#and focus your efforts

[imaginesangie]

Anyway they won’t allow comments OR reblogs (my guess is so they can stay in their echo chamber and so they don’t have to own up to spreading misinformation) so I’m going to debunk this misinformation here on my own post.

Sharks are, in fact, NOT on the verge of extinction, that is clear by a simple Google search. Certain sharks species are ENDANGERED or VULNERABLE which has nothing to do with JAWS and everything to do with the fishing industry. Of course because they are endangered and vulnerable they RISK extinction in the future but they are not 'on the verge' of it.

List of endangered and vulnerable shark species

Sharks, rays, and similar species are killed NOT because of an American movie but because of overfishing of sharks. In certain cultures, shark fin soup is said to be medicinal and provide a wide range of health benefits. Despite no evidence of such being true, certain cultures still fish for sharks for their fins alone. This is deadly because of the way sharks breathe. They need to be in motion in order to breathe and without their fins they slowly suffocate to death.

Source of why sharks are currently endangered

Last, lets finally bring up JAWS and why this argument doesn't prove the point of "fiction can affect reality" in the way they think it does. JAWS causing people to be more afraid of sharks did NOT cause shark-finners and shark overfishing to occur or get worse. The "JAWS effect" doesn't actually exist in any meaningful way beyond people from the USA being more afraid of sharks. JAWS did not have that much of an impact in other parts of the world where shark fishing is common. Of course the movie JAWS DID inevitably lead to people killing sharks, but not nearly to the scale most assume. Shark-fishing tournaments were set up and fishermen at the time would catch as many sharks as they could. This did lead to a big decline of sharks in the US east coast due to the overfishing. Keep in mind that this, however, does not account for the millions of sharks killed for their fins every year.

Did JAWS have an impact on the way people (especially in English-speaking countries) saw sharks? Yes it did, the uneducated masses at the time had no idea how sharks actually functioned. Did JAWS cause a decline in shark populations in the US? Yes it did, fishing contests put in place greatly affected the sharks in the East coast of the US. Did this have a greater impact on shark populations as a whole and their decline? Nope! The biggest reasons sharks are endangered as they are now is because of overfishing, shark finning, and bycatch (catching a fish and then discarding it because it isn't the fish you desired/can sell).

Link 1 about the "JAWS Effect" myth

Link 2 about the "JAWS Effect" myth

[very-gay-alkyrion]

Like to charge, reblog to cast

[utilitycaster]

This is probably something that will be obvious to many but: writing about fictional works but not creating fanfiction/fanon to me tends to fall into four categories, and I think it's really important to get how they intersect before getting weird about other people's posts.

Opinion. Eg: I like relationships based in mutual understanding. This is my opinion. It is correct for me. Might not be correct for you! Note that this is pure opinion, with no argument.

Interpretation: Eg: Beau and Yasha's relationship shows a great deal of understanding in each other's shared experiences, including abusive parents; a shared tendency to believe, at least earlier on, that things will go badly and that they don't deserve better; and difficulty expressing their feelings verbally but letting out frustrations through fighting.

Fact/Evidence: Beau says she is unused to things turning out good, and Yasha believes herself to be, as she says, very unlucky or cursed. Her letter covers that she expresses herself through fighting.

Conclusion: I like Beauyasha.

Argument is Opinion + Interpretation; a valid argument is Opinion + Interpretation + Evidence. Meta can include opinion but ultimately is Interpretation and good meta is Interpretation + Evidence. It's fine to post just an opinion, but if you want to change minds, you need an argument, and if you want to be able to hold your own against a counterargument it better be valid.

You can have the same interpretation and facts and different opinions and therefore different conclusions. Someone else could say "I like messy relationships (opinion) and so Beau and Yasha's shared understanding (interpretation, same as mine) is not interesting to me (conclusion)." You can also have a different interpretation from the same facts, either because you are including a different set of facts on a topic or because there is ambiguity and room for different lenses.

If your goal is to change someone's mind - and to be honest mine usually isn't - you are unlikely to change their opinions. Eg, If someone says "I don't like Beauyasha because I prefer messier relationships" I'm not going to convince them on the grounds of "you shouldn't like messier relationships." I need to either put forward an interpretation that supports a messier relationship, or, more realistically, say "understandable, have a nice day" and move on with my life.

That last bit is important - a lot of people also argue on the basis of "well obviously this interpretation is the only one, so you should draw the same opinions from it." and that's likely to fail; either the person disagreeing with you overall does agree on the interpretation but has different opinions (as in the above example), or they have a different interpretation (eg: Beau and Yasha have attacked each other repeatedly) and that is the basis of their opinion (I don't like that). You need to figure out which is going on and address that should you wish to change their mind. And again, I think you should ask why you want to change their mind.

The last point is that all of the above is valid given the text and reflect different perspectives. But if someone were to say "I don't like Beauyasha because Beau turned into a porcupine and moved to France, and I don't like long-distance relationships" the invalid portion is that this literally did not happen (fact leading to interpretation). If someone can correctly dispute the facts of your interpretation (as they stand at the time, obviously; no one is penalized for not being precognitive) then you are fucked, argument-wise. If I point out that Beau did not turn into a porcupine nor move to France, this person's argument falls apart. They can still dislike the relationship, but if they want to justify it with an argument they better find a new interpretation, and fast.

