#( especially as it happened *twice* )

[multidimensional-trashcan]

Things that can put the fear of god into a tumblr user:

- commenting 'this post feels like it has 10k notes'

- telling OP you're investing in their posts

- tagging it as a heritage post or even tagging @hellsite-hall-of-fame

- writing the absolute worst take known to man in the comment section so OP can prepare for a week long argument taking place in their notes

- making OP realize that they made a penis typo and it's too late to correct it

EDIT: i had now four of those happening to me on this post and someone started to KUNGPOW PENIS ME! WHY IS THIS HAPPENING TO ME??!!?

these tags are now a reminder of a much simpler time when i was sheltered from the horrors of the world ⬇️

[theposhperyton]

Is this anything chat

[skitskatdacat63]

The Oscar pic reminded me of this! Wow, 20 years apart, that's kinda crazy

[medicalunprofessional]

“”employees”” attempt to stage revolt, goes terribly wrong, massive fail : (

[lunalikestowriteanddraw]

“It stank and had a horrid face, but in his heart held a special place”

DAMN RIGHT HE DOES

[yourgamemasterthewhiterabbit]

Both my parents actually suffer from HORRID emotional dysregulation and are prone to snapping and going into rages. My sister is the same way tbh. I am now realizing this is why they are constantly baffled by the question of whether or not I am mad at them.

I don't have external meltdowns.

I could. I don't let it happen.

I keep my rage on the inside and stay pretty quiet about it. It's just as strong as theirs [physically shaking nose bleed from high blood pressure kind of bad], but like as a kid I saw how terrifying it was to be around [dad breaking dishes, mom putting our lawn chairs into walls] and I just internalized that I wasn't going to wear that anger on the outside.

So my mother genuinely cannot tell if I am just being quiet or if I am silently hearing the dial-up noises of pure rage. This has lead her to both making strong and confident statements like "You are a pacifist who would never hurt a fly U.U" but also acting like I am secretly dangerous maybe... It's because she has never seen me snap.

She knows what her temper is like [throwing chairs through walls], she knows what my father's temper is like [pick up child and toss out door], and she can tell I am being tested, but she doesn't know what happens when I snap or where that breaking point is.

Her -perhaps unhinged- solution to this, my whole life, has been to do things that should obviously enrage me or shut me down completely, like ignoring important boundaries, repeatedly, punishing me for expressing emotions or needs at all, etc... And then to constantly ask me if I am angry with her when I get too quiet [right after near directly telling me to shut up].

It has occurred to me now, they have never once seen me lose my temper, so they literally just can't tell if I am angry at them. My sister is easy, my mother fights and screams with my sister constantly, my mother understands this. My mother doesn't have any grasp of feelings or boundaries that are not screamed at her [apparently, and I fear my sister is the same way]. Her and my sister are close despite constant fucking fighting because they understand each other.

They are trying to get me to engage the same way and it is not working. I realize now that this has been hard for them.

I was so successfully taught to suppress my emotions, by being punished for any outburst, that rage quiet looks the same as any other kind of quiet from the outside. To them anyway.

I did tell her. For the record. I used my words. I did tell her very calmly that my response to rage, in order to avoid doing the things that terrified me as a child, was to simply leave [the autistic urge to GTFO]. When a situation or person causes too much of the dial-up rage noise, I simply extract myself from that situation, up to and including never speaking to a person again. I explained this calmly. I explained it calmly 100 times and I explained that I explain myself calmly as my rage response 1-5 [also pretty much every other negative emotion tbh], and I told her that what came next was me simply opting out and fucking off. I told her this. I couldn't understand why she never took me seriously, or why she never fucking understood.

I couldn't understand what made her like this.

But it's the same problem I have with everyone else multiplied by a factor of 10.

If I am explaining myself calmly, they can't understand that it's actually serious or that I am actually upset. ESPECIALLY because they read me as "female" and women "aren't that rational" so if I am not screaming and crying about something, which I never do, people assume I can't be upset and it isn't serious.

And then after having my boundaries ignored too many times despite having calmly explained how and why it's a problem [shaking inside or not]... I leave. I leave and everyone gets upset like this is unexpected behaviour, even though I told them 50 times that is how I would respond if they kept doing *the thing.*

And for neurotypical people especially, they are expecting there to be a disconnect between what someone says they need or feel and what their actually boundaries and feelings are, and they expect the latter to be demonstrated with emotions. Telling them bluntly you do not function that way somehow never helps?

My mother isn't just looking for normal yelling or a few tears to know I am serious, whether or not I do those either [I don't], she's looking for an explosion to know there's a problem at all.

Fucked if I know how she proceeds through life this way in general or if this is just her expectation of her own kids???

