#(​as opposed to having a history with them)

[friendly-wizard-bibliothecary]

An important component to this that I think people are missing is that, historically, Irish immigrants in America were oppressed and seen as no better than Black people when they first started immigrating, and Irish immigrants made the deliberate and conscious effort to further oppress Black people in order to better position themselves in society. Not all of them, of course, but for the most part, Irish immigrants saw free Black people as competition for labor and went out of their way to force Black people out of labor spaces so Irish immigrants could have jobs. Some even opposed abolition because free Black people meant more competition for jobs they thought they deserved more than Black people.

Instead of true solidarity with Black people (there was some for a while and in some areas), they used anti-blackness to raise themselves up the social and economic ladder and eventually integrated into "white society".

Remmick as a character is illustrating this history - that yes his people faced oppression and instead of joining in with other oppressed people, they instead took the role of oppressor to make sure they got theirs. Him comparing his oppressed history while actively trying to oppress the Black folks in the juke joint is the manipulation.

it really frustrates me to think about how people are inevitably going to take Remmick’s one (1) singular statement about how much he resents the way the Irish were colonized and forcibly converted to Christianity and use it as fuel for “actually he had a point” and “he was right actually” and “he’s not really the villain here” posts, when the whole point is that Remmick is, through the vampiric hive mind he’s creating, forcibly assimilating people into yet another manipulative and parasitical system. he doesn't value the cultures of the people he assimilates—notice how all the vampires he turns dance to his culture's music using his culture's dances, and how he only uses the languages or knowledge other vampires have to offer when he needs to manipulate someone. Remmick is extremely transparent about the way he sees the people he turns as resources to exploit.

he’s perpetuating a cycle that he claims to hate and resent, and I think the movie is pretty damn clear about the fact that he doesn’t see anybody as valuable or useful to him except as prey and as pawns—otherwise he would just, you know, focus solely on people who actually consent to being turned. but he looked sad in that one scene and he’s an apparently attractive white cis man so people are gonna bend over backwards justifying all the harm he did.

[castorizz]

Hugo relationship headcanons... please..... feed the starving........

... ❝ RELATIONSHIP HCS! ❞ ft. hugo x reader

𝒾. ⠀FEATURING : an assortment of headcanons about your relationship with hugo!

꒰ contents ꒱ mild spoilers for hugo's backstory i guess? gn!reader. fluff. headcanons. wc : 1052

꒰ notes ꒱ HIII ANON!! thank you for the request hehe i hope this is to your liking, i'm still getting a grasp on his character :")) + @rainswept hugo tag <3

a relationship with hugo is not easy. not at first, at least.

despite his collected exterior, the scars of his past still sting when pressed, and it's a pain not easy to ignore, no matter how much he tries to convince himself he has healed. it takes a while to allow himself to open up enough to begin the relationship in the first place, let alone let his guards fall, one by one...

but he'll manage. he's nothing if not resilient; give him time, patience, and the chance to ask you out himself, and he will be the most attentive lover you've ever had.

it starts with the classic: flowers, a huge bouquet that takes two hands to hold, and a box of chocolates. he's calm when he's handing them to you, his voice even as he spits out the confession speech that took hours in the mirror to prepare, but his mind is going haywire, worrying about whether it's too much, too soon. maybe he should have stuck with just the chocolates after all, or even just a smaller bunch of roses, or something else entirely—

he's thankful you don't let him languish in his thoughts for too long, cutting off his overthinking with a simple “yes.” it takes all he can to restrain himself from breaking out into relieved laughter at your response.

it's all history from there. when you're with hugo, nothing is ever boring; he'd consider it a personal affront for his beloved to be disinterested when they're out with him. no matter what you're doing, be it an extravagant day out, or quiet night in, there's always something to look forward to.

the more elaborate dates are what he leans towards in the beginning, as a means to impress you—dinners at the most high-end restaurants, and tours of art galleries—but it's the simple ones where he truly shines. when all of the grandeur and showiness is melted away, when it's just the two of you curled up under a weighted blanket with some trashy rom-com playing in the background, that's when he truly feels at home.

