#I think it's important to give all of this context

[galaxythreads]

Also not to take away from this point because yes, good, but -

The line "you're not the only monster on the team" is delivered with important precontext. The only reason Natasha says it is because Bruce is saying that he can't give her a normal life and he's wondering what kind of happiness he could even provide for her. The idea of companionship alone being enough didn't occur to him at all, so he immediately leaps to - kids. She wants kids. That's what couples do. They raise a family. We are standing in a house full of children. He thinks that a white picket fence and 2.5 kids will make Natasha happy and that's the one thing he can't give her, and that makes him feel monstrous, because he feels so outside of the realm of "normal" adult behavior. He's Hulk. He breaks things, he doesn't create them. He's a monster simply by his nature now, a result of what was done to him.

Natasha recongizes this immediately and cuts to the chase by saying she can't have kids either. The white picket fence and 2.5 kids isn't the point here. Bruce is. Natasha then also explains about her surgery, an equal violation of her bodily autonomy and says, carefully, "you think you're the only monster on the team?"

She does not mean, genuinely, that they're both monsters because they can't have kids. It's because they can't have the same level of "normal" that it seems everyone wants around them. They can't have Clint's life. Not to the same extent. Natasha says this to reassure Bruce that the kids are not the point, but also to reach out and reassure him that he's not alone.

Natasha and Bruce can't have that "normal," and they both feel removed from society to an extent for unrelated reasons, and the only interaction they have with it is when they kill. It does make them feel monstrous. Especially with the added context that both Natasha and Bruce in the course of MCU make it clear they do want bio kids. Doesn't mean they can't adopt but it wasn't their first choice and they're allowed to want bio kids and grieve that they can't have that.

Like the thing is - Natasha is a very important piece of AoU, and when you look at it, Bruce is more her love interest than the other way around. But the important thing to remember is that narratively, they're not just love interests. They have discussions and relationships with other characters. If you remove them from the story it falls apart. Is their relationship a good part of AoU? No, I wouldn't say so. It's not the best written, the chemistry was awkward and disjointed, but this scene has never bothered me, because the layers to it are incredible.

Natasha could also equally mean that because of the lack of bodily autonomy, it made killing easier. It made everything easier. (What is everything, Natasha????) You think you're the only monster on the team? I don't feel anything when I kill. When I perform graphic acts of violence. You've been upset about hulk for the last day, but I don't share that level of guilt. We're the same Bruce. We're the same were the same. Why do you think I picked you? You make me feel seen because you know what it's like to have your bodily rights taken away. You make me feel like a person not just an experiment with a skillset. I can't have kids and I can never be normal but neither can you and we can share that grief together

Marvel women, written by men: 🧍‍♀️I can’t have babies 👶🏻😫😢 I’m a monster 😢😢 yes this is the deepest my backstory can get btw 😉😨 isn’t it harrowing 😱

Marvel women, written by women: I will subject an entire town to my will if it means the chance to see you again. I will drink my grief, knowing I am damned and that I cannot protect you, and will still sing out my heart to crowds of thousands in the hopes they will keep you safe when I’m gone. I crave power so intensely that it has overpowered any sense of loyalty to anyone, and I will betray again and again and again, but I will still be wounded when you betray me because it was you. It was you.

[twobellsilence]

I genuinely can't understand why some people still think of Anya as a clumsy, squeamish, incompetent bundle of nerves after finishing the game. Like you'd think that, even before the end, players would realize that Jimmy is a very unreliable narrator, what with his manipulative tendencies, the fact that he's literally hallucinating every other scene, and how different the rest of the crew seems to act from Curly's perspective. But no, many seem to take this version of Anya at face value, and it's very sad because not only is she the most important character in the game, but that description of her falls apart once you actually think about her for a split second!

Anya kept Curly, a severe burn victim and amputee, alive with basic medical supplies. This means she had to take care of him tirelessly, debride his wounds, set up and change his IV, change his bandages, set and clean a bedpan for him... Would a squeamish person be able to do that? A clumsy person who constantly forgets about things? Would an incompetent woman who, according to Jimmy, isn't even worth her title as a nurse, be able to take care of such a high-risk patient that needs tending to like clockwork? No, of course not! Anya is driven. Dedicated. Impossibly strong. This isn't just any patient, but her captain, someone who was clearly important to her and then tried to kill everyone (allegedly), which would no doubt add an extra layer of complexity to working with him in this context. And yet he's still alive and breathing and in top shape all things considered.

