#just makes me uneasy idk

[lobaznyuk]

Sarah Klein's statement on Twitter.

[opens-up-4-nobody]

May I humbly request some Jopson(s)?

:-D

[dollsuguru]

thank you to the person who requested geto being obsessed w gojo’s gf because the idea of it is DELICIOUS - here’s a lil teaser!

[boyfridged]

by all means gotham knights 45 is one of the most disturbing batman stories and while i appreciate it for bruce's partial self-awareness, the guilt complex and ugly grief, the way the whole family engages in victim-blaming, their dismissive attitude when it comes to jason's suffering, the fact that they treat the whole thing as nuance or an attack at their egos, truly makes me surprised that some read it as a story about bruce's sensitivity. it's a good batman story if you want jason whump maybe. or if you want to talk of bruce's hypocrisy. but this is not what the intention of the writer probably was. what the writer wanted was for the reader to buy into the "jason-was-doomed-from-the-start" narrative that for the most part absolves bruce of any fault. it wants you to believe that bruce's good intentions erase the blatant classism of both the editorial and in-universe character logic. this is why when bruce reiterates the words from dc #574 about wanting the best for jason but instead killing him, this time it lands flat. "i allowed him to have hope... and it killed him." is what bruce says, suggesting that jay was devoid of it without him, and once again enforcing the idea that his background made him cynical and damned, waiting for a savior. but that's just not true. it undermines the very premise of jason's robin run and aditf itself. and alfred saying that jason had a father but what he needed was a mother, which within the context of the whole narrative the reader is supposed to believe too- what a joke. i just can't help but think that gk #45 was simply written with ill intent and without taking itself seriously. it briefly recognises the questionable nature of the sidekick institution- especially in jay's case, just to sneer at jason's pain the next moment. it's all so bitter and disingenuous.

[jessiesjaded]

random picture dump :)

[jrueships]

I WANT WRITING PROOOOMPTSSSSSS

[willowfey]

starting to think maybe waking up with an anxiety stomachache every single morning and then needing to spend the entire day trying to get rid of said anxiety just to maybe have a few minutes in the evening of feeling relaxed before going to bed is perhaps not normal

[moonlightdistractions]

I love the idea that Soulless Sam was into yoga. I mean, we got him doing (sexy) pull-ups but just imagine Soulless doing yoga. naked yoga. cause you know he'd do naked yoga. and it makes sense. he was obviously into his own body, keeping it in optimum shape. keeping his mind in shape would be important too. plus, he'd probably love shocking the shit out of Dean by doing (naked) yoga in their motel rooms.

[criminey-christmas]

i don’t know why i still remember this but back when until dawn first came out, i watched mark and jack’s playthroughs first. when it got to josh having his breakdown when mike and chris were tying him up in the shed, they were both kinda laughing and being like why are you being so weird

then i watched emma blackery’s playthrough and she said how sad the scene was. and i just remember thinking how true that was. we were watching a kid’s mental breakdown; watching his mask fall and seeing what he was actually thinking and going through after losing his sisters. his delusion of power and perception of reality was broken and seeing how quickly he declined mentally was heartbreaking. and it’s only made worse later in the game when we find his transcripts from his therapists and see him experience auditory and visual hallucinations

it’s just interesting how the scene hits completely different to people who have faced mental illness than to people that haven’t

[starflungwaddledee]

Ok, for an AU I'm cooking up, what if my OC Periwinkle (who is actually a fragment of Void Termina's power with the full extent of their memories and abilities, though they are nice, until you physically smack/smack talk/hurt the feelings her friends out of malice (she's able to sense emotions), then she will not hesitate to bonk you with a live explosive (expert with the Bomb copy ability) and "give you a proper lesson on not hurting my friends".) met your Galacta Knight? How would the situation play out? (Maybe Galacta comes to her universe then destroys her friend's cooking utensils, and she decides to spare the vandal no chill at all.)

hmmm i'm not suuuper comfortable answering questions like this, sorry! especially with folks who i don't know well... i don't really know your oc and i'm also not comfortable just being like "well he k-words (the oc)" to strangers who might not find that fun, yanno?

i think you'd have to characterise him in a way that suited you and your story/oc/au/needs, and then decide from there! like... what you described with the cooking utensils... no, my version of him wouldn't do anything like that haha. so you'd need to make your own charactisation where something like that worked!

i'd enjoy being That Person With The Evil Galacta Knight Characterisation and i'm happy to answer general questions about my personal hcs of him for sure, but i certainly don't have any sort of monopoly on making him nasty. i feel like there's actually a significant amount of evidence in canon itself for him to be Not Nice! so you can of course characterise your own version of him however you like too!!

the galacta knight that i personally headcanon (who is mostly present in awtdy au) is simultaneously chill and unchill. if someone minds their business and doesn't get in his way or interrupt his plans- which revolve around kirby and meta knight in awtdy au- he doesn't really care about them. this is kind of evident in the way he overlooks bandee's potential entirely.

however if they are a threat to him or his plans, he deals with them. he also sometimes takes a sadistic interest in figures he can project the things he hates onto. in our headcanons in particular he has a specific hatred of dark matter and mages, if that works for you and gives you anything to chew on! fwiw in the star allies arc of awtdy void termina is never released, because galacta knight lays eyes on hyness for 0.2 seconds before fileting him like a fish.

he's just not really a hesitater. and that takes most folks- who want to talk, who want to monologue, who maybe have the hope this can be sorted out- by enough surprise that he generally gets in there first.