Before I move into the end I will note that you can also just not vibe with something, and that's purely in the realm of opinion + conclusion, a la "this rubs me the wrong way" or "I find this annoying" or "it's cute" and all of those are valid to hold for yourself, and also inaccessible to anyone else

The conclusions I draw from all of the above are first, making posts that are only your opinion/conclusion is always fine - say what you want - but treating it as an argument is a waste of time, and so anything of the order of "how could you not like xyz (unspoken: because I did)" is pointless because my answer is going to be "easily, and with confidence." Secondly, I think it's valuable to look at posts, even those with arguments, as primarily interpretation rather than opinion. Putting forth a separate interpretation is a disagreement, but it's not a disagreement necessarily directed at you; it's disagreeing with you but the parallel play option is available! You do not need to go out trying to convert all to your same mindset. I think a healthy fandom ecosystem has multiple interpretations and opinions and respectful disagreement; the positive version of "let people like/dislike things" (ie, they can like it or dislike it and if you're normal, your enjoyment is not contingent on theirs). Thirdly, get your facts straight or suffer the consequences. And finally, if you are trying to make an argument for an ongoing work and do so over time, your opinion must be fairly consistent even as the interpretation naturally evolves otherwise it becomes clear that you are arguing in favor of a foregone conclusion (often via moving the goalposts). If you say "I like characters who are willing to make painful and difficult choices, and Blorbo always takes the easy way out, so I don't like them" and Blorbo develops into a character who is able to make painful and difficult choices, if you start critiquing Blorbo now on the basis those choices that's still fair but you better come very correct, and it might be wiser to just say "I don't fuck with Blorbo, if you do that's great but I don't."

[eye-of-yelough]

lol accidentally made my durge and astarion perfect parallels of each other.

needless to say their dynamic is uhh. interesting

[a-witch-called-cottage]

Just saw some truly disgusting posts pop up on my dash and my immediate instinct was to correct the misinformation. I’ve had to stop myself so many times lately because they’re getting more brazen with their lies.

So just a friendly reminder. A lot of the Zionists you see posting and commenting are bots. They’re getting paid to post. It’s been documented.

DO NOT ENGAGE WITH THEM

Bot or not, DO NOT ENGAGE. Don’t argue. Don’t try to make them understand. They aren’t going to listen. Block and move on. The bots will get paid to argue with you, and the others are too far brainwashed to see sense. You aren’t going to get through to them.

We’ve got to learn to pick our battles. Focus on boycotting and spreading awareness to those who are still on the fence.

[tojiscumdumpster]

i remember i use to be down that my fics didn’t get a lot of notes (sometimes i still do), but overall, im grateful for having a small account because its easier for me interact with you all. and also, i just love that i have a little circle of people who consistently comment on my fics and give me a whole essay about how the chapter made you feel. it genuinely warms me 🥺❣️

[blindtaleteller]

Just out of curiosity... Is it really in character of Loki to replace Odin with magic like he does at the end of TDW?.. A part of me feels like it is tainted with hasty writing (which fits the narrative regarding how this was a change mid-production). If Loki truly survived the attack by the Cursed, what seems most in character for him to do? Getting on the throne of Asgard doesn't seem that likely to me, to be honest..

This one is gonna be long I think, because asking that particular question, tells me you've missed a few things. Nothing wrong with that; it happens. (I do know a lot but even I forget to add or remind myself of certain bits too now and again: which is yet another reason why I do watch and re-watch the content over and again, and seek out creators and actors interviews from the era from varied angles.)

I wish the current creators paid a decent fraction as much attention mind you, but that' as whole other thing and annoyance.

Anyway! Here we go again~

It does make the most sense choice wise, actually; that Loki would take the throne in 2013: and it has nothing to do with wanting the throne itself as implied and said outright repeatedly by current creators and their "scripts."

While there are a LOT of reasons to do so with what's going on in the story both immediate in Thor the Dark World itself and otherwise? Most of them, and the reason why Loki absolutely would keep the throne for the next five years boils down to the same reason used to attempt to execute him on his return, and ultimately put him in the dungeon to end up as the major reason Asgard's people were spared a prolonged siege at a time when their defenses had been almost entirely decimated.

The ultimate answer boils down to the not-so-hidden Chekhov's Gun for the overall story of the first sequence/series of MCU films.

I say it that way in particular, because in this case.. they started setting up for it back in 2009-11 with Captain America the First Avenger and the first Thor movie as well. Iron Man 2 released in 2010, had some part setting up details for Avengers 2012 as well; though some of them are mostly less important in regards to this particular ask, for the era and subject we're talking about here.

They did this incredibly well though, when you look at the way the set up was constructed.

Basically, there are two layers of story being told in most Marvel Cinematic Universe Movies of the era; if you didn't notice.

1. Local Story, the story that wholly belongs to the title; era and or immediate characters.

2. Universal and or Overall Story belonging to the universe in which those local stories are taking place.

Remember this guy? I'm pretty sure you do but..

One of the things that people love to forget (or more often pass over as taken for granted) is that Thanos is the person who ultimately snatched Loki up, purely with the intent of getting another stone (Tesseract) into his hands. (Of course there was never any promise Loki would rule over 8 billion rather than 4 billion either, and well. That kind of action; taking half the population then rather than 2018: is established repeatedly as being very much in Thanos' character too.)

I say one of though, because the fact that the Mind Stone (Scepter) was in Thanos hands well before that was established in the very first scenes of Avengers 2012.. before they even put a single character on screen.

In a scene that, tells the viewer outright why Loki was the one chosen; and what they want. This scene is a lot more than just a foreword to catch up viewers who hadn't seen Captain America or Thor at the time. This is also the first not-so-subtle mention of their Universal Story Chekhov's Gun, Thanos.

