#carrot.add
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
It’s a character telling you their story from their own POV. That’s… so simple?? It’s the same as when your friend tells you what they did that day; you aren’t supposed to imagine it’s you in their place, it’s still them?? It’s not a Y/N!!
Even if the story is in second person, which is supposed to pull the reader further in and very hard to do well, you are supposed to imagine yourself to be the character the writer is pretending you are so they can say something about the world.
Is imagination scarce??? What is happening
wait do people read first person stories and think they're the ones in the story???
Saw people talking about not liking first person, which is fair, but their reasoning was like "I would not do that" and I don't understand that mindset.
First person stories are still about a character. A character making their own decisions. First person isn't about you???? At least I thought it wasn't. What am I missing? I've always seen first person as just a more in-depth look into a character's mind and stricter POV. Not as a reader stand-in.
59K notes
·
View notes
Text
THIS!!
At 13 years old, my step-brother is as much of a child as any child could ever be. He is very enthusiastic and he likes to share the things he's excited about with you. He's also very neglected. Whenever I'm with him, I try to listen to him as much as he wants me to and I care about whatever he's saying because he cares about them. I think that's one of the reasons why he's always liked me a lot. His family isn't like that.
A couple of months ago my dad pulled up to my grandpa's beach house with the family and told me, sort of laughingly, that he had talked non-stop the whole two hour journey to the point that my dad and his wife had told him they'd pay him if he managed to be silent for thirty minutes (he couldn't do it, btw).
The way this broke my heart.
And for the past year or so, I've been noticing how different he is becoming. He's more removed, he's turning inward, even turning away from me. I want to believe it's just because he's growing, becoming a teenager, but I know that's not all of it. The way his family treats him is finally killing his spirit, and that just breaks me
people are way too comfortable being dismissive of children and teenagers. if a toddler comes up to you and starts explaining skibidi toilet lore or if a 13 year old asks you if you want to hear about their mha ocs you have to listen with utmost sincerity or at least pretend to. this is the only way you will get into heaven.
59K notes
·
View notes
Text
Does The Way Christians Use Capitalized He/Him For God Count As A Neopronoun (the greatest thread in the history of forums, locked by a moderator after 12,239 pages of heated debate) is my favorite Fall Out Boy song
196 rule
63K notes
·
View notes
Text
I’m pretty sure he yelled “I’m the king of the world”
Which is also both factually and technically incorrect

#I haven’t watched it and by this point I’m not gonna#but I’m pretty sure that’s what he says because he started the thing#carrot.add#titanic
47K notes
·
View notes
Text
I was just thinking about this this weekend.
For the second time, I told my father I don’t want to invest the money my grandfather gave me because I don’t want to put my money behind unethical and evil corporations. He once again told me unfortunately that’s the world we live in and will live in until Jesus comes back, so we can’t let it win over us, we need to dance to the rhythm too, and “get what’s ours by right”, we can’t let it hinder us either.
And I was just like… I don’t think that’s right at all.
And then. And THEN, he said not wanting to invest my money “was actually a sin, in a way”.
And I was gobsmacked. And furious.
My guy, I think what you just did was a sin!
The early church was verifiably communist. Shut the fuck up.
It's tempting to call out evangelicals on grounds of hypocrisy - on ignoring the teachings of their own religion - but to them, it all makes sense, because they've developed a framework that basically amounts to Jesus having no real philosophy
They acknowledge the many verses about caring for the poor etc, but take it either as a code or of lesser importance. It's not about changing society, it's about individual charity, but not about compelling people to be charitable, just that it's nice. When Jesus spoke of the "least" of society, that wasn't about helping marginalized people, that was either about Christians, or about what side to take in the war that happens after the rapture. Simple. You may think "wait, but right before that it mentions caring for the poor, sick, and imprisoned" and their answer is, as I understand it, that you can just read every verse of the Bible in isolation from every other verse and it still makes sense on its own, so it doesn't matter (for reference, the New Testament wasn't split into numbered verses until 1551, when they were decided on by a random Frenchman)
This doesn't make sense on many levels. Anyone outside the sphere would point out that, religion aside, it would be really weird to have a story about someone telling a bunch of people to help the poor and then reveal "actually, it was all about events that will happen thousands of years after everyone present was dead! Nothing that was said matters to you or most people reading this!" Like what's the point. But within the sphere they have so many rationalizations, like how it's taken as writ in evangelical circles that it's okay to be rich because the "Eye of the Needle" was a specific gate in Jerusalem that was merely difficult to get through. Meanwhile, outside their culture, no references to that gate exist, because it didn't exist
One fun strain of this thinking is this
The Good Samaritan is a parable that ends with the directive to "go and do likewise". So clearly, the real point of the story is that you can't do anything. Jesus told everyone to go and do likewise to prove that nobody can ever show the impossible love to...help a guy who got robbed? Because Jesus was perfect, all advice from Jesus can be disregarded, because nobody can follow it because they're not Jesus
This idea, that every story Jesus told was just about how nobody can ever be like Jesus, is a thing in those circles and it's such a baffling foundation for a religion. Follow our messiah, who told us to be nice to people, but we know all the secret messages about how all those stories meant we SHOULDN'T be nice to people. Their sacred text is not a guide to living, it's a textbook for the apocalypse and how to go to heaven disguised as a guide to how you should be nice to people and help poor people. But a bunch of well-off white people discovered the secret parts of the Bible absolving them of the responsibility to care about people, so
509 notes
·
View notes
Text
Biden for president?!?