at the start of the relationship he's careful with his affection. even the most innocuous gestures are subtle tests, experimenting to see what you are and aren't comfortable with. pet names are one of the first things he tries out, a genuine “darling,” or “sweetheart,” slipped into the teasing, overly sappy “honey-pie,” and “snookums.”

when it comes to physical affection though, he tends to be... flighty.

a part of it is the natural touch-starvation that comes with being deprived of gentle touch for so long, but another is the fact that he simply doesn't know how to respond to it. it's not that he's opposed to the feeling, he simply prefers to be the one to touch you, to ensure he keeps some level of control over the situation.

it makes it easier. safer. if he knows if and when it happens, he doesn't have to worry about the instinctual recoil that happens whenever you suddenly grab his arm, or the overwhelming swell of emotion in his chest when you kiss his cheek. after a while, the instinct starts to dull, but it never quite ceases fully.

in any case, he doesn't stop you from touching him, (he doesn't know if he could bring himself to, even if he wanted to) but he favours the touches that he's warned about beforehand. ask for a kiss, and he'll never refuse; motion for a hug, and his arms will be open and waiting.

he tends to mirror what you like; every touch—even the ones that seem casual—is another test of what you're receptive to. once he's satisfied with his understanding of your boundaries, your wants and needs, he's more than happy to indulge you—no matter how much or how little you like.

one thing he does like is when you're walking together, he enjoys having you hold his arm, instead of his hand. it feels so much more intimate somehow, having your hands linked through his arm. he can't help but glance over at you every few seconds, a wide grin breaking over his face as he realizes how lucky he is.

hugo is extremely perceptive to how you feel, almost scarily so. there's no use trying to hide anything from him. surprises, secrets, suppressed feelings, he notices it all. if there's an issue in your relationship, he doesn't let it linger; he sits you down and confronts it together.

and if you're having problems of your own, he's also there to help. he might be slightly overzealous with helping you fix whatever you have going on, but he's more than willing to just listen if that's what you need. either way, he can't stand the idea of you keeping something to yourself when it's clearly troubling you.

somehow, despite his directness when it comes to resolving conflict, the first “i love you,” takes a while. it's a difficult sentence for him to muster up, even if it's been months since you got together. in a way, it's the weight of it that holds him back. speaking it aloud

so he saves it for a moment that seems casual, perhaps to steel his nerves slightly, or to simply soften the blow. it happens when you're half asleep, mid-way through your nightly routine. he's on his way to the kitchen for a glass of water when he pauses by you in the bathroom, kisses your temple and whispers an “i love you,” into your hair.

in fact, you're so tired that you don't even notice it at first, simply humming in response as he ducks out of the room. it's a few seconds later when the words finally process, and you almost drop the toothbrush in your hand.

what follows is you dashing to the kitchen to confront him, a flurry of questions on your lips. he's frustratingly impassive with his responses, an air of forced calmness about him, as if he hadn't just shocked your entire system. the bewilderment on your face is amusing to a degree, but there's an anxiousness that accompanies it; one that doesn't ease until he hears those sweet, four words that he's been craving ever since the day he asked you to be his.

“i love you too.”

©castorizz 2025 : do not copy, translate, repost, redistribute, or use my work to train ai. reblogs are appreciated <33

[the-pumpkween]

hate to say it, but I need to talk about these pope posts.

for context, I have 17 years of intensive christian education, including a bachelor's degree, and spent 10 years working in an american lutheran denomination, ecumenical spaces, and i'm deeply familiar with catholicism, academically and personally. what i am going to say here does not mean there are not good, loving, affirming christians or catholics. there are. but the ones in power? that ain't them.

so we're clear, there is no good pope. no pope is going to be the culture changer you hope for. not francis, not chicago style leo, none of them, because in order to get to the rank of cardinal, by necessity you have upheld colonialism, cultural extermination, forced birth policies, "merit-based" poverty relief, sexual abuse, misogyny, and queer persecution. bare minimum. that's why the only candidates for the papacy are old white men.