The only two things that point to her being incompetent is her inability to enter medical school - the reasons why are never so much as mentioned, but Anya herself says she has no savings, and I haven't really seen anyone speculate it could be because of money, not necessarily her lack of skill - and her inability to give Curly painkillers, which clearly triggers an intense trauma response from her, so it's understandable that she'd seek help from someone else to do it. And then there's the fact that it's not just anyone, but her abuser. Would an incompetent person steel herself and try to convince her RAPIST, someone she's so scared of she literally hid the only gun on the ship so he wouldn't be able to take it, to give her patient painkillers? She could've stalled. Could've straight up given up on trying to give Curly his meds. But she would rather face Jim head on than let that happen, because she's brave, and she knows what she's doing, and refuses to let even her very real trauma get in the way of her duty.

See what I mean? It's easy to see her simply as a nervous person, who spaces out and mopes and can't do something as basic as give a guy some pills. But that's the thing - it's easy. Once you go a little further, once you spot the discrepancies between her apparent personality versus her actions and the way she behaved during Curly's sections, you begin to realize Jim is wrong about her, and you are, too.

For a fandom that likes to overanalyze anything (as you should with a game like this), it's genuinely sad how the same effort isn't always extended to Anya.

[cincodenada]

So, bonus fact about color temperature: it used to seem weird to me that we talk about color in terms of temperature. Seemed like something a marketing department cooked up, except that the lower temperatures are "warm" and the higher ones are "cool" - what gives??

What gives is that as it happens, it's not really that color has a temperature, but rather the other way around: temperature has a color! This is a phenomenon called black-body radiation, which is basically, if you heat something up, eventually it will start glowing just from the heat. We see this in really hot things on earth: this is the main reason lava is red/orange/yellow, for example! We also see it in metalsmithing - when you stick a sword or whatever into the furnace, it glows red, or if it's really hot, yellow or nearly white.

Now, the charts above aren't super accurate, so for reference, here's Wikipedia's chart of color temperature:

Which is important because the key is, this holds for stars too! Our sun's effective temperature is 5772K, and the "color temperature" of daylight outside the atmosphere is approximately 5900K, which is juuust on the red ("warm") side of white. Color and perception of color is complicated, and things like atmospheric scattering affect what gets to us on the ground, but the takeaway is that daylight is pretty close to white.

Why we think of red as "warmer" light is wading into the realm of human psychology, but I imagine a big part is that historically our artificial lights - from campfires to candles up to incandescent bulbs - could only get so hot, so their color temperatures were on the low half of the scale: 1000-2000K for a candle, 2700K for incandescent bulbs, and 3000-4000K for fluorescent. We're used to our warm cozy indoors being lit with a color temperature around 3000K or below. Even fluorescent lighting, while still technically on the "warm" side, is bluer than that, and we associate it with cold, clinical settings like offices. I'm sure there are color theorists who have all kinds of opinions here too. And because it's all subjective, people have different preferences for different temperatures in different contexts, and this post is great because it helps you figure out what yours are, and have names/numbers for them!

But anyway, in short: these temperatures aren't just made up - if you heat a thing up to a given temperature, it will glow at roughly the color associated with it! The reason we associate the lower temperatures with warmth is mainly that the only things that get hot enough to glow blue purely from their temperature are stars, so all the hot glowy things on earth are on the red side of things - even our sun is a little yellow.

(Candles and bunsen burners do have a blue flame, but that's unrelated to black-body radiation, and they are much cooler than 6000K. Similarly, the color of heated metal doesn't exactly correspond to black-body radiation because metal is not an idealized body that absorbs all energy [aka a "black body"], but it's pretty close. Color is complicated!)

There are so many different shades of white light bulbs, I am so overwhelmed walking down the light bulb aisle, and then I'm never happy with the one I choose, no matter which one I choose, I get it home and I put it in and I'm like, ugh, I don't like THAT white

[charmac]

How are you feeling about S17? I'm getting reaaal worried that it's going to be terrible. No Glenn in the writers room? A crossover episode?? Rob's gradual transformation into pondslime??? Help

Pondslime 😭Lmfao

I'm feeling more than fine about 17, really truly. I don't think anyone should be worried at all.

