#but right now only one gets to win.

[dawnthefluffyduck]

Crazy issues that come up when a character is written a little too well

[tswwwit]

i have a counter argument to the 'only one person can boop bill' thing, mabel. she's the type of person to slap stickers on people, she would definitely be the type to also boop others occasionally and bill would be no exception. she probably doesn't do it to annoy bill like dipper would, but maybe as a form of a friendly gesture, kind of like those people who will lightly punch friends in the arm when they hang out.

You know what? Good point. Mabel would get away with more than most, as a fun-loving lady! Bill understands those impulses, and being a touchy person! He indulges in similar ones himself.

Though when Bill's not in the mood to be playful and gets booped anyway? The 'sister-in-law' status grants her considerable grace.

[nostalgia-tblr]

I watched Avengers: Age of Ultron (apart from I skipped some overly long action sequences) and I am not sure so can someone tell me whether or not Tony Stark was the baddy in that film? Because about halfway through I was sure he was but then it was maybe just an evil robot after all and I am confused because either this film was surprisingly subversive or it was about robots hitting each other.

[khamomile-kitty]

Only thing I’m gonna say abt it bc I haven’t read the books or participated tje fandom since I was in elementary school but. Ppl’s reaction to Squirrelflight becoming leader is so funny. The misogyny of the authors has rubbed off on the fans I see, how are you gonna tell a victim of domestic abuse that’s she’s a worse leader and suffered less than her husband. And all the alternate leader suggestions from these ppl are the lame ass guys. this is one of the saddest characters in cat fiction let the girlie win at least once good lord

[wanderingblindly]

is it a hot take to say that the "you can't laud Schumacher and Senna while hating Max" rhetoric – while entirely understandable – ignores the massive role that martyrdom and recency-bias plays in how they're viewed?

[keeps-ache]

spillage.

[ + other things :D ]

[folkloregirlfriend]

i hate feeling ambitionless aimless the future is so bleak

[thirdtimed]

thinking about the jimmy scar pearl venn diagram and absolutely just disintegrating over it

[rawliverandgoronspice]

The more time goes on, the more I think we (= westerners, especially white westerners) are just so fucking bad at guilt. I feel like guilt is among the most pernicious and dangerous emotions out there --not because guilt is literally deadly in isolation, it is an excruciating emotion but it will not kill you in itself, but because we have been trained to associate guilt with worthlessness (I partially blame christian values, the idea of impurity and sin --not to downplay, of course, the danger of a community judging you or being expelled from that community on the basis of being considered a danger to its other members due to the thing you've done that has been generating this guilt), and so we must, absolutely must, protect ourselves from simply feeling that guilt and processing its cold indifference washing over us, and we must do so through any means necessary. This can involve defensiveness, denial or reject of that guilt altogether so we are mentally protected from having to reevaluate ourselves and our place in the world, or can involve wallowing in and using it to self-harm --focusing on the pain and on self-hate rather than on what the guilt is telling us about ourselves and our heritage; blinding ourselves to it still in a twisted way.

I think it's also complicated to know how to manage guilt in a world where we're generally (as a whole) deeply powerless. It feels unfair to be called out about not doing enough when you know that pulling even mediocre heroics on your own will most definitively do almost nothing, hurt you, and be buried in a way that might be extremely unhelpul --not to mention, that it would actually hurt you in a very real and final way and lead to entirely thankless results, even if it was the morally correct thing to do. I do not want to pretend that it's not, very often, the results that awaits even serious and well-practiced activism --or even mild activism, major shoutout to everybody who got maimed or arrested or even killed on zero basis simply because they happened to be at or even near a protest, when they were not brutally attacked for no reason even outside of activism because an officer was racist or sexist or queerphobic or simply bored that day. There are genuinely good reasons to be scared.