the papacy is about power, and the history of christian imperialism. and you should be bothered, not comforted, that the new pope is american and was a missionary for much of his career. i've lived with missionaries, worked with them, been friends with them. they are the kindest, cruelest, most compassionate lawful good sort of dangerous there is. they will lovingly stab you in the heart and watch you bleed out, bathing the wound and praising you because this death will save your soul. they have suffered for the truth they believe, which in the case of most christian mission work is that we all must suffer and all must be saved, and salvation comes at a terrible price. the advertising says jesus paid the price but ask any indigenous community and you will hear a very different story. ask anyone living their truth who is then confronted with conservative theology.

silence on certain issues is not approval, particularly not in positions of power. silence is an action against you. queer folx, take note, a christian who is silent about your rights does not believe you should have them. they just hope you won't notice who's tying the noose. pope said jd vance doesn't understand love? fine. do not take that to mean he'll defend the rights of the people being persecuted. not if they are theologically opposed to his beliefs.

I am all for the hot dog memes and the paper formatting jokes. it's history and we should get a laugh, but now, especially if you are queer, if you need access to reproductive rights, if you are part of a non-christian culture, you should above all be wary.

new pope might not like the u.s. leadership, but he has no problem with barring the rights of queer folks and restricting medical care.

beyond the pope himself, no matter what he says or does, the propaganda machine will use an american pope to its advantage in persecuting non-conservative folks.

[nerdygaymormon]

Does Dallin H. Oaks being next in line to become the prophet make you uneasy?

No matter how good someone is in other areas, as a queer person it is difficult to respect a person who has consistently spoken against folks like me, and of course that makes me worried for what he would do with more authority.

"By their fruits ye shall know them"

I won't go through a long list of statements and interviews, but here's 3 posts that highlight his anti-gay history.

In the 1970's as president of BYU, he authorized actions against gay students.

As an apostle, he directed the church's efforts to oppose gay rights.

It's heartbreaking to me to know he's given such homophobic sermons while having a gay grandson who had to hear his grandpa give these statements.

[acquired-elfroot]

#also honestly even if clan virnehn wanted to just selfishly find stuff.... that's fine#like it's VERY silly for briala to go#''UGH. all you people do is obsess over history!! anyway i'm taking your historical artifacts that you obsessed over for years''#like either it's worth looking into or not? if they were checking out idk. ancient elven jam recipes that would be a waste of time#but clearly it WAS valuable enough for briala to be willing to kill them for it.#and if they had access to the eluvians then the dalish themselves would be way more secure and capable of fighting back against humans#which is not nothing considering how thinly populated and precarious they are...#AND it's actually hilarious that briala goes from ''but i helped them... i love the dalish... are we not all elven comrades :(''#to ''they were mean to Celene and Michel The Alienage Burners? nevermind. i can kill them no problem :)''#like yeah... probably that's why they distrust city elves... they should have perhaps just been even meaner and shot on sight 😭#which again - is neat if it's an intentional choice to show that she's like#still orlesian first and an elf second and The Game™ has overridden all such solidarity#but i do not think the author noticed this at all <-@sunlight-shunlight

i mean in Inquisition she is willing to have her one of her own people killed to cover up her affair with celene, so it does seem deliberate that she's willing to prioritize The Game over her own people. that part is easy to blank on though as it comes across as a bit of a silly plot point, given that their affair seems to be something of an open secret at the time? didn't gaspard had a play written about it?

and the book does seem to expect us to take her declaration that she'll 'fight for all of her people' (as opposed to the dalish who only care about themselves) at face value.

you were bang on when you mentioned that she should have had like. a lick of introspection about that whole thing. or at least a running commentary of desperate self justifications for her biases, or even any indication at all that she's an unreliable narrator when it comes to the dalish.

like it makes sense for briala to have held on to this childhood fantasy of legendary elves from the woods swooping in to rescue her, and it makes sense for her to feel deeply bitter when faced with the reality of their circumstances, but it's suuuper weird that the text seems to support that view.

it is underrated how straight up murderous felassan is in the masked empire. cannot stress enough - this guy threatens a random shopkeeper with torture and maiming in a way that implies he's done it before, then helps kill off an entire dalish clan in cold blood, all without even a hint of remorse or hesitation. and then in veilguard he's on the "but... solas... how could you let soldiers die in a war... aren't you going too far? 🥺😭" mindset. smh. let this guy be a menace to society.