To break it down for you real quick:

------pre-Universal story set up.

1 - (2010) Tony Stark creates a new-to-earth element (Badassium.. lol I didn't name it, they did) replacing the palladium in the reactor in his chest with this element. Black Widow (Natasha Romanov) is introduced.

----this sets up in minor ways for the Mind Stone: a more believable reason and mechanic for Stark being immune to the Scepter being used on him at the top of the tower at the beginning of the Battle for New York. (There are other mechanics like this set up in the previous IM movies as well: including his brief float in space otherwise ignoring physics of human body and suit versus a lack of atmosphere, gravity or air pressure. [IM1]) But it also introduces Nat and her position in SHIELD into the Universe, rather than just throwing her on screen in A1.

2 - (R May 2011)This film is the heavy lifter as far as Universal story goes. It doesn't just introduce one or two major characters in the Avengers; but THREE of next movie's three major, main characters and their place in the universe are introduced and built: As well as giving the first glimpses of the Universe at large.

There is a reason why Loki and especially Asgard where he is after Thor's banishment, has more screen time than Thor in the opening title film, and the Universal Story is that reason.

(This one is going to be among the largest, because it contains some of the intent behind the character as he is in the MCU.)

FEIGE: "The movie, very much, is an origin of Loki, almost as much as it is an origin of Thor. We had to ride that balance." BRANNAGH: " I think the connection, if there is one, is that the stakes are high. So, in something like Henry IV or Henry V, where you’re wondering if that young prince could be the king and whether he’s the right man for the job. That story arc of the flawed hero who must earn the right to be king is in our piece, but what’s key is the stakes. There, it’s Europe and England, and here, it’s the universe. When that family has problems, everybody else is affected. If Thor throws a fit and is yelling at his father and is banished, suddenly the worlds are unstable." I: Can you talk about casting Tom Hiddleston for Loki? BRANNAGH: "From the performance point of view, we needed somebody who was complex and could convey intelligence. There was a constant conversation between us all about whether it was a good thing to keep the question mark over the character of Loki throughout. Is he bad? Does he have a plan? Does he love his brother? Does he hate his brother? Does he hate his father? Is this happening before our very eyes? How does he truly react to the secrets and lies that emerge, in the course of the story? So, you needed someone who could be adept at putting on all those masks and making it seem seamless." [Link to the full Interview HERE.]

Granted Brannagh summarized Thor's part IN throwing that Universe into chaos more than a bit, but yeah. (his shit fit from a less personal view included breaking peace treaty with a no border crossing agreement between two entire worlds, threatening and then killing the residents in the process, and then throwing another fit in defense of that TO get banished: and furthering that later on as the source of that problem through the extra treason of ignoring his very and repeatedly stated light punishment for that first set of acts of treason: by attempting to return from that punishment against the order of not one but two kings [interim and prior] to have the Destroyer sent after him only then.)

As you can see through Brannagh's words in particular though; Thor as a movie (and Asgard in particular) was aimed as one of the major contributing factors and powers in the MCU Universe and Universal Story from concept one.

Asgard (and T1 as a result) as a power and society was set up and built as a major pivoting point and joint for the Universal Story, with all the power, knowledge, flaws, limitations societal and otherwise needed to forward that story.

Brannagh was not just and only aware of that and the scope to which a universal monarchy and having that monarchy including Thor and Loki as main characters would stretch: he and the creators of Thor and the Universe including Feige were VERY aware of it.

And it kept all the way through to IW and EndGame, and would have even if Loki had not kept the throne.. if at a much higher cost. (We'll get to that; though I'm betting with this taken into account you can figure out some of why.)

All that kept to one side, this film introduced Asgard's current ability as a technologically advanced Conquerer-type Imperialist society, rather than gods; but also and temporarily disabled the Bifrost as their most used and fastest known means to deliver larger numbers to Earth, at the time of the movie's release. It likewise released Loki for his role in the Avengers 2012 and in their Universe at large: and set up for Guardians of the Galaxy in subtler ways to start off the Other and Thanos as the ones conducting the Invasion and looking for the Infinity Stones.

Needless to say, juggling all that in one film before the Universal Story hit, made giving their other introduction and Universal story mechanic on the Earthen end a little hard to squeeze in; but they did manage to introduce both Hawkeye and Selvig in the same movie setting on top of that: and added the end credit scene to establish further connection during Thor's banishment: by further involving SHIELD in his and especially Mjolnir's arrival.

Like I said.. heavy lifter of a film. Brannagh did a beyond amazing job with everything he was made to juggle both in film and setting up for the next two: one of which was in production at the same time as the one he was chosen to direct.

3. (R July 2011 [1940s]) Coming out later that year, CA:tFA took the next (and the one at the time unknown previous) page that the end credit scene showed us in that set up, to establish how the cube and Stone got there, a feel for it's danger in the wrong hands and how it ended up on Earth still in 2012 at all: again tying to SHIELD as Earth's portion of that Universal Story, using Asgard's pivot point to advance the plot and add the final Avenger (which lol at the title 'The First Avenger' for that reason and others: someone had a giggle at the name I'm sure). The Tesseract first seen in the end credit scene of Thor; is properly introduced immediately, as A. having been in Asgard's hands before leaving it in the charge of humans, and B. Stolen by Schmidt who knows and tells us this as he's stealing it from it's guardians descendants (right out of their ancestor's grave and dead hands) for Nazi/Hydra gain. The Tesseract (along with Schmidt and Rogers) is lost somewhere over the Atlantic.