So we feel guilt because of this fear, because of our isolation from any serious movement and the fact that we privilege our comfort over letting action taking over whatever else we have going on, and because fear and comfort knowingly keep us into inaction --or action that doesn't feel like enough, or that we feel doesn't achieve much of anything (which I think is never true: even giving someone a glimpse of hope for a second because we made an effort towards them is always always worth it in my opinion, it's not nothing and it's not a cop-out --of course it's not enough and we collectively need to find ways to do more, but it's not nothing and it should never discourage people from taking action --but I digress). But I think we start making a mistake when we point at this very real powerlessness as a shield from the guilt. Both can coexist. Both have to coexist. It isn't fair that some people are being forced to be courageous when we can afford to remain cowards. It is not even a moral judgement that condemn our souls forever, weakness is human and lack of individual reach against an overwhelmingly powerful and removed system even more so; it is a simple fact that we *have* to acknowledge if we want to take a clear look at the actual situation instead of camouflaging it behind self-justifying walls to give ourselves temporarily relief from that awful feeling. And I'm not saying it's not a constant effort, to keep those instincts of self-preservation at bay, or that some people don't have really good reasons that they cannot act more than through social media or miniscule donations or by talking about it around them, or being powerless to even do that without putting themselves into real and concrete danger --or that letting guilt in will be pleasant or even healing. It won't be. But it's also not the point.

Yeah, I get that it's hard to truly reckon with the fact that almost everything that made us (= westerners, especially white ones) is soaked with blood, imperialism, white supremacy, sexism, queerphobia, and a whole sweve of truly rancid ideologies that we cannot afford to passively accept as our lot. We were not given a choice in that legacy, and we don't have a ton of leverage over reorienting our haunted civilizations into something that isn't a horrible nightmare; but it is a fight that is happening right the fuck now.

I genuinely think guilt is a feeling we are not taught to handle in a healthy way; and because we have essentialist, pseudo-religious and punitive justice concepts terminally untangled with that feeling, guilt governs our politics and our private lives in the most rabid and unchecked way imaginable. But guilt will not kill us, unless we allow it to, and it will help literally nobody if it does. Guilt isn't evil in its soul-crushing pain as much as it is informative. Guilt is unbearable, unfliching clarity. But fever boils us alive because there is an infection that needs to be destroyed.

[beckiboos]

Me when I start act 3

“Well I guess I better design my next character”

And this is why I have never finished the game

[beachyserasims]

♡ Episode 21 | Final Re-Coupling | GENEVA ISLAND

♡ Autumn has decided that she actually doesn’t mind being single, and so she is a lot more focused on herself and spending her time in the villa however she wants, which includes working out with Rowan. Afterwards, she spent the morning cooking breakfast with all the other islanders. Her and Darion chatted a lot, as they usually do, getting to know him better before the final re-coupling. At the re-coupling, Darion picked her, and so they are the first of the final couples.

♡ Judi spent her morning chatting and hanging with the other islanders. Her and Samora have grown a great friendship in the few short days that they have known each other and feel deep down that they are very similar. At the re-coupling, Rowan picked her, making them the second final couple.

♡ Jasmine woke up and chatted with Samora, getting to know her better. She really values friendships with women and always takes the time to make connections. At the re-coupling, Justin picked her, making them the last of the final couples.

♡ Samora spent her day chatting amongst the islanders. She hasn’t been able to get to know any of the boys in a romantic way, but she has enjoyed making friends with everyone, especially Judi who shares special interests with her. At the re-coupling, she was the last girl standing which makes her the last single islander to be leaving the villa.

♡ Rowan woke up and had his usual morning workout followed by a relaxing drink. He has been able to enjoy the vibes of the villa greatly and is excited to be leaving with amazing memories and even better friendships. At the re-coupling, he chose Judi because even though they have had their fair share of ups and downs while being in the villa, love in the villa is like a rollercoaster which is the same as in real life, and if they can get through it together here, he has high hopes for what comes in the outside. As well, he values the foundation that they have grown together, appreciates her adventurous nature, and couldn’t see himself coupling up with anyone else.

♡ Justin woke up and hung out with the other islanders in the kitchen while making breakfast. Spirits were really high all around and he was able to overcome his issues with Jasmine in order to move forward in their relationship. At the re-coupling, he chose her because in his life so much of what he has been taught has always made sense to him one way or another, but experiencing love on his own has been a journey that no one could truly prepare him for, one that he has lately been questioning if he is even ready for. But even that thought isn’t as scary as the thought of going forward in life without having this girl in his life.

♡ Darion had a really good day and wasn’t tense at all, he has decided that his time is short here and he wants to make the most of it before he regrets not doing so. He had a great time chatting with Autumn and having a few drinks with her. Later at the re-coupling, he chose her because even though they haven’t known each other for as long as some of the other couples, he has loved getting to know her deeply and honestly, and truly wants to grow together, and continue to flourish with her in their new relationship.

