#IM D E AD

[randomness-for-life]

I’m only like five minutes into the first Investigation game and OH MY G O D—

[spilledstars1234]

so i just finished watching banana fish and...this show mentally and emotionally BROKE me. I'm never going to recover from this show.

"hey you shouldnt sleep here! he must be having a nice dream" UEHEHEHEHH AUGHHHHH AND THE FACT THAT HE WAS SMILING TOO UGHHH JHGSFSAGJ (loud sobbing noises)

(he was just asleep guys i was in the library trust)

AUGHH HE WAS GONNA GO TO JAPANNN THEY WERE GOING TO BE HAPPY TOGETHERRR

WHAT IS IT WITH THE GAY CHARACTERS AND THEM BEING ALLERGIC TO HAVING A HAPPY ENDING TOGETHER (and yes, i'm also looking at YOU TOO, shiguang!!)

im not crying, i'm freaking BAWLING. This show, its story, it was so well-written. Will i ever get over the ending? No. No, i won't. It was heartbreaking. DEVASTATING. SO VERY ANGSTY.

If you want to be happy THEN ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WATCH THIS SHOW; it's not for you, trust me. Turn back before it's too late...OR watch it and be depressed with the rest of the fandom, it's up to you!<3

[izzyizumi]

Digimon Adventure ~ J.P.N Version ~ Episodes 53~54 + Izumi Koushiro{u}’s (A d o p t i v e) Parent{s} (amongst other Families of Chosen Children group)

"And for the s a k e of THOSE WE L O V E, Who are W A I T I N G FOR US Back on E A R T H..." - Koushiro, adding on to previous Comments of Chosen, trailing off s o f t but F I R M L Y...

Gifs by @izzyizumi / koushirouizumi {Do Not Re-post} {Do Not Copy} {Do Not Remove Caption} {Do Not Re-produce My Work Under Any Circumstances Without My Permission Whatsoever!}

Image Usage & Interaction rules under the 'read more’!

{Usage of gifs may be allowed if permission is asked / or if credit is given. However, read my about & FAQ pages first. Please do NOT use / ask if you match anything in my “Do Not Interact” sections.}

[Note: commenting/tagging positively/respectfully is ok!] (Please AGREE TO BANNERS BEFORE interacting) (Note: click on the banners to enlarge!)

[Please interact on this set Respectfully. Please only tag with 'Familial’ and 'Platonic’ tags!]

{usage may be allowed IF PERMISSION IS ASKED TO USE.}

{Please also LIKE this post if you are wanting to use!} {Once you have “Liked”, feel free to contact me Directly to ask for permission!} {However, read my about & FAQ pages first. Please DO NOT use / ask if you match anything in my “Do Not Interact” section.}

{I MAY POLITELY DECLINE USAGE REGARDLESS. Please do not take it personally!}

{if you are unsure if you can use you can SEND ME AN ASK} {I will check your blog; if you do not match anything on my “DNI”; [CHECK THE FAQ FOR MY DNI SECTION/S] you will likely/may pass the check and can use!} {However please note my ENTIRE FAQ sections on such} {It is possible I may not grant permission for other reasons} [i.e.: You post a lot of something I have black-listed]

[deus-ex-mona]

‼️reset the counter‼️ it has been ✨0✨ days since the last chizuutan content drop‼️

[koushirouizumi]

Digimon T.C.G (Trading Card Game) {Revival} ~ Andiramon (Sample Card)

{from here!}

The card was previewed alongside a new "Tamer" card for 02 movies character Wallace BT17-088, from the 02 movies "Hurricane Touchdown" and "The Golden Digimentals", two separate movies in the original Japanese version.

Notes/Trivia: "Antyla", from Antylamon, the U.S. dub name, is a misspelling of "Andira". "Andira" is one of the Twelve Heavenly Warriors of Buddhist Mythology (one of the major religions of Japan). {Wallace, meanwhile, is an American Chosen, implied to be connected to the U.S. group of Chosen (though once mainly acting solo + within the movies specifically), specifically from the region of (one based off of the real-world) Colorado. "Willis", Wallace's U.S. dub name was a misspelling of or taken from "Wallace" and intentionally modified, but it is also a real English "name" of English, Norman French, and Scottish origin, that seems more commonly used as a surname. It may be less commonly used as a first name, but it isn't necessarily "wrong" as an uncommonly used first name that originates from a surname. "Wallace", in comparison, is a common given name meaning 'Wales' or 'of Wales', but it is also used within England, Scotland, and the United Kingdom in general.