----this movie sets up quite a few more things, and uses that gap in time to do so without need for a whole other movie. Cap's presence in 2012. What's really fun and interesting though, is just how afr ahead this one was running it's projected Universal Story aim: even if only in The Tesseract being reclaimed by SHIELD and Hydra sometime between 1945 and 1970 just before Tony's birth in that same year of 1970 (remember, Hydra were unidentified as being in SHIELD all the way up to 2014.)

Hydra's existence, threat, and eventual reveal in CA:TWS resulting in the Mind Stone they stole* while within SHIELD after 2012 to only be recovered three years after that in 2015. Bucky Barnes was introduced in this first film; and while his character on it's own doesn't do a whole lot for the Universal story.. where and what organization he's found in that he resurfaces as forced a part of, does: as the Universal Story in CAtWS connects from CAtFA and Avengers, to GoTG; and leads straight to Ultron where it's finally recovered, and more importantly to revealing the Infinity Stones for what they are.. as well as telling the viewer outright that of the six stones as of Age of Ultron?

We have already seen four of those six stones on screen.. and, three of them have been in Loki's presence if not directly in his hands as of 2013 the year after 2012. (Tesseract twice, Scepter, and Ather: and in that chronological order.)

(*Side note: Errrr, is it stealing when Hydra were running SHIELD more than Fury at that stage after Howard Stark's death: and they just kinda handed it to Rumlow and Pierce without question for two years? idk, that's more than a little iffy in a lot of ways lol!)

Anyway, again that pivoting point is straight-away Asgard, and Odin in particular. Though they make when it arrived on Earth ambiguous in CA:TFA, the Other's dialogue from that opening Avengers 2012 scene mentioned way up there at the top? Tells us outright that the Tesseract was left there AFTER the war with Jotunheim.

The line among the few I'm talking about in particular is:

" The Tesseract has awakened. [...] But our ally [Loki] knows it's workings as they never will. " - The Other, Avengers 2012, Opening Scene

(Another set of side notes: the inflection and especially emphasis being where it is in that dialogue was pretty interesting and a bit odd back then, prior to Thanos being properly unveiled as the Other's keeper two years later. Right away that opener tells you outright what they want from Earth at that moment[tesseract & the stones], the fact that the one speaking isn't in charge either [Thanos being behind the Other and Chitauri], that they are not the only army available to them [he says our Chitauri, not our army or armies: see Ronan the Accuser] and that they're willing to go war and kill on an interstellar level to get it [self explanatory].)

(There's also how Schmidt disappears as shown in this film. Reminder: while we generally know that Asgard put the Tesseract on Earth sometime during Loki & Thor's adult lifetime, we don't know when Asgard got it. BUT. The visuals alone at the end of CAtFA have some pretty big implications in that direction. More so as TDW shows us that there's a certain technology in play as far back as Bor's time. Here's a gif.. Look kinda familiar, Thor fans..?)

Here's one I've shared before, from TDW itself to visually remind us where we've seen that kind of things repeatedly:

(Yep. That's the Bifrost being used 5,000 years ago to bring in Bor's army and steal the Aether, y'all. It also shows us something else: that the Bifrost can be held in long spurts without destroying the planet it's pointed at becoming an immediate thing. Combine this with Loki's knowledge and hm... that raises some other interesting facts and extra questions about the Bifrost scene at the end of Thor 2011 too, doesn't it.)

Okay so! Some who see this might ask 'Why is all that important?'

Welp.. the answer is in the question at the very top of this ask.

Asking about Loki, and his taking Asgard's throne at the end of Thor the Dark World...

The answers are yes, especially because motivation, all that backstory (both directly on screen and what was established and cemented as canon even off it for years by the creators, for that story to work [yes click that link if you haven't seen the breakdown of the year between Thor 2011 and Avengers 2012],) and more pointedly the fact that Loki by that point after the end of The Dark World: not only knows someone is pursuing the Infinity Stones, and knows very well how the Tesseract in Asgard's vault at this stage would help Thanos collect the rest.. but!

Loki has also up close and personal just been introduced to a third, formerly lost/hidden Infinity Stone being revealed and claimed in a very loud, very public way, by a just as universally known power he himself has intimate knowledge of... Asgard [if through Jane/Earth: and gawds but Bor was just as bad about hiding vital and fatal info as Odin turned out to be, sheesh.]

And here's the extra addition to that motivation to stay and take that throne in a way that also knocks out all threat FROM Asgard and it's allies: the person who tortured him and is seeking those stones has already threatened his life more than once in pursuit of them, and promised to hunt him down if he didn't get what he wanted then in 2012.

(If you missed it by the way? The dialogue, inflection and expressions there both show and tell us right away that they don't trust him NOT to keep the Tesseract from them: even if Loki doesn't fail in 2012. There's no reason to use up the extra airtime, or hit him with pain immediately after, to triple down on it otherwise. The Other, and Thanos by extension; do not trust their hold on Loki: or that he will give them what they want in other words. They don't trust him to succeed [purposely or not] and they don't trust him not to gank both Stones completely out of their already distant reach. (Which and lol he absolutely does manage to do anyway, by putting up neon info signs, really gone-ham public and personal displays, riling the trashed initiative team up left and right, leaving Barton behind on purpose knowing he was coming, and definitely missing the slant of a sloped sky scraper AND the landing pad loop when he tosses Stark into account? It was brilliantly done as was and without that examination, but when you take all that into account too.. oof..! The higher probability that the plan was internally wrecked by the underlying knife of absolute spite for his torturers this character likely pulled off; was just plain beautiful, and clean AF. Just sayin'.)