And I couldn't get why my mother couldn't read my emotions and didn't seem to think I have any. It's because she's testing for the rage limit to see where my 'actual' limit is instead of taking my word for it. Never the fuck mind that she could simply *not* test at my boundaries instead of letting me have them. Separate issue.

I couldn't figure out what made her *like this*

She's expecting me to throw a giant meltdown violent tantrum at people when I have 'actually' had enough. Maybe she got away with those being like 5'4" in another time, but I am the size of the average man, I do not get to have giant screaming rages, whether or not people perceive me consciously as a woman, and least of all because a lot of people -at least unconsciously- read me as 'masculine' or at least always "they guy" of the situation compared to all other women and some men [bigger stronger and more rational, more able to just absorb the damage and let it go so the less rational screaming/crying one doesn't have to be dealt with]. Even if it was in me to be willing to terrify people [usually never], there are such limited instances where it wouldn't just blow back on me. Potentially very dangerously.

I am going to be the quiet calm one. You are going to have to let me use my words, bitch.

So she kept ignoring my boundaries until I had to cut her out of my life, and she probably doesn't understand and probably thinks it feels sudden -after 36 long years of bullshit- abrupt and unfair.

But I told her hundreds of times.

I probably should have just screamed at her.

[xyriscomplanata]

If I had a penny for every time a stranger on the internet called me daddy unprompted I'd have two pennies. Which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened twice

[hauntedhotel]

What's interesting about the Ineffable Bureaucracy relationship is that it's so sweet, it's almost wholesome with the song and the fly and the instant agreement to run away together. They should be the real enemies to lovers with the complications and the angst and the centuries to figure things out - they're the bosses! But they find themselves sort of on the same side once and a couple of years later they're running away to the stars together? How is that fair? How come they have it so easy?

From Crowley's perspective, watching all this happen and then being rejected by Aziraphale who wants to go back to Heaven, it looks so much like Gabriel loves Beez more than Aziraphale loves him, but it's not that at all. It's just that Gabriel is selfish. He doesn't care about Earth or humanity, he doesn't care about Heaven or the other angels, he doesn't even care about "good" or "evil" or balance or any of it. He cares about getting what he wants.

I also wonder if Muriel was introduced in this season specifically to show an angel (other than Aziraphale) that we can sympathise with. Not every angel in Heaven is Gabriel/Michael/Metatron - who's to say that after a book and a nice meal and a chat with some humans all the angels wouldn't start questioning the status quo? Who's to say Aziraphale is actually wrong about being able to change things in Heaven?

Heaven isn't just the archangels - a company is more than its board of directors. There are millions of angels in Heaven, you think all of them miss Gabriel? You think they all like Michael? You think they aren't curious about the angel who breathed hellfire at their dickhead boss and then shacked up with a demon? Lucifer was the originally angelic revolutionary but he got kicked out and took his mates down with him - what happens when the angel going "look its a bit shit this isn’t it?" has the majority standing behind him?

[nana-nia]

*Coughs* Voltron and Star Trek: Voyager.

I love them so much.

[moonmoonthecrabking]

i am not immune to grace wearing steph's clothes

[misclogarts]

why was citrus so popular it's ... there's better yuri out there 😭

[diltonsstrangescience]

Okay. For real this time. I have found the most unbelievable, the most ridiculous, the most unlikely thing to happen twice in The Man From R.I.V.E.R.D.A.L.E. canon.

Starch-stiff snakes.

Twice.

I have officially seen it all.

[tamagotchikgs]

whenever i find someone online with the same nose as me and im like huh maybe my features arent too bad maybe they can b cool and human :] and then they get a nose job a week later

[sskk-manifesto]

Ep 6!!!

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Danton breaking up fights between Robespierre and his soon-to-be ex-boyfriends compilation

The surveillance Committee launched an arrest warrant against Minister Roland; it was the 4th (September), and the massacres were still going on. Danton was informed of it, he came to town hall, he was with Robespierre; […] I (Pétion) had an explanation with Robespierre, it was very lively. I tell him: “Robespierre, you are doing a lot of harm; your denunciations, your alarms, your hatreds, your suspicions, they agitate the people; explain yourself; do you have any facts? Do you have any proof? I fight with you; I only love the truth; I only want freedom.”

”You allow yourself to be surrounded, you allow yourself to be warned, he replied; you are disposed against me; you see my enemies everyday; you see Brissot and his party.”

”You are mistaken, Robespierre; no one is more on guard than I against prejudices, and judges with more coolness, men and things. You’re right, I see Brissot, however rarely, but you don’t know him, and I know him since his childhood. I have seen him in those moments when the soul shows itself entirely; where one abandons oneself unreservedly to friendship, to confidence: I know his disinterestedness; I know his principles, I proclaim to you that they are pure; those who make him a party leader have not the faintest idea of ​​his character; he has enlightenment and knowledge; but he has neither the reserve, nor the dissimulation, nor those lively forms, nor that spirit of consistency which constitutes a leader of a party, and what will surprise you is that, far from leading others, he is very easy to abuse.”