[cyrafoam]

why have I never come across the haiku bot tumblr account until it mistook my blabbering for poetry oh my god.

[kiwibirdlafayette]

oOOOoO is your new series inspired by inga’s enchantment series? I couldn’t help but think of it while reading through yours since the formatting is similar! it’s so cool to see people make more minecraft lore headcanons :3 /pos

A little bit ye! I definitely took some cues from inga’s stuff as inspiration! the lore itself is all headcanons ive been writing for a while, specifically the dream stuff, which comes from an original story I adapted to work with the mcytverse but it took me a while to figure out how to present it :D I also got layout inspo from the minecraft guidebooks, but I ultimately wanted it to feel like pages out of a scrap-ishbook, as it ties into a character I’m playing who is conducting the “study” C:

And thank ya sm! ❤️ MC headcanons are so much fun to work on, being able to do worldbuilding is geniunely one of my favorite parts of fanon

[lesbianturrets]

I still can’t get over the fact that Hyde just fucking died when Utterson and Poole broke down the door

[congregaticn]

guess who’s adding president snow to the roster

[detonizing]

@guiltscorched​​ asked:

“I don’t feel perfectly safe.“   /   denki!

       Stargate: Atlantis — Mckay and Mrs. Miller  {Sentence Starters} —— accepting!

“ That’s the damn point, dipship. ” It’s not like UA was known for pulling its punches when testing their students. And their current simulation of needing to search for civilians in an unstable building wouldn’t have any sense of urgency of the building didn’t at least look on the verge of collapsing. “ Just keep searching for the civilian dummies. It’s not like the building is actually going to fall on us, so stop worrying. ” Well— “ Probably. ”

[shivasdarknight]

i feel like we also got to address character C and character D and how person C and person D (...and E and F) interact with them because there's still a level of harm that media can inflict, and that depends on the intentions of the author and the type of fan who engages with them.

character C is a character is an offensive caricature part of an otherwise standard show. they are played off as normal through the show, but everything about them is harmful in terms of how the audience engages with them and how they continue to portray (blank) group in offensive lights. the author may not realize that character C is offensive, but to the audience - especially the group that they reflect - it's glaringly obvious. person C recognizes the harm that this character can cause but they also find themselves liking this character in spite of it. person C's engagement with character C is still positive, but due to understanding the problems with character C's portrayal, most of their engagement with the character comes in as mitigation (rewrites, redesigns, etc.), while also acknowledging vocally what is wrong and never condoning it.

person D also likes this character, however they do not recognize what is wrong and continue to play into how the piece of media portrays character C all the way down into intentionally/unintentionally adding in more offensive material because "it fits." person D can go one of a few ways: denying that the text is offensive and continuing to act blindly; acknowledging that it's bad and learning from it to follow person C; or doubling down on their beliefs and even sometimes finding tokens of the targeted group that agree with them to use them to justify their uncritical love of character C. a person D who takes the last route often doubles down on their interpretation and finds themselves at odds with a person C for their denial of harm. they also use the argument that because it's fiction, that they should be allowed to enjoy it when a person C is still enjoying it while acknowledging the arm it can cause and trying to work around it.

you can also extrapolate this into a person E, who likes character C because of the harm they cause. they see character C as emblematic of (blank) group and are often attracted into fandom spaces by a person D who creates enough of a fuss from being asked to be careful, critical, and respectful when engaging with the sensitive topic of character C's design and existence. a person E often first appears as a defender of a person D who comes into conflict with a person C to portray person C as someone who is trying to take away their right to like fiction, while reinforcing the uncritical love of character C, who perpetuates the harmful portrayal of (blank) group. This causes person D to double down, and slowly be dragged into spaces that person E occupies, where they curate harmful ideas through this media (see: how antiblackness manifests in many fandom spaces and how white supremacists and nazi-types take uncritical (mostly white) fans and turn them against black fans in these kinds of conversations).