[your-mom-friend]

gonna preface this with saying I don't like modi, have never voted bjp, think israel is committing a genocide although hamas is a terrorist org and netanyahu is evil for what he's doing to gaza, I hate what Modi has done to normalise hate and Islamophobia and casteism.

I also don't want the ind pak war to escalate, I want it to be over as soon as possible and I feel for civilians on both sides of the border, I feel tense myself, I can't even imagine what folks nearer to the border on either side are feeling.

BUT. I do want to call out that the TRF did claim responsibility for the attack in Pahalgam AND that pakistan has been avoiding naming this entity. This was reported not just in Indian new but in various international reports as well including al jazeera (the part about TRF claiming responsibility).

You could argue that the TRF itself is a result of modi's policies and article 370 being revoked but that doesn't mean it isn't a terrorist organization.

Additionally - there is a LOT of precedence for pak shielding terrorists in the recent past. in all the previous attacks pakistan has claimed willingness to co-operate in investigating the attacks but has ignored all evidence shared by India, including dna samples. They've repeatedly let LeT members go free in spite of evidence from India.

So I don't think cooperating with their army would've yielded in anything. It's also pretty well known that in their case, the army controls the govt and not the other way around.

Again, this is NOT to make light of civilians deaths in the course of these attacks. I think it's heartbreaking that kids have died as part of the attacks but I feel, especially this time, that the onus ought to rest more with an army that allows known terrorists to use civilians as shields.

Geopolitics really isn't black and white.

Also I realized after typing all this that you might not wanna post more ind x pak stuff rn so I guess feel free to ignore also!

And stay safe 🤞💖

Y know, the thing is that I actually do agree with essentially everything you said. Geopolitics ISNT black and white and the Pakistani government has had a history of not taking accountability.

But I feel, and I think you’ll agree with me, that war still isn’t the answer. I think that in recent years war has become a normalised concept to the entire world. Before, the concept that a country could go to war with another country seemed larger than life, a looming shadow that governments made a show of trying to avoid. With the spread of internet and social media, war has become normalised. Violence has become normalised. India and Pakistan are going to war? Okay so what. There’s more than 50 others going on in the world AS WE SPEAK. And with a swipe on your screen you can see them all play out one after the other.

People understood that war has innocent deaths. And at one point, that seemed too high a cost. Now? It’s accepted. Governments have gotten so effective at propaganda and blocking information that someone who hasn’t left their country would never know the extent of propaganda they’ve been fed.

I used to live in the Middle East. I grew up in UAE. I thought it was one of the best places in the world to be, despite their views on Queer people. After I moved for college? That’s when I found out about UAE’s complicity in slave labour, funding genocides in African countries to get their gold, Sheikh Rashid’s harassment of his now ex-wife Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein and her children. None of this was known to me. It didn’t come up naturally for me to search before.

It’s been seen in the US that if two people, say a Democrat and a Republican, Google the same question about a political stance, they will still get answers tailored to their bias.

Israeli children are brought up to hate the Palestinians literally from primary school.

Information is easy to withhold. Information is easy to manipulate. If you don’t consistently look for sources to oppose your own view point you won’t find it. And if you’ve been brought up with certain views then it’s almost impossible to get unbiased news because your algorithms been poisoned from Day 1.

What I think, at the end of the day, is that Indians and Pakistanis are not immune to propaganda. In fact we may be more susceptible to it. We have gotten used to convenience, we’ve gotten used to the idea that the people in charge know more than we do and we’re comfortable in letting them make the decisions. Do i think Pakistan has done a lot? Sure, maybe. Do I think India has also done a lot? Yeah.