Robespierre insisted, but confined himself to generalities.

”Allow us to explain ourselves,” I told him, ”tell me frankly what is in your heart, what you know.”

”Well!” he replied, ”I believe that Brissot is at Brunswick.”

”What mistake is yours,” I exclaimed! ”it is truly madness; this is how your imagination leads you astray: wouldn't Brunswick be the first to cut his head off? Brissot is not mad enough to doubt it: which of us can seriously capitulate! which of us does not risk his life! Let us banish unjust mistrust.”

Danton became entangled in the colloquy, saying that this was not the time for arguments; that it was necessary to have all these explanations after the expulsion of the enemies; that this decisive object alone should occupy all good citizens.  Discours de Jérôme Pétion sur l’accusation intentée contre Maximilien Robespierre (November 5 1792)

Robespierre: Camille's writings are to be condemned, no doubt; but nevertheless it is necessary to distinguish the person from his works. I consent freedom to treat Desmoulins like a spoiled child who had happy dispositions, and who has been led astray by bad company. His head sometimes wanders, but his talents are precious. But we must demand of him that he prove his repentance for all his thoughtlessness, by quitting those companies which have ruined him. We must crack down on his acts that Brissot himself would not have dared to admit, and keep Desmoulms in our midst. All these truths are not flattering for an author: but if the vanity of Camille Desmoulins is offended by them, he considers that he has attracted a small admonition sufficient to correct it. When he sees that he has deserved still more severe reproaches, he will feel the necessity of rallying to principles, and removing from himself all causes of an error that we are willing to forgive him for. Let him examine that his writings are the pain of patriots and the joy of aristocrats, and he will be grateful to us to see that it is only for him that we can forget them. I end by asking that his numbers be treated like the aristocrats who buy them, with the contempt that profanity deserves. I propose to the Society to burn them in the middle of the room (There is applause several times; Robespierre's speech was interrupted by applause and bursts of laughter).  Desmoulins: That's very well said, Robespierre, but I'll answer you like Rousseau: "To burn is not to answer."  Robespierre: How dare you still want to justify works that delight the aristocracy? Learn, Camille, that if you were not Camille, one could not have so much indulgence for you. The way you want to justify yourself proves to me that you have bad intentions. To burn is not to answer! But can this quotation of the sublime philosopher of Geneva find its application here? WelI, I retract my last motion; I ask that Camille's numbers not be burned, but that they be answered. Since he wants to, let him be covered with ignominy, let the Society not restrain its indignation, since he persists in supporting his diatribes and his dangerous principles. The man who clings so strongly to perfidious writings is perhaps more than misguided; if he had been in good faith, if he had written in the simplicity of his heart, he would not have dared longer to support works proscribed by patriots and sought after by all the counter-revolutionaries of France. His courage is only borrowed, he detects the hidden men under whose dictation he wrote his diary; he detects in Desmoulins the organ of a villainous faction which has borrowed his pen to distill its poison with more audacity and certainty. Desmoulins, who sees himself blamed by the patriots, finds himself compensated by the adulations of the aristocrats he frequents, and by the caresses of many false patriots, under which he does not perceive the perfidious intention of ruining him. You must know what he said in response to those who blamed his writings: Do you know that I sold 50 000 copies! I would not have said these truths if Desmoulins had not been so obstinate, but the point of order has become necessary. I therefore ask that the numbers of Camille Desmoulins be read from the rostrum: if there are individuals who defend his principles, they will be listened to, but there will be patriots to answer them.  Desmoulins: But Robespierre, I don’t understand you. How can you say only aristocrats read my paper? The Convention, the Mountain, are they composed of aristocrats? You denounce me here, but was I not at your house? Didn’t I read you my numbers, asking you, in the name of friendship, for your advice, and to trace the path that I had to take?  Robespierre: You didn’t show me all your numbers, I only saw one or two. To avoid quarrel I didn’t want to read the others, it would be said that I dictated them.  Danton: Camille mustn’t be frightened by the rather severe lessons Robespierre’s friendship has just given him. Citizens, let justice and cold-headedness always preside over our decisions. In judging Camille, be careful to not strike a deadly blow against the liberty of the press.  [A secretary reads number 4 of Vieux Cordelier, which excites reclamations, the reading is at several times interrupted by marks of improbation. The club, at the proposal of Robespierre, decides that it will hear the reading of Camille’s third and fifth number tomorrow, where he will justify himself.]  The Jacobin Club January 7 1794

[mdverse]

Glee Anniversary Appreciation Week: day 7

-> free choice: bald au (courtesy of @backslashdelta)