The Start || Beginning of Episodes || Previous || Next

[iniziare]

Tag drop: Dorian Pavus

[sotogalmo]

12:22

Nevermore by sasakure...... Such a Luka song but like. Also. Ivan- but I see it as like. How similar they are

[seaquestions]

kitten really. really. really. needed that win. instead i had to experience the most stressful hour of my life at work with a smile on my face and didn't even get to feel good abt hockey.

[beeseverywhen]

"All political parties face a trade-off under a first-past-the-post electoral system. Governing depends on attracting a broad coalition of voters, inevitably involving compromises that leave a party’s base disgruntled.

So it is perhaps unsurprising that as we move closer to a general election, the discontent from the anti-Labour left who claim there is little to distinguish Keir Starmer from Rishi Sunak in the battle for the premiership is only getting noisier."

"The argument is threefold: there’s no meaningful difference between the Conservatives and Labour; Starmer supposedly can’t be trusted because he has dropped pledges he made in the 2020 leadership election to shift his party towards the centre; finally, the “Tories are toast” and Labour can’t lose, so disgruntled left voters can safely vote for other parties, such as the Greens.

With Labour so far ahead in the polls, the urge to debunk these sentiments may seem like an expression of paranoia. But all three aspects of this narrative are comprehensively wrong, including the reassurance that it is safe for anyone who would prefer a Labour government to vote for another party in Labour-Tory contests."

"But what this underplays is the number of Labour-Tory marginals where a relatively small vote for other left candidates could cost Labour a win. James Kanagasooriam, of the polling company Focaldata, has written about the “sandcastle” nature of Labour’s likely majority; his forecast is that there will be many more marginal seats in the 2024 parliament compared with 2019. If more than predicted numbers of those who voted Green in the locals decide they can afford to do so in the general election because Labour is so far ahead in national polls, that will boost the Conservatives.

Next up is the idea that Starmer’s dropping of some of his leadership pledges makes him dangerously untrustworthy. But this is the product of a system in which the tiny unrepresentative slice of the electorate that is a party membership pick their leader before voters choose their prime minister. Anyone hoping to be PM would have to shift position between a leadership selection and a general election: a Labour leader’s most important job is to connect with potential voters, not to coddle members with the comfort blanket of a policy platform such as the “free broadband for all” 2019 pledge that was roundly rejected.

Liz Truss provides a cautionary tale of what happens when a party leader seeks to impose a membership-endorsed platform on the country without a general election. For Starmer to have stuck to his 2020 leadership election pledges, instead of spending the past four years understanding voters, would have been fundamentally anti-democratic.

The most egregious aspect of the anti-Labour left argument is there isn’t much to choose between Starmer and Sunak. Yes, Labour’s “Ming vase” election strategy has seen it take a much more cautious fiscal approach than many of us would like: it has effectively adopted the Tory macroeconomic worldview and with it a set of spending constraints that no one sensible thinks either party could stick to in the wake of the election.

That is frustrating for anyone hoping this election campaign may illuminate some of the tough trade-offs facing Britain; but it would have been incredibly risky for one side to go it alone on this. The alternative is Labour walking into the trap and handing the Conservatives a “Labour tax bombshell” election campaign.

From a commitment to scrap the Rwanda plan to making clear that in an ideal world Labour would discard the two-child benefit cap, there are plenty of reasons that it is preposterous to think that a Starmer government would make the same trade-offs as successive Conservative governments that have financed billions of pounds worth of tax cuts for more affluent families by cutting tax credits and benefits for low-income parents. The six pledges Starmer launched two weeks ago may be incremental, but Labour needs voters to believe they are deliverable, and they are indicative of a very different set of priorities than those that animate Sunak."

"Starmer is not without weaknesses, as shown by the days he took to clarify an interview last October in which he gave the impression he thought Israel had the right to withhold power and food from Gaza. But there is no doubt whatsoever he would make a vastly more compassionate and competent prime minister than Sunak. To encourage people to put that outcome at risk by casting a protest vote against a Labour government that does not yet exist is perhaps the ultimate form of luxury belief campaigning."