#emma created a crisis

[everyshadeofwrong]

someone is jealous

[kcthelazyartist]

Fiddauthor may be canon, let’s discuss

At first glance this relationship appears to be completely fanon, but when you dig into it there's actually a lot more to Stanford and Fiddleford’s relationship than meets the eye.

This is a compilation of evidence [And slight analysis] so if I have missed anything or if anything is wrong, please let me know.

Warning: Long post ahead

Setting

-As @ratsbanes mentions during Stanford and Fiddleford’s college years the aids crisis was going on, during this time there was a lot of misinformation and fear mongering as it was falsely thought that only queer men could be affected. This event is very significant in queer history and needs to be considered when looking at their relationship.

-Fiddleford came from a hog farm in Tennessee, a deeply religious state, and as he is told to be superstitious, crossing himself when walking over graves, it can be assumed he too is religious

Religions in the same circle as Christianity tend to hold homophobic views as was common during this time

This creates religious guilt for queer people

-Queer politics were becoming a hot topic and most of society was homophobic during this period, there is a chance it was still illegal to be queer whilst they were in college, depending on where they were

This led to a lot of violence against queer people and a very real fear of being outed as it could have dire consequences

There was even programs in the military dedicated to having ‘gay spies’ to act queer and attract gay men in the military so they could be punished or discharged

There was also the Vietnam war going on, causing political unrest and many protests, america being very unstable during this period

-Lavender marriages [Marriages between heterosexuals and homosexuals, often to conceal the latters sexuality] were still common

-Putting this altogether into Fiddleford’s character it could create a very real feeling of religious guilt and fear of being outed that could of led to him entering a lavender marriage instead of staying with Stanford. Fiddleford would have had to worry about violence against himself and his family’s view of him, which he would likely worry about as he has shown signs of anxiety [But this may just be because of trauma]

It appears Fiddleford and his wife got married quickly when he left college which makes it all the more suspicious, whilst it could be they were high school sweethearts or an out of wedlock situation, it is more likely it's his fear of being outed that led to such a quick decision. [I will talk for about him and Emma-May later]

-Stanford was also in a position not to pursue anything as it can be assumed Filbrick was not the best father due to him throwing a 17-year old Stanley onto the street with almost nothing, leaving him to the wolves after refusing to hear his side of the story, and not coming to Stanley’s funeral. Filbrick instead views Stanford as something to make him money with his talents which is why he's so angry at Stanley for ruining their chances.

This would put stress on Stanford as to not disappoint his father and be the perfect child and it can be assumed that Flibrick was homophobic as many were back then.

Deep bond

-They are close enough Stanford has a measuring system for Fiddleford’s restless legs, knee bounce per second, AKA KBPS

-Stanford knows Fiddleford’s favourite can of beans, and stocks them in the bunker

-Stanford calls Fiddleford his ‘friend’, ‘assistant’, ‘partner’, and ‘buddy’, putting him on the same level as himself, not putting him down until Bill manipulates him.

-Fiddleford could tell that something was wrong with Stanford, even the slightest movement when meditating clued him in as shown in one of the flashbacks.

This itself is further evidence of their bond as Stanford trusts him enough to let him into the worship room and meditates around him, which leaves Ford vulnerable to attacks

Even parallel Fiddleford knows this isn't his own, though that can be explained through an age difference.

-Fiddleford loves his banjos, having multiple collections of them such as the one in the Gideon Bot blueprint, but he uses them as a weapon to protect others, willing to break his most prized possession to help others. He does this twice for Stanford, once during Weirdmageddon and another time to save him directly from Krampus.

During this Krampus attack Fidds had just gotten back when he saved Stanford who was about to basically be murdered, all whilst Bill was nowhere to be found

-Fiddleford only really violates Stanford’s boundaries and trust after the memory gun and neglect of his mental health have come into the picture, he does this when he steals the book to create a thesis to try and help Ford, and when he used the memory gun on him [More on this later]

-Alex Hirsch refers to them as the kind of friends with the same kind of interests and humour

-After 30 years away there is a thought shown on the mind reading machine that just says ‘I’m sorry Fiddleford’, completely unprompted

-The ‘Sorry’ photo in general

-When they first met Ford saved Fiddleford from dropping out due to embarrassment

He stayed up 9 hours with a stranger to help him prove a theory

-Ford takes notice of Fiddleford’s reaction to the cubics cube and takes joy in messing with him, knowing he wont get angry at him

-Both recognize each other at weirdmageddon despite how long they have spent apart [Ford may have seen him in Dipper’s part of the journal, but Fidds, with brain damage, had no reason to recognize him]

-Despite disliking Fiddleford’s tobacco chewing habit Ford allows him to continue with it

-Fiddleford can read Stanley, who has similar mannerisms to Ford, like a book

This is after he has lost his memories, such as when he calls out Stan’s suspicious laughter

-When Fiddleford first arrives at Fords house he mentions being ‘overcome with emotion’ and is overjoyed to see him, going out of his way to buy him banjo strings and microchips

Despite having Bill he is very lonely and is very happy to see Fiddleford again, saying ‘the past few days have been the most energising I’ve had since I first came to this town!’

