#ask me about him I dare you

[aellivi]

Ok yeah I think I like drawing him this way more.

[soupmonarchart]

ba-bam! pretty boy face

[tkwritesdumbassassins]

"Oh hey look, new Transformers movie trailer came out. Looks pretty coo.--"

MIRAGE?!?!

ACTUAL BLUE AND WHITE MIRAGE !?!?! WITH ABILITIES?!

To my AC followers: I am so so sorry in advance. My favorite arrogant ex-noble Autobot is back.

[soulchronicity]

i thought about help wanted for one second and now vr jeremy is back in my thoughts

[waterdeep-weavemoss]

gale's dialogue to the player is so needlessly flirty

'quite ready for you.'

'your desire?'

'direct me.'

'no rest for the wicked, i see.'

'you have my attention.'

sir. that's enough.

[hopeswriting]

daily life arc miura haru. does anyone know who i'm talking about. do you guys remember her. i still can't believe what happened to her 😔

[rickybaby]

Daniel on Ted’s Notebook | Testing Day 3 | pt.2

“[Lando] is normally pretty honest. So if he’s feeling a little down, maybe they expected to be a little quicker […] but for now, we’re hopefully a Q3 or top 10 car but to be much more than that, I think that’s probably getting too excited 😁😁😁”

[akikos-tribble-army]

Mori should have more anatomy models in his office. He's a doctor, where is the random skeleton in the corner? The eye model on the desk? The heart on the shelf? The half open body where the organs always fall out when you look at it? The skull where everyone wants to ask if it is real, bc dude is a mafia boss, you never know?

[hawkinasock]

Yanqing is just the subject of a aeon tug of war game he didn’t even sign up for someone save him

Also would love to hear more about your thoughts on Jing Yuan and his whole thought process on the Hunt/Abundance and Abundance!Yanqing in general

Poor kid can't catch a break man... Don't ask for help from me, though. I'll just make it worse lmao.

Prepare for another yapping session, because there is so much I have to say about Jing Yuan when it comes to this theory.

Firstly, while I've said before that Jing Yuan is aware of Yanqing's status, that doesn't mean he knows the full story. As far as he's aware, Yanqing is either a human that the disciples had gotten their hands on at one point or a unique type of Abomination that is almost entirely indiscernible from any other human. He doesn't know the extent of his origins, his relationship with Yaoshi, he isn't even confident in the full potential of Yanqing's power.

That aside, something about him made Jing Yuan unable or unwilling to go through with killing him, and when he made the decision to keep Yanqing alive, took it upon himself to raise him rather than leave him to an orphanage, keeping the secret under wraps. Maybe there was something about that baby that lit a spark in him. Maybe when he looked to what should be a monster and saw an innocent child who didn't understand what was going on, didn't know what he was or why Jing Yuan held that glaive, it would be monstrous of him to snuff out that life. Maybe he only became aware of Yanqing's status after the fact, but by that point was too attached to ever even consider telling anyone.

Whatever the circumstances were, in Jing Yuan's eyes, Yanqing is far more valuable to him than anything else. Even his loyalty to the Alliance, whom he has sworn loyalty since his youth became expendable the moment he held that little infant in his arms for the first time. He would be content taking on the label of a traitor so long as it meant keeping his son alive.

In terms of the aeons, there's no implications that Jing Yuan feels any sort of respect for Yaoshi or the Abundance as a whole, it's definitely the opposite, in fact. The overall consensus is that he remains loyal to the Xianzhou and their designated aeon, it just comes down to his own hypocrisy and apparent double standards. He's slain countless abominations, but not only did he spare the life of one, he brought it into his home and gave it one of the highest ranks on the Luofu.

Huaiyan was wrong. At one point, Jing Yuan's loyalty not only wavered but crumbled. He knows he won't make it out of this unpunished; soon the lie will stretch too thin, and it's only a matter of time until it all comes back to bite him. But so long as Yanqing is okay, so long as he's alive, then Jing Yuan is content with that outcome.

