#it makes it more interesting

[hedwigette]

Come on.

Saying that Harry actually was so obsessed with Draco and knew everything about him but Draco didn't is literally the anti-thesis of the nature of their relationship.

And saying that Harry had a crush on Draco during Hogwarts is quite bold when Harry couldn't give two f about him until Draco became an active threat to his home and friends.

We literally had a scene where Harry saw Draco Malfoy cry to Myrtle and then he was like "oh maybe he's not a horrible bully, heartless coward that gets away with his shitty attitude. Maybe he's got a bit of a heart somewhere inside of him."

Harry has always thought that Draco was his archenemy because he knew where to hurt and he bullied him (btw just because Harry defended himself doesn't mean he's not a victim). Draco always thought that Harry was an obnoxious, loud, "big man", "perfect Potter" who can do no wrong.

But in this bathroom scene Harry was confronted with the fact that he was wrong about him.

And we don't know what Draco thought in this scene but something tells me he started to view Harry as a human instead of an objectified, glorified, cold and obnoxious boy who dared to defy the Dark Lord (cue of the fact that it was Parkinson who spread the story - not Draco and we all know he would have taken this opportunity against him).

We literally have the first development of their relationship right there!! It's not the sectumsempra that really impacted their views of each other (it did a bit), but it was with Draco crying how hard it was to accomplish this mission and Harry seeing his desperation that developed their relationship !!

(also, I read on live journal that before the release of HBP, drarry fans were literally begging for a scenario like this because they knew that to make drarry work Draco needed to be challenged with hardship and Harry needed to see that. Draco needed to change as a person and change his view on Harry and Harry only needed to change his views on him).

It's with Draco changing his attitude that makes Harry more inclined to pity him.

But Harry wasn't obsessed with him. Draco is the one who's been running after him, chasing him down in the hallways and disrupting his quidditch matches or his plans.

Harry just wanted to live his life, Draco is the one who kept bothering him.

And no. Harry is hyperaware of his environment because of the Dursleys where he had to watch out for every wrong move. That's why he notices a lot about Draco. He doesn't trust him so he keeps an eye on him to avoid him better.

Why do we have to undermine Harry's cleverness and skill to ship drarry when we literally have a canon development of their relationship?

[biblically-accurate-dca]

experimental sunman yaaaay

(ruin spoilers under the cut)

[theroseempress]

people who have tidy story-brainstorming notes equal parts baffle and impress me

[hows-itgoagain]

watching wistoria episode 6 and like. i swear are all of these mfers in love with will or what bc wdym rosti just went “will is the one i love most in the world” LIKE???? also sion you can’t fool me i swear you have a crush on this man don’t try me 😭😭😭

[icewindandboringhorror]

(also feel free in the tags to clarify Why you made the choice you made!! :0c)

[hoaxghost]

Girl failed the med school exam like 8 times I dont think she'd do all too well when faced with the burnt crisp of her captain

[illyrianbitch]

Your Adrin artwork looks like Rio from Money Heist so that’s who I’m picturing lol

and you know what he sexy as hell so you keep picturing that. its perfect

[aphel1on]

AuDHD is so funny sometimes like what do you mean my hyperfixations/special interests will last for years on end or possibly forever but they will cycle out every month or two with absolutely no transitional period or warning. like i will think about the same topic every day obsessively for 46 days in a row and on the 47th day with no visible cause adhd brain goes "ok! bored of that now" and autism brain goes "dw i got something queued up for ya" and i blast into full blown obsession on some other topic whose mental file folders haven't opened in 9 months. brain's out here treating hyperfixations like a crop rotation. once the dopamine runs out it cycles in another one but once something's in the rotation it never ever leaves. last summer we brought in one from when i was 11. it's so funny to me but frustrating too bc like. i cannot stress enough my inability to predict or control this. or how completely abrupt and random it can be

EDIT: seems this is more common among ND people than i thought, and probably not limited to AuDHD specifically :] i was just describing my own experiences and didn't expect this post to blow up, so don't take me for an authority, but i'm glad it resonated with so many of y'all

[qvert]

I read someone on here saying that this would have happened to Caitlyn at least once and - I strongly agree

[thepioden]

I see your "Laios is trans" but that dude is THE most apathetically agender person on the planet. Laios does not have time for gender. Laios does not even HAVE a gender identity, he removed it to make room for more Monster Facts.

