#99% for both in US

[shy-raccoon]

The damsel in distress slowly starts getting more and more unstable from the unaddressed trauma of being frequently kidnapped. One day they completely snap and the villains start being found mysteriously murdered with increasing brutality.

[deservedgrace]

I logically understand what people are getting at when they say stuff along the lines of "christianity is fine when it's love based and not fear based!" but... 99% of churches will self identify as being love based regardless the actual doctrine they're preaching.

And certain doctrine are fear based doctrine no matter how you dress it up. Hell (especially eternal conscious torment) as a concept is fear based. It doesn't matter if you scream about brimstone and hellfire for hours or if you gently preach about how lucky we are to be loved enough to be saved from that fate (if we only give up our entire lives). "Love me or burn for all eternity" is coercion. And coercion is not love.

"Fear based" churches genuinely believe the most loving thing to do is to make sure people are aware of what's at stake. It's a parent using corporal punishment and saying "I'm only doing this because I love you", despite study after study indicating that any "benefit" of changed behavior comes with long-lasting harm... because it's abuse. It's not a metric that will actually promote any kind of meaningful change because of how prevalent the belief of "the ends justify the means" is in christianity.

[sherrymagic]

I've been followed for a while now. It's probably those who don't want me on your brother's case. I'm still looking for evidence.

JJay Patiphan as WIN 4MINUTES | EP. 4

[biblically-accurate-dca]

[goldkirk]

I don’t know how to explain any more clearly that it doesn’t MATTER if it seems legitimate to you. You have got to fact check every single headline and post and claim on the left just like you need to do on the right.

The left is NOT immune to misinformation and rushed reporting. And the more emotionally polarizing or shocking the talking points, sound bytes, and headlines are, the worse it is and more frequently it happens.

Learn to verify through multiple independent sources. If you can’t do that, you can’t trust it.

If you have to wait extra hours for the real information to come through vetted channels—NOT just one individual somewhere everyone links to, and not just one single media source either, EVEN if it’s a major news network—thats just how it has to be. What news outside of genuine local disasters near you TRULY needs your outrage and post-sharing in the next hour specifically?

Misinformation works best by not seeming like misinformation and by fitting in with the rest of what you already expect to see. It doesn’t help anyone to not be able to recognize and avoid the stuff.

[kattitude130]

i haven't had to deal with a weekly update hyperfixation in a long time. kagurabachi got me hugging my knees rocking back and forth in a corner analyzing the same panels over and over. hey did you notice chihiro is left handed

[theriverbeyond]

for every transphobic tlt post i am giving gideon nav an extra cock

[actually-factually-anonymous]

The unnecessary lack of personal stakes of Marinette Dupain-Cheng in the Agreste Arc

Inspired by a recent post by @starguardianniom, with half pinched again from my own reblog:

Marinette has zero personal stakes in the main conflict of her show, except that she happened to be the first girl who helped Fu across the road, and was thus chosen to wear the earrings. She doesn't even really seem to have any reason to be Ladybug aside from the basic "I can't sit back and do nothing" she stated in Origins. So a sense of responsibility conferred by being the bearer of the earrings, and an ostensible general desire to do good.

This would be fine, except that Adrien very much did have a reason to continue being Chat Noir. Plagg's Miraculous is the source of his freedom, and a new identity of his own making separate from the carefully curated child of Gabriel Agreste. Most importantly he had so much personal connection to the core plot that his narrative potential dwarfed Marinette's beyond compare.

His mere existence is the very axis of the plot, putting it in motion by the apparent desire for a designer child seeming being the very reason Gabriel and Emile sought the Miraculous all those years ago, and the consequences of his creation being the very reason that Gabriel devolves into magical terrorism. Hawkmoth being his father whom Adrien clearly cares for and whose goal of restoring his much mourned mother setup a truly impressive case for split loyalties for when Adrien (seemingly) inevitably learnt of his father's identity and true goal:

I made a comparison before between Avatar and Miraculous where Avatar won without question. Allow me to balance the scales here: the setup for Adrien potentially turning on Ladybug, or having to sacrifice his familial bonds for the sake of justice outweighed Zuko's own setup for choosing his ''honour"/loyalty to his family over his burgeoning sense of justice.