30K notes
·
View notes
Text
The Mercator projection really elongates the northern hemisphere specially because of the way the landmasses are distributed. We use that one conventionally because obviously Europe and the US like it better. It gets really obvious when you look at Greenland, which in reality is a quarter of the size of Brazil


Btw, on thetruesize.com you can drag and drop country maps to compare their actual dimensions, it’s pretty cool!
As an Australian I love the whole "Australia is a death trap full of vicious deadly animals" cultural myth. Every place has some deadly animals in it who will fuck you over if you don't understand them; we're not more dangerous than anywhere else. BUT we get to look badarse by existing when people pretend we are. No downsides.
#Brazil is also bigger than the contiguous US by over 1.000.000 km2#my conspiracy theory is that they only bought it to be the biggest country in America#carrot.add#geography
18K notes
·
View notes
Text
The story if Noah’s Ark starts on land.
Like, there’s a whole part about building the boat and boarding the pairs of animals before the flood, it’s a pretty significant thing that happens. If it was set in water all throughout, the story would have an entirely different point and be two sentences long. Or be about mermaids

8K notes
·
View notes
Text
I want a love interest described in feelings and metaphors.
I want to read about a smile that radiates like a moonbeam in a quiet night, like a secret they reserve just for the main character. I want to read about eyes that are window to an ever-active mind, which flutters with a thousand thoughts at once at any given time, like their brain is a whole universe in blossom. I want to read about the way the light bounces off their hair while they make a cup of coffee, capturing a moment in which they’re so mundanely themselves it’s beautiful. I want to read about a delicacy of movement that denounces a care and respect about objects that’s as though they were living things. I want to read about a way to treat others that’s so respectful and genuinely attentive no one can help but like them. I want to watch the feelings for the love interest develop and unfold gradually, and I want to fall for them as well.
Prose is an abstract medium. Make me feel.
@julibernardo replied to your post “Things you hate in romantic fantasy?”:
When love interest is described as beautiful/hot/attractive . That always feels like such a lazy thing to do. MAKE me attracted to them, don't just tell me that I should be.
I agree, but also when we get more details there's always basically the same description we get: muscular, perfect body, soft curves or something like that. I probably shouldn't talk about my own stories but I was really tired of this in books that I made all my main characters not beautiful/hot/attractive in a stereotypical way. Both of my main female characters are described as ugly by others, none of my male characters are muscular hot models. They eventually find each other attractive but the attractiveness is more about the charisma, intelligence and that special something one can only see in the person they love.
59 notes
·
View notes
Text
I think Zutara being canon in NATLA is going to be extremely detrimental to the fandom, seriously.
Not only because a deviation from canon like that would already be criticised had it been a good adaptation, let alone a bad one. But it WILL in this case be a bad couple because, from what I've seen on the internet, they've butchered both characters, so like you said, they'll half-ass it. Katara and Zuko won't go through the deep character arcs they went through, so their beautiful, poetic, forged-by-fire bond won't be there, the meaning of their relationship will be lost.
Which means the antis will have ammunition to dunk on Zutara harder, since it won't make sense the way it does in the cartoon – and they already hate on that.
Also, corporations can get stuffed. I don't trust streaming service studios with any piece of media I hold dear anymore. The industry is always and only about the money now, live-action adaptations are always the greatest example of it.
I hope I'm mistaken
Am I the only zutara fan who isn't thrilled by the subtle ship bait (if it even is) done by NATLA?