[enidtendo64]

More Stowaway AU

Pacifica dynamics with each Grunkle. Happy late Father’s Day and birthday to the grunks!

[josephsaturn]

I think that “Anakin was a slave child who was groomed by Palpatine and raised by someone who wasn’t ready to take on a child, thereby leaving him in a social limbo state where he’s surrounded by people but only has a few close confidants, with the one he trusts the most actively trying to take advantage of him”

and

“Anakin was taught right from wrong from a young age, first by his mother and then by Kenobi, but any time he was presented with a choice, actively CHOSE WRONG EVERY SINGLE TIME”

are two sentences that can, should, and MUST coexist to fully understand Anakin Skywalker as a character

Edit: PART 2 of this post here

[bemorch]

A young gith and her dragonling

Close-up + timelapse:

(Available as a print here)

[writeouswriter]

[phantomrose96]

Actually I have a post I want to make about Property Value.

Which is a topic that comes up a lot in discussions of rich people hoarding wealth, in NIMBY panics, and in the ever-increasing prices of homes. But I don't think we talk much about how the perniciousness of property value goes deeper and basically holds middle class people who own a home hostage.

So to set some context here: in 2025 the median US home sold for $416,000. Say you have a working class family who can't meet median, but who scraped and saved and penny-pinched their way to a $300,000 home.

Typically, when buying a first home, you pay 20% down directly, and take 80% out as a mortgage from the bank. For this family, that means $60,000 of their liquid money (and let's say it took them 10-15 years to save that amount), and a $240,000 loan from the bank.

That's $240,000 in debt the family is. Which will be repaid over 30 years, with interest, at a rate that usually means for the lifetime of the loan, they end up paying back double the original loan.

However this massive $240,000 debt is generally considered "okay" debt to have, because it's backed by the house. If things go truly sour, the bank can take the house (and what's a little homelessness between friends).

That $60,000 the family put down is considered equity, and equity is money you "have", but isn't accessible.

Scenario: Now let's say something happens. Someone in the family loses their job, and the only job they can find requires moving. Or a family member across the country can't care for themselves anymore and so this family needs to move to be closer to them. The family gets divorced. Someone in the family is allergic to material in the home. Someone in the family is being stalked or abused and needs to leave the town. Anything at all, which would require selling the home and moving.

Case 1: The family is able to sell it for exactly what they paid (same property value, no increase or decrease). You would think the math is clean. They are paid $300,000 for the house. $240,000 repays the bank loan. The remaining $60,000 of equity goes right back to them. And they can use it (which took 10+ years to save up) to move across the country and buy a different $300,000 house.

Except no, it does not work like that.

The seller of a home is on the hook to pay commission to their realtor and the buyer's realtor. This is usually ~6% of the home value. They have to pay legal costs. There are taxes. There are miscellaneous costs. It can easily be 6-9% of the selling price of the house.

The bank NEEDS its $240,000 back. So those costs come from the equity. This family is not getting their $60,000 back. They're getting $30,000-$45,000, and now no longer enough money for a downpayment in their move. They're back to renting. Back to penny pinching. They can get by, but homeownership is now out of their grasp once more. Maybe in another 5 years, they'll have enough (unless home prices have increased too much by then) then they'll maybe never be homeowners again.

Case 2: The property value has DECREASED... Family is only getting offers in the $260,000 range.

If the family accepts a $260,000 sale, well $240,000 goes to the bank. This is genuinely non-negotiable. And that leaves.... maybe not enough money to even close on the house. Not enough to pay the realtors and the fees.