-Ford originally doesn't tell Fiddleford of Bill because he doesn't want Fiddleford to think he's insane or badly of him, as he knows his friend is superstitious

-Ford teaches Fiddleford to meditate to help with his anxiety

-Fiddleford chastises Ford for staying up too late and not getting enough sleep, to which Stanford is comfortable enough with him to make a retort

-Ford appears to look for Fiddleford after coming to his senses and is immediately remorseful

-Ford keeps comparing parallel Fiddleford to his own, showing how much he misses him

Obsessions

-Ford has an obsession with Bill and Work, worshipping both like gods

Despite this he takes time from work or Bill to spend with Fiddleford instead;

After the gremloblin incident Ford takes Fiddleford to a fair, he throws a christmas party for Fiddleford and when the shapeshifter attacks and ties up Fiddleford he immediately shuts all work he was doing with the shapeshifter down despite his obsession of learning about creatures [This could be because he nearly got his hands on the journals but he appears to have tried to get them before and this event was the catalyst]

-Fiddleford appears to be obsessed with Stanford and later the memory gun due to it

Fiddleford leaves his family very quickly to join someone he hasn't seen in over 6 years, which is the first sign, then he stays after being traumatised and put in near death situations.

This devotion is made obvious when he stays to help with the portal even after his thesis and ideas have been blown off and his safety ignored, only leaving after seeing the horrors beyond the portal. This leads into the memory gun.

Fiddleford creates this as a way to cope and be able to stay alongside Stanford and help him, because he starts using the memory gun instead of leaving this toxic situation after seeing the gremloblin he becomes addicted

The memory gun is symbolism for addiction and self-harm when it comes to Fiddleford, he is aware it might be doing damage later on but he cant stop using it, its implied he even used it after noticing he wasn't wearing a piece of clothing right, which may have been a side effect of the memory gun.

Unlike Stanford Fiddleford does not have anyone to help him realise how obsessed he is or stop him, so he only continues to spiral, making his anxiety and self-harm worse [His hair pulling is also self-harm, though less obvious]

His obsession with Stanford is what led to this sadly.

His obsessions lead to him stealing the book to create a thesis to try and help Ford, and using the memory gun on Stanford [He uses it on him for both unknown reasons and to stop him from remembering construction workers, as well as maybe witnessing him in the red cape using the gun on himself or others. Even then you have to remember Fiddleford had been using it on himself and was not in the right state of mind due to Ford’s neglect, as Fiddleford was repeatedly shown to be kind and have a big heart but as his mental state declined so did his morals] This is sad as it shows that Fiddleford knows its bad but is already showing signs of addiction when he first makes it.

This ultimately ends up with him breaking his own mind to a point where it scares and hurts BILL CIPHER, hurts him in a way he doesnt think is hilarious

Bill Cipher

-Both Bill and Fiddleford are obsessed with Stanford, though they go about it differently

Bill’s obsession destroys Stanford, Stanford’s obsession destroys Fiddleford and Fiddleford’s obsession destroys himself

Bill manipulates and guilt trips Ford into getting what he wants, often using flattery or a twisted form of it, feeding into Fords insecurities

Meanwhile at first Fiddleford is just doing whatever he can to help Stanford, only hurting him after the gremloblin incident that destroys his psyche

-Before Bill came along Ford admired Fiddleford for his ‘brilliant mind’, heart and trustworthiness, but Bill manipulated him into thinking lesser of those qualities of his, even then during the portal incident he calls Fiddleford ‘buddy’.

-Bill repeatedly tries to get rid of anything Fiddleford gets Ford

-Bill and Fiddleford have some similarities

For Stanford’s birthday Bill possessed a bunch of rats and used them to spell out his name [This is interesting due to both Ford and Bill having a tendency to mix up both love and fear, Ford not reacting properly to monsters when he should fear them but instead being fascinated], he then insists on taking Ford out for a drink, when Ford was not the most willing to [Contrasting to him willingly and even suggesting getting drunk with Fiddleford on Christmas after he saved him, drinking eggnog, despite not celebrating Christmas]

Meanwhile Fiddleford handmakes two gifts for Christmas for Ford, despite knowing Ford doesn't celebrate, which makes Ford very happy and makes him want to spend time with Fiddleford [Did Bill have this gift giving tradition beforehand or did he see a memory or dream of Fiddleford’s gift giving tendencies and copy it like he did with Ford’s love language of experiences? Or are they just that similar?]