character D, on the other hand, was intentionally made to be offensive or represent an offensive idea (see: Rita Skeeter being an early reflection of Rowling's transphobia; the entire dichotomy of AoT, Eren's ideology towards the end, and how titans are designed + later revelations about them) and it's difficult to remove them from the views of the author (Hajime Isayama is a staunch Japanese imperialist, and has gone on record to mock and discredit the existence of comfort women during Japan's occupation of Korea; his characters are named and modeled after notable Japanese imperialists). no matter which way you look at them, they are offensive and harmful, and often times they exist to expose uncritical audiences to their rhetorics (often eugenics, transphobia and general queerphobia, the great replacement theory, antisemitism, antiblackness, and pro-surveillance state sentiments (the last two especially in copaganda media). things like misogyny definitely come up a lot, but they're often red flags for much deeper issues that the author fully endorses; if misogyny is the focus here, it's a lot deeper than just shallow sexism and goes into femicide, the glorification and sexualization of sexual assault, and the reinforcement of "traditional" values. antiblackness functions similarly in that it permeates everything shallowly, but the levels of it can be a red flag for deeper issues - like dehumanization, justification for violent hate crimes, etc. - but im also not qualified to get into this too deeply because thats not my lived experience). they can look kind of like character C, but the important difference is that the author did this intentionally. a place of ignorance can be extremely offensive, but the intentionality of it tries to sneak by audiences and trick them into agreeing with them.

person C may like the character in theory, but it's impossible to deny the reason why the character exists as such. like with character C, person C may try to mitigate the damage, but this more comes in the form of talking about how character D is handled in the source material. there isn't a lot that can be done by these fans because again: the character is meant to harm. they may play into a bit of uncritical fandom, but for the most part just talk about them. person D does not recognize the harm that is does and acts similarly with character D as they do with character C. the problem is, character D is meant to cause harm where character C likely wasn't. so when a person C tells a person D that character D is extremely harmful and you follow those three ways a person D could go, you now have someone who is parroting talking points that may even be antithetical to their own views. they're usually the targets of authors who write character Ds so that their rhetorics get broadcasted to audiences that wouldn't knowingly engage with them.

to bring back person E, this is exactly the kind of person and character they're looking for. people who really like character D are usually like person E - or, they use character D as a way to publicly air out their -isms with the plausible deniability of fiction. entirely depends on the angle of character D. if they're an eren, then person E is one of their biggest fans; if they're a rita skeeter, then person E is using character D to air out their grievances about (blank) group through them and they loathe character D.

we can also introduce person F here. they more align with person C, but the crucial difference is that they will not engage with character D on the grounds of the harm. they can acknowledge the writing all they like, but they will never like, engage with fanworks, or anything unless it's criticism of the character and the author. if anything, they think person C doesn't go far enough in condemning the harmful nature of character D by the fact they still engage with fanworks involving character D and the media they come from as person F views positive engagement (even when it's just a tiny bit, like in person C's case) as tacit endorsement. they are explicitly against people like person E, and often try to work to educate people like person D into moving away from that and more towards person C (ideally further), but often are at odds with person D for the reason that they will double down on fiction and fall in line with person E who reinforces their "right" to consume all fiction. Because the important thing to remember here is that character D was made intentionally to broadcast the author's shitty viewpoints. This means the character is meant to cause harm, as media perceptions do skew worldviews, and it's more complicated than just how people engage with a character in fandom spaces. To reconcile with a character meant to cause harm is a difficult thing, and naturally there are people who choose to divest entirely because of the tangible harm it can cause (again: see copaganda and the perceived rate of solving crime (i think it's around ~75-80%) versus the actual statistics (~30% if you're lucky and more often ~16%); see also the military entertainment industry)

And yeah! It's all extremely complicated because people, their beliefs, media, and media literacy are all really complicated! It's way more than just if a bad character is portrayed as bad and everyone reacts to them as bad - sometimes that bad character is the protagonist and the author wants us to view them as a hero and not a genocidal freak like Eren Yaeger is. Because no, that is not how you portray a "fall from grace", given how many people associate him with sigma male goals and im not joking nor using that term out of nowhere - i recommend this video on the subject, but here's the specific part about eren and the idolization of him and a very fun roast since this is about role models for boys, unhealthy power fantasies, and how anime ties in with all of this. FD's got two other videos on this ("two" and "other" are two different links) on his side channel. Eren's just one of the worst case examples of this since his base full of uncritical enjoyers who don't realize that they're in community with literal fascists who idolize Eren's goals. there are other extreme examples that at least thankfully arent as common as the usual stuff (like Wyll's treatment by Baldur's Gate 3 fans and specifically Astarion fans - links to their wiki pages for people unfamiliar with the characters but tl;dr: wyll's a black man, a sweetheart, and literally has the folk hero background; astarion is a white man who tries to kill you upon first meeting, dislikes it when the player helps people, and is frequently manipulating those around him. it's more complicated than that obviously - especially astarion's motivations - but it still stands that people take wyll's traits and act as if astarion is like that, villainize wyll, and the cherry on top is that wyll has 8 hours of content while astarion has the most content out of all of the companions and the devs won't add more for wyll while astarion (and the others) continues to get more. as an aside, lae'zel - a mean woman who isn't conventionally attractive by virtue of being a fantasy alien - was made to be Less Mean because people didnt like her...not being nice, and fans frequently boast about killing her).