[crimsonmonsoon]

If you can’t tell I am entirely obsessed with this guy

[licorishh]

i love og soap too much. my stomach hurts. i don't feel good.

[ratatatastic]

"Battle of Alberta, right? It was my first game: Calgary, Edmonton. We would play them in the preseason, and you know—trying to make the team I'd always be asking him to fight in preseason, always. I'd be runnin' my mouth—like, tryna fight the biggest, baddest guys, tryna make an impression.

And he would never fight me. He'd always tell me, like If you make the team, I'll fight ya. You don't have to worry about that, but I'm not fightin' ya preseason. And I totally respect it, I'm not gonna chase him down. It is what it is. He's established—I'm looking for my chance.

So I get called up, we're playing Edmonton in Edmonton: Battle of Alberta. [He's] over there on the other side, and it's like the coolest thing ever... you know, the buildup was crazy 'cuz I knew if the opportunity presented itself—if the game went the way I hoped it would, I would get an opportunity to fight him.

I remembered in warmups tryna skate by the redline initially just kind-of gettin' a feel for it—to see if I have to say something or whatever... He's got no bucket on, his big, bald head is glarin' around, he skates by the redline with the biggest smile on his face, and just gives me the biggest wink...

At that moment I knew Okay, he remembers. It's gonna happen at some point.

We were up 1, I think it was 2-1 going into intermission or whatever—Oh, no, I think it was 1-1 and we had just scored so the position I'm like Yeah, I don't know if I can fight him now because we have the momentum and we're winning the game. I don't want to lose a fight, then we lose a game and now I'm, like, never getting a chance again.

You kind-of gotta play the game within the game like [...] there's an opportunity to fight, and there's an opportunities where you shouldn't fight. Things weren't looking good, then they score and now we need a spark. I'm like Fucking perfect.

I just skate by their bench and I'm like It's time, big boy! He jumps out, we line up, and he goes We squarin' up or we goin' right away?

I'm like I'm not fuckin' squarin' up with you right now! We're goin' right away!

Drop em, we go right away, grab each other. I know he's a lefty so he's gonna let go—let's go of my right arm before he throws one. I threw one. Big boy went down, he jumped back up pretty quick. I don't know, I tell people all the time, I'm like I would've been in the league fuckin' 2 years earlier if there was good footage of this fuckin' fight!

For some reason—For some reason, the cameras cut out. I don't know if [he] had his cousins working the cameras or something that night, or if they're in the video room or what happened.

That was my first NHL game.

It's funny 'cuz Chucky was there—Chucky's there and he knows, he saw, he always laugh when I say that I would've been in the league earlier 'cuz he knows how things like that go. You get a little bit of energy and buzz around ya, and then kind-of momentum takes you a little bit further but unfortunate[ly], I missed that opportunity but I don't regret a thing.

[...]

The opportunity was there, I just—unfortunately, for whatever reason, the Hockey Gods said not yet." (Ryan Lomberg reminiscing over his first NHL game/fight) (x)(x) (please go watch the second link to see lombos giant smile as he tells this story jfc)

and other genuinely bonkers things to say about a hockey player in your first fight... like why did this need to be said like that...what

[heartofstanding]

Did Edward I have a serious tendency towards violence towards Edward II?

I highly recommend reading Hannah Kilpatrick's article "Edward I’s Temper" in The Medieval Chronicle, vol. 12 (2019, doi) if you can find it because not only is it brilliant but because my entire answer will based on it. The short answer: probably not, because our main sources for Edward I being violent are two accounts that have been mistranslated or mistranscribed.

In a way, it's understandable. Edward I has frequently been understood as the ultimate embodiment of the brutal, dark and hyper-violent Middle Ages and the story that he physically assaulted his son both not only feeds this image but is likewise fed by this reputation. It becomes cyclical: we know Edward I was violent and angry because we know he assaulted his son and we know he assaulted his son because we know he was violent and angry. The actual story of this assault is goes something like this: the future Edward II foolishly petitions his father for an earldom for his unworthy and unpopular favourite Piers Gaveston. The king erupts in a fit of violent temper. He swears at his son, tears out handfuls of his son's hair and then throws him to the ground and kicks him.

