#don't take this for granted

[smalltownrobin]

As a Robin Buckley stan all I can say is THANK YOU

[zecoritheweirdone]

wanna preface this by saying that i am. So normal. anyway i just spent the last week redrawing scenes from mystery skulls animated but as that hermitcraft au i posted about a couple times. you guys should watch msa it is. so so good.

[bacchuschucklefuck]

while teen while goblin while aroace while injured while doing your best

[the-catboy-minyan]

hey good faith question- do you mind elaborating on judaism’s belief of g-d not being the ‘one true g-d’ and just the ‘g-d of the hebrews?

sure, but keep in mind that I wasn't raised in a religious house, so I'm not an expert and this could be inaccurate, you could wait to see if other people would elaborate in reblogs or replies.

a lot of religions have the belief that they worship the true g-d(s) and everyone else is wrong and are worshipping (a) false g-d(s). I believe Christianity works like that.

in the Tanach, there is no claim that other religions' g-ds don't exist, in fact, there are instances were miracles from other g-ds happen, but the jewish g-d is described as unique and stronger than others.

for example, in the story of The Exodus (is that how יציאת מצרים is called in english), when Moses comes to the Pharaoh for the first time to ask to release the Hebrews, he showcases Hashem's (the Jewish g-d) strength by turning his staff into a snake, the Pharaoh's magicians(?) then proceed to also turn their staffs into snakes, but Moses's snake eats theirs. the story doesn't show their g-ds as non-existent, they gave the magicians the same powers as Hashem, but the power of Hashem was stronger and thus Moses's snake won over the other snakes.

foreign worship is banned in Judaism, not because the foreign g-ds are false, but because they're not Hashem, I don't know how to explain it but that's how it works.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

The four alignments of Tummy Hurt

[johnslittlespoon]

Tough And Sweet (Like You And Me) ♡

'Gale looks unfairly handsome in the soft golden light of the late evening, but even more unfair is the fact that John can’t just bridge the gap between them and kiss his feelings away. The more time he spends around Gale, the more it feels like he’s being consumed by his overwhelming infatuation, and there’s not a single thing he can do about it that doesn’t involve the risk of scaring the man out of his life.

So he shuts the truck door behind him after promising Gale he’ll text when he’s safe inside, and he tries not to stare too forlornly as the truck putters off down the street and rounds the corner.'

[ AO3 ]

[palmettoshenanigans]

I'm not even gonna write an essay on this one, I'm tired and it's rapidly approaching the witching hour so imma just-

Neil is constantly shadow boxing with his fear of being Just Like My Father NOT because he fears that Wesninski Blood but because he fears the fragility of choice. Everything he knows how to do, all of his skills, combined with his natural disposition and temperament really do put him on par with his father - potentially even worse than his father if you think Nathan lacks Neil's ability to meticulously execute a long con.

Ruthless. Manipulative. Intelligent. Sneaky n Stealthy. Fast. Quick learner. Violent. Cut throat. Selective empathy. Observant. Skilled with weapons. Crime prodigy. Improv. Etc etc etc - Nathaniel truly is Nathan's son when you look at Capacity. Neil had very good reason to fear that - he really is a Wesninski in more than just name.

He just chooses to be kind. Chooses to care. Chooses Exy and friends and family and Andrew and Love.

But choices are both iron clad foundations and flimsy whisps in the wind

Neil isn't different from his father because of difference in Capacity. Neil is different from his father because of difference in Choices. And "Is that enough?" is such a scary question when it suddenly involves people he dared to care about.

[what-am-i-doing-in-this-fandom]

STOP I'm thinking about the part in Gravity Falls where Stan shows up with freshly bought (stolen) light bulbs only to see Ford screwing a new one in surrounded by family.

And OH my GOD. AGH.

Stan gets a little (ir)rationally upset about this because... It's.. Guys,,,

Stan perceives it as Ford once again easily receiving the praise and love of their family when he had to fight tooth and nail to receive even half of it.... I'm not well ✋😔

[femmesandhoney]

yall realize that even with big corps being responsible for a majority of resource waste and pollution, that doesn't magically absolve you of living as sustainability as you yourself can, right?

[hellameyers]

Only took a third watch for it to really hit me. But Louis completely missed Lestat throwing himself on the sword during the trial. He admitted to willingly breaking the second vampire law, and that if they're going to put Louis, Claudia, and Madeleine on trial, he should be tried with them.