I think sometimes my interactions with Glenn come off a little more serious or abrasive than they really happened in real life (because we have to shout due to how loud it is in the bars), and my immediate transcription is just to get people *information*, which really doesn't convey tone.

For example, reporting that Glenn said "you don't want to know" in response to me asking for any teasers (as to plots this season) was met with a lot of "oh so this season is gonna suck" on Twitter, and that could not be further than the truth (sorry to the people I split-react blocked for saying that lol). In hindsight I get the reaction, because written out it's a response that can be easily misinterpreted and reads as potentially concerning, but know that when Glenn said "you don't want to know" he looked like this:

And when I was genuinely just asking for script information (regarding writers of individual scripts after he mentioned they had broken already) and mentioned Nina (Inflates) and Ross (DTAMHD), he gushed about both of them and then said, transcribed word for word, "It's been a good room, I'll say this it's been a great room. It's been an all-star room, it's been...like, breaking the stories this year has been really fun. [Me: Yeah?] Yeah. [That's great, that is great to hear.] It's been really fun."

So the idea of "no Glenn in the writers room" is really much more akin to Season 16 than 13/14. He was there to break stories (meaning he was in the room when they were brainstorming plot ideas and when they settled on which plots would be turned into scripts) but Rob and Charlie are taking the brunt of writing their (RCG's) scripts because of Sirens. This is the same thing that happened with The Gang Goes Bowling. Glenn's name is on the script, but Rob and Charlie wrote the majority of it while Glenn was shooting Blackberry. (I remember originally being convinced it was a mistake Glenn was listed as a writer for Bowling, lmfao). And Glenn is definitely still contributing, will be on revisions for the non-RCG scripts, and will classically change or improv whatever he thinks is best for Dennis when he's on set (see: the Risk E. Rats script).

Also, I know the crossover is concerning to a lot of people just given the nature of it, but as of what we know right now it's only on Abbott, so it's really just as if this season's The Gang Cracks the Liberty Bell or The Janitor Always Mops Twice took place on a different show instead of ours...

I promise promise promise Glenn was clearly holding his tongue for good things coming up, and Friday night very much restored my confidence that Season 17 will be good. (But..if you don't think Glenn has good contributions to Sunny or understands the agenda, then sorry this response probably sucks lmfao)

[sosadraws]

I think MNHR units should be allowed to be on fucked up situations.

[psychobind]

COOL HERO STUFF

Relevent Translations from the LOV cards mostly regarding Noel and Bokhohn

NOEL

Age: Two years older than Rocbouquet

Height: 6'2"

Weight: 110 kg

Maximum Speed: Exhibits his greatest speed, 30 m/s

Blood Relative: Rocbouquet's older brother

Crony: Sagzaar

Sworn Enemy: The Desert Guards

Subject of Absorption:All people who are masters in their fields/trades

Role: Supporting everybody

Fatal Technique: Moon Shade

Favorite Technique: Counter

Special Skill: Shaking hands with the opponent

Hobby: Astronomical observation

Past Objective: To contribute new knowledge to the human race

Current Goal: To acquire all the knowledge in the universe

Searching for: A dimension transfer device

A word to the Emperor: "I am not a frog."

Favorite Spot: Ueno (the town he was named after)

"You're a kind of hero, aren't you?"

I've never thought of myself as a hero. I simply spend my days on the battlefield.

"That's exactly what makes you a hero. Isn't it something that ordinary people couldn't do?"

If that's the condition for being a hero, then perhaps I am.

"Don't you feel there's something similar between the way the Emperor's power is passed down through generations and us?"

"Oh, brother, what kind of joke is that? There's no way they could resemble us. Impossible." Rocbouquet winked.

"Even in a crisis for the Seven Heroes, you remain carefree. I suppose I should see it as a chance to absorb the Emperor's power myself."

----------------------------------------------

BOKHOHN

Past Goal: Entering politics

Hobby: Games he can win

Profession: Lawyer

Objective: To leave his mark in history

Absorption Target: Puppet master

Current Goal: Life under his control

Role: Strategist

Preferred Vehicle: Land Battleship

A word to the Emperor: "Fool, you're too soft!"

Future Strategy: Surprise attacks

Special Move: Waterfowl Sword

Favorite Thing: Marionette

"Why must I follow the commands of someone like you?"

