#does it make sense? idk

[bunniebi]

This time with background...

[queenmeriadoc]

Imagine this scenario,

A fan sends a letter to someone they admire, an actors, singer or whatever. The actor gets intrigued by the person behind the letter and wants to know more about this person. And since the fan has included a pre-stamped envelope with their address on it, now the actor (or whatever) knows exactly where this person lives. This then starts an obsession from this person about the fan, which could then grow into stalking. Just imagine that they suddenly show up at the fans door.

[princesssarcastia]

for some fucking reason i’m thinking about the mcu again, but the thing about endgame is—

the reason it sucks.  the reason it rings hollow and cheap, the reason it made me feel like a balloon someone untied to let all the air out of—

it completely undermines one of the core tenants of so many of it characters, which it that it’s possible to irrevocably fuck up and still keep going.  it’s possible to commit unimaginable horrors and still wake up each day committed to doing better and righting the wrongs you could.  more than that: it’s worth it to try to be better even after you’ve fucked up irrevocably.

tony stark was a war profiteer whose weapons fueled not only the u.s. military industrial complex, but also terrorist cells like hyrda.  there’s no erasing that.  there’s no taking it back.  but he woke up one day (in a cave, with a box of scraps) and decided to do better.  he fucked up.  he fucked up so bad.  and that didn’t stop him from taking direct action to try and fix the problem; he hunted down the weapons he could, shut down weapons manufacturing, and ultimately killed the person trying to stop him from righting those wrongs.

natasha romanov—well, that needs little elaboration.  she’s got red in her ledger, and there’s no washing it clean.  but by god she’s trying.  she’s spending every day trying to fight the good fight.

thor was a frankly racist war criminal who took his banishment better than he had any right to, using it as fuel to accept he was in the wrong and take immediate steps to improve himself; whose character arc over three movies has him learn to treat his enemies more fairly, his allies more kindly, and allows him to peel back the gold veneer on the imperialist empire his father built and see asgard for what it really is. 

you have these people hitting rock bottom of their own volition.  failing.  complete wipeout.  morally and ethically bankrupt.  responsible for the deaths of hundreds (thousands, in tony’s case).   you can’t go back.  you can’t undo those things or bring those people back to life.  but there is still value in trying to do better moving forward.  that’s what all three of their character arcs are about.

except.  then we get to endgame.  and suddenly, there is no value in learning to move forward after unimaginable tragedy, after failure.  suddenly that’s too much to ask.  suddenly the only option is to re-write reality and undo your mistakes, because they’re just too terrible to live with.   suddenly striving to be better becomes cheap and meaningless and there are no steps you can take to improve your current circumstances.  let the guilt consume you.  overwhelm you.  weigh you down until you become useless.  why bother with the future when you can obsess over the past?

jay gatsby-ass movie.  i stg. 

[afabkaidou]

the saddest part is the fanartists. the only reason i got twitter was for art and updates. also even if they are mad pressuring him to make a statement in the middle of a subathon is an awful idea for everyone involved. there's just no way that will go well regardless of what he says

yeah :/ Twitter's fanart is very cool and irs gonna suck to see less of it

And yeah, apologizing on the subathon will be awkward, although imo, it's better to get it over w/ but Twitter will be like "he's doing damage control! He doesn't mean it!" And if he does it late, it'll be like "he fabricated the apology, he is fake!"

[hollow-toy]

i guess my main problem with those "do you actually like xyz or do you just want abc" posts is not that they're boring attempts at psychoanalysis, though they are. my main problem is the "or". they're not asking if you like xyz because of abc. they're presenting it as if having a reason to desire something somehow negates the desire itself. as if you actually want abc and your desire for xyz is just a misguided attempt to get it. "you don't actually want to engage in hard kink, you just want someone to love you. you're completely normal and once your desire to be loved is fulfilled you'll stop wanting this hard kink thing. i have to imagine it this way because if i accept that sometimes people just want this taboo thing for no discernible reason or a different reason than the milquetoast one i projected onto them, i'll have to reevaluate how i think about desire and sexuality" maybe i'm being dramatic but that is the underlying tone of a lot of them to me

[myoclonus-aro]

I feel like the uwu soft boi-ification of transmascs make people sanitize us a lot, so they get squicked out when we actually transition medically. So this a positivity post specifically for the "gross" side effects of T, for the hairiness and the receding hairlines and the bottom growth and the male pattern baldness. They're hot and gender-affirming and the fact that HRT can make those achievable for is next to miraculous.