Lestat knew the coven wouldn't harm him. He was trying to save them. That was why he came. Not for revenge, as Louis thought, as all the vampires there thought. He came to find a way to save them. But Louis was too caught up in recalling his spotty memories that he didn't notice it. Like much of their relationship, Louis wasn't really listening to Lestat.

I know it had to be this way for the narrative, but... Damn I just made myself sad.

[naamahdarling]

I just got INCREDIBLY GOOD NEWS at the cardiologist! Unexpectedly, inexplicably, remarkably good.

"Look at this," he said, and showed me the CAT results from earlier this year, with all the beautiful blood vessels like flawless white brushstrokes. "It's perfect. Your chances of having a heart attack are about as low as they can possibly be. Your heart is incredibly healthy. You're probably going to be the healthiest person I see today."

Considering my dad's heart disease, the strange finding on the CAT, my activity level, and my diet, I was completely shocked, and this is an incredible relief. I can't even express what a relief it was. Legit started crying while I was in line at Starbucks.

First time I've ever been booted from a practice for being too healthy.

[disaster-magician]

Looks like you found one of those golden retriever girls! Good luck with that, Tamarack

(Fake screenshots! These are fan made based on incorrect quotes and not in the game)

[solarpunkani]

"Oh no, someone's attracted to the aesthetics of my -punk movement but doesn't know the praxis and history behind it like I do--"

OK. Tell them. Make it a teaching moment. Everyone who's in your movement learned the background from somewhere at some point, maybe this is that point for that person. Give them a jumping off point that they can dive into later.

"Oh but I shouldn't be responsible for teaching baby -punks about the history and the how-tos and--"

OK. Then don't tell them. You don't have to be responsible for teaching people with a budding interest in your group the ins and outs and how-tos. That's fair and valid! It can be a lot of work. Someone else will handle it

"But I'm annoyed that they would try to claim to be part of/be interested in my community without knowing all the details that I know after being in it for months/years/decades, they're dumb, they're posers, they're--"

OK. Then don't engage with them, if it's that bad. Maybe someone else will come around and tell them the history, maybe they'll pick it up on their own, maybe they'll just enjoy the fashion elements for awhile.

"But they shouldn't claim to be part of the -punk community if they don't know the--"

I feel like we have a few options here. People can either talk to them, share the history, share the values, share the praxis. Or they can just chase off anyone who even thinks about dipping a toe in their community, and then wonder why it's dying off later down the line.

I dunno, maybe I'm too naive and patient or whatever. But if people are entering your -punk spaces without knowing The Rundown of what you feel they need to know, maybe being nice about it and informing people instead of immediately assuming stupidity and malicious intent could help you make a new friend. Even the loudest voices in a space had to learn from somewhere, and not everyone has the luxury of being in the space as the History was Happening--whether it's an age thing or a not being aware of the space thing. Or maybe I just don't see what the big deal is behind people hating people who like the aesthetic of something and don't know the behind the scenes history about it yet.

Because I believe in the word 'yet.' No one comes into this world knowing everything about everything, and we're all constantly learning new things. I'm not gonna degrade someone and call them a poser for not knowing what I know. Because if it were me, interested in a scene but getting chased out and called a poser? I wouldn't hit the books and study up, I'd go 'that fuckin sucks, those people sucked' and then avoid anyone and anything having to do with it.

So chase people off and call them posers if you want. But if your community starts dwindling, don't be fucking shocked.

[qiu-yan]

in order to say "wei wuxian is morally good," you must first define what it means to be morally good

though this is by no means exclusive to them, one logical fallacy i sometimes see wei wuxian stans make in their arguments is that they begin their analysis of wei wuxian as a character with the statement "wei wuxian is morally good."

so their argument becomes:

wei wuxian is morally good.

a morally good person would do XYZ.

therefore, wei wuxian would do XYZ.

alternatively, when they're objecting to someone else's argument about wei wuxian, their counterargument becomes:

this argument says that wei wuxian would do ABC.

a morally good person would not do ABC.

wei wuxian is morally good.

therefore, wei wuxian would not do ABC; the other person's argument is wrong.

while this is in fact a valid argument structure to use for other kinds of traits (ie. "brave," "doesn't think of the consequences," even something like "afraid of dogs"), this format of argument in fact cannot be used for a descriptor as vague as "morally good"--because, unlike the other traits, "morally good" is not precisely defined enough for the above argument structure to work.