Am I the only one who wants Netflix's grubby little money hungry hands off of one of the most iconic non canon ships in cartoon history, just to pander to one of the more vocal sides of the fandom?
Because with the way they're characterizing Katara in this adaptation, I don't even want to see how they would pair her up with Zuko. It would only be a half-assed surface level attempt. Whatever Netflix concocts cannot hold a candle to the fan art and fanfiction the fandom has created and shared over the years. The ship as we know it has been ours and ours alone. I refuse to surrender it and see it bastardized.
I would rather they stay consistent with canon and proceed with kataang and maiko. I would rather they improve and evolve these couples rather than pander to popular opinion. Zutara has thrived with us, so it should just stay with us.
140 notes
·
View notes
Text
Using words like “violated” is harsh, but at the end of the day that’s… sorta what he did. If it had been framed as a kid who didn’t know what he was doing, panicked and kissed her, and then learnt that what he did was wrong and apologised, it would have been okay to put in the narrative (though I would still prefer that they did not end up together), but he did get like a fit of rage and forced himself on her. That’s messed up. We often forget that what’s in a show has been carefully written and revised multiple times by a team of adults, and we should get upset at them for making that choice.
That’s coming from someone who said no to a friend and kept getting kissed anyway and then received the complaint “why do you look so sad every time I kiss you?”. I don’t call what he did “violating” me either, because I do think it’s such an aggressive word that could mean much more than what happened and it feels like blowing it out of proportion, but there isn’t a better word for how I felt then.
I think an issue with that portrayal in the show, beyond the issues in-world, is the fact that it teaches the kids in the audience that that is okay. Even if Katara got rightfully upset, Aang doesn’t get why and then he is rewarded for his behaviour in the finale, when they do get together.
"You can like Zutara without disliking Aang" Sure I can. But why do I have to?
I think I'm justified in disliking Aang. "He has good traits" If someone treats their partner poorly, it is very well justified to not like them, and even if they are a nice person to everyone else but their partner. That's even worse.
Aang violated Katara twice during the show. "He's 12" But she was 14. That is a VERY good reason to not like him. If this was any other show, you would never let it slide. But because he's 12 and squishy, it's okay. But what about Katara? Are you forgetting the person he hurt?
The way he treats her in their married life is insane too. People forget Aang grew up to be an adult but don't hold him accountable because he's the Avatar.
Also, "Katara could never hate Aang" but why couldn't she? If a friend of mine were to kiss me without my consent, am I not allowed to hate him for what he did because he's nice? If a writer were to write Katara to hate Aang it would be logical. It would be her full right to. He violated her.
478 notes
·
View notes
Text
That’s sort of how it works in latine countries
Of your surnames, you either use the one you vibe with the most or the one your friends at school thought was coolest and used to identify you

#I started using the last name I got from my dad when I was like 12 and now I regret it but it’s too late to build an identity on another one#carrot.add
18K notes
·
View notes
Photo
Of course not, they’re going to think “breast cancer advocate”
Customer: for the cause of cancer DMV: BOOBIES Verdict: DENIED
2K notes
·
View notes
Note
I’m just a passerby, but the way Zuko is placed in this episode is very important, not because he respected Katara’s choice even though he might not have liked it, but because to him it didn’t matter what she did in the end. It was not about that.
Zuko understood that that was a journey she had to go on, she needed to find her mother’s killer, she needed to confront him somehow to have closure, however it came about—and he understood very clearly she should the one to decide it. That no one else had that right.
He is the only one who understands that.
The only one who respects that.
Partially because Zuko knows exactly what it’s like to have your mother ripped away from you because of you, and knows the layers and layers of complex feelings and scars that come with that. Partially because of his own belligerent, non-pacifist culture. Partially because yeah, he wanted to redeem himself to Katara. Partially because he is who he is, and we already knew that he gets her. And partially because he just does understand.
To him, it wasn’t about killing Yon Rah. It was about Katara finding closure for herself, carving justice for herself and mother and her people, however the hell she felt the need to do it. It was about her power and agency over her own healing.
He boarded Appa with the sole intention of being an aid to Katara. Her right hand man. A faithful devoted esquire following her lead.
Hi,
Hope you are doing well.
I have another query regarding TSR. When Katara confronts Yon Rah and spare him at the end, I didn't notice Zuko's silence at that moment. Now, I am realizing that his silence in a way shows that he accepted and respected Katara's choice. He may not have liked it, but he understood that it was her choice, and that was that.