Here comes yet another hopeless savior, it seems.

"You're just a young upstart. All you need to do is follow the strategy I've devised. Act on your own, and you're bound to fail."

"Next, let's pit the Emperor against Rocbouquet," Bokhohn mused to himself in a room within the land battleship.

"If Rocbouquet defeats the Emperor, all the better. And if Rocbouquet is defeated… well, I can't wait to see Noel's reaction. I almost want the Emperor to put up a good fight, heh heh heh."

Meanwhile, the Emperor was initiating an infiltration mission into the land battleship.

-----------------------------------

Heroes do some chattings

Noel's Card

"A new secret technique that surpasses the Law of Assimilation?" Wagnas asked, intrigued.

"Yes. It doesn't just assimilate the body but also absorbs abilities and knowledge,"

Wagnas' eyes lit up, "That's incredible. Perhaps we should call it... the Law of Absorption."

Noel gave a thoughtful pause, then added, "However, there's a significant risk involved."

Wagnas' Card

"There's a possibility that one might be influenced by the personality and experiences of those they absorb," Noel said quietly.

"If you absorb a killer, you might start to find pleasure in murder."

Wagnas laughed. "That's exactly what I want. Without that level of resolve, how could we possibly save the world? It doesn't matter what happens to us as long as the world is saved."

Subier's Card

"Subier, will you continue to fight by my side? As Noel said, there's danger ahead," Wagnas' smile had faded.

"No need to ask," Subier replied with a hearty laugh. "I don't fully understand Noel's complicated talk, but I trust you. That's all that matters, right?"

The three exchanged smiles and (something I couldnt translate properly...)

Dantarg's Card

"I can become stronger, right? That's exactly what I want," Dantarg's reply was straightforward.

"You might end up absorbing more than just strength-- things like kindness, or even love," Noel teased.

"Hmph. I'll just be selective about who I absorb. I'll go after those who live purely for battle, the crazed and monstrous types. Just like me." Dantarg's hearty laughter echoed around them.

Rocbouquet's Card

"Am I a burden? Onii-sama!" Her eyes filled with tears.

"Noel is only concerned for your safety. He doesn't think of you as a burden at all," Wagnas tried to console her, but it only made things worse.

"Even Lord Wagnas is leaving me out. It's terrible, so terrible! After everything we've been through together…"

Noel knew well enough that once she reached this point, there was no stopping her. "Wagnas, please include her as well," he pleaded.

Bokhohn's Card

"Why didn't you call on me?"

Wagnas and Noel exchanged glances.

"Well… we thought matters like this wouldn't interest you," Noel replied, only to be interrupted by Bokhohn.

"Your selection was clearly a mistake. There's a lack of strategy here. Dantarg and Subier are just brute strength, and the need for Rocbouquet is... questionable. This group requires a mind like mine. Surely, you understand that, Wagnas?"

Kzinssie's Card

"Don't leave me behind!" Kzinssie pleaded.

"Tch, pathetic worm," Dantarg scoffed, spitting dismissively.

"You're of no use to us," Bokhohn ignored him.

"Stop it, don't come near me," Rocbouquet shuddered in disgust.

"You don't need to come," Subier said firmly.

"You've done enough," Wagnas' gentle voice held a hint of rejection.

"Please, give me a chance too," Kzinssie clung desperately to Noel.

[8-evil-annoying-catboys]

i definitely agree with you on pretty much everything here. i brought up the comparison not to necessarily assert that benevolent sexism and misandry are one and the same—they are not, as you’ve eloquently explained already. i mostly asked the question rhetorically, hoping that other readers may think critically about misandry and how it is still sexism and still harmful to women in the long run, and how the end results of misandry and benevolent sexism are often indistinguishable from each other, if not always. i was not intending to ask you directly, although i enjoyed reading your response and my perspective has shifted, even if only slightly, from new information.