This account is a conflation of two contemporary accounts, one found in the chronicle of Walter of Guisborough (where Edward II's hair is pulled out) and the other in the Fineshade chronicle (where Edward II is thrown to the ground and trampled). Kilpatrick argues, quite convincingly, that both accounts have been misread - mistranslated or mistranscribed - and offers corrections wherein Edward I's violence is directed at himself (he pulls his own hair out) and the physical copy of Edward II's petition, not his son.

On Walter of Guisborough:

But here is no assault. Walter of Guisborough never claims that Edward I tore out his son’s hair. ‘Et apprehensis capillis vtraque manu dilacerauit eos in quantum potuit’, he writes, following Edward I’s last speech, literally: ‘And seizing hair in each hand he tore it out to the extent that he could’, with no possessive pronoun. In English, of course, we cannot leave the ownership of a body part ambiguous—we would have to say ‘his own hair’, or‘his son’s hair’—but this construction is perfectly possible in Latin. In fact, in the absence of grammatical indications to the contrary, it should be assumed to refer back to the subject, as in Latin’s modern descendents—and as we see here with reference to the hands (‘manu’, not ‘manusua’).

In short, an alternative, more plausible translation of the original Latin is that Edward I tore out his own hair in a rage at his son's request, not his son's hair. It is violent, but violence directed to the self rather than at his son.

In regards to the Fineshade chronicle, Kilpatrick argues that George Haskins's transcription of the scene features an error. That is, he silently expanded the abbreviated pronoun, ipm, to the masculine form, ipsum:

For reasons of grammar and syntax, I argued that ipm should, in fact, be expanded to feminine ipsam: in other words, it is the petition which is flung to the ground and crushed underfoot (‘peticionem importunam ferens, indignanter ipsam ad terram deiecit pedibusque conculcauit’). The most recent masculine referent is the king himself, preceded by Gaveston; and it would be syntactically awkward to have to reach back past so many clauses to a previous sentence, when a more immediate and logical referent is (as it were) directly to hand.

So, rather than Edward I flinging his son to the ground and kicking him, Edward I flings the petition, an inanimate object, to the ground and tramples it.

To me, Kilpatrick's alternate readings of these chronicles are more believable. Seymour Phillips also has rejected Walter of Guisborough's account as "exaggerated" and either inaccurate or unable to be confirmed, but without reassessing the chronicle accounts that Kilpatrick does. The acceptance of this story speaks to what Kilpatrick calls "modern preconceptions of medieval emotionality" - the tendency to read the Middle Ages as a place of casual and excessive violence and to stereotype medieval individuals as being unable to control their emotions.

This accounts, Kilpatrick goes to argue, also use "public emotionality" or the public performance of emotion - in this case, lordly anger - to make a point. That is, that Edward I's anger serves a political and social purpose:

...public demonstrations of anger had a paradoxically crucial role in mending social bonds (particularly between a lord and his dependent), by 'announcing to all that the current situation was unacceptable and that social relationships would have to be restructured'. This would (ideally) initiate the process of negotiation and reconciliation.

Both writers use this display of lordly anger in different ways to achieve different messages in their writing but both are "interrogat[ing] the idea of effective kingship". Walter of Guisborough's account is more critical of Edward I, whilst also anticipating problems in his heir's reign. In contrast, the Fineshade chronicler is writing in the last decade of Edward II's reign and is more concerned with the failures of Edward II's kingship in comparison with his father's more stable reign.

So, Walter of Guisborough depicts Edward I's anger as dysfunctional, showing Edward as embodying Ira, uncontrolled and self-destructive rage while Edward II's lack of response to his father's anger is problematised because Edward II should be filled with a shaming anger that drives him to correct his fault (the favouritism of Gaveston):

In the scene as written, the king enacts a powerful and very public demonstration of the extent of the prince’s transgression against both his own role and his father’s, and of the serious breach in the relationships between father and son and between the realm and its future king. He attempts to solve it by trying to prick on his son to be the honourable knight that he ought to be. He fails—he does succumb to a violent, uncontrollable passion—not because he is a medieval man, but because Walter of Guisborough was critiquing specific flaws in his kingship. His transgression is not physical violence but violence against social norms governing acceptable emotional display: not the uncontrollable outburst of a passion that ought to be contained, but a failure to embody what it is to be a king, to engage and empower the emotionality of his followers.