[sluttycinderella]

genuinely think dan just jumped at the first opportunity to make an apology video. this fucking theatre kid WISHES he had a legitimate reason to get up in front of his audience and emotionally manipulate them into forgiving him. he lives for the drama.

[homeofwyrm]

Their official Social Media accounts are chaos. (The only ones who actually do promotion are Cam/Pal).

[reasonsforhope]

People ask me sometimes how I'm so confident that we can beat climate change.

There are a lot of reasons, but here's a major one: it would take a really, really long time for Earth to genuinely become uninhabitable for humans.

Humans have, throughout history, carved out a living for themselves in some of the most harsh, uninhabitable corners of the world. The Arctic Circle. The Sahara. The peaks of the Himalayas. The densest, most tropical regions of the Amazon Rainforest. The Australian Outback. etc. etc.

Frankly, if there had been a land bridge to Antarctica, I'm pretty sure we would have been living there for thousands of years, too. And in fact, there are humans living in Antarctica now, albeit not permanently.

And now, we're not even facing down apocalypse, anymore. Here's a 2022 quote from the author of The Uninhabitable Earth, David Wallace-Wells, a leader on climate change and the furthest thing from a climate optimist:

"The most terrifying predictions [have been] made improbable by decarbonization and the most hopeful ones practically foreclosed by tragic delay. The window of possible climate futures is narrowing, and as a result, we are getting a clearer sense of what’s to come: a new world, full of disruption but also billions of people, well past climate normal and yet mercifully short of true climate apocalypse. Over the last several months, I’ve had dozens of conversations — with climate scientists and economists and policymakers, advocates and activists and novelists and philosophers — about that new world and the ways we might conceptualize it. Perhaps the most capacious and galvanizing account is one I heard from Kate Marvel of NASA, a lead chapter author on the fifth National Climate Assessment: “The world will be what we make it.”" -David Wallace-Wells for the New York Times, October 26, 2022

If we can adapt to some of the harshest climates on the planet - if we could adapt to them thousands of years ago, without any hint of modern technology - then I have every faith that we can adjust to the world that is coming.

What matters now is how fast we can change, because there is a wide, wide gap between "climate apocalypse" and "no harm done." We've already passed no harm done; the climate disasters are here, and they've been here. People have died from climate disasters already, especially in the Global South, and that will keep happening.

But as long as we stay alive - as long as we keep each other alive - we will have centuries to fix the effects of climate change, as much as we possibly can.

And looking at how far we've come in the past two decades alone - in the past five years alone - I genuinely think it is inevitable that we will overcome climate change.

So, we're going to survive climate change, as a species.

What matters now is making sure that every possible individual human survives climate change as well.

What matters now is cutting emissions and reinventing the world as quickly as we possibly can.

What matters now is saving every life and livelihood and way of life that we possibly can.

[scramratz]

I understand the sentiment “nonbinary people don’t owe you androgyny”. It’s an objectively correct phrase! But…like…I’ve never seen anyone celebrating nonbinary folks who are androgynous? Who are visibly queer? Idk it’s starting so sound less like a breaking of expectations and more of “You don’t have to be one of THOSE queers”

[mefjeff]

NNNNEEEEEEERRRRRRDDDDDD

[virtualplushy]

tired of being scared which means i have to open my heart again which means i have to feel the fear which opens the door for all the emotions stuck behind it

[souporsaladnatural]

Not to be a Jackles defender bc I am not going to be a keyboard warrior for the rich actor man or claim to know what goes on in his head, but I truly don't understand people being actually mad about jackles dodging talking about Dean's feelings regarding Cas' confession. Like yes, you can read it as "Jackles doesn't think Dean reciprocates and is just trying to fence ride about it and not make anyone mad" but also like. guys. the man so OBVIOUSLY wants another season of supernatural to continue deans story. and there's been so much talk about it recently.