In potential at least. Rest assured that Zuko's character arc still far eclipses anything Adrien was ever allowed.

But the point I'm trying to make here is that in the very story that bears her name, Ladybug's only reason to be involved comes from the fact that she happens to have Tikki's Miraculous. She has no personal investment in the fate of Hawkmoth than other citizen of Paris, she certainly has no conflicting loyalties.

She doesn't even have a personal reason to continue being Ladybug. You can draw a parallel if you like with one of her ostensible inspirations Peter Parker, who learnt the price of personal inaction in a harsh and unforgiving manner that selflessly drives him to protect others. You can say that the Stoneheart incident fulfills a similar role.

But here's the thing: Peter Parker is Spiderman thanks to his radioactive blood. Ladybug is whoever wears Tikki's Miraculous. If Peter retires, he takes his powers away from the protection of New York. If Marinette gives up her Miraculous, a new Ladybug will arise in her place within a day. There's no need for her to be Ladybug, to take on that responsibility, and until the season three finale there's no personal stake for her to be the girl under the mask any more than any other Parisian citizen.

And that means that Marinette isn't the heart of her own story. In Avatar, it's Aang's quest to defeat the Fire Lord because it has to be him that restores balance. In Star Wars, it's Luke whose connection with Vader that has to restore Anakin's better nature. In just about any series there is a pressing need and personal stakes for the protagonist to be that The Protagonist of that story, that make that story their story.

But the setup here has all the pathos and personal stakes placed upon Adrien. Marinette is the centerpiece of the show, but Adrien's handed all of the narrative potential even as the writers let it go to waste.

It's like preparing a finely seasoned meal, then leaving it to rot as you serve plain vegetables. There's just no reason to have the vegetables when the fine meal is ready for consumption: and if that's a problem? If the plain vegetables were always meant to be the centrepiece? Then you should have seasoned the vegetables and made something delectable with them.

Because the saddest apart about Marinette having or actual ties or pathos to the Agreste Arc is that once upon a time that was not the case.

In previous Miraculous proposals, before the PV, Marinette Cheng was at least as part of the main story as Felix/Adrien was. There were various versions of how the story would go, with one echoing Cardcaptor's plot, and the later proposals looking more like what we got in the final product.

But all had Marinette having a personal stake in the story. In the Cardcaptor-esque plot, Marinette was Fu's granddaughter (or granddaughter figure), and Fu was the caretaker of the The Orb. A crystal that contained all the "fairies" (beings that served both the roles Kwamis and Akumas would later take). The story kicked off because Marinette brought her crush Felix into her Grandfather's store and accidentally broke The Orb, shattering it and allowing the Fairies to escape across Paris and empower countless people- heroes and villains both.

It was her mission to retrieve the Fairies, because she was the one who had released them. She was Fu's granddaughter and it was her responsibility to clean up her mess. It was her story, and Felix/Adrien was the one with less direct connection.

Later proposals ditched The Orb as the Kwamis were developed, but up until the most recent and final versions of the story Marinette retained Fu as either her blood Grandfather outright or at least a mentor so close from her childhood that she thought of him as a Grandfather. She also was usually being trained to be a Guardian or something like it herself from childhood.

She wasn't just a girl Fu found on the side of the road. She had as much connection to the Guardians and their world as Felix/Adrien did to Papillion. It even added a certain Montague-Capulet tragic element to the romance, since if Felix/Adrien and Marinette ever got together it would mean one having to choose between their partner and their family.

But for some reason, in the final product Marinette was stripped of all pre-series personal connections to the Miraculous.

The question is why? Was there really so great a need for Martinette to be "a girl like any other" that all of the plot relevance needed to be stripped out of her and added to Adrien, only to then completely ignore all that potential pathos by sidelining Adrien at every turn?