i did not necessarily think through the systemic applications of benevolent sexism, i’ll admit. but i did make a point to say that both misandry and benevolent sexism come with the idea that men are dangerous OR bad, and women are safe OR good, rather than both ideologies believing both that men are dangerous AND that they are bad, although i can definitely see how a small word change like that can get lost in the overall reading of a post or comment. i’m saying this not to argue or anything, but just because i want to be clear that i do not believe that these two concepts are entirely the same, just that they are so similar in their application and the general attitudes that people with these ideologies hold, that their ideological differences end up being negligible in practicality. and the differences are negligible not because those differences don’t exist, but because it’s sort of an illusion of choice… at the end of the day, if you’re arguing that women are pure and safe and calming, does it matter that much to the person listening to you whether you think men are bad, or you think they deserve and need women as a ‘warm bath’ to recuperate from the harsh world outside their shared homes? i would say that, well obviously context is important so sometimes yes it will matter, but generally, not really.

people will read what they want to read into your arguments, and often come away with their own takeaway that may be entirely different from your intention. besides that, one of the main differences in between misandry and benevolent sexism is the belief that men are universally bad, evil, or lack self-control. that belief is false and can and will be disproved by material reality. because of this falsehood, the misandrist-to-benevolent-sexist pipeline is practically inescapable unless you have absolutely no trouble entirely separating yourself from men, therefore anyone making misandrist arguments will inevitably cause other women to get caught up in that pipeline, even if the person arguing isn’t concerned with interacting with men and doesn’t give them any opportunities to prove the reality that good men exist.

but all that is just my beliefs. i think it’s more effective to ask questions than to make statements, if we hope to break harmful beliefs in others. i would hope that anyone reading this would think critically about their own beliefs about men and women and whether or not there are any meaningful, inherent differences between them, any hard and fast rules that apply to all women or all men, and whether or not separatism is useful in any case… but they may choose to refuse to examine their beliefs since i stated mine so plainly, instead of simply posing questions. people hate being told they’re wrong more than they hate being asked if they’re sure they’re right ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

We need to bring back the term “benevolent sexism” into widespread use for real. It’s a major mechanism in how bioessentialist Girlboss Radfems can be turned into bioessentialist conservative Tradwives.

[fiercestcorpse]

still absolutely baffled by the fact that when the untamed got popular on here you had people posting stuff like "i know it seems kind of weird and confusing for the first couple of episodes but don't worry, it picks up after that" like what the hell are you talking about. i loved the first couple of episodes. i was having the time of my life right from the opening monologue and it only got better from there.

[lilacerull0]

i feel like reading/watching mbf immediately means knowing who i am as a person and... i cannot allow this

[quaranmine]

random firewatch au detail that has basically no impact on the story unless you want to psychoanalyze fw!grian even further than i did as the author, but it's very intentional that i always refer to both of mumbo's parents but only grian's mom. did i give him daddy issues? i guess so, but not in a way where i really deeply examined the implications as meaningful to the story. it was just a detail i stuck with from the beginning as a way to keep fleshing out the story's background subtly. the idea behind grian's dual citizenship was always that he was born in america to an american dad and british mom, and that his mom moved back to the UK when he was very young since she wanted to be closer to her family. perhaps his dad didn't go with them? or perhaps his dad did, and then later they split and he went back to america? whatever the cause, grian never even mentions his dad in the story, and it wasn't because i intended him to be dead (because that would have come up in a story about grief) if you get me

[marnz]

Just wanted to say since this post discusses the Bush administration: I think it's really important to stress that a) our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and b) the government had been prepping for a war with Iraq since the late 90s. When Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld used 9/11 as a justification for the invasion, they were lying. They aren't connected.

Some background: Bush and Cheney started planning the invasion of Iraq in their first few days of office. 9/11 definitely gave them an excuse but it did not plant the idea. I also think it's helpful to learn more about the context of the Iraq invasion--the ""justification"" for the invasion was a chemical weapons program that was started in 1980 for Iraq's war with Iran, and abandoned after the Gulf War (1991). The UN worked on disarming Iraq after the Gulf War, and as late as 2002 was in the country looking for weapons and active weapons manufacturing, which they did not find. But US Foreign Policy concentrated on removing Saddam Hussain from power starting in the late 90s, which is not what the UN called for.

I really recommend the book Night Draws Near by Anthony Shadid. It covers the 2003 invasion of Iraq from the point of view of the Iraqi people, and gives a lot of necessary context.