Looking at the way Aang responded at the end of the episode, I don't think he understood her choice at all. He simply assumed that she forgave Yon Rah, when she did not. It seems like he did not want to understand her choice at all.
On a separate note, do you feel that when it comes to Zuko's actions in the episode, it seems a bit weird that some people say that Zuko wanted Katara to murder Yon Rah in revenge, when not once did he bring that subject up in the episode whatsoever, and the one who brought that topic up was Aang?
I would like your thoughts on this.
The thing I find funny is that people try to make this about Zuko or Katara not respecting Aang's culture when throughout the episode, the one who is consistently unwilling to accept other people's perspectives is Aang. Aang is the one who insists it's about revenge. And I agree, Katara saying "maybe it is" is probably the point where that idea entered her mind.
I'm not saying that was never a possibility, because let's be real, they're not going there to make friends with the guy. But reducing it to revenge ignores the fact that these are people who need to be stopped. No one knew Yon Rah was retired. (I've also said before that Zuko and Katara should have at least disabled the Southern raiders' ship after learning Yon Rah wasn't there, because those men certainly were not innocent.) It's also about Katara reclaiming her legacy. Yon Rah thought he had murdered the last waterbender, remember? One thing that did give Katara closure was being able to affirm her survival and confront the man who could have been her murderer with it. This also ties into why learning waterbending combat was so important to Katara. The Southern raiders' mission was to wipe out waterbenders because the fire nation feared them as a threat to their war. Katara confronting the man who supposedly killed the last waterbender with all her power is an affirmation that that mission had failed. This is also why I have no time for people who insist that fighting is not a part of Katara's legacy and who she is.
And like you said, Zuko is silent when Katara makes her choice. He might have disagreed with her, or not. The only indication we get of his feelings is the look of hatred he throws Yon Rah behind Katara's back as they are leaving, but that could mean a lot of things. It could mean that Zuko has accepted that this man who he clearly despises has to live with the fact that the person he was sent to kill not only lived, but became more powerful than he could have imagined, and that he is pathetic in comparison. One could argue that this is a punishment worse than death. And that actually is probably enough for Zuko, because what he wanted was the confrontation. Remember when he tells the new captain to look Katara in the eyes and remember? I've said before that that mirrors Zuko confronting his father and demanding the truth, a confrontation which he also chose to walk away from without killing. What Zuko wants is for these men to be confronted with their crimes, and in neither case is that accomplished through killing.
And not only is Zuko silent during, but after the fact, he expresses no judgement on what Katara did, not even when she herself says she is uncertain. He tells Aang he was right, even though Aang again is the one to make assumptions and immediately says he's "proud" of Katara for "choosing forgiveness," which Katara immediately shoots down. Despite how much this episode wants to tell us that Aang is wise and understanding, it is Katara and Zuko who demonstrate understanding of the situation, Katara who makes the right decision in the end and is wise enough to be accepting of the ambiguity of her feelings, Zuko who is able to extend understanding to both sides when Aang and Katara continue to disagree. Zuko also never makes an attempt to define the situation. We do not see Zuko and Katara's initial conversation beyond Zuko telling Katara he knows where to find Yon Rah, which implies that Katara's decision to go after him is a foregone conclusion with no need of convincing by Zuko. Another thing we never see is what Zuko told the rest of the gaang after the fact, when Katara was not there. Aang tells Katara that Zuko told him what happened, and makes his own assumptions about what happened, assumptions which Katara says are wrong. But we never hear Zuko's interpretation of the facts, because it's not for him to define what happened. The episode is very careful to NOT have Zuko define or influence things. Which is why it's funny when people try to argue that he did. It also makes it more noticeable that Aang is the one who attempts to define things before listening to Katara, which is why he comes across negatively in this episode, and why it negatively affects an audience view of his relationship with Katara.
#sorry I just have a lot of feelings about ✨them✨#also very hilarious of Aang to be like#‘hey forgive and forget!! anyway let’s continue our mission to bring down the nation that wiped out my people :]’#the audacity#atla#zutara#carrot.add
76 notes
·
View notes
Text
1 // Have you always done both or is one a more recent hobby? Ever since I was a baby, I've always done art and imagined stories, though I didn't write them. Through my teen years, though, I put so much pressure on myself to be the good artist people told me I was that I developed a huge block towards it, even destroying my sketchbooks.
I leaned into writing then, but then felt so embarrassed that I stopped writing for years until the pandemic hit. The creative urges I felt in those years were poured into my Design BA projects, I guess. I've only just started to pickup a sketchbook again, slowly and gently, like I'm a deer I myself am trying to not scare off, lol.