Both are obsessed with Stanford; Bill using manipulation, flattery and guilt tripping to get what he wants from him, feeding into Ford’s insecurities and ego. Meanwhile Fiddleford is devoted to helping Stanford achieve his goals instead of his own like Bill is. Even when he uses the memory gun it's to help Stanford so he can continue working and so the construction workers can help the portal be built quicker.

Emma-May

-Emma-May and Fiddleford’s relationship appears to already be rocky when Ford calls him

Fiddleford is seen working out of the cluttered garage, instead of a building, this might show he isn't making much money which could cause strain as she would need to work more to help provide for her son

He is isolated from her in the garage and is seen playing his banjo in the garage instead of with his family around, he also appears to have made himself at home in the garage instead of inside his house

This could be seen as a mancave, which was often used by men who didn't love their wives and ‘needed time away from them’, this could be explained through Fiddleford just being neurodivergent though as he shows signs of being on the spectrum- and not every man with a mancave dislikes their wives

She was also rather quick to get divorced for the time when her husband is away getting money for them.

-There is also signs he might not have any romantic interest in Emma-May or women in general, and if he does it is far less than the feelings he has towards Stanford

He rather quickly leaves his wife to go after Stanford

He makes Stanford TWO Christmas gifts [One of which required 5 prototypes], but forgot to even buy her one [This could be because of the memory gun but as its not mentioned that he forgot to get his son anything it can be assumed he remembered his- and we know he loves Tate]

He makes a continued effort to get his son [and somewhat Stanford] back, the gobblewonker is implied to not be the only way he has tried to get Tate back as Tate seems very done with him, and Stanford and him reconnect as he easily forgives him despite everything. Yet he only seems to have tried to get his wife back once with the pterodactyl, the same amount of effort he gave his friend when he didn't come to his retirement party. In the end he isn't even shown trying to reconnect with her even in a friend or co-parent way after he’s regained his sanity.

The robot and raccoon wife can be explained through the same reason; Heteronormativity. In this context it could be seen as Fiddleford wanting to have a nuclear family and be ‘normal’ [AKA, not queer] or feeling pressured to, which might be why he married and had a child so young, seemingly right out of college. Raccoon wife and the robot could be seen as him trying to be ‘normal’ and disliking that its been taken from him, trying to get some semblance of his old life back.

Love language

-Someone on tumblr pointed out both Ford and Fiddleford’s love languages [I cannot find their post…]

-Ford’s love language is experiences

He invited Fiddleford to help him with portal in the first place

After the gremloblin incident Ford takes Fiddleford to a fair

The duo go hiking together to the spaceship

And the biggest one is the Christmas incident, he wants to spend time with Fiddleford after he gave him gifts but is unable to at the time and Bill tries to cheer him up with another experience… Only for Ford to be attacked by Krampus and saved by Fiddleford, he then decorates the portal room for a holiday he doesn't even celebrate and builds snowmen that resemble each other with him.

-Fiddleford’s love language is gift giving

He gives him a homemade snow globe [Which Ford accidentally breaks thanks to Bill]

He handmakes six-fingered gloves that required 5 prototypes [They later give Ford comfort]

He buys him a squash that looks like a face because it reminds him of Ford [Of which Ford wrote an entire page about before throwing out]

He gifts him an axolotl because it reminded him of his sideburns [Bill later manipulates him into getting rid of it after a lot of struggle from Ford]

Downright Suspicious

-When Fiddleford is called by Stanford he very quickly leaves his wife and son behind to travel to Gravity Falls and live alone with him in the woods without anyone living nearby for miles, somewhere nobody can see them work… Or interact

-Fiddleford designed the bunker with only one bed, one small bed for him and Ford to share

Several people have mentioned that they would have to be practically on top of eachother to fit on said bed

Fiddleford would not be aware that Stanford doesn't sleep, meaning they were planning on sleeping in the same bed together. This is furthered by the supplies for years into the future and having both of their belongings littered throughout the space, such as the shmez dispenser.

Stanford in the journal mentions losing Fiddleford’s shmez dispenser, this implies either he was moving stuff around or they were sharing it. And Fiddleford does not like people messing with his stuff, as shown with the cubics cube.

-In journal 3 at the end when Ford goes to see Fiddleford they sit by a furnace and Fiddleford plays on his banjo, Ford says he can practically see ‘the age lift off his face’.

A common thing in romance stories is thinking back on when the duo was younger together, this mimics that plot device.

-Ford draws Fiddleford more than once in journal 3

He usually only draws people once in the journal, but Fiddleford and his family get drawn more than once. This may mean he considers him as close as family

He also draws him from behind, obscuring his face as if Fiddleford doesnt know he is drawing him or if he feels guilty about doing so [Another common romance plot; drawing your crush without them knowing]

-Ford says Fiddleford has one of the biggest hearts he's ever seen, and says he used to hold him so dear

-Bill hates polyamory and calls Fiddleford a ‘third wheel’

Despite the Ford’s knowing each other longer

-Ford lets Fiddleford hug him during weirdmageddon and reciprocates despite disliking touch and only really being shown giving side hugs

Whether this is because he isnt used to Fiddleford full on hugging him or wasn't expecting to be forgiven and trusted so easily is up to debate, as the position leaves the back vulnerable to attack, showing how much Fiddleford trusts him.