Because if you weren't going to do anything with Adrien, then all you've done is needlessly undermine Marinette's potential as a character.

Seriously, if you had given me the backstory of these two characters and asked which one was the main character: there would have been no chance I would have selected Marinette. Because all the writers have given her backstory is side-character material, whereas Adrien's very existence, as well as his relationship to his family and the Miraculous is at the heart of the story.

And I doubt there would be many others who would think otherwise.

[sokkas-therapist]

Brooklyn 99 is very quickly becoming a comfort show of mine but as an Atla fan I can’t get over how Jake Peralta is giving such Sokka vibesss

[factcheckingmclennon]

Can you fact check This One being about John? It's an interpretation that really annoys me because I think it just comes from one rambling answer about relationships in general where he vaguely connects John and George's relationship to the song and not one where he's saying anything meaningful about his and John's relationship. I love the song and it's so outside of my interaction with it that I find the way it's accepted as McLennon fact really hard. But maybe there's a source out there I'm not aware of

oh i can answer this one immediately bc i am one of those believers (sorry anon, sob) & probably one of the folks who has annoyed you w this over on my main

but my answer is the same as it will be with pretty much Any lyric interpretation (unless it's a song that's like obviously and blatantly and said a million times to be about the other, like "here today" or "how do you sleep?") which is...

bc ultimately, as fans, we are all going to have our own interpretations of songs and that's fine! i mean, people shouldn't be repeating it as hard fact, but at the same time sometimes u just gotta breathe out & let people interpret how they will. (like i, for one, don't think "dear boy" is about john, but it's not my business if someone thinks it is)

so i will say now (& it is in my pinned, a bit), unless there's some definitive answer on a lyrics based fact-check (like, again, "here today" or "how do you sleep?"), my answer is pretty much Always gonna be neutral. but i will do on any of these types of questions is try & find both sides of the interpretation as well as any quotes from john/paul/others on the song.

so let's get into it ! i'll present both sides & try to remain as unbiased as possible but do know i Am one of the people that thinks it's about john and it's okay that you're not and it's fine that i am. we are all living in peace and harmony and mclennon here lmao

so here's the quote in question (which i'm sure you know, but for everyone else):

Interviewer: Let me ask you about one of your new songs, ‘This One’. About a marriage? Paul: A relationship, yeah. Interviewer: And about not expressing emotions and feelings.  Paul: You get those moments where you always think; "I’m saving it up. I’ll tell him one day." And you know what happens. A lot of people, John for instance, getting back to that subject. He died. Um.. I was lucky. The last few we- months that he was alive we’d managed to get our relationship back on track. We were talking, having real good conversations. Real, nice and friendly. George, actually, didn’t get get his relationship right. I think they were arguing ‘till the end, which I’m sure is a source of great sadness to him. And I’m sure in the feeling of this song that George was always planning to tell John he loved him, but time ran out. That’s what the song’s about. Like, there could never be a better moment than this one. Y’ know now. Take this moment to say… "I love you."

(source) (again, an archived blog, but it's audio so i'm using it as a legit source)

argument for it being about john

well, to start with, paul immediately answers with "i'll tell him one day" which, regardless of if it's about john, is a very blatantly queer answer. maybe a slip of the tongue, who knows, but there's not much question at the least that this song is romantic. so paul saying it's about a "him" is very interesting, even if it's not john. (edit: given the youtube video linked below, it can also be heard as "them". i still don't hear "them" or think it's continuous, but that is one interpretation & hearing of this interview and it's a valid one!)

second, he does connect it to george and john's relationship, but he does it in a way that's just again connecting the song to him and john. he says "i'm sure in the feeling of this song that george (...etc)" which is just him saying he thinks george can relate to the feeling of the song.

and ofc back to the beginning of the quote, right after saying "i'll tell him one day" he says "a lot of people, john for instance (...)" which is just connecting that sentence to john. he goes on to say they got their relationship right, but then at the end loops back around to saying the song is about regretting not saying "i love you", which we know from "here today" and other paul quotes he does deeply regret not saying to john. so an Entire Song about that regret is not like. unfeasible to be about john.