Intentionality is really crucial here, and the way people behave with characters says a lot. You're allowed to engage with not-so-great characters, but you also have to keep in mind other factors such as your own biases and the author's biases - whether they got in intentionally or not. to summarize really quickly:

character C comes about from an author's own ignorance to their own biases about a marginalized group. they are harmful, especially in the fact that the text treats this as normal, but their treatment is like any other character (but depending on the marginalization, they may not receive as much screentime as their less-marginalized counterparts, or are more likely to be antagonistic). authors may or may not be receptive to criticism - those that are will adjust character C in future media or even retcon and republish old media, while those that arent may just ignore criticism or double down and attract people who agree with those harmful tropes

character D is intentionally placed in the text by a bigoted author, and their offensive nature may be either overt or covert. the intention of this is to spread their rhetoric to those that consume that piece of media and introduce it to as wide of an audience as possible - one of the most common forms of this being copaganda portraying the police in a positive light and marginalized people as threats to white society (see: how frequently white women are the victims, while black men or arab men are portrayed as extremely violent and often are the perpetrators). it's not like character A who's mostly just an asshole, or character B where they're bigoted but that can serve a purpose in the narrative: character D exists to do harm - be it as an offensive caricature, or as a bigot to be idolized - through their actions in the text and how that reflects real world issues, or how the text informs people on how to view real people that are like character D (eg: idolizing the police or military, or viewing all black men as thugs). the existence of character D is problematic, but what often exacerbates this issue is when people argue that because they are fictional, they can't do any real world harm. if that were true, then we wouldn't be pushing back against examples of minstrelsy in media or continued use of blackface in fiction. positive representation in media is important and also proves that media has an impact on real people - you can't just say that it doesn't affect the real world suddenly when the portrayal is negative. negative, harmful portrayals do impact people just as much as positive ones - if anything, they impact people more when they're negative. to engage with a character D is to engage with the stand-in of the author's views, and to stand by their reason for existence is to agree with the author who intentionally made them that way (again: people who think Eren's right).

person C is someone who acknowledges that characters can be problematic and tries to engage with them as best they can. they try to give the benefit of the doubt in cases like character Cs, and often try to reconcile with canon in whatever way they can to mitigate damage. while character D is harder to reconcile with, they will still talk about the problems of character D while still engaging with the media that character D is from. they acknowledge harm, talk about harm, and will critique their favorite media while still enjoying said media - even if the character they engage with is intentionally or unintentionally a harmful stereotype.

person D is someone who refuses to engage with media critically and take characters like character C and character D at face value and will often defend them and their right to like them. they do not view them as harmful, and will often expand upon the character without thinking about what other harmful tropes they may be adding. a person D can go a few routes: continuing in ignorance or choosing to remain ignorant, doubling down on their views and arguing that it's not actually an issue (and even going so far as to find tokens of that group who agree with them to back them up), or stopping and considering their actions and taking more after person C. the second route can often lead to them becoming more like person E, even without realizing it.

person E is someone who recognizes the harm in these characters and embraces that because these characters line up with their way of thinking and their world views. they prefer a character D to a character C, while often portraying character Cs as worse than in canon. a person D doubling down on their right to like character Ds will often attract person Es, and they will attempt to pull person Ds further to their side. these are thin blue line people who love cop shows; these are antisemites who love Attack on Titan and Hogwarts Legacy; these are transphobes and literal nazis that get giddy at seeing Rowling becoming more extreme in her bigotry with every passing day. if you are in community with a person E, you need to examine why that is.