They also shown in the ‘sorry’ photo in a side hug, hanging onto each other

-When Fiddleford brings up marriage Ford immediately shifts to him being thankful that Fiddleford is helping him.

-They stargazed together, one again a common romantic plot point

-In journal three there is a quote from when talking about the bunker's security system, ‘Sometimes I think how fortunate I am to be friends with F… because if this room is any indication, it would be terrifying to be his enemy’. This format is suspicious as the wording can make it seem joking, or make it seem like he is making an excuse for thinking this- and why would he feel weird for thinking this if there wasn't some sort of romantic undertones between them.

-In a livestream [‘Alex & Dana Charity Draw-A-Thon’ on TheMysteryofGF on youtube, at 45:48] When asked whether McGucket loves Ford, Alex says yes before expanding on that and calling them friends

At first I thought this was a way to get around Disney’s censors but later he confirms the deputy’s relationship

Story Importance

-Fiddleford is the only reason why Bill was able to be defeated

It took Ford around 30 years to build something able to destroy Bill, and it was a parallel Fiddleford that got him the final component to finish it, just looking at the weapon and knowing what it needed. Then the weapon that actually killed him was the memory gun, something that took Fiddleford under a year to create. [Maybe even in a couple of days whilst he wasn't in his right mind due to the gremloblin]

This combined with him and Ford's bond means Fiddleford is a real threat to Bill, as he keeps Ford grounded in reality and is smart enough to know something is wrong about what they are doing with the portal before anything happens, he even warns Ford, which makes him even more of a threat.

Bill attempts to manipulate Ford into distancing himself and thinking lowly of Fiddleford, and it works, for a period of time. It really shows how strong their bond is because while he is angry at Fiddleford leaving the event planted the seeds of doubt in his brain. Instead of continuing to trust Bill when he starts hearing things after years of being manipulated [Bill would even injure him! And Ford did not react like a person not being abused typically would in that situation], he realises Fiddleford was right and confronts Bill who likely realised that he could no longer manipulate him, as if he thought he could continue he would have, it would have been easier to reach his goal that way.

Fiddleford leaving is what caused Stanford to unravel as Fiddleford was the only one grounding him.

Stanford brushing off Fiddleford’s thesis and fears was the turning point as the ring the witch gave him turned black after this altercation

-Stanford has presumably been carrying the guilt of how he treated fiddleford for 30 years, this likely contributed to Stanford pushing others away and acting how he did towards his brother and family after leaving the portal, as he didn't have that someone that helped him trust others anymore, he's been alone for 30 years.

-Fiddleford was Ford’s first ever real friend outside his family

When he met Fiddleford he helped prove his theory and they finished it together and put both their names on it, this is important to the story as the reason Ford doesn't accept his thesis is because he is paranoid of somebody else stealing his theory. [Parallel Fiddleford and Ford even share a company together]

Furthering the previous point Ford was considering telling Fiddleford of his muse before finding out Fiddleford had created a thesis for him, a thesis where Fiddleford only credited Ford and based it off his work. Ford instead of taking this as Fiddleford wanting to help instead took it the wrong way due to his paranoia

Fiddleford didn't even notice Ford’s polydactyl when they first met and seems completely unbothered by it, basically brushing over it. Bill on the other hand makes a big deal of it, basically saying its why he can become one of Bill’s ‘freaks’, something he was called as a child.

Bill acts as if he is the only one to understand Ford and as if he is Ford’s first and only friend to manipulate him, despite Fiddleford understanding him so well he can tell something is wrong from the smallest movement when Mabel couldn't tell something was wrong with Dipper. 

It takes Bill a long time to drive the duo apart and change Ford’s views of Fiddleford into ‘he wouldnt understand’ as he knows Fiddleford could ruin his plans [Bill had been with Ford since the 2nd journal and had time to manipulate him before Fiddleford arrived, even with this considered his view of his friend is still positive once he sees him again. He may say he has no choice but to ask for help before seeing Fiddleford, yet he is very very happy upon Fiddleford arriving- this hints that Bill has already started manipulating his views]

Ford wants to be famous and Bill feeds into his ego on this, knowing Ford wants to prove himself. Fiddleford can't seem to understand this as he already sees Ford as normal, but he wants him to be happy, which is why he helps because if money makes him happy so be it. Fiddleford does not question it and reserves judgement.

-Thank you to @jellied-beans in the comments for pointing out something I missed! That being without Fiddleford they would not have been able to get in and rescue Ford and all the other civilians.

Jellied-beans points out that Stan did not want to go through with the plan to rescue Ford, but it was Fiddleford who took the lead despite only recently regaining and reliving the trauma Ford had put him through, and even after he and Ford's last interaction was cruel.