In Fineshade chronicler's narrative, Edward I is idealised as the representation of "the stability and the link with the past that his son rejects" which renders the idea it depicts Edward violently assaulting his son even more suspect. Instead, the petition is trampled in an appropriate display of royal anger: "the transference of royal violence onto the petition (and the imagined Gaveston) rather than the body of his son allows the king to make a powerful performance of his fury without violating the feudal bond in return."

In brief, then: our evidence for Edward I's "serious tendency for violence" against his son comes from one event that has likely been misread (mistranslated, mistranscribed) and show Edward's violence enacted on his own body or an inanimate object rather than the body of his son. Seymour Phillips and Kathryn Warner both point out there was no serious breach between father and son, no suggestion that Edward I was disappointed with his son and, while there were conflicts between them, they were not unusual for a king and his son (n.b. Warner believes Walter of Guisborough's account is accurate, Phillips does not). The chronicle accounts may not have be a truthful depiction on what happened but a reflection on what made a good king and the function of lordly anger in kingship.

Of course, there's great difficulty in proving a negative. We know very little about the personal/private relationship between father and son (this is not unusual) and whether Edward I was ever violent towards his son (and if so, whether this would be seen as excessive or as indicative of a serious tendency towards violence) is something we don't and cannot know.

But what we can say is that our understanding of their relationship and the likelihood of its violence has been driven by our own tendency to stereotype history. Typically, the Middle Ages is seen as an extremely violent and backward time and Edward I as the ultimate representation of these impulses. Thus, he has been stereotyped as a particularly brutal and barbaric figure who would naturally enact excessive violence on his similarly-stereotyped son, read as a effeminate failure of kingship and manhood trapped in the "wrong time". Kilpatrick argues, quite convincingly in my opinion, that the supposed evidence or "proof" of Edward I's excessive violence and temper towards his son is no such thing. The reality of their relationship was undoubtedly much more complex.

Again, I really recommend you read the full article because this is only a summary of the broader points made.

(Also, I apologise if the quotes have mistakes in them. When I copied and pasted from the PDF I have, somehow the spaces between words didn't register so every word was smushed together. I've attempted to fix it but there may be some things I overlooked.)

[phoenixkaptain]

The scene of Anakin turning back to the Light and saving Luke is such a beautiful scene in so many ways, but especially from a character standpoint.

If you look at Darth Vader just in the movies, he doesn’t do things without a plan. He has a step two. Even if his step two is immensely dumb, he always seems to at least have some form of an idea where he wants to end up; he has a point B he’s trying to reach.

Part of what makes Vader a terrifying villain is that he always seems to anticipate what his opponent will do. He seems to know what they’ll do before they even think about what they’ll do. Very rarely is Darth Vader ever taken by surprise. Darth Vader is the character who proves how scary the Force can be. While Palpatine uses his Force lightning and can predict what his opponents will do, he never quite reaches the level Anakin is on, he never reaches that peak of knowing the next five steps his opponent is going to take, even as those next five steps change.

Palpatine doesn’t see Vader turning on him coming. Palpatine is not a Force user who can see the future, he uses the predictions Darth Plagueis made and he sticks to the outline provided by his former Master. He does everything he does and believes everything will be fine and has complete confidence in himself because Plagueis was just that good at predicting the future.

Darth Vader literally changes the future. He makes those predictions false. Him throwing Palpatine down a reactor shaft wasn’t in the books, him choosing his son wasn’t an option, the idea that a Sith lord as powerful as Darth Vader could turn back from the Dark Side is believed by the Jedi and Sith alike to be impossible. Darth Vader himself doesn’t even believe that he can turn back from the Dark Side. The only character who ever believes that Darth Vader can come back is Luke.