But and no, Thanos didn't get what he wanted in gambling even the one stone he did have in 2012 in order to try and pick up that second stone.

Obviously.

So they (and we) had more than enough of the potential motivation put down both on screen and off it, over the course of four years (including IM2 production preparing for it in that foundation) but is that still enough to take the risk, and go for the throne?

( ⬆️ Loki's appearance on arrival in Avengers 2012 after his time with Thanos as originally intended; prior to toning it down in order to fit the PG-13 rating the studios were aiming for to increase audience.)

YES, it was.

Even if only temporarily at first, taking Odin off his throne insures Loki's freedom from pursuit on Asgard's end: as he is now king of those pursuers, and a great deal more overall autonomy even outside of Asgard.

This puts him in direct control of the King's Vault, in which the Tesseract [possible means of escape, while within the reach of that greater tech level etc] is being held: and which again.. Thanos [again threatened & tortured him] still wants, and he knows this.

(⬆️ On-screen Example 1 of what it was like even to be claimed as family, by Thanos. Loki was not, family.)

On top of that, in the long term; his position as King allows him to have a broader sight that running or hiding would not: thanks to Asgard's position as a Known-Universe-sized Imperial Protectorate encompassing multiple Worlds and or Galaxies .. including Earth where the Mind Stone (and Time) is, Xandar (Power shows up just a little under a single year later during his reign,) the Kree (same.) And a much greater ability to prepare (keeping those stones as separate as possible, as he does as the King on the throne who sends Reality to the Collector) and see Thanos coming when he does as a result.

Ultimately, even if temporarily: taking the throne at this stage and in this situation is absolutely within his character, even not wanting it. The massive tactical and personal advantages with Thanos alone, which that position with his knowledge; would provide him with a great deal of capability and reach for a very minimal amount of effort, and especially lives and time lost going the other route..? Were not only on display for two years worth of films to call on, but are pretty hard to excuse passing on in his situation at that time, for any reason.

(⬆️ On-screen Example 2)

There are and were other routes available yes: quite a few of them being he was and likely still is a hero everywhere BUT Earth*. But each and every one of them was that much more dangerous, and lacking in protection both for himself personally and for anything left of what he might have wanted to save of any of those also involved: including Asgard.

(*And yes some of those civilizations might maybe question him and that bad guy status a little: but let's be honest. Confronted with the facts of how all that and Thor's mess ups with Jotunheim actually went down, which Loki also knows about both first hand and in depth, and could easily call out just as publicly [and has in some of my fics]... it's not incredibly likely other societies and especially their leaders responsible for their lives, would choose to indulge Asgard's pride and arrogance at the risk of something like Thanos being allowed to continue to run loose after at least decades of halving populations like Gamora's, Drax's through Ronan, and possibly Nebula's [unconfirmed]. There would be a process to that too though; and time spent correcting all the messes that would cause for him to clean up in order to move forward with fewer obstacles as a result, possibly years if not centuries depending on location and how little they know.)

Taking Asgard's throne (even temporarily) while the majority of big players were either dead at that point[Frigga], weakened [Odin was putting Thor up for king in T1 to take his place & putting off Odinsleep at least 2 years prior to TDW] or occupied/distracted with the final death throes of the Dark Elves [Thor, pretty much everyone else] was the cleanest and safest way to ensure his life, his safety, and his freedom.

Even if, only short term.

Add on the other bonuses being in that seat "wearing the old goat's face" (yeah I borrowed that line from GROUNDED's Tony muse) and well.. there are too many more reasons to do it than not.

The other option has him either trying to escape Darkalfheim to a planet NOT Earth or Asgard to keep from being noted or picked up, before he's found first and knowing Asgard is and has been pursuing him (and Thor) since Thor broke him out of the dungeon: or trying to escape Asgard itself: with very little influence or power to do anything about both the person who tortured him coming after him as promised.. OR Asgard coming after him.

Because there is another thing that would have come out, with Odin still on the throne: is the fact that the body there [if he used a decoy, like one of the elves corpses left behind, or even the guard sent] was not his. Which would have led to immediate search and pursuit, and likely Thor being part of it after dealing with Malekith.

In these scenarios, Loki would have to pursue a counter to not only Asgard itself or Earth's established [and re-established through Jane's reaction] perceptions of him; but also Asgard's political reach as well in order to maintain his freedom, and actually start to counter Thanos before the slurpee stain could reach either, and potentially reclaim if not claim the stones: because they WOULD become an obstacle.. if not because of Odin and Thor [both of whose positions are made blatantly and glaringly clear where Loki is concerned in that same film, repeatedly and reflected on top of that in the entire scene with Thor's friends threatening him, as well as Frigga's own gaslighting scenes prior to her death as the Queen who should have taken her throne in T1 and in the dungeon in TDW.] then definitely because of the Other and Thanos, both of whom were very much alive and still running around the outer edges of the Galaxy until the Other was killed by Ronan in 2014.

Whether he's solely protecting himself, or looking to set up revenge, Loki, Thor, and Asgard's Local story in the MCU was designed to be part of if not heavily intertwined with the Universal Story before we saw any of them on our screens. And, if you're picking up a crafting story any time after 2011 in canon in that Universe.. that's gonna, and should be a thing.