The narrative I keep hearing is that Pakistan has been attacking India over and over and India’s been taking it and now they’re finally fighting back. I don’t know if I believe that a country that has previously been so brutal to it’s own citizens as to impose things like CAA, the crackdown on the farmers protest among others, wouldn’t retaliate against Pakistan in some measure. I’m coming to know through Instagram comments sections of all places, that Pakistanis think that their government hasn’t even fired missiles. If they can be fed such efficient propaganda, i shudder to think how much we could be told that isn’t true.

Indian media is so comfortable in faking news that people are literally making memes about how much each and every major Indian news station has faked. The government’s response? Don’t give out fake news, it might compromise our military positions. Not “don’t do it because it’s immoral” not “don’t do it because it violates journalistic integrity”. Don’t lie because it could give them more information about our forces.

People have become too comfortable in letting half truths, incomplete data and propaganda become the basis of their nationalism.

Pakistan is escalating things, India is responding to escalation. Regardless of who started it, it is innocent human lives who are paying the price. We have all become too comfortable in the idea that war is the only option. Until and unless both sides can pressure their governments into figuring out ANY OTHER solution, the only other way out of this without all out war is for other countries to step in and facilitate. And I don’t think both sides will. Extremism is on both sides of this conflict, it’s fuelling nationalistic ideals that will only lead to more outrage.

[biggest-gaudiest-patronuses]

hero/villain showdown but one of them has a spontaneous medical emergency and the battle gets put on hold while their archnemesis drives them to Urgent Care

[awkward-teabag]

After Brexit, who knows. It's easy to say something is terrible and makes no sense but with how conservatives vote lately, they may very well vote to secede and only realize the impact afterward (also see: Americans who voted for Trump and were surprised they were the ones negatively affected).

Will Smith go through with it? Maybe, maybe not, though Alberta lowered the referendum threshold quite a bit while internal and international right-wing groups are stoking the flames with lies and misinformation. If there is a referendum and it passes, I see her going through with it if only so the extremists the UCP's been courting don't turn on her.

I don't know how that would go on a federal level but it would be shooting the province in the foot since if it's hard getting pipelines through other provinces, try forcing other countries to do it.

What happens with natural resources when the cost of extracting them gets to be more than they're worth? What about labour if the voting base opposes anyone but Albertans working in Alberta? What happens to the budget after a wildfire hits and the feds aren't there to bail them out?

Then there's the indigenous side and she sweepingly unified tribes to oppose separation. Given how Conservatives treat and talk about FNIM in Canada, I don't know how much this will change things but adding it because if Alberta separates, they're going to be dealing with that slowing down courts and, if they ignore First Nations completely, they're going to have to deal with pissing off the population of the province's two largest cities.

Like, it makes no sense and is political pandering but I don't know if it won't not happen anymore. Not with how the groundwork is being laid (grifting, misinformation, framing the feds and other provinces as the "enemy", proposing and passing legislation to make it easier, etc.) and how such voters in other countries vote for the worst option.

Quebec at least has reasons beyond "We can't bully other provinces to do what we want so we'll take our ball and go home".

But who knows. We're in a FAFO part of history and at this point nothing surprises me.

How likely do you think it is that Alberta will actually end up seceding from Canada?

From my layperson's perspective, it just seems like a complete political circus which I can't see ever actually coming to fruition. Quebec arguably has much better grounds for secession, and even that's always seemed like a far-fetched idea that's never materialized despite decades of political effort.

To me, it really seems like Danielle Smith is just trying to ingratiate herself to conservative Albertans who are pissed off by the federal election. I honestly doubt she has any intention of actually letting Alberta secede, it's just some ridiculous political posturing.

Its not likely at all, but it riles up her right wing voting base, so that's all that matters. 🙃

[polepositioned]

"prost and senna were so brutus/caesar coded" WRONG.

[wonder-worker]

"As for the government of the kingdom, [Edward V] had complete confidence in the peers of realm and the queen."