person F is someone who recognizes the harm that character Cs and character Ds cause in the real world, and while they will openly criticize character Cs and their authors, their main targets are character Ds. a person F will talk about character Cs to try and educate people on harmful tropes and often fall in line with person C here, though they tend to more focus on the author and the harm this can cause to try and get it to change (rather than keeping that change in fanworks only). a person F will talk about character Ds, on the other hand, to get people to drop them. they view the harm they cause as more important to address rather than their own fandom interests. these are people that will abandon media when they introduce a fascistic character to idolize, or when they continue to play into offensive tropes even after being made aware that the author was doing it. they care more about impact than personal enjoyment in fandom, so they measure things in terms of how the text and metatext can impact the audience. where a person C will continue to read AoT while talking about its harm, person F abandoned the franchise well before it ended and only keep up with it from a distance to discuss its continued harm. they often don't think person C goes far enough when it concern character Ds; they can often be at odds with person Ds because of how person Ds prioritize their personal fan experience over harm, while person Fs prioritizes harm over their own enjoyment; and are antithetical to person Es. this does not mean that they don't enjoy media like a lot of people love to accuse; they just would prefer to drop something they like once they learn the harm that it causes - it's mitigation just like person Cs, but to a much more drastic degree.

yeah, you are allowed to like things. and yeah, who and what you like does says something about you as a person. but the problem is that the third factor - real world harm - isn't discussed much, especially with how people engage with things that cause it. because to like and engage something that causes harm is to perpetuate it. you can try and reconcile with the issues in that character or piece of media, but a lot of people ignore it. and to ignore it is to create a space that lets in people who thrive on it and seek that stuff out - your person Es.

character B exists for a reason and the text criticizes them. the text may not criticize everything, but still shows they are meant for critique. character D does the same things as character B, but the text portrays them as correct and that you should like them. person B will like both regardless and end up a lot like person D, but the both of them are susceptible to being pulled further into bigoted ideologies by the existence of person E who seeks out things like character D and anything that looks like them - like character B, and character C.

we need to examine things outside of the framework of "character is bad and text portrays them as bad" more often. it's not as simple as that. there are a lot of things that show someone doing something would generally be considered immoral, but the author agrees with it so it's portrayed as good. there are things that are portrayed as bad, but when you pick apart why it's bad you suddenly realize they're bad because they're marginalized - or, they're a standin for a real world group and made into the bad guys (eg: how many games have "barbaric" "tribal" enemies (like moblins from LOZ or the hilichurls from genshin) which are just offensive anti-indigenous caricatures, or how goblins (especially in harry potter) are used to perpetuate antisemitic sentiments and conspiracy theories). a fascist can be portrayed in a sympathetic light or have their ideologies be repackaged to sound appealing. a civil rights advocate can have their views warped to make them look like a threat to the white majority and be portrayed as an antagonist often by playing into stereotypes around "barbarism" and violence. there's a difference between having a fascist be a hero and is never condemned (jjba, marvel's zeemo), having a fascist be weakly criticized but be considered sympathetic or even your friend when they're an unrepentant fascist (many characters in ffxiv, this is literally the plot of hetalia and so much nazi chic), and having a fascist be held accountable for their actions and sometimes even maybe working past what made them fascistic to begin with and have them stop being one (terran emperor philippa georgiou from star trek discovery i adore you) - and that difference is the intention of the author in creating that character, the intention behind portraying their ideology for a wide audience, and what ends up happening to them in the end. An author can even kill their fascist off and still be in support of them because they frame it as martyrdom and try to make you feel bad for the character (jjba, ffxiv) - so it's not at all simple.

This is why being critical of the stuff you enjoy is important. No one is saying don't enjoy villains, and I'm certainly not because I'd be a hypocrite. What I am saying is: consider how the characters - protagonist or not - are being portrayed and how it relates to real world harm. Consider the intentions behind them, the impact they have had, and how they can be used against marginalized groups to hurt them and change how others view said group. Again: you are allowed to like things but what you like and defend says a lot about you. I do not disagree with OP. I just feel that the facet of harm and intention behind said harm needs to be considered because you may be putting investment into a character you don't realize is harmful (or you're ignoring is harmful). They don't even have to be a villain in the story to be harmful because again: look at copaganda and the military entertainment industry.

What you like has impact outside of you. How you engage with it impacts others around you. Some people try to mitigate, others try to ignore, while others still double down and get solicited by people who intentionally seek out things that support their bigoted viewpoints.

When the character is just an ass and the text treats them as an ass, that's not an issue. When the character is bigoted for a reason to explore and deal with, that is also not an issue. But if you find out that your blorbo is the focus of critical discussion because they were written to be a harmful stereotype/a means of idolizing bigoted rhetoric, you need to ask yourself this: are you willing to take the steps to mitigate harm - even if it means not engaging with that character or piece of media again - or are you going to continue on as if nothing's wrong and risk alienating those around you that are impacted by the harmful ideologies that are inseparable from this character/media?

