#and not remotely relevant

[lushbliss]

My "For You" tab is FILLED with dumb community posts. What is going on? @staff can we opt out of this?

[marigoldbaker]

finally. the ads understand what we want

[tessasilverswan]

a jean hc i've had since the peach moment in tgr is that he also used to love loquats. typical of citrus areas in the mediterranean. spring fruit. it's years after he's out of the nest that he sees one again. but he still loves them. and he looks adorable when he sees them. élodie used to love them too, and at this point he can cherish the memories without being torn up again, so he can enjoy some after such a long time

[slutforpringles]

the absolute garbage that gets passed off as journalism these days 🫠😒😤

And just to be clear I am very happy for Oscar, and it's awesome to see an Australian with championship calibre machinery and fighting for the WDC. And I do think the question posed above is a very fair one with regards to Webber's career. But the idea that Daniel was constantly "playing second fiddle" to his "title-contending" teammates during his five years Red Bull, and thus the implication that Daniel was ever even afforded machinery that gave him an opportunity to fight for a world championship might possibly be some of the most absurd historical revisionism I've ever seen. And it feels both incredibly dishonest and lazy to compare their careers given the disparity of competitiveness of the cars they drove during their stints at Red Bull - when really the only thing they had in common was that they were both Australian and both driving for RBR.

[thunderlina]

If you ever wanted to watch a show that featured this cast for some reason, boy have I got good news for you! It's completely real and you can watch it right now and it's called The Owl House.

and Arin Hansen played Papa Titan who isn't listed on BTVA for some reason

Also the fact that one of the storyboarders was Emmy Cicierega, sister of Neil Cicierega??? What a world we live in.

[underfell]

gotta clean the blog up and try to have a more coherent.....UF idea that isnt just design based.

a lot of AU projects came out recently which gave me so much drive.

Although they're not going to be completed coherent thoughts

I'll still try to flesh them out as much as I possibly can, and create a tag system that works in finding these posts easily.

these posts will be tagged appropriately as " UF PLOT" "UF IDEA" "UF BATTLE" etc etc I'll also try to link direct inspos/ideas from other UF projects that got the ball rolling too.

gotta re-mention that these aren't really concrete, definitely just want to at least dump these thoughts out tthan just....keep them to myself from now on.

:- )

[transingthoseformers]

So, wait, mnemosurgery addiction is an addiction to performing mnemosurgery? I've heard of it before but i always assumed bots got addicted to receiving it

I have absolutely never considered that omg

Yeah!! Typically in canon, a mnemosurgery addiction is the mnemosurgeon's addiction to performing it, to the point it kills many (this was a big part of Chromedome's character and one of the things we knew early with him) because there's a bit of inherent risk with mnemosurgery (something about the process of linking minds together like that). The Fatal Injection is talked about a decent bit, and we very nearly see this happen to Chromedome when he's doing it with Dominus / The Pet in the end of MTMTE (this big whole thing)

But the idea of a character being addicted to receiving mnemosurgery??? Fascinating. Fascinating fascinating dynamics and scenes there. Especially considering mnemosurgery's history in idwg1, and it's connection with the autobots. Giving me ideas.

[anistarrose]

My current version, of my ever-evolving theory, on what constitutes "aromantic stories" is that first off, there's absolutely a wide spectrum between 1, "this is explicitly undeniably about aromanticism," and 2, "there sure is a noteworthy amount of aro subtext, but representing aros clearly wasn't the author's intent." But the spectrum is best completed not as a straight line, but as a triangle, where the 3rd point is "the story probably wasn't created with aromanticism at the forefront of anyone's mind, but was created with subverting particular expectations related to romantic relationships in mind." And in my experience, a lot of juicy aromanticism-related experiences that are underrepresented in their own right can lie in that third option, regardless of whether the characters are aro-spec or allo or kind of whatever you headcanon.

So, what does make a story on this spectrum "aromantic?" IDK, I wouldn't necessarily include all or most of the firm 2s (unintentional subtext) under the aromantic story mantle. But when you get into the gray areas that inch a little closer to 1 and 3, let alone the gray area between 1 and 3 where intent is ambiguous but ultimately may not matter, it makes sense that different people will have different takes.

[cedric-k-rossignol]

Do you have more birthday headcanons for characters who weren't given official birthdays? 🎂

Sebastian is a Pisces. I don't care when he was born, or indeed if he was born at all. He's still a Pisces.

- Signed, a Pisces

[fearandhatred]

the devil entered me at 3am last night and i came up with this so here have a post-s2 crowley pov poem. pls be nice to me i don't even write poetry i have no idea what's going on

anyway i imagine this being read like an analog horror video

[outofangband]

It’s very important to me that the fear people have towards Morwen is as existential as it is physical. I think that’s in some ways supported by the text and even perhaps in my beloved “Morwen he had seen once” paragraph. But either way, certainly people believe she can enact direct physical harm to them but it’s more than that. The danger she poses is existential, to a way of life, to identity as much as it is to bodies. I know I’ve talked about this before but it’s been on my mind tonight

This is especially true when it comes to the ways that Aerin is involved

Also this was going to be a longer post for my birthday because I wanted to Morwen post then but as you all know, I had a sudden loss the night before so I wasn’t able to finish it yet but I will soon!

