#And that's what it boils down to

[scarecrowgolem]

Hey uhh @/nativenews has been posting antisemitic shit and platforming sketchy tweeters can we maybe stop rbing from them

[marzipanandminutiae]

quotes by Victorians about the 1920s view of their generation's women

"We are frequently told that the Victorian woman...generally behaved like a pampered and neurotic infant. This is all moonshine. I do not think that I ever saw a woman faint before I came to London in 1869, and not often after then...they enjoyed a hearty laugh, and a good many of them a contest of wits with any man." -Nineteenth Century, a Monthly Review, 1927 (written by a man born in 1850)

"What queer ideas the girl of 1929 has about the Victorian period- they are not a bit true...Marriage was by no means the end and aim of our existence. Oxford and Cambridge claimed quite a few of us after school days were over. We had great ideas about 'life' and what it all might mean to us." -St. Petersburg Times, 1929 (written by a woman born in 1853)

"True, debutantes were chaperoned at balls. But that fact did not prevent them from dancing as frequently as they chose with their favorite partners. The idea that girls in the Victorian era spent their days sewing seams and practicing scales is another fallacy." -Gettysburg Times, July 1, 1927 (quote from the Dowager Lady Raglan, Ethel Jemima Somerset, who lived from 1857 to 1940)

[autumnrory]

She's often accused of playing the victim, that's a big line in like the Kanye stuff, and so on, like she's self-victimizing. But to me, what's actually kind of interesting, and it's almost an artistic flaw of hers, is that she is unable to be the victim. Like, in Dear John, which is one of her best songs, she has that, you burned all the other girls you date out, but not me, I got your matches before you could burn me. And so like, she actually doesn't play the victim, she's just kind of honest. Like, if somebody releases a music video of you with like, a giant nude wax Taylor doll, she'll be like, that's kind of revenge porn and I don't like it. That's just hitting back, right? So like, what actually irritates people about her is her refusal to be the victim of a situation, but like, they call it playing the victim.

B.D. McClay, Know Your Enemy: Taylor Swift Derangement Syndrome

[jekyllnahyena]

Give it some time Fox, he's trying his best

more dumb doodles in the Fox is the fav and thus has somehow ended up with an allpowerful evil grandpa

[a-polite-melody]

“In order to punish Biden and the dems for supporting genocide we have to not vote for them. I don’t care that the republicans, especially the republicans under Trump, will actively make the genocide worse if they win. This is good praxis for supporting Palestine.”

Do you people hear yourselves????

[hootispootis]

i think the community became a huge breeding ground for negativity and cringe culture. sooooo shoutout to everyone who makes AUs you're beautiful and awesome and know how to have fun. because in a way, aren't we all just doing what isaac's doing?

[aj-artjunkyard]

Hc: in the Riordanverse, neither divine twin is older. Bc of the fluidity and contradiction of myths (that the books acknowledge), both Artemis and Apollo fully remember being born first and think the other is just teasing them. Neither have ever considered for a moment that their sibling might be telling the truth

Most other gods have worked this out but the twins’ pettiest on-going drama is very funny. Everyone’s stoking the flames. Leto diplomatically claims she doesn’t remember

[qiu-yan]

there is no such thing as a singular "true nature"

recently saw a (or rather, yet another) post dunking on jiang cheng for blaming wei wuxian and trying to strangle him after the fall of lotus pier. which is fair, because that honestly was rather terrible of him.

however, one specific aside in that post stood out to me:

as i saw in the post i'm now being a hater about, antis have the tendency of boiling down an entire character to just their worst moments. but the section i highlighted above interests me precisely because i think it sheds light on what logical fallacy causes the anti tendency towards this boiling-down.

one common thread i've seen across antis of all sorts of characters - whether the characters they're bashing be jiang cheng, jin guangyao, su minshan, or wei wuxian himself - is this idea of a singular "true nature." the idea is that people have a "true nature," which is typically hidden by polite manners and civilized society, but may then be exposed during moments of stress in which those manners are stripped away.

the implied corollary to this idea of a singular "true nature" that is only revealed on occasion, then, is the existence of "false natures": if the self that is exposed during moments of high duress is one's "true nature," then the self that is seen during moments of normalcy is not one's "true nature." one's "true nature" is determined from solely these moments of high duress; the "nature" implied by one's actions during all other times does not count. if we follow this framework, then the you who goes apeshit after a bad day is closer to your "true nature" than the you who has a normal day of fun with your friends; the you who goes apeshit after a bad day is more real than the you who has a normal day with friends; the you who goes apeshit after a bad day matters more in the cumulative assessment of your existence than the you on every other day of your life.

as you might expect, i don't agree with this worldview. i don't condone boiling an entire person down to their single most extreme moments, not only because it is uncharitable, but also because i don't accept this idea of a "true nature" to begin with. to make such sweeping statements about an individual's "true nature" is overly simplistic and reductive of the full complexity of humanity. furthermore, in order for the idea of [a true nature that is only revealed in moments of duress] to work, one must rank all of the actions and behaviors of an individual from least to most "true," as described above - but, in fact, everything an individual does makes up who they are.