What I'm not saying: Don't like villains. What I am saying: Every character - regardless of if they're a protagonist or antagonist - has the potential to cause harm because of the author's biases or bigotry. It is on you to recognize that harm and mitigate whenever possible, and choosing not to reflects on you as a person. You still can like villains. But how you like them and for what reasons says a lot about you, and people may choose to avoid you if you decide that your "soft feelings over the imperial leader working to colonize what is now the empire" are more important than understanding why people are uncomfortable with you, your blorbo, and their rabid uncritical fans.

You're allowed to like villains. What you like reflects back on you. You need to take real world harm into account when you engage with media, because what villains you like reflects on you very differently based on the real world harm that those villains can cause.

hot take but i think that "fictional characters are fictional and liking or disliking them have no real life effect" and "the way you treat certain characters can be an indicative of your character in real life" are statements that can and should coexist

example: character A is violent and makes misogynistic comments. they're still charismatic and their arc is interesting to read/watch. person A acknowledges that the character is bad but they still enjoy consuming content from the character and they do so unapologetically. they're allowed to like the character, especially considering that literally everyone the character has harmed is also fictional. they don't pretend the character isn't violent, or misogynistic, they just like the character despite that. they post about it constantly. this is a neutral action that shows nothing about person A.

character B is a white man that makes racist comments, treats a black person in the show badly and gains money through anti-ethical means. they're still charismatic and their arc is interesting to read/watch. person B claims the character is flawed but overall misunderstood and all their actions are entirely justified. they're allowed to like the character, especially considering that literally everyone the character has harmed is also fictional. person B claims the black character that character B treated badly either had it coming or overreacted. all of person B's favorite characters are white men. person B goes out of their way to justify that all of their favorite characters are actually misunderstood and good people, and more people should like them. this shows that person B likely has some favoritism for white men.

just. you're allowed to like fictional characters even if they're awful fucking people but. and im not sure why this is controversial. the way you interact with media says something about you. this isn't necessarily a bad thing. does this make sense please

[hagstones-and-howling-hills]

*grabs spotify ad by the throat* I AM NOT MOVING TO [ R E D A C T E D ] I AM NOT MOVING TO [ R E D A C T E D ]

[bittwitchy]

photoshop updated and they moved my export button i've never been more annoyed at it in my life

[koushirouizumi]

Katekyō Hitman Reborn! + Ep. #180 ~ Yamamoto & Tsuna {YamaTsuna} / 8027 + Moments & Interactions + Important Dialogues {Anime Ver.} + Character Development Parallels - Tsuna's Character Development{s}

"I put unnecessary 'Pressure' on you without realizing it..." - Tsuna, Initially

{"...I want you to stop."} - Tsuna, Later

Happy belated Birthday, Yamamoto! {Apr. 24th}

{Gifs by Me} {Do Not Re-post} {Do Not Re-produce Without My Permission} (Please ASK to Use)

[risoria]

so. have you seen the pictures from Rafah of the blackened, charred infants? the toddler with no head?

i would like to ask a favour of everyone seeing this post, from one human to another. don't think about the things you can't do - because as it seems, nothing is enough, and nobody can do enough - there is no use to be paralyzed by these thoughts. instead focus on the things you are already doing and the things you can do. i will start by compile a small list of personal suggestions, and please add to it from your own resources! this list is not numbered, i will just add things that i can think of off the top of my head and if it is of any help to at least one person, thats good. take care of yourself - that includes taking care of others, and this world we live in.

this is obvious but keep listening to Palestinian voices. i am mostly active on twitter so i will give some examples from there: Hind_Gaza, HossamShabat, BayanPalestine (press). MuhammadSmiry, does community work with Care for Gaza. m7mdkurd. Everyone is saying mostly the same thing - keep talking, keep protesting, keep boycotting. so do it.

keep talking. humans are social animals and it's as simple as this: the ongoing genocide is dire, urgent and catastrophic - i dont think i need to tell you that. but when people, a lot of people, share posts with each other and reiterate this fact the urgency will be felt stronger by everyone, and reach people who would otherwise maybe not see the reports of the genocide on their screens. if people instead choose to stop sharing and stop talking because it's "been so long" or it's "too difficult", the suffering will become normalized and the only thing people will see on their feeds are mundane things - food, pets, fandoms, and it will send the message that oh, it's not that important after all.... sometimes, you SHOULD feel disturbed and uncomfortable. these feelings are not evil - they will be channelled into actions to better a situation and better the world. silence is violence.

