#and since we're doing wild assumptions apparently

[terzomega]

aight i guess i'm either blocked or legally not allowed to reblog that post again but we stay silly. in case they see this. hello

girl not the condescending tone just cause you're older ? a very narrow view of something as fluid as language...... i've been studying languages and how they form and grow for almost a decade between high school and university. not this. also you're like around my mom's age. language doesn't change so much in the span of 20/30 years that it'd make us disagree over what words mean ?? and while asking mom if back in her day vaffanculo had homophobic undertones was an exhilarating experience. of course she said "no i never considered it like that nor did anyone i've ever known" + very funny implications that only mlm couples can do anal to begin with ?? jskdkwkf

and for the records. age aside. sono terrona. stuff from veneto might obviously sound off to me. so yeah of course i compared notes before reblogging cause i'd hate to give incorrect information based on my specific location. i talked to friends from emilia-romagna & roma & liguria before even reblogging. one of my best friends is from veneto. they (and their parents, at least those who got involved) all agreed or else i wouldn't have replied at all. i don't need to ADMIT what vaffanculo means???? it just ??? has nothing to do ?? w anything ??? mostly it just feels batshit to me to put this connotation in the forefront of the brains of people who don't know the language and are learning words and phrases from you. it feels batshit to have them think that this has any relevance irl.

the sei pieno di merda bit truly baffles me cause everyone i talked to is confused and the emilia-romagna friend was actively as annoyed as me. the reviews say that at MOST they'd hear it used regarding criminally threathening implications abt stuff and Not to mean shit as in lie the way it's used in english

and sure i guess you don't call yourself an absolute authority but people come to you and ask you stuff as such. so it's insane to me i couldn'f fathom not making sure that what i'm saying applies to the language at large and not to my area. i don't answer in my dialect when people ask me to translate something from english to italian ?? and since as i said language has been a central part of my life for almost half of it this drives me up the wall. this gets a reaction from me. not that i was going for your jugular anyway. but i guess tumblr posts can be read however someone wants and i guess they hit people differently. @foxybouquet

[kariachi]

Random: Anyway yeah the fact that Kevin can absorb, produce, and to some degree manipulate solids and apparently plasmids (electricity, presumably generic energy falls into the same category, etc), that his absorbing mud in the comic indicates liquids aren't off the table (seeing as mud is a good bit liquid and that to not take in the liquid as well would leave him working with dirt), that shit is wild. The fact it likely means he can do gases as well, since he can be reasonably assumed to be able to do all the other states of matter, absolutely mindblowing, terrifying shit.

The fact that this comes alongside being able to absorb, store, and utilize the DNA of other species. That he apparently has a fucking DNA repair function built in to facilitate doing this.

Because here's the thing, being able to do states of matter? That's it's own thing. Makes sense, once you've got two, may as well have the set. It works together, nothing more or less than you'd expect. But the DNA thing, the powers thing. That's a whole other category to be working with. Man has parts from critters there's no reason to believe are in the Omnitrix (Null Guardians) so we know that chunk of his powers isn't limited to fucking with the watch. Fucking with the watch may have thrown him into the deep end of it, but it's a perfectly logical assumption that that's just him.

Solids, plasmids, liquids, presumably gases, definitely DNA to gain access to associated shapes and powers.

Kevin can be reasonably assumed capable of absorbing, becoming, producing, possibly manipulating, and passing on to his children anything he can get skin contact with. There's what, one exception that we're shown? With no explanation, it honestly raises more questions than anything else! All with a built-in ability to eventually reset himself with at least the DNA and combinations thereof stored away and able to not only be utilized later as shown with his repeated transformations in Framed but also be passed on.

And all that's before you see him utilize an armor to regrow fucking limbs!

This boy is something. Mutant, alien, eldritch being, flip a coin, boy is something.

[roninreverie]

Why Ahsoka's Thrawn isn't actually the real Thrawn

A theory by me, which I am going to be so annoying about for the foreseeable future, so let me just try to get most of it out of my system right here and now. ���

---

So we all know by now that Thrawn is revving up to be the BIG BAD for the live action Star Wars series tying The Mandalorian into Ahsoka and working off of the Rebels finale.

I also remember hearing old rumors that they were going to be pulling a lot from legends lore for this show, and that Timothy Zahn was not really involved at all with the show itself. (Feel free to update me otherwise though.)

Now, the fact that they're calling him the "Heir to the Empire" in the teaser trailer is already a pretty decent confirmation that the legends lore nods are in full swing. So this raises red flags for Thrawn's character, who, as we know from the newer novels, has a bit more motivation to him than his legends counterpart, and while the two are not wholly dissimilar, there have been a few important updates to his character since the early 90's.