there is no such thing as a singular "true nature." you are not some fundamental "true nature" hidden away under layers and layers of pretense. everything you do - not just the things you do in moments of duress - makes up your character. you are the sum of all of your actions, both mundane and extreme: the you who has a normal day with friends is very bit as true, as real, as the you who reacts in extreme ways in extreme circumstances.

jiang cheng is the person who blamed wei wuxian for the fall of lotus pier and tried to strangle him for it. jiang cheng is also the person who spent his childhood shielding wei wuxian from dogs. jiang cheng is also the person who loves jiang yanli and sincerely wishes for her happiness. jiang cheng is the person who repeatedly tried to warn wei wuxian from messing with lan wangji and who carried wei wuxian after he got beaten by the lan. jiang cheng is the person who feels his father loves wei wuxian more than him. jiang cheng is the person who failed to stand up for mianmian out of concern for his own sect. jiang cheng is the person who ran restlessly for seven days to rescue wei wuxian (and lan wangji) from the xuanwu's cave; jiang cheng is also the person who resented not being thanked for his hard work. jiang cheng is the person who spent 3 months tirelessly looking for wei wuxian. jiang cheng is the person who allowed wei wuxian to secede from yunmeng jiang without any support in order to keep yunmeng jiang safe. jiang cheng is the person who helped jiang yanli sneak into the burial mounds so that wei wuxian could see her wedding clothes. jiang cheng is the person who blamed wei wuxian for jiang yanli's death. jiang cheng is the person who led the first siege of the burial mounds. jiang cheng is not the person who killed wei wuxian.

jiang cheng is the person who blamed wei wuxian for the downfall of lotus pier and then tried to strangle wei wuxian for it. jiang cheng is also the person who, barely a few hours later, sacrificed his everything in order to save wei wuxian from the wens.

both of these statements are true. all of these statements are true. the fact that one of these statements is true does not stop any of the others from being equally true. the reason why i dislike this "true nature" framework so much is that it cherrypicks certain moments as unique truths at the cost of all others - it centers one specific moment as indicative of an individual's entire nature, and in doing so discards all other moments as mattering less. in favor of a singular, easily digestible statement (eg. "jiang cheng's true nature is one of selfishness"), it erases the full complexities and contradictions true to humanity.

it is erroneous to say that "jiang cheng trying to strangle wei wuxian indicates his true nature," because of all the other shit that jiang cheng did. it is ALSO erroneous to say that "jiang cheng sacrificing himself to save wei wuxian indicates his true nature," because of all the other fucking shit that jiang cheng did. the fact is that jiang cheng did both of those things and also a whole bunch of other shit, and we all just have to accept it.

what's funny here is that this same "true nature" thinking also gets applied to wei wuxian himself in-universe. to the general public in MDZS, wei wuxian is the guy who invented demonic cultivation, who created the weapon of mass destruction that was the yin tiger tally, who killed jin zixuan, who got jiang yanli killed, and who in a moment of extreme emotional distress killed over a thousand people at the nightless city pledge conference. in their discussions of wei wuxian, the public centers these specific acts as indicating wei wuxian's singular "true nature." everything else wei wuxian was - his inventiveness, his kindness, his selflessness, his playfulness, his genius - gets dismissed as "false natures" in comparison to the one "true nature."

but this isn't an accurate description of wei wuxian, because to take just wei wuxian's very worst moments and then make those moments his entire being is not fair. wei wuxian tortured countless wen cultivators during the sunshot campaign, wei wuxian killed jin zixuan and heavily injured jiang yanli before her death, wei wuxian killed over a thousand people at the nightless city pledge conference. wei wuxian also sacrificed his everything for jiang cheng, abandoned the easy way out in favor of protecting innocent people from suffering, and has repeatedly chosen to help others when he could have easily not done so. all of these statements are true. the fact that one of them is true does not prevent any of the others from being equally true. the wei wuxian who chose to help the wen remnants is every bit as real as the wei wuxian who killed over a thousand people at nightless city, and to take either of these moments and assert that it alone reveals a "true nature" while ignoring the other is to commit a logical fallacy.

tl;dr - people contain multitudes.

regarding what the op of the screenshot actually said: they are correct in that jiang cheng does display a repeated pattern of behavior in which he blames wei wuxian for his family's misfortunes and thus lashes out at wei wuxian. but the degree to which wei wuxian is actually blameless for this misfortune, i think, is much greyer than the op said.

[surreal-duck]

plushie introductions

[tswwwit]

One of the neat things about demon flirting versus human flirting is the opportunity for jealousy. Weird jealousy.

Bill complains to Dipper about a lot of things. How his day was going. About any plans that were foiled, if any. How dumb other beings are. But if, say, Bill started going on about this one real pest he's had hanging around lately, and how they're so irritating and getting in his way...

It is said that husbands gain a sixth sense upon becoming married. In Bill's case, it was actually his thirteenth - but when he notices Dipper’s gone oddly quiet, he hears the alarm bells ringing.

