#at least i know how to deal with those

[the-travelling-witch]

i thought i could finish/ continue this fic today or maybe play genshin for the first time in two weeks but i’m dog-sitting for my roommate tonight and puppy said no productivity for you

i would tell you what i’m writing but i think the modern au girlies (gn) would go feral…

[cozylittleartblog]

happy pride month. i did not make this up for th ememe

[twinstxrs]

thinking about kageyama’s “it’s the setter’s job to break the wall in front of the spiker” in reference to how kenma sponsoring hinata while he’s in brazil and onwards is effectively doing that on a financial level. once a setter always a setter.

[em-exceeds-change-zearu]

dw about it. he's just like that.

og images under cut:

[foxstens]

sometimes i remember that andrew trusts kevin and then i just cry

[seaofreverie]

GUUUYYUYSSSD !!!!!

‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️

KIMONO MY HOUSE VINYL!!!!!!

Also funny story which is that when my brother took these to the cashier he said something like "oh... Sparks... they were here one year ago"

[thegreatyin]

Would they moonmilk someone tho

weirdly enough, yes... and no. like. simultaneously. it very heavily depends on what context gets them involved with moon milk in the first place

[adelinamoteru]

at some point some of yall will have to admit to yourselves that the jason todd you like and have built up in fanon is not the jason todd that he actually is

inconsistent canon writing included, I have no idea where these povs on him are coming from if ur not actually meaning to do a disservice to his character

[agueforts]

me vs eternal grudges abt d20 captions

[keeps-ache]

there are a couple changes i would make to the keyboard if i could:

wiggly exclamation mark

bleeding heart emoji

varying snake emojis (more poses would be fun)

question mark with a little heart for the dot bc, well,

more explosions

and that is all thank you

[autisticlee]

sometimes I think about how when I went to college for a year before I dropped out (basically failed out,) the counselors/dean told me they can't help me at all or give any accommodations unless I have an official autism/adhd diagnosis. that might sound logical at first, but when you think about it more, it's actually quite fucked up. if someone is struggling really bad, what's the harm in helping them? why do they require a paper to get even the smallest amount of help? people who don't need help aren't going to be failing miserably without help! even NTs could benefit from some adjustments to the horrible school system! (but changing the entire system is a whole other conversation that the school system isnt ready for)

but even if you do agree to jump through their hoops, you realize it's even more fucked up that the diagnosis process requires YEARS in most cases (in my case it took 4 or 5 years, can't recall exactly now, for autism/adhd diagnosis, which would have meant i finished school before getting it if i managed to mot fail out, or i wait that long before going back, which is a whole struggle itself) and they also tried billing me for THOUSANDS of dollars because of insurance issues!!

so you put a ton of time and money into this, and then get told the only accommodation they are willing to give you for autism and adhd is "a little extra time on tests"

....

my test scores were the best part of my whole class experience. that was NOT what I struggled with!!!!! those tests were all online and could be done in the comfort of your home where you can accommodate yourself and have plenty of time left over when you finish them because you are comfy in your own space, (and also, no one was stopping you from having your notes/books/google open to find the answers,) and you don't even need a time consuming, expensive diagnosis for that!

SO WHAT'S THE POINT!!!!!!!

[perhaps-mr-collins-has-a-cousin]

Hello praying people, I'm not doing well and would really appreciate your prayers right now <3

[doctorwhoisadhd]

hmm thinking about the idea of love songs. i think the idea of what a love song is that we have in our culture is inherently a little bit flawed because we have the idea that any song written about romantic feelings is a love song and im thinking thats not exactly true because there is a difference between "romance" and "love". what i'm saying is not that love is a broader category and applies to things that are not romantic in nature. this is in fact true, but it's not what makes the important distinction here. the true distinction between "romance" and "love" is that romance is a societally defined type of interest in another person, whereas love is, essentially, a promise that you make when you build a relationship.

as such, what i call "love" here might be better defined as "care", as that implies more time and effort, but that's a different suitcase to unpack and largely unimportant to my point here, which is more about the societal conventions of what we call love songs. the point is, relationships can be built with other people, yes, but also animals, places, organizations, ideas, so on and so on, whereas romance requires another person, hence the difference between the ideas of "romance" and "love".

with that in mind, there are two types of songs we in western, english speaking, society call "love songs":

1) songs that are about a person's romantic interest in someone that is either definitively known to be unrequited (existing monogamous relationship, sexuality that doesn't align, etc) or simply not requited (aka romantic interest being unknown); and

2) songs about an existing relationship (keeping in mind my points about relationships not just being with people, but also places, things, etcetera) as is.