Not to mention, I've heard a lot of people saying "If Zahn isn't involved, it wouldn't really BE Thrawn, right?"

EXACTLY!

I have a very strong gut feeling that this Thrawn isn't actually going to be the Mitth'raw'nuruodo that we expect him to be, and here's why:

Evidence #1: The Beskar Spear

In Chapter 13 of Mando, we're introduced to Morgan Elsbeth who was apparently working so closely with Thrawn that Ahsoka Tano shows up to battle her and demand information on his wearabouts.

Do you really believe Grand Admiral Thrawn would think very highly of a woman who had tarnished the artistic craftsmanship and history of Mandalorian armor just to forge it into a spear?

Lest we forget how upset he got at Captain Slavin just for badmouthing Hera's kalikori in Rebels?

But Thrawn is a big-picture kind of guy, so swallowing his opinions on the dismissal to the value of art isn't necessarily out of character for him, and I'm not sure if they ever specified it was Elsbeth who had done the re-forging in the first place.

Moving on!

---

Evidence #2 Legends Lore and Fake Thrawns

There have been many versions of Thrawn since his creation in Zahn’s original trilogy/duology series, but did you know that there have also been multiple Thrawns existing in the Star Wars Legends universe?

I won't go into too much detail, but considering the Empire tried to keep Thrawn at arms reach up until he earned his Admiral status, and then some… they had quite a few backup plans to make sure the Chiss stuck around even after his “supposed” death.

Between Moff Vilim Disra hiring a con-artist actor named Flim, to fake the role and trick the galaxy... or the literal clone(s) who were set on backup timers and programmed with all of Thrawn's memories just in case of the Admiral’s untimely demise... it’s not as wild an assumption as you might think that there could be a few faux Thrawn’s roaming about in new canon. 

And we have been getting a lot of interesting nods to clones lately in the Bad Batch, especially concerning Mount Tantiss and the planet Wayland/Weyland.

Just some food for thought.

---

Evidence #3: Thrawn’s Death and Continuity

Though Legends and Canon Thrawn do have some similarities and ways to tie together their two universes, there have been updates to his story that cannot be ignored in the new canon, such as his inevitable death.

In legends, Thrawn was killed at the hands of his own Noghri bodyguard, Rukh, who was formally loyal to the Chiss until he learned that Thrawn had not been helping with the ecological disasters of his home planet as he'd promised, but instead had been purposefully keeping them present so that the Noghri people would remain indebted to the Empire. Discovering Thrawn's lies, Rukh stabs him through the chest in the ever-popular “it was so artistically done” scene, thus ending the deceitful Grand Admiral’s life in the old trilogy. 

Unfortunately for the latest iteration of Rukh, Garazeb Orrelios made sure that his new canon self's death was probably not the sort he would be able to get back up and brush off in a surprising twist down the road. 

This left the new-canon Thrawn without an assassin destined to carry out his death, and what many newer fans hoped would mean some sort of redemption arc, given the changes to the character since his reintroduction in Rebels.

I think it can also be stated that the newer version of Thrawn is a bit "kinder" for lack of a better word than his legend's self. Not enough to negate his antagonistic nature in Rebels of course, but maybe just not to the sinister degree as his past counterpart.

---

So in closing, I am going to be watching and taking notes, excited to see where this new "Thrawn" in the Ahsoka series, Mando, and heck... maybe even Bad Batch-- will play out.

I am going to be constantly thinking he's a fake until absolutely proven otherwise, hoping that the Thrawn I've spent all these years building up in my head is off saving the Chiss-Ascendancy with Ezra Bridger and Eli Vanto... and getting something of a redemption arc now that he's apart from the Empire.

Newer Thrawn never struck me as an irredeemable villain, especially in the novels, but I guess that's up to time to tell for sure?

I'm not going to let this theory ruin my expectations for the show and the character, of course, but I'll be super hype if this is the direction they've chosen to go with him.

Thanks for reading, if you did, and feel free to keep the discussion going in the replies/reblogs if you have anything to add!

[thedreadvampy]

You seem surprised at the reactions your getting, but it's to be expected. Aphobia is usually quiet, insidious and slow to reveal itself, so the moment someone is asked about aspecs and the answer isn't a concise "Yes I accept and support them" type thing, it's a red flag. Why would anyone who wasn't aphobic not feel comfortable saying they support aspecs? it's not uncommon for a blog we admire to turn out to be aphobic and we're pretty antsy about this stuff because it's usually brushed off.