Fiddleford is also the only reason the Shack-A-Tron became a thing, as it was his engineering and planning that saw it become a reality. Without him it would have taken much longer to rescue Ford and everyone else

This situation also goes to prove Fiddleford does in fact have a big heart and is empathetic as he not only rescues the man whos hurt him and easily forgives him, but Stan mentions that he led a bunch refugees to the shack with him.

End note; I attempted to keep in any points I have found and tried not to leave any information out, as well as leaving in anything nuanced [Such as the Christmas gift situation maybe being caused by the memory gun]. I find this important as I’ve seen people arguing against the ship and calling it generally toxic, whilst leaving out crucial details such as Bill's manipulation, as well as people calling Fiddleford a bad person due to the whole memory gun thing and completely ignoring why he did it.

[As a side note Fiddauthor definitely toxic during the Bill era, but overall it's not, and unlike Billford they are able to mend their relationship as its built on understanding and genuine feelings, as shown by the parallel world where they were able to trust each other and repair their relationship]

I have not read the Book of Bill yet so this might be updated later, any BoB content on this is just what I have seen circulating around.

[cheonminhyuk]

tapping the sign that says "you don't need to use slurs or outwardly express bigotry to retain homophobic or racist ideas"

why is the author of hsr incapable of conceptualizing a wlw romance that does not have a sexuality crisis/societal homophobia as a central element? why is greg's route creating a new problem every update? it is not even that we as the readers don't see them as fully realized characters - the author doesn't see them as interesting enough on their own to carry out a romance with.

i'm all caught up on the dmitry romance, and i've seen quite a lot of cain's. why is it that both of them get the tension, the pining, the gradual closeness and what keeps them and lane apart is disregarded eventually because love wins i guess?

meanwhile anna's romance is 'slow burn' and 'angsty' and 'lane thinks they're just friends'...i really just think the author cannot imagine a gay ship being interesting without a backdrop of homophobia lol

and that's sort of what the problem is - interest, or lack thereof. the author doesn't think anna and greg's characters, on their own, can maintain reader interest. i've been romancing greg since the start and damn near every update there's some bullshit disagreement/conflict they have that the diamond scenes are then focused on resolving. rinse and repeat. lane can have two unfriendly interactions with greg about the squad drugging her. she is uniquely upset at greg's involvement in it because "i thought you were different". compare this to the dmitry scene, in which lane only brings the drugging up as a joke and dmitry finally says 'sorry', a season later when it no longer matters to anyone.

this brings us to greg's treatment as a whole. as someone else has pointed out, the black man is the only romance option you can actually kill. he is regarded by lane as the one having betrayed her most severely regarding the drugging, purely because what? they had one civil conversation beforehand?

onto s2 - greg is now the temporary leader of the squad. this changes nothing for him and lane. sure. in dmitry's train cabin scene, they have an exchange about this in which she tells dmitry her and greg "haven't interacted much", even if you've been romancing both. hey, at least the author's self aware? dmitry's position as general colors every single interaction he has with lane and the world, as well as the other characters, react to it. greg's position as his second-in-command is so irrelevant we find out about it only when dmitry is out of commission and someone else needs to lead the squad in his absence.

towards the season one finale, we find out the fate of emma, greg's sister. half of the ensuing interactions with him have lane thinking about how she's keeping this information from him. but she continues to do so with no good reason. 5 episodes later - the gym scene. i don't know about the mercy path, as my greg slot is not on it, but on the no compassion path, lane basically argues she can't tell him because she likes him and knowing the truth would somehow cause him to leave the squad. i simply don't buy this reason. first of all - why would greg, now knowing his sister died in the siberia base, not stay with the only people who could possibly know more about this base? second...where the fuck would he go lmao. one could argue this is simply lane being irrational, but no mercy lane has never before been portrayed as irrational, only lacking in empathy for other people. it's hard not to see this for what it is - another hook for conflict between them because the author, again, does not see greg as interesting enough on his own and feels she has to rely on cheap drama to keep readers invested.

[ddagent]

Excited to request more of your wonderful headcanons this afternoon chef! What have Margo and Sergei been up to in your handsome young suitor AU?

Margo and Sergei continue secretly dating. The only person who knows for months is Emma on Reception. Sergei is persuaded by the other engineers to ask Emma out to dinner, leaving Margo exceptionally jealous. But Emma's had her suspicions for a while, only to have them confirmed as all Sergei can talk about is Margo.

For the couple of months that Margo is tutoring Aleida at JSC, Sergei brings three dinners for them. They eat and talk logarithms and equations and Aleida breaks up with her first boyfriend because he gave her a varsity ring but doesn't look at her like Mister Nikulov looks at Miss Madison.