[chaotictomtom]

☹️

[thefirsthogokage]

Oh...? (This feels gross)

Maybe a Criminal Intent revival is more possible than I thought? Or is this meant to be a mild insult to Erbe and D'Onofrio because I know they have made it known for years they want to come back, and, instead, Dick Wolf gets made their show, but in Canada.

It really feels more like a "I'd rather not" towards Erbe and D'Onofrio.

Like, out of all the ways they could do a Law & Order in Canada, they chose to do a version of the series who's actors of the OG version have publicly stated they want to come back multiple times. Absolute assholery.

I have a lot of feelings about this. And I'm not sure I can put a name to them all. But one of them is definitely trepidation. And I'm highly suspicious of them doing Criminal Intent elsewhere. I do not like this, and I can't emphasize enough how gross this feels to see.

I think Dick Wolf hates both of them, I really do. There's no other explanation.

[fideidefenswhore]

What are your thoughts on Jane Boleyn, and the role she supposedly played in the fall of 3 Queens (Anne Boleyn, Anna of Cleves, Katheryn Howard)? Do you think she has been too maligned by historians for centuries, especially when it comes to the relationship with the Boleyns (it seems she got along with Anne)?

Now that I've read both works and compared them side by side, I suppose I would say my stance on Jane Boleyn falls somewhere in between that of Julia Fox and James Taffe ('Somewhere in between' is not, btw, Alison Weir); although closer to the former than the latter. Offering critique of both biographies, I would say that of JF is too apologetic (smoothing out wrinkles that exist in her arguments rather than acknowledging them) and JT is too severe.

Especially when it comes to the relationship with the Boleyns? Yes and no. Obviously she was married to George, she sent him a message of comfort while he was in the Tower, and wore only black the rest of her life, which was quite the potent statement. However, I would allow for the possibility that she potentially, inadvertently implicated him or AB (ie, testimony of hers was twisted to suit the crown's case). This is where I think there are flaws in the arguments of some of her defenders-- they cannot allow for even that possibility and so make claims that disallow it; some of which are untrue. 'Jane was only blamed as a means of absolving Henry in the whitewash of Elizabethan propagandists' is not true. Johannes Sleidan in 1545 claimed that Anne and George died by her 'false accusation'. Sleidan was a Reformer, so he would have been more sympathetic towards the plights of these two than the average person, and would have spoken to others that were as well, but the motivation to vindicate Elizabeth did not yet exist; she was at this point the very unlikely third in line to the throne.

I do appreciate that you said 'got along' with Anne, not 'besties', because...it's possible they were very close, certainly, but we must also allow for the possibility of animosity. The linchpin for the argument of closeness is the report from Chapuys that they 'conspired together' to banish Henry's mistress from court. Was this the precise truth? Considering the source I'm doubtful. Probably there was a lady Henry was serving at this time (although that we never have a name makes the story somewhat suppositious), but did they need to have 'conspired together' against her for Jane to be banished from court (which is what happened instead)? Jane might have merely made Anne aware of her, and Henry finding out that she'd been the source would have been enough for banishment. Or, as was presented plausibly in Adrienne Dillard's fictional rendition, Jane might have dropped hints to Cromwell that this mistress was a supporter of the two exiled and contumacious royal women that were Anne's adversaries, Cromwell might have passed this along to Henry, and Henry might have banished Jane for shattering the illusion that this woman had no independent ambitions or ulterior motives and merely let him hit for the sheer pleasure of his company.

If this was evidence of closeness, and it might be, then we also have to remember that the end result was Jane's banishment from court, and that there is, as JT fairly pointed out, no evidence that any of the Boleyns spoke in her defense, favor, or for her return. It would take an extremely magnanimous person to accept all that with equanimity and not feel any resentment whatsoever. So, if there was intimacy, there might have also been rift.

That leaves the question: enough 'rift' for her to seek vengeance? I doubt that much for all the reasons Fox outlines in her biography, but at the same time I wish there was not this relentless push to only defend women that we assert 'deserve' defense, on the premise they were entirely selfless, accepted every insult with grace, never kept any grudges, never had personal ambitions (the actions she took during the queenships of those you mentioned would suggest otherwise), mixed emotions, or conflicting loyalties; that we could acknowledge that acknowledging the agency of historic women also means acknowledging they were capable of making mistakes.

[pinayelf]

Saw a tiktok (lol I know) & it verbalized something I've been having feelings abt wrt female rage

so much of it, whether in feminist or creative (where it's prevalent for me) circles, centers white women. no doubt white women are affected by patriarchy and misogyny, but discussions abt female rage, art, literature abt it are very white and western centric

woc have our own v specific nuance when it comes to female rage and misogyny in general. it differs between our respective cultures. we've shared our own experiences, voices and works about it but as always were placed on the back burner

not to mention when we do show or express this, we're called bullies, aggressive, and are put in danger, black women most especially

idk what I'm trying to say is that if you're very into the concept of unhinged women and female rage please take care to include and also center woc voices

[theramblingvoid]

It's missing Bag a Legend hours