Sad (and more than a little pitiful) that current creators ignore and mock all that and more, along with the efforts of over a decade of that work and hundreds of creators before them, especially in what they're passing for Thor since Gagnarok, or calling the "Loki" series (aka Bob: The Accountant/The Not-Enchantress Show) today*.. but I suppose that's what you get when you pay a bunch of clueless and Odin/Thor-level-arrogant cartoon creators for a twice rejected, unfinished script as the knock-off and fill in for crafting the next part of that story: and then hire their friends to do the next part even worse than the first?

(*Just sayin'. lol! Also yes those are both separate links to just a few examples of what's been going wrong since.)

So.. TLDR...

Yes, it's actually very in-character for Loki to have taken the throne; as a proven and intentionally crafted intelligent and tactically-minded character,* who was raised knowing Asgard's reach and power when a King who uses it properly is seated in that throne.

(*Regardless of what the series tries to tell you to mock viewers otherwise.. those scenes stating otherwise about Loki's character in S1 and now in S2 still makes me laugh my ass off at the stupidity and ignorance on display in this regard especially: as they tell you outright that absolutely no one who might have cared on the BTS team watched an ounce of the Avengers movie they want you believe the character came directly from, any of Thor 2011 before it, and definitely not TDW or Guardians to guess never mind know even remotely accurately as to the TITLE CHARACTER's characterization or motivations, of their own series; to get it THAT wrong on purpose... to the extent that, they have to put those kinds of words in his and other characters' mouths through the "scripts" they wrote and put on screen.)

I do however and as an addition: think Loki probably hated it from day to day.

After all, everything he did to stop if not pause Thanos and buy time; was done so with Odin's face.. and as a result was credited to Odin, who reminder.. by the time GotG and then Ragnarok ended, we knew was aware of Thanos at the very least (if not through Asgard then through other huge powers in the universe like Xandar and the Kree [Ronan was killing on Thanos behalf, Gamora's planet was halved decades prior]) and sat on his hands rather than face the largest army in the known universe, as it's proclaimed protector.

The leader for which being let run loose like that [Thanos].. was able to snatch Loki up, and the New York Invasion to happen as a result of Odin and Asgard's complacency.

Loki would have been stuck with the prospect of revealing himself and slowing down his potential progress and preparation (including restoring Asgard and it's defenses around the Tesseract in it's vault) over the course of those five years, being pursued for likely execution or maybe the rest of those 3,500 years of solitary confinement Frigga had to beg for as a sitting duck in a literal gilded cage again, running and attempting to keep his autonomy while doing all of that anyway, or ... just taking the throne and keeping his face hidden in order to avoid almost all of any of that and the many variations possible there that would have wasted months if not years of very precious time.

Ultimately, avoiding these things would have cost him in another way too, if he did manage and he knew that; because and again, Loki knew Thanos' game and purpose much earlier than we the viewers did. Sitting aside and hiding was not going to exclude him from the gamble of the snap even if Thanos did not find him, and took the stones without his interference.

Without his interference (and especially after Hydra stealing it in the 40's, and Thanos' first attempt to take the Tesseract from Earth as one very near example of why not to: especially from the outside looking in at that) it remains very probable that Odin would not have moved the Aether at all; as Loki did, wearing his face. Which means that, regardless of whether or not he returned for Ragnarok (which was established even in it's own plot-hole ridden mess of a story) as happening anyway: Thanos still would have collected Space and Reality after Power.. and he would have been able to do so far more quickly with them both in one place.. whether that place was floating space with Loki not there to collect either, or in their hands after the fact because he did think not to leave them in the open and undefended.

There are some ways around this (I've done some and planned out more,) but they're very tricky to do believably: and they still take time, allies, and correcting at least some things (especially perceptions and the break in trust worsened majorly by Odin and Thor) to manage. Sometimes a LOT of all of the above.

What's more, when taking him out into the open after the part he played in saving not only Jane, but also Asgard from Odin's rage filled dumb in TDW?

It's pretty likely that revealing himself on the throne and explaining this shit would have wasted even more time in various ways. But the very first and most obvious thing to become a problem in the realm of big-picture no-nos he definitely would have been aware of is this:

Asgard as a whole at that point and likely after having the story confirmed by Thor, would likely fall into a state of even more chaos in civil war if not a war of succession afterwards: further screwing over their ability to recover their defensive capabilities due to fighting themselves.

Other societies becoming aware could spark the same reaction, if a little later and cause Asgard's reputation, standing and overall influence to crumble as the facts came out. While some of these are avoidable or made less in certain situations: the fact remains that is what Odin set himself and Asgard up for by sitting to the side rather than doing everything in his power as King of an advanced space-faring society in contact with numerous others capable of moving them even without the Bifrost in effect.

It's very likely that, some of those external (and maybe some internal like Vanaheim) would use the very good examples of Odin and Thor's incompetence when dealing with things like Jotunheim (oh wow lets not get into that long list of treason and kid-glove handling of prince raised as genocidal traitor yet again), and Vanaheim (Asgardian colony with no Asgardian defense cannons or ships ..hm that reeks of some serious issues and bigotry too: especially seen in the very same film as those cannons, AND the fact they could transport whole armies via Bifrost 5,000 years prior?) alone, as a springboard to either GTFO Odin's alliance party, or support the idea of Loki being crowned instead of Thor.. if not both.

Anyway. This was really long and I have pulled this whole thing apart so many times in so many different ways that I could definitely keep going.. but I think that's a good enough view of the whys it's very much in character.. and some of what likely would have happened if he hadn't. And yes that emphasis in bold is very much needed.

