#am i being punked

[tswaney17]

Do you ever fear that unregulated capitalism causes democratic institutions to deteriorate into oligopoly, imperialism exasperating support of counter revolutionary wars and various forms of economic and cultural exploitation?

Sir/ma’am, I write fairy porn. I think you’re in the wrong inbox. 😂

[randalgraves]

sometimes i think the rug cleaning videos have to be staged

[nedsseveredhead]

your new cat is cute and all but i miss your old one

I mean yeah man i do too but shes kind of. Dead?

[ask-asexual-crystal-gems]

For reference, this is you, objecting to less involved forms of sex while posting about full on sex

You seem to be having trouble comprehending not only words, but your own sentences??

she commit acts of intercourse on my erogeneous zones until i achieve sexual climax

[grammyforstyles]

Lmao what, so you think that loads of fans in different countries should just have been deprived of their shows ??

Are you actually this dumb

[egophiliac]

OMG EGO HAVE YOU SEEN THE BOOK 7 CATER CARD YET

80s britpunk Cater is such an incredible direction to take. his Sid Vicious jacket! his little british police cap! I wouldn't have anticipated that going full-on Sex Pistols would be his alternate self but it is SO fitting actually. 😭

(also th-the crown symbol?! the gavel?! is housewarden Cater real because I will TRANSCEND --)

[folkpunkfishercat]

[raiiny-bay]

summer '93

[rebluvio]

whoever made them bomb my head again you win

[mochiajclayne]

Marineford Law is no question interesting to me because he pulled off a surprise, motherfucker moment and the timing was so good to the point that both pirates and marines least expected it.

Before I proceed with this self-indulgent lawlu meta post, I will go ahead and say that everything that happened between them in Marineford is a catalyst of establishing their connection later on in the future arcs. I am a firm believer that those feelings™️ started to truly bloom in Punk Hazard and went downhill in a good way in Dressrosa.

Long post ahead. Enjoy!

When I was rewatching Marineford arc, the part where Buggy was already carrying an unconscious and injured Luffy and Jimbei, their conversation sparked my interest.

Highlighting the bit where Buggy was confused about Law's verbal tic of using the suffix -ya in referring to anyone, overall doubting him, then asking for Law's name. Don't forget that Law is a little shit (affectionate) so he proceeded to ignore all of those questions to say this:

Interestingly enough, this part is tricky to translate. I found two translations that closely encapsulate what Law wanted to say here but mind you, and I will sound redundant about this with everything that has got to do with Trafalgar Law's speech patterns: he likes speaking in runarounds, purposely using terms with double meanings and connotations on them, and he's both reticent and cryptic. (I wouldn't say not to trust on his words but don't take them at face value.)

Law described his connection with Luffy as 悪縁 (akuen) which directly translates as evil destiny or connection.

Forgive me for a bit of sidetracking but the kanji used for akuen is the same with Robin's epithet which is "Demon Child" (akuma no ko). To further elaborate, 悪 (aku) means evil--both as intent and violating a moral code. It is also used to refer as the direct opposite of good.

Going back to 悪縁 (akuen), in true Law fashion, this word doesn't only mean evil destiny or connection. Depending on the context, it can also mean unfortunate love.

(It sounds tragic coming from him, isn't it? If your mind was blown after this part, no worries, I am too. This part gave me so much whiplash when I was researching about it.)

So, considering these two interpretations of 悪縁 (akuen), that begs the question, what is Law's connection with Luffy?

On surface-level, they are enemies as Law said so himself. They're rivals when it comes to One Piece. Their common ground, which is only known among people that Law trusts the most, is sharing the same secret name of D. However, I will take one step ahead and say that they both went through the same tragic fate of losing their loved ones, for being weak and powerless to protect them. They were both involved in circumstances where if they were capable enough, they could've saved the person they loved the most. Doomed by the narrative and subjected to trauma that breaks their heart and spirit should they be lesser men to handle such misery and grief. It is unfortunate, disastrous, and cursed to love fully knowing the fact that the other person could die like the ones before them but these two have the biggest heart.

Of course, Law will never say it directly. Thus, settling for 悪縁 (akuen).

It gets better. He did say 悪縁も縁 (akuen mo en) and 縁 (en) itself means fate or destiny (especially a mysterious force that binds two people together). Additionally, も (mo) is also a particle that is used for emphasis.

The implication, in turn, of what Law said to Buggy can be translated this way: Strawhat-ya and I (will) eventually be enemies, but an evil connection is (the futuristic possibility of Luffy becoming his enemy) is fate (that binds them).

Law made sure to emphasize that their "evil connection" is fate: specifically, that mysterious force brought them together and compelled him to be there, that he was meant to sail to Marineford, and help Luffy escape.

These two translations are the closest that I found to be accurate but it's still scratching the surface of what Law said:

This entire panel between Ivankov and Law makes it funnier because he clocked him IMMEDIATELY.