Oh, so this person, huh. Really irritating, Bill says. A thorn in his side, maybe? How annoying, exactly? Now Bill’s sweating as Dipper’s own annoyance rises. What, are they, like a new *nemesis* or something?

Now Bill’s on damage control duty as he reassures Dipper - entirely truthfully! - that he’s soooo infuriating and definitely the Worst Thing that's ever happened to him.

[p41nkillers]

'i oNLy tAkE a siP aT cHuRCh' but then they found ur secret wine bc youre secretly an alcoholic-

[wield-the-mighty-pen]

Just to clarify, having a favorite side of the lovesquare is not- ‘this side is objectively better and more moral than all other sides’ or ‘this side is the only side worth shipping’

Having a favorite side of the lovesquare is loving and appreciating all sides of the lovesquare because they are all the same two people and just overall enjoying the lovesquare as a whole, but also having one particular side that makes your heart extra giddy whenever you see them and makes you especially excited to watch their scenes

[miralines]

It’s important to me that Cinders has something wrong with her (affectionate). This is a woman who fell for the star soldier of the army who burned her planet, spent thirty years looking for her, and then dumped her corpse to be with a clone of her. Like you can make that understandable, she’s been through a lot, but part of that understanding is that those are the actions of a woman with Problems

[24-compass-roses]

*sees subway* orv reference

*sees sunfish* orv reference

*sees lemon candy* orv reference

*sees a rlly ugly squid* orv reference

*sees character* orv reference

*sees reader* orv reference

*sees author* orv reference

*sees 49% 51%* orv reference

*sees sword and shield together* orv reference

*sees Korean guy in a white coat* orv reference

*sees Korean guy in a black coat* orv reference

*sees a constellation in the night sky* orv reference

*sees story* orv reference

*sees story based off another story* orv reference

*sees story based off another story that’s based off of multiple other stories because the thing about stories is they never really die, they just get retold and remade into other stories and the point of a story is to keep on telling it and telling it because it may save someone’s life someday* orv reference

*sees the incarnation of love itself, strong, raw, hurting, and absolutely desperate to reach one stupidly wonderful and wonderfully stupid person who so stubbornly refuses it each and every time because they don’t believe they deserve it despite a cacophony of voices loudly insisting that they DO, they do deserve it, and that maybe love isn’t something that’s earned through deserving at all but instead given and received* orv ref—

[ninjacat49]

Ok so I’m gonna go through this scene cause some people need it but also cause I really love it so here we go:

Tommy asks if Bobby is okay, and Buck gives him an update (a positive one thank goodness)

Tommy makes a joke about how the 118 should have their own dedicated wing at the hospital (which is so true of him to say), but it’s obvious Buck is not feeling it

Tommy notices, and asks if Bucks okay, in which Buck opens up about how Bobby is more of a dad to him than his own father

This leads to Tommy opening up about his own dad (Tommy lore!!!) and how Gerrard was not an improvement whatsoever (obviously) (also that’s really depressing. Buck you better cuddle with this man rn)

Then Buck starts the iconic part of the conversation, “So maybe we both have daddy issues.” If you’ve paid attention to Buck at all during this show, it’s very obvious that by the tone of his voice and the look in his eyes/face that he’s flirting

And of course we all know the rest, with Tommy returning Bucks flirty energy - “I don’t.” “But you think I do?” “God, I hope so.” Which first of all, Tommy’s voice for the “god, I hope so” has me going insane and if I was Buck I would’ve passed out, and second of all, Buck’s “but you think I do” is very much him still being flirty and trying to get a reaction from Tommy (and he succeeds)

And that’s the end of the scene, where Buck and Tommy are both pleased with the direction their conversation went

For such a short scene, I love how much we got out of them. And for such a short scene, it’s insane how much backlash it’s getting by certain people. Somehow people are saying that Tommy made the conversation sexual right after Buck was vulnerable about his dad, and how that’s messed up, but that’s literally not what happened? If anything, BUCK is the one that made the conversation sexual after Tommy was vulnerable. And you know what? That’s completely okay, because they’re grown adults and have the capability of changing the vibe of a conversation. If Tommy didn’t like the direction Buck was going, he would have stopped it from going further. But he didn’t. Because again, they’re two grown men. Dang I didn’t really mean to go on a rant, but I’m so tired of the horrible takes of this scene. I’m glad that all the people I’m following are also loving this scene and Tommy and bucktommy (though I guess kinkley works better now huh)

[yeyinde]

ALPHA PRICE?? I'm salivating

godd yeah. he's a surly bear of a man who lives in a corrie all by himself. spends all day by the tarn, chopping wood and hunting. built everything he owns with his bare hands. his scent alone send you into an early heat. super authoritative so even without an "alpha command," you're obeying immediately. despite his age, he's unmated (for reasons which of dubious nature). and your former boss (who tried to get you fired on multiple occasions lmao) for the extra power imbalance of it all. he's awful. he's mean. he's never gonna let you go. i love him.