Christmas morning, 1974, Sergei wakes up Margo from where she's been sleeping on the couch in her office during the current crisis. They exchange gifts: books, puzzles. Sergei saves a small box for last. It is one of the most awful, stressful days of her career so far but Margo gets through it all engaged to Sergei Nikulov.

By the end of the next day, Sergei's small apartment is slightly smaller: Margo has moved in, along with Aleida. It's not quite the honeymoon period either of them wanted, but they'll keep a roof over her head until Octavio can rejoin her in the US. And on the nights when Sergei and Margo are, inevitably, working late at the office, the Nikulovs invite Aleida over for a home-cooked meal and a sleepover. By the spring of 1975, when Margo and Sergei are married, Aleida is sleeping in Anastasia's old bedroom and Margo visits on Wednesdays to continue their tutoring and have a home-cooked meal herself.

Their relationship is kept quiet at work. No one knows they were married in a rainy registry office in London, whilst attending their first IAC conference. Margo wears her wedding ring on a necklace around her throat; Sergei wears his on his right hand, and his American colleagues don't question it. No one, in fact, questions it until 1983 when Aleida mentions "Margo and her husband." It still takes four months and three weeks for people to work out she's married to Sergei.

Send me a Margo/Sergei AU (either one I’ve mentioned before, created a gifset of, or one of your own devising) and I’ll give you 5 headcanons!

[sqsupernova]

Title: If today is all we have Link: Click Here To View and Comment Artist: ErrolsFeather Find them on: -Twitter: netsen7 -Tumblr:

.

There are two fics written for this art - be sure to check out both, linked below!

.

Title: if today is all we have Link: Click Here To View and Comment Author: IrishBella Find them on: -Twitter: IrishBellaFics -Tumblr: irish-bella Rating: General Audiences Warning(s): No Archive Warnings Apply Words: 7k Summary: Emma Swan is just doing her best to be a hero and keep her hospital running when the world is ending. She sends her family away for their safety, but what happens when they keep living and she's frozen?

.

Title: If we only have today (Protostar fic) Link: Click Here To View and Comment Author: fievre Find them on: -Twitter: -Tumblr: Rating: Not Rated Warning(s): No Archive Warnings Apply Words: 8k Summary: Emma Swan is torn between balancing her blossoming career as a true crime podcaster and investigator, and spending enough time with her wife, Regina, and son, Henry. As the climate crisis creates a series of unprecedented environmental disasters, Emma finds herself separated from what's most important to her, and now she must fight for those she loves.

.

Remember - writers and artists spent months creating the fics and art you enjoy, so it would mean the world to them if you commented to tell them what you liked! A creator who feels appreciated is a creator who is more likely to write or create art again in the future!

[ouatsqincorrect]

random charming-swan-mills-stiltskin family headcanons

henry tries to teach zelena how to ride a skateboard (it does not go well)

since they all end up eating at emma and regina's so often, snow will sometimes buy groceries for them. she thinks they don't know, but they do

they decide to get a vacation home in new york and spend summers there, giving them all a well deserved break from being storybrooke's personal heroes

once a month, david and regina go horseback riding together. it starts because david finds out regina used to love riding horses back in her childhood, and he refuses to let her last memory at the stables be of having to say goodbye to daniel again. they start off by racing each other, but it usually ends with them just riding around, talking about whatever comes to mind

they have a family group chat that was originally created so they could keep each other up to date on whatever latest crisis was occurring, but it ends up becoming complete and utter chaos

david teaches rumple and regina how to do secret handshakes. regina will never admit to actually finding it quite amusing--and honestly, neither will rumple

zelena tries to teach herself how to knit and ends up making everyone christmas gifts one year. emma gets a beanie, david gets socks, henry gets a scarf--none of the gifts truly resemble those items though (she tries her best)

belle starts a bookclub and convinces regina to join. regina isn't thrilled about this at first, but ends up looking forward to the weekly meetings at the library

absolutely none of them are straight. (this comes as a huge shock to emma)

snow gets ahold of a tamagotchi and completely loses it when she ultimately fails to keep it alive

[tessarionbestgirl]

So if you are not team green from the books why are you now?

Well If i get the meaning your question anon, a short answer for your that would be:

Long answer would be:

Well, first, I am Team Green, doesn't mean I hate every character on TB. I do like Daemon as character, sure I don't think he is internet boyfriend. But I do think he is a very compelling character. And besides Aegon, he is the second character with most potential for development. Especially when Nettles come to picture. If the Ryan has balls enough, she could much be the Brienne of Daemon.

Even Rhaenyra, in the sense of her own tragic narrative. Like, ok Ryan is not inventing the wheel with her character, literature is full of kings that are legitimate heirs to the throne that end up loosing power and going crazy over their own self destructive behavior.

And look I even admit would be so much easier to be TB, like even before I watched the show, all my friends are TB, and I knew how TG ends. But when I started watching it, I star to love Team Green. They are just better writing characters, and their dinamics are more nuanced and compelling .

