalism lies in understanding the difference between being the face of a project and being responsible for every aspect of its success or failure.
#EmiliaClarke addresses the poor reception of Marvel’s #SecretInvasion:
“I don’t think no one liked that show, guys. I’m sorry!” she says in a goofy voice. “‘Star Wars’? They didn’t like it. ‘Terminator’? That should never have happened. But these were jobs I said yes to, you know what I mean?”
Were the frosty receptions disappointing? “I entered into already existing franchises,” she says, “so when they don’t work out, it’s not personal.”
Read the full Power of Women London cover story: wp.me/pc8uak-1lHj9J
70
May 28
Isn’t that a damning sign of the times. It’s now “wild” for a movie to be rated R.
25
May 28
Cynthia Erivo saying that the criticism of her dynamic with Ariana Grande is rooted in racism against black women is simply deflection to avoid addressing observable concerns.
The discomfort people expressed had little to do with Erivo’s race, physique, or baldness. It was about the unsettling dynamic in which Erivo came across as creepy and controlling, while Grande appeared frail, undernourished, and strangely subdued. This was not about body size comparisons or racial stereotypes, but about a visible imbalance in their interactions that many found disturbing.
Ariana Grande’s physical transformation during filming sparked legitimate worry about her health, as her already petite frame appeared to waste away to a dangerously unhealthy degree. Notably, once Erivo stepped away from the PR tour, Grande began regaining a visibly healthier appearance. This observation only fueled the criticism of the power dynamic and Erivo’s influence, not prejudice against black women. Her claim that the backlash would not exist if the roles were reversed is nothing more than speculative and self-serving.
By injecting race into the conversation, Erivo sidesteps accountability for the specific choices and behaviors that drew scrutiny. Forcing the race card in this context only waves away legitimate concerns about professional boundaries and the responsibility of public figures when a co-star’s well-being appears compromised.
People are capable of critiquing individual conduct without it being reduced to identity-based prejudice. Erivo’s reframing of their relationship only weakens her credibility rather than illuminating any real systemic bias.
#CynthiaErivo addresses the online memes and TikToks portraying her as Ariana Grande’s “bodyguard” after a man rushed her co-star at the #WickedForGood premiere in Singapore:
“I think that we haven’t really come to terms with the insidious nature of how we view Black women. And Ivm sure people will read this and think, ‘Oh, for goodness’ sake, it's not about that.’ But it is,” Erivo says. “Because that’s what was being made fun of. It was my physique; it was my shape; it was the fact that I was bald; it was about what I looked like. And because of that, there was this assumption that I was bigger than my co-star and so I had to be controlling or protecting, and that was my role. I would hazard a guess that it would not have been the same had it been the other way around.”
Read the full Power of Women cover: wp.me/pc8uak-1lHj8x
1
224
May 26
Claiming that Mando & Grogu had one of the biggest openings of 2026 and that it has already made back its budget ignores basic box office economics and Star Wars standards. The film opened to approximately $163 million globally over its first four days on a holiday weekend against a $165 million production budget. This makes it the lowest opening for any Disney-era Star Wars film, falling short of even Solo.
As for it making back its budget, theaters typically retain around 50% of ticket sales, meaning a studio needs roughly double its production budget at the global box office just to break even. And that's before factoring in marketing costs, which often add around another $100 million. With a $165 million budget, The Mandalorian & Grogu would need to approach $330–350 million worldwide simply to cover costs.
A soft start like this raises legitimate questions about long-term legs and overall return. For a franchise once capable of billion-dollar hauls, this represents a clear step down in cultural momentum.
Insisting that criticism stems only from wanting the movie to fail ignores legitimate audience fatigue with recent Star Wars output. Strong audience scores does not erase the broader mismanagement of Disney’s handling of the franchise. A modest opening for such a high-profile release signals that Disney needs to reevaluate its approach rather than coast on brand recognition and a novelty character like Grogu.
Lowering the bar to celebrate a franchise low does not reflect success.
May 25
Some people REALLY want Mando and Grogu to flop so bad🙄 literally one of the biggest openings of 2026 and has made back it’s budget but ok 😐
95
May 21
The claim that objecting to casting a black actress as Helen of Troy amounts to nothing but racism misses the deeper issue of artistic consistency and cultural respect. Helen of Troy is not a generic fairy-tale character; she is a foundational figure in ancient Greek mythology, embedded in the literature, art, and self-understanding of a specific Mediterranean civilization. Ancient Greek depictions, from Homer to countless vases and sculptures, consistently portrayed her and other Trojan War figures as belonging to that ethnic and cultural world.