4 // Do you see them as connected practices? The two come from different places for me. One is a very tactile instinct, the urge to feel the pencil rubbing onto paper, the glide of the paint agains the canvas, etc. It's about silencing my brain. The other is more of a deeper instinct of saying things. It's about honing my brain, weaving thoughts and feelings into words.
I have many ideas for fanart, even for my own fics, so I suppose they could have a more acute connection, but I never make those pieces. Anatomy study scares me, I can't be immediately good at it.
5 // Do you feel more confident in one than the other? Definitely in writing. I can learn it more objectively, practice more consciously. I can even develop it by osmosis. It's less about muscle memory, though that is still part of it. I have a fascination about words and grammar that help me a lot and I can, as I do, write in my second language, which alleviates the emotional strain of the activity for me. I can't exactly draw in a different language.
10 // Do you decorate your house with your art and do you reread your writing? I hide my drawings under lock and key, never to be seen again. I do reread my writing obsessively until I'm done editing it, or to get my writing voice back, if I've lost it but the urge to write is here. If I find I managed to get it to a particularly good place, lock it in a state that's exactly what it should be, I'll reread it and be like "wow, I did that, this one worked, you're not hopeless" so I get amped to write again.
11 // What do you find the experiences have in common? The pain. Handing someone a piece of art I made is excruciating. Handing someone something I wrote is like handing them a piece of my soul to examine, I can hardly breathe.
I'm curious, if you both write and make visual art, how would you compare the experiences?
Prompts, cause that seems helpful:
Have you always done both or is one a more recent hobby?
Do you prefer one over the other? Why?
Are you drawn to the same themes in both?
Do you see them as connected practices?
Do you feel more confident in one than the other?
Do you do both at once or do you have periods of time where you only write or only make art?
Does one come easier than the other?
Do you feel more invested in one than the other?
Does one medium feel more true to you or representative of who you are as a person?
Do you decorate your house with your art and do you reread your writing?
What do you find the experiences have in common?
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
The cross beam being two separate pieces would be sooo structurally unstable, I didn’t think anyone believed it was? With a full weight of a human being on them, the pieces would surely fall frequently. Impractical torture/execution method. The T-shape construction also makes sense for the same reason — the weight pulling it down would only reinforce the structure.
Also, I may be wrong, but as I remember it the Bible does depict it as a single piece because Jesus himself had to carry his, like you said, to the site of his crucifixion. And I suppose the guys meant the cross beam in these accounts, not the whole thing itself, which is how people interpret it and I always though it was logistically wild.
He even talks about “carrying your cross” at one point (a nice analogy at the time because the Romans did it so much that everyone was familiar with it. Plus, foreshadowing).
I think the famous cross shape was just extrapolated from centuries of drawing it by hand, and/or from the name itself, and/or because it is unique, aesthetically pleasing and vaguely human-esque.
Attended a lecture on crucifixion in the Roman empire recently and
a) hooo boy they really loved crucifying slaves to death those Romans. I am starting to get the impression that the Roman empire was a pretty bad place to live for most people!
but also b) we actually don’t have much direct archaeological evidence of how crosses were constructed? there are no preserved crosses that are even remotely complete; the closest thing we have are a couple nails stuck through calcaneus bones (literally a couple, like 2 individuals) and one piece of olive wood associated with one of those remains. I think it’s unlikely that an entire cross would have been constructed with olive wood so even that one piece is probably not from the main assemblage but rather just part of how the feet in particular were handled.
so we mostly have to rely on the few *depictions* of crucifixions that we know of, a few pieces of graffiti and one magic gem depicting jesus on the cross that was produced in a time and place where the artist might have actually witnessed crucifixion. Alongside the visual depictions we have we also have textual descriptions by firsthand witnesses, but they don’t go into much detail on the actual construction of the cross itself.


One common element from all our examples though is that crosses are depicted and described as being “tau shaped”, or T-like. literally, the capital letter T. as in, the crossbeam sits on top of the upright beam, not intersecting it. We also know for certain that the crossbeam was a single piece of wood, not two pieces which were joined separately to the upright post. We know this because writers at the time were very clear that crucifixion victims were affixed to the crossbeam prior to being raised up on the cross, and made to carry that beam around town prior to their execution—at no point is this described as multiple pieces of wood.
Which is all to say, as crucifixion tends to come up a lot in public conversation around this time of year, consider being annoying by telling christians that their crosses are historically inaccurate
14 notes
·
View notes