Ivankov asked if he's friends with Luffy to which he replied: no.

He also emphasized that that he doesn't have any obligation to help him but then went on to say this:

親切 (shinsetsu) means kind, generous, gentle, considerate. 不安 (fuan) refers to anxiety, uneasiness, worry, apprehension. These are surprisingly direct words but of course, Law had to go back and be cryptic again when he followed up with 理屈 (rikutsu), which could mean two things: theory, reason, logic or (unreasonable) argument, excuse.

I think this panel did a good job for translating it.

Law himself is providing Ivankov here the benefit of the doubt. To reiterate, Ivankov beats him to the punch which makes their entire interaction so funny.

Again, brilliant translation for directly calling out Law's bullshit. Lmao. Ivankov says 直感 (chokkan) here. It means intuition, instinct, hunch. Please take the next statement that I will say with a grain of salt but "instinctively moving your body" is usually associated with the context of being reckless to the point of directly exposing oneself to danger, consequences be damned, in order to protect someone.

Even Law himself acknowledged that he's not obligated to be there, so why?

Unfortunately, this is the elephant in the room that Law will never address. Several characters even made sure to point out that he helped Luffy two years ago and he purposely dodges that topic.

One thing I can guarantee is that Law never did it to get Luffy to agree for the alliance. Hell, he thought of the alliance after reuniting with Luffy! He adjusted his plans by then. Additionally, he never used the fact that he saved Luffy's life as his bargaining chip and leverage to get him on board the alliance.

Lastly, this is too much for saving a life on a whim, isn't it, Law?

[thekintsugikids]

someone pointed out something i’d been delusionally thinking about patrick’s in-ears for a bit and i feel like i’m going insane

[dykebeckett]

enough of this

[zzzeit]

canonically Zoro is taller? then Oda pls explain yourself??

taller Sanji my beloved <3

[oamandapanda]

POV you are a clue and the drawtectives are inspecting you.

It's exciting that we're getting a new drawtectives arc and new outfits are always fun.

For this I like to imagine that Gma is standing on her tip toes even with the platform sandals. I had fun being indulgent with imagining York getting into punk and having fun with really thick smudgy eyeliner and eye shadow.

[frank-dillanes]

MICHAEL PITT as LARRY Seven Psychopaths (2012) dir. Martin McDonagh

[utilitycaster]

I’ve previously covered the issue of people making false accusations that the fandom’s opinions are based in bigotry. Let’s talk about a related issue: the impossible-to-prove hypothetical.

The statement that the fandom would support the statement that the strong will survive and the weak will be remade if the Wildmother said it is an example of this. She didn’t say that, and Ka’Mort did, so even if she were to say it in the future I think most people would recognize that the problem is the message, not the person delivering it. I don’t think the claim the fandom would blindly support the Wildmother if she said something with such a fascist tinge is true, though I certainly can't confirm it (which again, may be the goal of those who make this sort of unprovable claim). More importantly, it attempts, poorly, to sidestep the actual critique: that saying the strong will survive a cataclysmic change and the weak will be "remade" is extremely in line with real world far-right groups talk about ethnic cleansing, and that Ashton seems to have no issue with vast power differentials and immortal beings who have previously aligned themselves with the gods and intended the destruction of mortals (and from EXU Calamity we know this is not merely a history written by the victors) as long as it's the power he can access. This isn't about breaking thrones: it's a coup, not a revolution.

This sort of...I can't call it an argument, because it's not one, but I suppose it is an attempt at one - often goes unchallenged because there’s no way to debunk it, even though it's ultimately a "what if the world were made of pudding." If canon were different, it sure would be different. Is the problem that the statement "If they're strong, they will. If not, they'll be remade into something stronger" in response to the question of whether mortals will survive a massive upheaval is one with concerning implications? If so, then why endorse it when Ka'Mort says it? If not, then why would it be a problem if the Wildmother had said it instead? Notice how the person making this "argument" actually does exactly what they're accusing the fandom of doing. They are clearly basing their judgment not on whether or not this is a problematic statement, but rather either the source of said statement, or the person to whom it's being said.

The "look at Ashton’s shoelaces" argument is the same exact problem - it doesn’t address the actual issue of "Ashton seems to be receptive to the idea of the elimination of 'weak' mortals." Indeed, it strengthens the counterargument, that many punks are more concerned with aesthetics and appearance than actual support, and that the fans invoking the fact that Ashton is a punk, or disabled, or nonbinary are focusing only on what they are (with an unstated assumption that these identities automatically lend them validity, which they do not) and not what they do or believe.

The problem is what they are doing and believing. Who they are is not important; what they are doing is. I don't want to make a call re: stupidity or malice here, but if the former, if you cannot understand the point of contention, you are not qualified to engage in this discussion, and if the latter, well, no use listening to a bad faith argument.