That $60,000 is wiped out, and the family is incapable of moving. Never mind losing 10+ years of savings--they're below $0. They don't have the money to close. It's financially impossible to sell. They are stuck with the mortgage. They are stuck with the house. (Maybe they'll rent it, if they can. And now they're landlords by circumstance, which is often NOT profitable when you're not a trust fund baby renting out a totally-paid-for no-mortgage home.) But whatever the case, they cannot sell it. And if the reason for selling was a job loss... well, they can be homeless soon. And if the property value dropped below $240,000, they can be homeless AND owe a bank debt. A $60,000 nest egg wiped completely out, with a bank debt owed on top of that.

So how do people avoid financial destitution when moving?

The most sensible answer is building up equity by paying down the loan--but it's important to know that mortgages are super interest heavy in the early life of the loan. With a 5% interest rate (BETTER, btw, than current rates) this family would be paying $15,460 the first year, and only $3,540.88 is actually chipping at that $240,000 principle. The other $11,919.59 was pure interest to the bank.

So after 1 year, the family went from having $60,000 equity in the house to $63,540.88 equity in the house. This buys a little extra wiggle room when juggling closing costs. But not very much. Even after 3 years, the family has just a little over $70,000 of equity, and just under $230,000 still left on the loan. So if the family has to move for any reason (sickness! death! job loss!) in those 3 years, it's probably financially devastating.

But there is a second answer to avoiding financial ruin: and that is Property Value going up.

Any amount of property value increase is PURE equity. The bank only cares about the amount of money it gave you. If after 3 years, that house is now worth (and can sell for) $315,000 (which is appreciation of only 1.6% a year. Most home appreciation is closer to 3%), that's more equity increase than they got from 36 diligent months of mortgage payment.

If they can sell for $315,000, pay $230,000 of that to the bank, that leaves $85,000. $25,000 goes to paying the realtors and the closing costs and.... the family is back to their $60,000 downpayment. Not trapped. Able to sell. Able to buy a new $300,000 home in the place they moved. Able to just maintain homeownership status.

But wait, if their home appreciated to $315,000, didn't all the other homes do the same, so now $60,000 isn't enough

Smart eye, lad! You've identified why this is a TERRIBLE rat race for the people scraping money together to live, and is ONLY a profitable leisure activity for rich people who sell homes like collectables.

Now because the increase is pure equity, a similar family with decent property value increase can funnel that extra equity into affording to meet the new higher down payment (remember the downpayment is only 20%, so even if the new place is similarly higher in property value, you only need to match that increase 20% for the downpayment). Which gets their foot in the door. But now their new mortgage is higher than the old one. More expensive. More interest.

But there is a losing scenario here--if home property values increased everywhere else, but not where you live. Then this family is back to surrendering homeownership. Because even if they can sell their place, they can't buy the next home.

It forces them to care about their own Property Value increase because, if it doesn't increase while everywhere else does, it traps them.

So what do I mean by all this

If the value of all homes dropped 50% overnight, I assume most people here would celebrate. Affordable homes! Rich people upset and crying! So much to love.

But in reality, that 50% drop would likely continue to mean no home for most of us, because the people who could sell you the homes would be financially incapable.

For the family above with the $240,000 mortgage, that mortgage does not reach halfway-paid-off until year 20 of the 30 year mortgage (remember the interest frontloading). If a family still owes $230,000 in bank loans on a place that can only sell for $150,000, they can't sell it to you. That house is the bank's collateral securing the loan. Their mortgage is underwater. They're trapped. They cannot sell it. You cannot have it.

Something similar happened in the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis, and the only people who got out okay were ones who could stay the course, keep making the mortgage payments, and wait it out long enough for property value to recover.

Those who couldn't got foreclosed on. Those who couldn't were left in financial devastation.

So in conclusion?

Banks profit off of mortgages. Rich people profit off of hoarding housing stock and selling it as the property value increases. Real estate companies profit off of home sales. And the regular people, who managed to achieve home ownership, are shackled to the price-go-up system to avoid financial ruin. They're forced to care about their property value because it is the singular determinant of whether they're trapped in place, whether they'll be okay if they lose their job, whether they could move due to an important life event.

It's a profit system for the rich where the cogs are middle class people who could achieve homeownership, running a machine where every single crank locks the poorer and younger generations out of home ownership forever.