If he really does think Dean reciprocates, why the fuck would he spoil it at a random con?? Why would he spoil what could be a major plot point in the revival? Or make a promise about it that he may not be able to keep due to network interference? He told us that Dean KNOWS what Cas' confession was, and that his love for Dean was TEXT not subtext. He told us that CAS' feelings don't need to be resolved. Idk about you guys but this... it's not a nothing answer to me. It's carefully worded and thought out. To me, these are some pretty big pieces of what, for Jackles, a continuation of their story would look like. He's not closing the door, he's keeping it open

[tummysmoocher]

Having this kink is so funny because You will have a crush on someone and think they are soooooo fucking hot and they will stand there and tell you that they are insecure about their body and you will have to do the equivalent of locking your brain in a straitjacket to formulate a response that sounds supportive and socially acceptable when the reality is that you would commit atrocities just to kiss their stomach ONCE. That, if given the opportunity, you would worship them like they were royalty. And you would do this in both a non-kinky way because you love them and think they are beautiful and wish that they could see themself the way you see them but also in the kinky way where it feels like there’s a feral dog inside of you that wants to sink it’s teeth into the softness of them and never let go. You have to stand there and think to yourself “you have no idea the things I would do to you. You have no idea just how desirable you are.” And it’s honestly unbearable !!!!!

[mythalism]

solas: uwuuu you disrupted my ritual and trapped me!!! now im stuck here and it’s all your fault wahhh poor little old me stuck in the fade in a prison that i designed myself within my realm that i created where im supremely powerful and can “casually reshape reality” with a thought and i have an anchor that lets me open rifts physically in and out of here BUT NOW IM TRAPPED!!!!! 🥺🥺😣😣😰😰

meanwhile solas:

[ofswordsandpens]

actually I do want to talk about Sally Jackson a tad more because one criticism I've been hearing about her book counterpart more recently is "book Sally is one-dimensional: the perfect mother with no flaws" and that just has me biting my cheek because one part of her book counterpart that I always thought was ripe with discussion and didn't make it to the show is that Sally states that it was selfish of her to keep Percy close. It's one of the last things she says to him before she's "killed" by the minotaur.

And there's so much that we don't know about Sally because we view her from Percy's eyes. From his perspective we know that she's exceedingly kind, she never raises her voice to him or even Gabe, and she endured a horrible and abusive relationship to protect her son from monsters (of a different kind).

But there are things we can piece together from the text: Sally has known about CHB for a long time, apparently since before Percy was even born because Poseidon told her he wanted to send Percy there; she was told that it was a mistake for her to keep Percy close - who told her that, we're not sure, she only uses the phrase they; she's been in contact with Grover through out the school year; she knows that she can't cross the camp boundary line, which means either Grover or someone else (Chiron? Poseidon?) told her that, and that she understood that there was place that Percy would be safe from monsters.

And all of these little details are so interesting because it does make you wonder just how much she did or didn't know. Was her self assessment right? Was it selfish of her to keep Percy close?

On one hand, she kept him close because she loved him, alongside the fear that if she sent him to camp, she would be saying goodbye for good -- so is it even fair to call the act of keeping him close selfish? Or perhaps, much like Chiron, she assumed keeping Percy in the dark would be safer?

But on the other hand, Percy had been attracting monsters all his childhood, she understood camp was a safe place from monsters, and she had apparently been told explicitly that it was a mistake for her to keep him close.

And then adding in the factors of: Percy is her only family in the entire world, she's been suffering with Gabe for years, sacrificing so much in order to keep Percy safe when he's at home... but even that has a touch of sad irony because when we meet Percy in tlt, its at point when he's not really home at all -- he's been regularly sent off to boarding schools, so much so that he's internalized it as his own short-coming.

And all of this isn't to say "Omg Sally is actually horrible" or to assert definitely that she is selfish... but more to speak to the fact that in the books, she's not an all-perfect 2-dimensional mother. And her self-assessment of selfishness is something that is really interesting to explore and debate given the implications of what she apparently did (or did not) know about the godly world. I feel there's even an argument to be made that Sally being "selfish" could be a reflection of Percy's fatal flaw.