search for protests near your town, sometimes they're hard to find but once you find your local organizations for the Palestinian movement, follow them and you will usually find them! this all depends on where you live of course - but most often there will be fundraisers and events and mailing campaigns etc, and the more people joining the better. and, most importantly i would say, share these events and pictures (no faces of strangers, ofc! from protests on your facebook, twitter etc - because that way people close to you will see them and that it's completely rational and normal to attend protests, and if they've been on the fence maybe they will reach out and join you.

donate if you are able and share links to the different organizations - some examples are Care for Gaza, Sulala animal rescue, the Gazan Municipality Life for Gaza project (https://gaza-city.ensany.com/campaign/6737), the PCRF.

individual gofundmes - here is the google doc with a lot of campaigns, but im sure there are lots of them that arent yet added: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-DDMFyn-ttboPXrz1bB3MFk7BlzCwfugh4259Wh7U1s/htmlview

donate e-sims, which will be sent by the Esims for Gaza team to people in Gaza, to help communicate with their families etc during blackouts. it's very quick and easy and on nomad you can get a referral code which gives someone else 25% off their first purchase, and there's also often different bonus codes. on the website there's tutorials for how to buy the different esims. https://gazaesims.com/

there's some different charity shops where you can buy Palestinian products and the proceeds help Palestinian artisans and people. here are some examples, please add more if you know any: https://handmadepalestine.com/ (based in Ramallah, Palestine), https://forpalestine.dk/ (based in Denmark), https://www.shoppalestine.org/ (based in the US)

boycott!! the BDS of course have their targeted brands (https://bdsmovement.net/) but there's also for example the witness website with lists of brands and the reasons for boycotting them (https://boycott.thewitness.news/) and some different apps that do the same thing, like the "no thanks" app. yes, the list of brands is very, very long. maybe all of it isn't feasible BUT i think a good start would be to go through them and decide which ones are unnecessary either way that you're better off without (mcdonalds, starbucks etc), and then which ones are part of your usual shopping routine, make a mental note of them and pick different options - see it as an opportunity to try new things, to support local brands and smaller businesses!

go do yourself a favour and give Palestinian-Canadian artist Nemahsis' new single "stick of gum" a listen, it's super good! <3 https://youtu.be/VsqYlmf3SAg?si=EK_TZjo0Ijny8hMT

please, add more tips and resources below or just share your own pictures or art or thoughts!

[womenloverlmao]

Spencer Reid NSFW Alphabet

He's so babygirl

Im not adding warnings or like whats included because this is all over the fucking place and yeah that's nobody's fault but my own but still

Dont like it dont read it, dont complain.

A = Aftercare (what they’re like after sex)

He thinks it's so fucking important, he could probably go off on a rant about it, too. (But let's be honest, he can go off on a rant about anything.) He thinks it creates an emotional bond, shit like that. Even though he's the sub, he does like to take care of you after you take care of him.

B = Body part (their favorite body part of theirs and also their partner’s)

His favorite (and yours of his) are his hands. He knows he knows what to do with them, driving you absolutely crazy. He also 100% teases you with it too, just saying. He can be insecure sometimes about certain things, but he knows them.

He loves your thighs and tits. Let's be honest, we all know he's a boob guy.

C = Cum (anything to do with cum, basically)

He cries when he climaxes sometimes.

Also he either likes cumming in you or on your tits. (Bro is obsessed with the tibbies)

D = Dirty secret (pretty self-explanatory, a dirty secret of theirs)

Sometimes steals your panties, but he puts them back (after washing them) and you don't really notice. He also knows how to hide it so like

This one you know about, he was getting INTO it and he got a work call that he had to pick up while he was still inside you. A couple whimpers were let out when you moved against him and it was so embarrassing but no one besides you two know. they thought he was sick because he is a sickly victorian child

E = Experience (how experienced are they? do they know what they’re doing?)

Bro is not experienced at all, he was a virgin before you, but he knows what he's doing from reading so fucking much about literally everything. Sure, he might be awkward at first, but once he's done it once and is sure you like it he's pretty good at everything.