"morally good" is not a character trait in the same way that "wants to defend the weak," "is angered by innocent people being harmed," and "does not fear consequences" are character traits, because what is considered "moral" can vary significantly from person to person. what a utilitarian considers to be moral, for example, diverges significantly from what a deontologist considers to be moral. if i were to say "wei wuxian is a morally good person," i have frankly said less about wei wuxian's personality and more about what i myself believe to be ethical.

thus, the reason why the above argument pretty much never works in the wild is that the depolyers in question rarely actually define what they mean by "morally good."

consider the case in which two different wei wuxian stans write on their blogs "wei wuxian is a good person." however, the first person follows a moral philosophy that centers courage in the face of certain failure, while the second person follows a moral philosophy that centers reason and pragmatism. thus, what the first person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who courageously chooses the correct path even when he is doomed to fail," while what the second person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is a reasonable and pragmatic person." these are no longer the same statement.

or consider the case in which the first stan follows a moral philosophy that centers agent-neutral harm reduction, while the second stan follows a moral philosophy that centers agent-relative reciprocity. in this case, what the first person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who helps others regardless of whether they've helped him before," while what the second person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who always repays kindnesses done unto him." again, these are no longer the same statement.

in general, if one wishes to argue that "blorbo is morally good," one must first specify what exactly they mean by "morally good," because not everyone follows the same definition of "morally good." many blorbo stans, however, don't actually do this. instead, they write their arguments as if their own definition of morality is already universal law; a reader can thus only reverse-engineer what the op believes to be morally good from their post. and this leads to no shortage of disagreements: two different blorbo enjoyers might find themselves in an argument over what they believe to be their blorbo's characterization, when in reality they are actually disagreeing over what it means to be ethical at all.

on the topic of disagreement, another fact that must be acknowledged is that wei wuxian himself is also a character with his own specific thoughts and feelings. wei wuxian is not an abstract paragon of righteousness whose definition of morality just so happens to perfectly match the reader's definition of morality; wei wuxian is a specific fictional character with his own specific thoughts as to what is right and what is wrong. and every reader has to accept that what wei wuxian considers to be right can in fact be gleaned from the text--and that what wei wuxian considers to be right will not always match what the reader considers to be right. wei wuxian might, in fact, disagree with you.

thus, if you want to make any sort of statement regarding wei wuxian's moral character (whether that be "he is morally good" or "he is morally bad") you in fact have to consider not just one, but four different questions:

what do you consider to be morally good? what moral framework and/or school of moral philosophy do you use to determine what is ethical?

how well do wei wuxian's actions adhere to what you personally consider to be morally good?

what does wei wuxian consider to be morally good? what moral framework and/or school of moral philosophy does he use to determine what is ethical?

how well do wei wuxian's actions adhere to what he himself considers to be morally good?

all of these are different questions! they cannot be conflated with each other.

to write a good analysis, you must accept that [what you consider to be morally good] will not always match [what wei wuxian considers to be morally good]. when such disagreements arise, rather than distort wei wuxian's character to match what you personally believe to be morally good, perhaps consider just allowing wei wuxian to disagree with you instead. even if he's doing something you honestly can't defend, maybe wei wuxian is still striving to live as best he can according to his own ideals, and it just so happens that his ideals do not match your ideals. you really should not distort wei wuxian's motives or beliefs just to make him more palatable to you, simply because you have wedded yourself to the idea that "wei wuxian must be morally good by my own standards."

closing thoughts: this isn't really exclusive to wei wuxian stans. i've seen all sorts of character stans in all sorts of fandoms make this same logical fallacy. i certainly think that some of the jiang cheng analyses i see from fellow jiang cheng stans are born less from an objective analysis of his character and moreso from the op's desire for his actions to align with their moral compass. but, out of all the characters in MDZS, it seems like people commit this logical fallacy when discussing wei wuxian specifically far more often than they do with any other character, save perhaps lan wangji.

[hitsugaya-toushirou]

Bleach × Sanrio Collab

[fandomlockedfan]

And thus starts Rei's day of being a househusband 😂