"According to the Crowland continuator, [Elizabeth Woodville] seems to have taken the king's place in listening to his council immediately after Edward IV's death. It does appear that she expected to have some role in her son's kingship, and the Crowland continuator’s report of the letters sent to her by [Richard of Gloucester] indicates that she had good reason to expect to be able to work with him and the other councillors: 'the duke of Gloucester wrote the most pleasant letters to console the queen; he promised to come and offer submission, fealty and all that was due from him to his lord and king, Edward V, the first-born son of his brother the dead king and the queen'."

"[However], in what was Gloucester's first coup, Edward V was separated from his household and Woodville advisors. When the young king questioned the move, Buckingham was reported to have told the boy 'It is not in the business of women but men to govern kingdoms'. The blunt remark referred to the authority of Elizabeth Woodville as queen and the power she must have anticipated within the new political climate left by Edward IV's sudden death. [...] While the veracity of this scene is questionable*, the words attributed to the duke no doubt seemed plausible to Dominic Mancini who believed they exemplified the popular sentiment held by men [...]."

— Dominic Mancini, The Usurpation of Richard the Third / J.L. Laynesmith, The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503 / Alexander R. Brondarbit, Power Brokers and the Yorkist State, 1461-1485

*One of Mancini's key sources seems to have been Edward V's own doctor, John Argentine, who attended to him in the Tower. It's very likely that he was the one who recounted this scene to Mancini, which suggests that it should probably be considered more credible than not.

[goldensunset]

no feeling quite like seeing someone make a harmless and valid post and then someone adds on and interprets it in the most vile and stupid manner possible accusing op of being ignorant and wrong and biased etc and that’s the version with a million notes but you’re like guys that is not what they were talking about at all and you know it

[hotsugarbyglassanimals]

i feel like this site leaning heavily into the "pedophilia and incest and rape kinks are good" angle lately can be attributed to the mass expulsion of sex workers and black ppl on here ngl

[incorrect-green-lantern-quotes]

I think there's a number of ways to justify Betrassus being like that

The first is that technological progress and social progress may not necessarily be tied together for Betrassus in the same way they are for Earth. Like just because the end of feudalism brought about advances in the sciences for humans doesn't necessarily mean it would've happened the same way on a completely separate planet with an entirely unrelated species

Other options are perhaps a little less charitable toward the Betrassians- after all, what we know about their society or its history is really just a small snapshot as opposed to an extensive background. It's entirely possible that they didn't achieve space travel on their own, that technology could have been introduced to them by an older species in the past.

Alternatively, Betrassus may have been a world that did achieve greater societal advances and technological innovation thrived during that time, but unfortunately backslid into monarchy and feudalism. A few years ago, I might not have considered it a possibility but... *waves vaguely at the resurgence of fascism and conservative values*

been thinking a LOT about the politics and economy of Betrassus (Princess Iolande’s planet) bc wdym they’ve achieved space travel but they’re still a medieval planet AND their main export is minerals and precious gemstones. how do u have the scientific advancements necessary for space travel without getting rid of feudalism AND ur main export is basically fossil fuels. wdym the Guardians thank the House of Betra for bringing peace to Betrassus for the past several centuries but the planet is still known for assassinations, like there’s no way the House of Betra got control of the planet without, um, waging war and conquering every other house? wdym Iolande’s brothers are chauvinistic as hell, implying a heavily patriarchal society, but Iolande gets to be queen of Betrassus without much fuss about her gender from literally anyone else?

[secret--history]

I know that 'The Secret History is a satire' is an extremly prevalent take, and I think it came about as a response to the idea that tsh "romanticises" things like classist ideas/substance abuse/murder, but like. It can be unsupportive or critical of the characters without being a satire. Satire is not the word you're looking for here

[twentyfivemiceinatrenchcoat]

thinking about that One scene in the secret history but w cult leader geto (<- having a normal one)

[ouidamforeman]

They should let me make a whole season of Dr who except i only have to think of ideas and not have to do anything except make people execute my vision