F = Favorite position (this goes without saying)

He likes when you're on top, but his favorite is when your legs are thrown either around his waist or over his shoulders as he absolutely pounds into you like a bitch in heat.

G = Goofy (are they more serious in the moment? Are they humorous? etc.)

there are moments where even when he is balls-deep inside you you both can't help but laugh. he sometimes spews random facts and he can't shut himself up so it can be really a mess but you both love it.

H = Hair (how well groomed are they? does the carpet match the drapes? etc.)

It all depends on your preferences. He keeps it relatively short, but if you need it shorter he'll do it.

I = Intimacy (how are they during the moment? the romantic aspect)

It's 100% Intimate, even if it can be silly sometimes. it's just different, in your own way, really.

J = Jack off (masturbation headcanon)

When he's on his own in a hotel room and you're back home and he needs you, he'll do it. Most of the time he needs your voice to do so, but he knows when you go to bed, and if it's before that he will call you but if it's not he'll do it on his own. If you send him pictures of yourself? uses them. he won't admit it, but he does.

K = Kink (one or more of their kinks)

Mommy kink. I don't need to elaborate.

Orgasm Denial

Overstimulation

B r e e d i n g.

Degradation but only a little, you have to add praise to it and then it's fine.

Kinda like possession?? But not like in a keeping you or him locked up, in a 'you're mine' way.

Hair pulling.

Probably into pegging

Nipple play on you.

L = Location (favorite places to do the do)

Bedroom. That's pretty much it. He gets to thinking too much anywhere else. He gets too into thinking in the bedroom, how do you expect him to fuck you in a bathroom shawty

M = Motivation (what turns them on, gets them going)

You in his clothes. Dirty talk. Sometimes it's nothing specific, and he's touch-starved so he can act like a teenager.

N = No (something they wouldn’t do, turn offs)

I feel like he would stay away from bondage after Hankel. Before then, he would be fine, but chances are this all takes place after so yeah no. Same reason for spanking and shit. It may look like he's super kinky, but there are more things he wouldn't do than things he would.

O = Oral (preference in giving or receiving, skill, etc.)

He likes when you give him head but dude would do anything if you let him eat you out. He's absolutely amazing. He has your body memorized, so like

P = Pace (are they fast and rough? slow and sensual? etc.)

He can do whatever, but when he's trying to make himself cum (normally after he's made you cum and leaves you super fucking overstimulated but he wants to cum so badly) he's fast and like holy f u c k. but he knows how you like it, so before then it's whatever makes you cum quickest so he can cum. also random but I forgot to put that he always makes you cum first.

Q = Quickie (their opinions on quickies, how often, etc.)

Will do them, but prefers having time with you and that shit.

R = Risk (are they game to experiment? do they take risks? etc.)

He is but if it's something listed up there it's a no. He could try different things but there are many things that he just wouldn't do.

S = Stamina (how many rounds can they go for? how long do they last?)

Can go like three five-minute rounds with breaks in between them, but when he's doing it on you he will probably overstimulate you to no end just trying to make you feel good.

T = Toys (do they own toys? do they use them? on a partner or themselves?)

He doesn't have anything but if you wanted to do things with them, they could be implanted.

If you got a dildo he would let you use it on him after a little bit of convincing.

U = Unfair (how much they like to tease)

Depends on the day and if he's being a dom or a sub, but even inside of those it depends. He leans more submissive and loves to please you, but he is 100% a brat and will tease you.

V = Volume (how loud they are, what sounds they make, etc.)

He is l o u d. he can be quiet but he will whimper, moan, whine, beg. (bitch in heat I'm not sorry)

W = Wild card (a random headcanon for the character)

He loves listening and being the sub while being the top. Like... do you get what I mean?

Also one time he was in you, rubbing your clit, trying to get you to cum and he said 'Did you know about 75% of the clitoris is inside the body' and you actually burst out laughing and yall had to stop what you were doing and like gather everything and make sure you didn't die while he was inside you again.

X = X-ray (let’s see what’s going on under those clothes)

6.5 inches, and thick. like, ripping your vagina from the inside out thick. (why am I set on this hill please murder me slowly)

Y = Yearning (how high is their sex drive?)

It wasn't high. until you came around, then he is just like EVERY MOMENT OF THE DAY turned on. it's physically impossible, or it should be.

Z = Zzz (how quickly they fall asleep afterwards)

If it weren't so icky in his head he could probably fall asleep immediately afterwards, but he has to clean it up and then he can fall asleep.