I really found fascinating how Otto actually care about the kingdom, but at the same time has ambitions and uses this to justify in his head selling his own daughter to king, like he loves her but as well, is interesting how he justify his behavior on his own head.

Meanwhile Alicent is such cunning and compelling character, to me she maybe the most complex character of the show. She has so much nuance, I could write forever about her character. The way she connects the best part of herself with her mother, meanwhile also she does become more and more alike to her father creating identity crisis. And that is just touching the surface with her.

And then part 2 dropped and consolidated that for me. Rhaenyra, which was some out compelling, becomes inconsistent with the original characterization and is very much a reactive protagonist, only being held together by Emma brilliant acting.

Part 2 where the kids are introduced, the show actually land very well into establish team green kids much better, with nuances and potential. Aegon, a hedonist who drowns himself in drink to avoid responsibility and lack of affection, with the potential to become a reverse Robert. Aemond is a fine warrior who hides his feelings behind his facade and blindfold. Heleana being the misunderstood pure and innocent child.

The kids on TB barely have characterization, Baela and Rhaena in the books are supposed to be similar configurations to Arya and Sansa, but the show doesn't even establish that well, they don't even have internal rationalization.

Why don't Jace or Luke have resentment towards Rhaenyra because of the status of bastards one bit? Fuck even Jon from the show has more nuanced feelings about this subject than they.

Why doesn't Baela feel a little bitter toward a bastard taking a place she is actually more worthy to have in Driftmark? It can't just be because they grew up together, Aemond grew up with Aegon, and still feels more entitled to the throne than Aegon.

Why are Rhaena or Baela so loyal to Rhaenyra and not feel the slightest bit of resentment towards their father for marrying her so quickly after their mother died after years of lack of affection from Daemon?

For me, I can't take the answer into consideration "they love each other and are a loving family" without the writers making me believe that these characters only have two dimensions.

I think that in this sense, Ryan fell into the same mistake as D&D, in an attempt to make these characters more heroic, he took away everything that could make them interesting. And I'm unlikely to like something that reminds me of GOT's bad writing, or bad writing in general.

Anyway, I hope I have answered you anon. And sorry for the ted talk.

[wellnoe]

the identity crisis of being a psychic manifestation of scott summers co-created by jean grey and emma frost. do you see my vision.

[anerdssketchpileblr]

Aaa ok I never thought I'd share this thing anywhere but lately the ml fandom, specifically the Lt au and @sillysiluriforme's work has been really inspiring me. So I introduce to you Emmanuelle Emilie Agreste.

She's an old miraculous oc I've had for years and never done much with outside of my own head tbh. She's Adrien's older sister and also a sentimonster, created bc in my mind/version of things Emilie had to give up on a lot of her acting career after moving to Paris and marrying Gabriel.

So instead she makes Emmanuelle, an almost perfect copy of herself, (except for the eye and hair colour, Gabriel's and Nathalie's respectively as little Easter eggs bc she thinks it's cute, but Emma ends up dying her hair and wearing contacts all the time anyway), who will never age or get wrinkles and who has a head start in the industry by starting acting work as a child. A dress up doll she can mold into the actress she could have been if she'd started earlier, who she can live vicariously through while she stays at home.

Less of a daughter and more of an advertisement, a way for the world to never forget her. Because this child has her face and her voice and will never shut up about honouring her legacy. The concept of Emilie the actress will live on far longer under a slightly different name. Also less of a daughter and more of her biggest fan. The perfect protogee who listens to all her advice and never has alternate ideas on how to do things and will never speak badly of her.

Essentially she exists to stroke Emilie's ego and Act and that's all she really knows how to do at the end of the day. Girl who is so normal about her mother and definitely has a personality outside of her career.

I picture her role as like. Minor/secondary villian (bc she was helping Gabriel through making more possible akumas on purpose bc she wants her mom back too) who has an eventual 'redemption arc' but they aren't actually a better person and it's only bc their brother is a hero it turns out and they like him more than their father. She really only cares about her mother and Adrien, who she is protective of but also more than fine lying to. She thinks he's a dork for wanting to go to public school but whatever. It's fine, Chloe will tell her if something goes wrong there.

She's in the range of 19-22 somewhere, and she works in a lot of projects not exclusively in France, so she's usually travelling and away from home. She's known for getting into relationships with her costars that start when the project is in development and somehow always ends once the hype is over. Adrien talks to her over the phone more than he sees her in person until she gets 'trapped' in Paris for coming home during the akuma crisis and has to actually start living in her TV show set never breathed in room.

I don't think she'd actually work/exist in the Lt au bc my version of Emilie in my head is a different kind of freak than the Lt version, who I do not think would make her. But it's fun to play around with anyway.