Darth Vader is fifteen steps ahead of his opponents. It’s very rare that he ever gets surprised. He always has a plan.

But when he saves Luke, he isn’t any of that. He leaps in without a plan, without any ideas of where he’s goung. He doesn’t know what will happen except that he’ll probably die. He doesn’t have a way out of this. This is the first time Anakin Skywalker ever does anything without already having a way out or immediately being able to come up with a way out.

Anakin was hotheaded and impulsive, yes, but Anakin from his introduction always has a plan B. And when he doesn’t have a plan B, he makes one. He is by far the most competent character in Star Wars, just from his ability to get himself and others out of trouble.

In the moment of turning back from the Dark, Anakin is listening to the Force. He’s listening to the Force as it tells him to save someone. The universal call to the Jedi, the inexplicable push that all Jedi feel and what ultimately led to the majority of Jedi dying, just because they couldn’t not listen when the Force told them to help. Anakin finally listens to it, finally answers it, he finally acts like a Jedi.

There’s no step two. There’s no way out. Doing this will end in his death. Darth Vader is already injured, and the only one who has the resources to put him back together is Sidious. To save Luke, Vader has to step into the lightning, which he knows all to well will ruin his suit. Choosing to save Luke is tantamount to choosing to die.

And he does it. He hesitates, but ultimately, he sacrifices himself for someone else. He goes in knowing that this won’t end with him being able to get out. He has no way out. There’s no plan B. His suit has gone from keeping him alive to being part of the reason he’s dying. He takes off his helmet accepting that he’ll die and being happy to die because he’s finally at peace, he finally feels the warmth of the Force, he finally sees his son with his own eyes, his son is finally looking at him with nothing but trust and worry for his wellbeing, he’s right where he wants to be.

He went from wanting to posess Luke to just being happy that Luke is there with him. That Luke is the one by his side when he dies, that he’s dying on the same side as Luke — Anakin is fine with this. He’s ready to die. He’s accepted it. He’s just happy that the last thing he’ll see is the product of his and Padme’s love for each other.

The scenes of Anakin in Return of the Jedi are beautiful. The title “Return of the Jedi” is so great for this movie, it’s perfect, okay, you don’t understand. It has so many meanings!! The Jedi returning could be referring to Luke, the main Jedi we follow, returning to the screen, or to Tatooine. It could be referring to the Jedi Order, since Luke takes on Yoda’s request to share his knowledge with others and, with Sidious dead, the Jedi Order has functionally returned, even if it is only one member strong. It could refer to Yoda returning, it could refer to Obi-Wan returning.

Or, Return of the Jedi could be referring to Anakin. Anakin Skywalker, the son of the Force. Anakin Skywalker, the only character powerful enough to change the future itself, the only Sith Lord powerful enough to stop being a Sith Lord. Anakin Skywalker, who has always done impossible things, who has always performed impossible feats, who is himself impossible. And he’s back. He’s returned. The Jedi returned.

[pastelpousay]

Okay I am surrendering I’ll watch emperor’s new school 🐺

IM ONLY WATCHING IT BECAUSE IM ACTUALLY SO CURIOUS TO SEE HOW BAD THEY FUCKED UP MY BOY. RACISM AND SEXISM?? POSSIBLE GROOMING??? WHAT EPISODE BRO PLEASE WHAT EPISODE 😭😭 ILL PUR IT ALL ASIDE BRO ILL PUT ALL MY NEURODIVERGENT DISCOMFORT ASIDE JUSY TO WATCH IT LMAOOO. I HAVE NO CLUE WHERE TF TO WATCH IT OR IF THIS SHIT WILL GET MY PHONE A VIRUS I WILL SURRENDER

Also I need more pics of kuzco cuz I made a TENG Pinterest board and I promise you I’ve saved every pic of Kuzco except for the emperor’s new school ones 😭😭

LIKEEEE DJJDKDKDKSKEKKS I MISS MY BABBYYY YGHNDDJJDDN I NEED MORE OF HIM 😭😭 good by David spade kuzco you will be missed😿