There are other factors to take into account alongside of all this, including (aka not only) the fact his actual species (yep, don't forget: he's not Asgardian either) is both known at this point, and absolutely despised by Asgardians in particular on top of all that. And, at least some of the generation that hates his kind most --Odin and Frigga's-- are still around to keep carrying that on and attempt to pass it to their kids of the same generation. A thing we know they did already, through the dialogue, responses and and actions of every single member of the Royal family, including Loki's, starting with the very first film.

Remember.. this was the entire reason Thor thought it was completely okay to rack up multiple charges of treason, trespass on a completely different world he was forbidden by both sides from even setting foot on, and then insulting and killing them on the home planet he invaded, in the first place...

..and that fact it was still present, and was in action, was ultimately the root of the reasoning for that banishment.

Incidentally, and as final set of side notes?

This another example of why world building and sticking to the rules of that world/universe as established is necessary, and only serves to make the world and universe the characters are supposed be part of that much stronger and more interesting when done correctly.

Limitations (physical, social, psychological and more) exist in story and in those universes not just as near-laws-of-physics, but sometimes as an obstacle themselves to overcome, or more importantly and most often forgotten?

To work with, rather than around or over; in order to actually accomplish something, or at least give the sense of that accomplishment.

This is at the heart of what it means for a character to earn what they're given and show that, rather than simply getting it for free.

Ultimately I see that choice as Loki exchanging his name and identity, along with recognition for having put Thanos off of killing half the universe with him in it for five years; for the ability to better and more quickly protect himself and the things around him from those threats, not only from Thanos.. but also those threats posed and put into word by Odin, Thor, Sif, and the Yes-men Three.

And he was only able to to that without interruption, because he did make that sacrifice in hand for five solid years by taking Odin's throne and face.

It does fit that Loki absolutely did and as Tom Hiddleston and creators have said: at least try let go of Asgard, Thor, Odin and the rest when he let go at the end of Thor 2011...

..However. It's also very clear even if he hadn't; that Thanos' actions and Odin's and Asgard's inaction, ended up forcing him right back in front of them, whether his remaining anger re-igniited by the Scepter during that missing year had been bolstered as it was, played the part it did on screen or not.

All that said.. it was quite a long way away from hasty or lazy writing. If anything, that would have been true for going through with Loki's death at the end of TDW instead: as the next set in line would have been entirely excused from putting him or any of that story into focus on screen at all, even in what little they did pay attention to it during and after Gagnarok.

The TDW creators simply chose the most obvious path the previous creators had already crafted in their foundations, and laid down the path for them to take in crafting the next with TDW to set up for hte next even after it.

Sucks that it took getting that big an audience reaction in that direction to do so and not be that lazy about it.. but it is what it is.

-

Post-Script and For faster reference and in order from Captain America 2011 on, Loki did/was subject to, the following:

[Pre-1940s: unknown era] Had enough definitive exposure to the Tesseract as prince of Asgard, to be referred to as the equivalent of an expert on the Tesseract. (Given his discovery of the doorways between worlds as put on display in TDW, this makes even more sense than it already did in 2012.)

[2011]Was tortured and influenced both emotionally and mentally by the Other and gifted the Scepter with the intent of further riling and amplifying [that's what fueling means in this instance] his anger towards Thor and Earth's part in helping to release him from his banishment: in return, he's offered rule over Earth and more importantly his freedom from all of the above in that rule after.

[2012] The Mind Stone is used long distance in conjunction with the Tesseract to watch and torture him at a distance on screen as well. It's only functions used on screen otherwise is as a projectile weapon and device to spread that mind control to serve the deal made.

[2013]Helped save Jane & the Reality Stone.

[2013]Helped save an otherwise defenseless Asgard from another siege & Odin's stated intent to die to the last man, woman and child in that fight: at the same time.

[2013]Killed Algrim/Kurse in defense of Thor and Jane; an individual who was so powerful as enhanced by the Reality Stone: that he batted Mjolnir aside like it was a nerf toy.

[2013]Sent the Reality Stone to the Collector, separating what stones he had.

[2013]Kept the Space Stone in it's place in the vault ..and it stayed there for the 5 years of his rule.

[2014] Between Asgard proper as a political and protective power, and his connections to the Collector himself: clearly knew about and did not claim the Power stone, or put it in Asgard's vault either, after it's use there.

[2015] The Mind Stone being removed from Earth, was stated as being Thor's purpose, as directed by the King [Loki.] No intended ending destination was given.

[2017-2018]Rebuilt Asgard, it's homes and it's defenses: well enough that even in and by Gagnarok they were building theaters and statues, and enjoying plays.

( ⬆️ Yeah I wasn't kidding: that's the Kurse nerf-toy mjolnir sequence in TDW, if you missed it.)

[lifefactz]

KEEP GOING! KEEP PUSHING! KEEP MOVING! KEEP WORKING!

[angy-grrr]

okay I’m annoying yk that and I know that.

I love to see what non bkdk shippers think will happen with the manga, bc this way I can learn and see things outside of my special interest for the chapters. And I was reading some interpretations of Ochako being weird in 425.