I also think that when we talk about the monstrous actions of the Bush administration, it's absolutely crucial to include Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense who, along with Cheney and Bush, signed off on Guantanamo Bay and the torture (euphemistically called "enhanced interrogation techniques"). Rumsfeld was also first to propose a possible connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and was told over and over again there was no connection, which he ignored. He also planned the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in order to fight Al-Qaeda, nevermind the fact that as soon as the US invaded Al-Qaeda and much of the Taliban's senior leadership fled to Pakistan (as covered in the amazing book No Good Men Among the Living by Anand Gopal).

When we talk about how monstrous the Bush administration was, we talk a lot about Cheney as if he was solely responsible for their actions. And I do think he drove a lot of the decisions. But at the end of the day I think it's important to understand that Bush, his cabinet, and congress had every opportunity to turn back from these wars, to withdraw, to stop, to be honest with the people of this country, to refuse to torture people, to shut down Guantanamo Bay (for example, Obama wanted to shut it down and in response congress passed a law making sure it stayed open). And they did not. It was and has been a coordinated effort from multiple people, multiple agencies, and multiple chains of commands to continue on this path for 20+ years.

I can't get over the fact that Dick fucking Cheney said, basically, that Trump is too evil of a dude for him to get behind.

That's like... fuck, idk... that's like Dick Cheney saying a politician is too fucking evil for him to work with. The dude who famously shot a dude in the face and the dude apologized to him. That fucking guy.

[northern-passage]

Genuine thought as a fellow trans dude, I’ve seen a lot of (obviously non-serious) questions on other blogs about characters’ genitals such as “how does it look like?” and similar, and I think we all know & understand that such questions are extremely inappropriate to ask and (I hope) no one would actually go around asking these questions irl. Idk, I think we should treat trans characters just like cis ones, without any special “precautions”, so to normalise them and not make cis people treat them like fragile boxes, a thing which happens to a lot of us irl. Hope this doesn’t come off as an attack or anything lol.

no worries, i didn't take this as an attack at all. i actually agree with you, that's why i mentioned feeling conflicted about it and also mentioned that i've changed my stance on how i felt about handling Noel and Clementine in game and in explicit intimate scenes.

however, for me the problem comes from the fact that people... don't ask these kinds of questions about cis characters? i suppose people do get cheeky "who is the biggest 🤪" asks but i would hardly compare the two. to be a bit crude, no one is going to be asking if a cis character has a dick or not, or "what does it look like". of course it's natural for people to be curious, and i honestly encourage the open discussion and am happy to see trans bodies being talked about more in a positive way, but not everyone is going to be comfortable with it due to the inescapable transphobia online and in the community. sending me that kind of ask is like sending out an invitation for a debate or a discussion that i don't necessarily want to have. i also just don't think people should default to asking a random IF author on tumblr dot com to describe what bottom growth looks like.

and with most of these asks typically coming from someone who is anonymous, i have no way of truly knowing what the tone is, what their intentions are or why this is being asked - is it another trans person? or maybe someone who is just genuinely curious? or, more likely in my experience, is it someone who is going to immediately follow up this message with something transphobic after i answer? do i want to roll the dice and find out?

so while i agree with what you're saying, it's important to consider the context and the reality we live in. the IF community is not kind to trans people or trans characters. and as a trans person, my first priority is protecting myself and my mental health. so what i mean when i say "precautions," is that those precautions are for me, because i've had to deal with transphobic harassment here for years now, and i try to mitigate it as much as i can. it's also for my personal comfort - again, to be blunt, i'm simply just not comfortable discussing a trans character's genitals with anonymous strangers on the internet. it makes me feel vulnerable.

also i do want to say i didn't mean for any of that to come across as a dig at other authors - if you're comfortable answering those kinds of questions, that's really only something you can decide for yourself. like i said, this is just coming from my own experiences in IF and for my own personal comfort - i have previously talked a lot about trans stuff and gender and sexuality here, when i'm feeling up to it, but it is something that is very draining for me and can also be very upsetting.

basically: i do agree that it's important not to other trans characters or treat them any differently than cis characters, but i also think there are ways to do it that don't require me answering invasive questions or questions that i don't feel comfortable with as a real life trans person, you know what i mean?

[theghostofashton]

.

[binders-and-beanies]

Pondering bottom surgery in the tags I mf guess

[silvery-stars]

would it be sacrilege of me to say that i am kinda hashtag Underwhelmed by the percy jackson show

[marblerose-rue]

ummmm ummmmmm.... how many people would be interested in me warrior cat'ing baldurs gate three characters