(some examples of the latter category: mountaintop by relient k, which defines the relationship in question as non-romantic; or i miss my mum by cavetown, which is - as the title implies - a song about the singer missing their mother.)

now, the thing that makes distinguishing these two difficult is the fact that songs about an existing relationship CAN be about wanting certain aspects of that relationship to change. in these cases, determining that a song is one or the other will hinge either on a) authorial intent or b) whether the song is more about what the singer wants (thereby implying #1) or the lack thereof in that relationship (which would imply #2).

to get back to the subject at hand: the term "love song", as we think of it, is an umbrella term that include both of these two categories, and i think that perhaps it is reductive to do so. with that in mind, i think perhaps it would be more appropriate for "love song" to mean only the latter, whereas the former is a category of its own. WHICH is not to say that the two can't overlap — just that if a song is about a person with whom the singer has no relationship, it cannot be considered a love song due to the fact that it is a song about infatuation, not love.

(another interesting wrinkle this provides is the fact that a song might start out in the first category and, as the writer develops a relationship with a person, might move into the second category as they write more.)

[deepseawave]

obsessed w the tags on ur last reblog

Omgg, thank you haha, it was a quality post so I just had to appreciate it in full force 😂❤️

Can‘t believe someone would actually enjoy my yapping :,D

[green-mountain-goose]

no but like i'm too stubborn to live without things being right

[rileys-battlecats]

Man,

Wrentail's character is just something I love, he is horrible in a very mundane, unfeeling, callous way.

He looks at Mudpaw, a cat that is only still alive because Wrentail decided to save him as a kit, and is just like "kid's a pussy (pun intended), let me toughen him up." and puts him through horrible training without feeling anything. Yet at the same time it doesn't seem like Wrentail is out to make Mudpaw's life horrible or is targeting him, it's just that this is the only teaching method he knows. He is callous and doesn't seem to know or care about how this is affecting Mudpaw.

At the same time, when push comes to shove, he clearly has a basic sense of right and wrong. Not letting a kit die isn't exactly a exceptional test of morality, but it shows that Wrentail knows doing so would be wrong, same with saving Mudpaw from falling. He does both without hesitation or ulterior motive. Wrentail isn't evil or deranged, but he can ignore his own conscience when it suits him.

Also, love his design, the contrast between his colorful pelt and permanent grumpiness speaks to me. WHY COULDN'T YOU JUST MAKE HIM A BROWN TABBY LIKE EVERY OTHER BAD CAT IN WARRIORS!!! Now I'm invested :(

YES THIS. He is a very mundane evil. Not mundane in that his abuse was unremarkable, not at all, but mundane in a way that is just... the way some people are. I've said it before on this blog, but I try to portray Wrentail in a realistic way. I don't want him to be cartoonishly evil, because real people aren't like that. Real people have multiple sides to them, and they can be terrible and abusive while also doing good deeds in other areas. This most certainly doesn't absolve them of the terrible things they've done, but it can muddy the water if you're only looking for someone who is pure evil. That's why I portray Wrentail doing good things as well; real abusers hardly ever seem like abusers from the outside.

tbh I've gotten a few comments on the youtube videos that have mistaken these good deeds as a form of redemption for wrentail. This is absolutely not the case. Wrentail's good deeds do not cancel out his bad ones. Him saving Mudpaw at the falls? Sure, Mudpaw instigated the fight but wrentail is the adult here; as a fully grown warrior, he should be fully capable of handling an out of control apprentice. Real teachers have to handle situations with students who are being violent, and they absolutely are not allowed to allow students to harm others or themselves (source: several college classes on classroom management and personal experience in classrooms). It was the bare minimum that he pull mudpaw up from the falls. And he did! He did it without hesitation! But that hardly means he's a shining beacon of moral good. Saving Mudpaw as a kitten? Literally it would have been illegal if he didn't. Once again, he shows a bit of emotion in the situation, he's swayed by a tiny kitten being in need, but it's still the bare minimum of what he should do for that kit.

Doing these things was good, to be sure. He's saved mudpaw's life twice. But it is absolutely not a reflection of him "secretly being a good person" or whatever. anyway I know those sorts of comments are likely made by people who don't have as much life experience or are just on the younger side, but it's kinda disheartening to see people misinterpreting those actions as me saying "oh actually he was secretly a good guy!" when that couldn't be further from the truth of what I'm trying to say. Black and white morality doesn't work here, good actions do not always equal good person.

And just because he's chosen to be harmful and abusive to Mudpaw, doesn't mean he's pure, abject evil. Wrentail wouldn't go out of his way to hurt Mudpaw if he weren't his mentor. It just so happens that he was put into that position of authority over this specific cat he had something against, and because he could hurt mudpaw, he did. He had the opportunity, and he took it. He could have just as easily asked for Larkstar to assign Mudpaw to another warrior, but he didn't, because it gave him the excuse and the room to hurt someone he thought deserved it.

Man, I really love the concept behind the designs I made for Wrentail and Mudpaw specifically. Wrentail isn't supposed to look evil, that's the point! He blends in with normal clan society. I specifically altered their designs after a while, making Wrentail softer and more rounded and Mudpaw angular and sharp-edged, to reflect the other characters' impressions of them. It is really funny though how many evil wc characters are big dark brown tabbies HAHA