Ok I mean I'm getting to that eventually in the Question List but like. With the best possible will in the world I think some of you have misread the post where someone asked "do you support aspecs," because to my recollection what I said was that I am fundamentally uncomfortable with the idea that I'm in any position to judge whether I support or harm anyone, and I think that the point at which someone says as a point of identity 'I Am An Ally To X Group' or 'I Support X Group' that. makes them substantially less likely to recognise or accept the ways in which they fail.

Also like. I absolutely understand the antsiness. I do. People can be really shitty to and about aspec people. But what I've said before and will say again is that you have to understand that while it's totally understandable that that would put you on edge, it's not inherent proof of ill-intent.

Ok. Here's the thing. I'm thinking of my own experience here. There is a subset of men who really give me The Fear. It's often hard to define why they give me The Fear, but I can identify some signs - they're probably really into video games, they have a specific way of getting into my personal space and a specific way of talking and type of intonation. they talk a lot about how much they like that they can trust me and talk to me like one of the guys. and the vast majority of the time, when I've ignored The Fear I have got hurt. it's entirely reasonable for me to be suspicious of those people based on my experiences, to pull back from them, and to listen out for reports that they have a history of abuse. If somebody says, "you're not like other girls I really feel like I can talk to you" I'm probably going to get up and walk away, or try and get it of the conversation, or try and get out ahead of the way I expect the conversation to go so that he can't lead the conversation.

But it wouldn't be reasonable if, the moment I heard someone say "you're not like the other girls, I really feel like I can talk to you," I grabbed him by the collar and yelled YOU MISOGYNIST DICKHEAD I NEED YOU TO PROVE RIGHT HERE AND NOW THAT YOU'VE NEVER ASSAULTED ANYONE. PROVE IT NOW. HE CAN'T PROVE IT GUYS HE DID IT. THIS MAN ASSAULTS WOMEN. HE SAID THE BAD WORDS.

People have different experiences and different associations with phrases. I very rarely answer a question about my beliefs with a simple yes or no because I don't trust certainty, particularly within myself, I find myself really anxious that we mean different things and that if I'm not specific enough then I'll be lying. So I very rarely say yes or no without explaining what I mean by yes or no.

And also. Just for the record, since apparently there's no means of avoiding pissing people off today. Aphobia can be a serious, genuine problem and also an area where not everyone agrees. I'm not talking about my own opinions here, I'm talking about how many different opinions have come up from ace/aro people just in this conversation. And I think it's really weird how often queer discourse conflates disagreement with minimisation. Like ok we can all, within the bi community, pretty much agreed that biphobia is, to a greater or lesser degree, a problem, and that bisexuality is stigmatised and comes with particular challenges. But that doesn't mean that when two bi people disagree on whether X trope is biphobic, one of them is The Biphobe and one is The Oppressed. like. oppression and social dynamics aren't clean, they're fuzzy-edged, overlapping and interweaving, highly subjective and highly personal but also totally depersonalised, and everybody is going to draw those lines differently. And it's wild to act like treating it as anything but a simple yes/no question is inherently bigoted because nothing is a simple yes/no question. That's not really how any social question works. We're all bringing our own stuff to the table, we're all trying to communicate concepts that we don't have the verbal or emotional language for, and when somebody says "are you against aphobia" like, that contains a lot of questions, primarily "what does that mean?"

like am I against dehumanisation of and aggression towards of ace/aro people? am I against systemic assumptions and incentives and expectations that everyone wants/needs sex/romance/a life partner? do I think it's fucked up the degree to which sex and romance are centred in culture to the degree that people are told and made to feel explicitly broken if they don't feel a draw to it? yeah, obviously, no shit. but I don't feel comfortable saying unilaterally 'are you for or against X,' when X has no clearly boundaried definition and isn't something most people would in good faith say FUCK YEAH I LOVE X. like if you ask any person 'are you against homophobia,' most of them would probably say 'yes,' and some of them would mean 'I think it's unfair and cruel to treat queer and same-gender attracted people differently because of their sexuality, and I will go to the wall to defend them and to fight heteronormativity' and some of them mean 'I don't hate the sinner I hate the sin and they can be gay as long as they do it far away from me and also never have sex or relationships' and like. What does the answer yes actually tell you in that instance? Like if I wanted to know if someone held bigoted beliefs, I wouldn't go up to them and say 'do you hate X' bc like. They're gonna say no. They may very well believe that they don't. If you actually wanted to guage their responses, it would make more sense to ask "what do you think of X issue" or "do you think Y idea is homophobic" bc like. bigotry is a pattern not a clear line in the sand. God this is just pure waffle now, sorry.