While myths allow creative interpretation, repeatedly race-swapping core characters from one particular ancient culture while preserving others signals a selective disregard for historical and artistic context rather than bold storytelling.
This casting fits a broader Hollywood pattern of obsession with inserting black actors into roles tied to European historical or mythological settings, often at the expense of coherence. Netflix’s Queen Cleopatra docudrama was rightfully criticized for portraying the Macedonian-Greek ruler as a black woman despite extensive historical and genetic evidence to the contrary, all in service of contemporary agendas.
When producers prioritize demographic checkboxes over visual and cultural fidelity, it's a jarring break in immersion. Extraordinary beauty is not race-specific, yet Lupita Nyong’o’s considerable talent and presence do not magically transform her into a believable daughter of Zeus and Leda within the established world of Greek mythology.
True artistry thrives when creators build rich, internally consistent worlds, not when they treat ancient cultures as interchangeable props for modern signaling. Insisting that accuracy concerns equal racism only shows ignorance of why one civilization’s foundational stories are routinely altered for ideological reasons while others are treated with greater respect. People are right to push back against this trend. It does not serve the story, nor is it representation done right. It only further proves Hollywood's inability to tell stories with honesty and craft.
There is zero reason to be upset about Helen of Troy being cast as a black woman.
Except racism.
There is no “historical accuracy” in a myth. Helen is not a real person. The requirements for Helen are to be extraordinarily beautiful and that more than describes Lupita.
1
2
31
21,534
3rd Drawer Down retweeted
May 20
Atualizando o ranking de séries com os piores finais da história.
1,109
1,026
16,589
2,650,796
May 19
Gen Z is basically illiterate. And it is getting worse. youtu.be/I3OW-oJxXMA?si=mT6x… via @YouTube
88
May 18
Leave it to Variety to misunderstand the core issue. The Oscars’ rules are not primarily about who ultimately wins awards, but about what kinds of films studios and filmmakers are now incentivized to create in the first place.
Requiring projects to meet representation criteria for Best Picture eligibility shifts the decision-making process upstream. Producers, writers, and directors must now weigh demographic checkboxes alongside story needs, casting choices, and creative vision. Even if every past Best Picture winner could technically clear these hurdles under modern standards , they still impose a structural filter that prioritizes inclusive metrics from development onward.
This framework moves awards consideration away from pure merit in storytelling, direction, acting, and technical craft toward compliance with diversity benchmarks. Films no longer compete solely on artistic excellence; they must also satisfy on-screen representation, off-screen hiring quotas, apprenticeship programs, or marketing team composition. The result is a chilling effect on bold, singular visions, especially intimate stories, historical epics, or genre pieces that do not naturally align with current underrepresented-group criteria.
Storytelling suffers when creators feel pressured to retrofit characters, themes, or crew hires to meet bureaucratic standards rather than serve the narrative. Over time, this erodes the very qualities that make cinema powerful: risk-taking, authenticity, and universal human truth.
The Oscars were once a celebration of filmmaking achievement without ideological prerequisites. By institutionalizing these incentives, the Academy has helped accelerate a broader decline in cinematic quality and audience trust. When inclusivity becomes a gatekeeper rather than a natural byproduct of good writing and direction, the art form loses depth and variety.
Retroactive qualification of classics does not erase the forward-looking damage of fewer uncompromising stories, more formulaic signaling, and a growing disconnect between what wins awards and what resonates with global audiences.
Merit-based recognition, free from mandated social engineering, remains essential for vibrant storytelling.
Why is Elon Musk melting down over #TheOdyssey and the Oscars?
"Every best picture winner in the Academy’s 98-year history — from the 'Wings' in 1929 through 'One Battle After Another' this past March — clears the Oscars' new inclusion rules. That also includes 'Oppenheimer,' the film directed by Christopher Nolan, with whom Elon Musk had no problem until this past week. And Nolan’s upcoming adaptation of Homer’s 'The Odyssey,' whenever the Academy gets a look at it, would also clear the inclusion standards, and it’s not because Lupita Nyong’o was cast as Helen of Troy," writes Variety's Clayton Davis.
variety.com/2026/film/awards…
102