[jon-sedai]

I really don’t think we should be treating morality as a linear thing in ASOIAF because what often happens is that we start to stray from the actual conversations that we need to be having regarding the depths of making a moral choice and even the circumstances involved. To try and blankly paint any one character as the “most morally good” isn’t really taking us anywhere. And it certainly isn’t helpful when people in this fandom want to try and prove that characters are “grey” but not moral (what does that even mean??) because they did one “bad” thing. If ASOIAF stans were to have their way, then:

Jon is not a morally good person because he threatened Gilly

Dany cannot be considered to be compassionate because she sanctioned torture against the wine seller’s daughters

Arya cant be good because she has killed people

and so on, and so on….

But this is such a draining, and oft times frustrating, conversation to have because you see just how shallow the above listed examples are? Readers are listing only singular instances across a narrative that spans thousand and thousands of pages, and there’s absolutely no context involved. Why did Jon threaten Gilly? Why did Dany resort to torture and at one point did she do it? Who did Arya kill and why? And why do those singular instances negate everything else in their arcs?

What usually happens when we have the 12847647282th unnecessary conversation about who is the “most good” character in ASOIAF is that we start getting blanket statements with no elaboration. And the only people ever considered are Ned, Brienne, and Davos, and sometimes the children like Shireen or Tommen. Mind you, Ned and Davos are not perfect or without their own faults either; much has been said about Ned’s abilities as a father and it’s implied that Davos was not entirely faithful to his wife. And based on her current arc, Brienne will surely have to make morally tough choices regarding oaths and knightly honor. Plus theres the irony of including literal children when they have not been put in situations where they actually have to make morally difficult choices and live with the consequences.

ASOIAF shows us that people who are capable of incredible kindness and compassion are also capable of doing unpleasant things.

Jon threatened Gilly….because he was trying to save another child whom he believed to be at risk of human sacrifice(!!) and was stuck between a rock and a hard place. But why does that singular instance negate the fact that his arc has been about him standing up for the “lesser than”? Why does that negate the fact that he stood up for Sam against a superior when there was nothing to gain for him? Why does it negate the fact that he went out of his way to equip Arya in a way that society would have deemed inappropriate? Why does it negate the fact that he dedicated the entirety of his time as Lord Commander to fight an institution that had upheld racism/xenophobia for millennia? Why should we filter out all those moments of kindness, compassion, and deep empathy that Jon has even without him thinking?

Dany sanctioned torture….but she was trying to solve the murder of an innocent victim AND this brought her no joy. But why does that negate the fact that when she gained unimaginable power, she could’ve high tailed to Westeros to use it to her benefit and become queen, but instead chose to stay in Essos where she has no personal responsibility just so she could fight the institutional evil that is slavery? Why does it negate Dany who went to personally treat plague victims at great risk to herself?

Arya has killed some….but it’s in self defense or in defense of others who are disenfranchised. But why does this negate that she is one of the few people in the series how goes out of her way to show kindness and friendship to those who are not as economically or politically advantaged as she is (e.g., Mycah)? Why does it negate that she took fellow slaves under her protection when she herself had little power to fight for her own survival at Harrenhall? Why does it negate that when she saw those caged soldiers whom she was angry with for their actions, instead of leaving them to die instead offered them the only kindness she could at the moment: a drink of water?

Trying to have arguments about morality but stripping everything down to ‘x character did y bad thing (regardless of context) and that’s why they can’t be good’ is, to be blunt, ridiculous. And it isn’t a particularly interesting way to engage with the text. Character journeys, especially well written ones, are rarely ever in a straight line. There’s amazing highs and terrible lows. GRRM gives us so many characters like Jon, Dany, Arya, Sansa, Ned, etc. who even in their lows, have gleams of compassion and exceptional kindness. It doesn’t do anyone any good to filter those moments out to make the books more digestible; and I’m being a little generous here, because so many readers have a very shallow level of engagement with the series and it shows in conversation. And we also shouldn’t pit these characters unfairly against those who have never been in similarly difficult situations that required them to make hard choices. Because when we do, we start to completely miss the point all together.

[swainconnors]

I really don’t know how we’re gonna cope with the next big drought when we’ve been eating so good recently. Like even today when they only had two scenes there’s enough cute shit going on to sustain me for days!!!!

[twinklingwatermellon]

overthinking … nooo ……

[warcrimesimulator]

[o-wild-west-wind]

listen…there’s a limit to my insanity. but did you know that the statistical programming language R was invented by a pair of Kiwi academics and one of the guy’s last names is Gentleman—*gunshots*