Some people are right here expecting izuku to go and support her. Some people saw him being this sad, yet only could think about him worrying about Ochako’s feelings over her fight, not Izuku’s fight. they think this will lead to a beautiful confession, in which she cries how she couldn’t save himiko, that izuku noticed, and that he’ll call her his hero and they’ll kiss. And I can’t help but feel like this is bc he is the boy. Because he is the boy in that ship, he is the one that supports, not gets supported. When I was reading those little scenarios, I thought they would explain deku would cry with her about his own fight and bond over it, or something like that. But no… they believe deku’s strange reactions come from being worried over Ochako only. and it’s so sad, to see how gender expectations are being pushed like that in something as simple as a “what I want to happen in the manga” scenario. It’s sad how people think this is how it should work, when actually that would make me even sadder -as I said, for the most part I didn’t care about that ship, I accepted it as inevitable, but this isn’t fair. Romance irl is not perfect, but in a story for this to be a resolution when the character who hasn’t talked about his feeling keeps not talking about them and just supports her before confessing…

Even hetero relationships should have some balance, right?

EDIT:

someone brought up bkdk lmao. They explained how the confession from ochako could get answered: happy ending is izuku loving her back, bad ending is him saying he likes katsuki, and medium ending him liking mei. I can’t even lmao.

another person argued deli just has shown a brotherly bond with him (weird) and that he only thought of him at that dinner with the Im too blessed, and the last time he followed him was in season 1. people need to learn how to read, and connect the dots, literally. No matter how you see their relationship in canon as platonic or romantic (or queer platonic), it’s clear their bond is strong and that Izuku depends on katsuki as much as katsuki depends on izuku on emotional levels -izuku losing control over and over and over again with him, AFO explaining he is the closest to midoriya, katsuki going towards him no matter how injured he is, looking for each other and the time stops, etc.

this is just canon. There’s no arguing about it. Idk why intimate bonds between two male characters means they are like brothers. Is it bc if they are not related, there’s no way to not see it as gay?/gen but also /s

[faaun]

everyone will always be haunted by what they are and i believe it is far more beneficial to embrace the haunting (as long as it isn't derailing your life or others') than to strive to be a truly "balanced" person. the idea of someone who is truly equalised to the point of utter harmony is an essentially unachievable thing imo

[abalidoth]

seriously re: maia arson crimew

I did not know that the stupid fucking bi lesbian discourse was still happening. it is 2023 for fucks sake y'all.

imho if you feel you have a tie to the lesbian community or identity you can call yourself a lesbian. full stop, no discussion.

"but bi women--" bi women have been part of the lesbian community for the greater portion of the 20th century, please do some reading about queer history.

"but trans men--" a lot of transmascs id'ed as lesbians before transition and still have a tie to the community. that's great. their presence does not invalidate mine as a lesbian transfem unless they're actively pushing us out, which by and large is happening by cis lesbians, not them.

"but cishet men--" ok here's my hottest fucking take -- I do not care.

first of all, a lot of "cishet men" who joke about feeling like lesbians are transfems flailing to find their way. I was. and people policing that identity was part of what kept me in the eggshell.

but even without that consideration? look at people's actions. if they're making jokes in bad faith they're probably also acting against the community in other ways -- focus on the material harm, not the labels. and if they're not? well.

if a cishet dude acts truly and faithfully to uphold the queer community, and protect its most vulnerable and marginalized members, and unlearn bias, and still wants to call himself a lesbian?

then he's more of a lesbian to me than jenny "diversity win! seattle's first lesbian mayor authorized tear gas in cap hill" durkan.

[everysongineverykey]

honestly it bugs me a little how 99% of the comments on the these are the days of our lives music video, one of my personal favorite queen mvs for pure aesthetics and mood, are people calling it "heartbreaking" and hand-wringing about how SICK and PALE and CLOSE TO DEATH freddie mercury looks. like. wooow the dying man looks like he's dying? really? well done, nancy drew! have a gold star! yes aids is an awful fucking disease and yes hiv positive people shouldn't be reduced to washed-out portraits of the words "inspirational" and "strong" by the media and they should have their pain acknowledged but guys. freddie, by all accounts, very much Did Not Want To Dwell On It. he told his friends he had aids and then immediately was like but i don't want to talk about it. i just want to spend the rest of my time making as much music as i can. and his bandmates accepted that and supported him! he wanted to spend the time he had doing what he loved with people he loved and who loved him and he did. he had, by all accounts, a great last year. that one person who took the days of our lives bts color footage and edited Sad Piano Music TM over the entire thing and intercut interviews with the rest of the band also with Sad Piano Music TM and made it so we could barely hear freddie even say anything... it makes my blood boil like he's literally just. like it's literally just footage of him walking and discussing a take with the director and standing waiting for the take to start like. normal video filming stuff. and all anyone can see is a tragedy because he's walking stiffly or whatever

[valiantunknownperson]

Stop ignoring the hints. Listen to your gut. You are getting those feelings for a reason. You don't get them when things are going well, do you?

[unproduciblesmackdown]

truly lmao 2024 lambda literary award finalist wynnstannery

[yuusakuhanazawashole]

Hello dears! I am Ali and I am asking you to support my campaign to help me achieve my goal. I desperately need your support now to help my family survive and be safe. Gaza is a very dangerous place both in terms of living and lives. I need your financial support to enable me to get the basic needs of my family until the Rafah crossing is reopened to transport my family to safety and peace. Please help a family survive through your small donations or through your contributions to others. Thank you so much for standing by those in

😭🇵🇸 need.https://gofund.me/36240bc1

This isn't the blog I have with the largest reach, but I wanna make it clear to everyone that sees this that even on fandom blogs, we need to give a damn about this. Check out this fundraiser if you can spare a donation. Spread this post if you can't.

I don't care for fearmongering about scammers when I'd rather be a considerate fool than a callous one.

[reflectionsofgalaxies]

gonna do the stupid thing for my stupid mental health