i will say, i at least think this song is about more than one thing. he says here it's about that type of relationship he had with john (or the nebulous "him" who i mean. who else would that be? tara?) and then he does also talk about how he had fun w the storytelling w the word play on "this swan" and the hindu imagery. (edit: also with the full context of the youtube video below, this is even more relevant, because paul also talks about family and a "her". imo, it's more than likely a song about many people/relationships. some people think that one of those is john, myself included!)

argument for it not being about john

like you said, it is a bit of a rambling answer! and saying it's about john IS just an interpretation. paul saying "him" could've been a slip of the tongue, or maybe he had some other romantic relationship with a man we're not privy to, or maybe he did completely mean all those lines platonically and it's about various men he's been friends with or even john in a platonic way.

he does also connect the song to george and john, so it could be about that. i've also seen someone posit that here he is trying to reach out to george in his own way- thinking george must have the same regrets as him with john & thus this is his attempt to repair that relationship before they have those regrets with each other too.

and ofc, it could just be a totally hypothetical song. he never says it's about his own life, and he does include a lot of fictional imagery about a swan in this song. he could just be telling a story he doesn't necessarily relate to.

edit: there is also a full youtube video (time mark for part of this interview comes at 59:51). in the video, paul also mentions parents as someone you might regret not telling how you feel. following another edited clip, he says the "I’m saving it up. I’ll tell him/them one day," line, which can also be read as a "them" referring to parents rather than a "him". he also mentions a "her" in this interview as well, which adds credence to the fact that this song is about many types of relationships/people and this doesn't necessarily mean it's about john at all. or that if it is, it's romantic, since he mentions parents as well.

[themyscirah]

Amanda... I miss her.

But I don't trust a single person to write her other than Ostrander/Yale. Like I don't trust them to do it right. Because like it's easy to write her being shady and manipulative and involved in secret government conspiracies. That's what she does. But it feels so hollow once you've seen her character in the way Ostrander describes it. Like she is a woman who is desperate and trying to do what she thinks is right. She has found a place of power (as a fat Black woman in the 1980s) and is doing anything she can to fight and hold onto it as powerful and ambitious men try and steal it from her. So she doubles down. She doubles down on the shady deals and the broken promises and the violence and she destroys her enemies, and loses a part of her soul in the process. And then some other ambitious politician rises up and the process repeats itself over and over and over again as each time she loses more of her morality and more of her soul and more of the respect her colleagues had for her. In place of that she gains more power, she gains fear, and an even more badass reputation. Until by the end of the book the villains begin to understand/sympathize with her more than the heroes ever will. Like THAT is who Amanda Waller is. It may happen subtly, it may happen over a longer period of time but that descent is a critical part of her character! She is a tragic character! And I feel like every perception of Suicide Squad I've seen outside of the original has her as this static villainous snapshot which is just untrue to her core imo. Like she is not a hero. But she is also not JUST a villain. She is a highly flawed character who is always descending farther and farther into villainy as she is led there by what she believes is right.

[file-skull94]

its literally the best ever when people draw firestar and squilf almost the EXACT same especially in old animations where you cant even tell at first if its fire or squirrl until you recognize the scene of the book

[anitalianfrie]

i think that the weird obsession that the drivers have with the word mate has to be studied

[nashvillethotchicken]

"Lestat would get woken up by the macarena" "No he'd get waken up by dubstep" "No he'd get waken up by Call Me Maybe" You fool's. You absolute fools. Lestat is buried/out in the dump of New Orleans, a city that's 60 percent black. He's getting woken up by Back That Azz Up by Juvenile

[magpie-trove]

Today on Pop Culture Addressed By Ancient Theologians: Does Free Guy synthesize the tension between will and intellect as the vehicles of ultimate human bliss as seen in Thomistic medieval theology?