Specifically I just keep thinking abt her relationship with Lt chloe tho, bc in my little head world she's Chloe's awful terrible manipulative cool older friend/mentor figure who encourages all her worst traits for funsies and to bring about more akumas. And Lt adds another interesting layer to their dynamic in that chloe is also a sentimonster made to resemble her mother, and both of them idolise their mothers desipte them being not actually that great. girl who was made by her mother to be a copy of her mother vs girl who was made by her father to be a copy of her mother. surely this mentorship will go normally.

I also imagine her being like an awful older sister/mentor figure to the galattaca girls too. At her core she is an enabler and someone who turns a blind eye to fucked up shit to stay 'comfortable'. (And a manipulative asshole too.) What I'm saying here is I think she could make Aurore specifically so much worse and would have fun doing it. Evil girl and her younger blonde apprentices 💙

Summary: shes my horrible evil daughter I'm throwing her in the trash, I'm giving her a biscuit, she needs to face consequences for what she's done I'm denying her the catharsis of punishment she will learn to make meaningful change and mend her relationships, she's great in theory but not in practice, she shouldn't exist and she knows it, she's like if a show pony developed sapience. As you can probably tell, she's infested my brain like the parasite she is 💙

[cantsayidont]

YOU ME HER (2016–2020): Awkward but mostly endearing romantic comedy, created by John Scott Shepherd, about married Portland suburbanites Jack (Greg Poehler) and Emma (Rachel Blanchard), who are both pushing 40, trying to form a polyamorous throuple with their pansexual 20something grad student girlfriend Izzy (Prisclla Faia), whom they meet when she's working as an escort.

The first season, which is essentially all setup, is clunky and none too credible, with entirely too much self-conscious tittering, but things improve as the series begins to engage with the various complications of the characters' relationship rather than just trying to rationalize its existence. Izzy is sometimes too much of a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, and she's frequently only allowed to be messy in palatable ways, but her anxieties about the precariousness of her position are sympathetically handled, with amusing moral support from her scene-stealingly bitchy bestie Nina (Melanie Papalia), who derisively refers to Jack and Emma as "the Griswolds." Emma's snowballing midlife crisis is treated with some sensitivity, but Jack never really acquires a personality beyond Dorky Sitcom Husband, and by the fifth and final season, there's a mounting sense that Izzy has outgrown them both.

Ultimately, the show's biggest weakness is that both the narrative and Jack and Emma remain fixated on the idea that their blindingly white, objectively soul-crushing vision of suburban married life can somehow be adapted for LGBT and poly relationships with just a few nips and tucks, even though the story demonstrates over and over again that that will never work for Izzy unless she's willing to surrender her autonomy and individuality in the process. (At one point, they get fined by the homeowners' association because Izzy paints the front door a non-approved color!) While the finale concludes on an optimistic note, there's no reason to believe that Jack and Emma's cycle of impulsive rebellion and panicked retrenchment won't continue indefinitely because neither they nor the show's writers are willing to stretch far enough to contemplate different models of what family or committed relationships can mean beyond just a nuclear family with an extra cohabitating adult. CONTAINS LESBIANS? Yes, although the show's gay characters tend to be portrayed as mega-assholes. VERDICT: Doesn't always ring true, especially in the early episodes, but a surprisingly sincere effort was made, even if its conceptual limitations are sometimes very frustrating.

[dailyanarchistposts]

I.5.8 What about crime?

For anarchists, “crime” can best be described as anti-social acts, or behaviour which harms someone else or which invades their personal space. Anarchists, in other words, “believe that to act criminally means to violate the liberty of others” and so criminals in a free society would be “those who would encroach on personal integrity, liberty and the well being of others.” [Malatesta, At the Café, p. 100 and p. 132]

This definition of crime is similar, of course, to that used in capitalist society but libertarians note that the state defines as “crime” many things which a sane society would not (such as, say, consensual acts of adults in private or expropriation of private property). Similarly, a free society would consider as anti-social many acts which the state defends under capitalism (such as the appropriation of resources or exploitation of others labour). This is to be expected, as social customs evolve and reflect the socio-economic basis of a given society. Hence Malatesta:“Naturally the crimes we are talking about are anti-social acts, that is those which offend human feelings and which infringe the right of others to equality in freedom, and not the many actions which the penal code punishes simply because they offend against the privileges of the dominant classes.” [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, pp. 105–6]

Anarchists argue that the root cause for crime is not some perversity of human nature or “original sin” but is due to the type of society by which people are moulded. For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating private property, crime could be reduced significantly, since most crime today is currently motivated by evils stemming from private property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. Moreover, by adopting anarchist methods of non-authoritarian child rearing and education, most of the remaining crimes could also be eliminated, because they are largely due to the anti-social, perverse, and cruel “secondary drives” that develop because of authoritarian child-rearing practices (see section J.6). However, as long as the few “violates the equal freedom of others … we must defend ourselves.” [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 106]

First, it cannot be said that governments are required to protect people from crime and criminals. Rather, as Alexander Berkman argued, ”[d]oes not government itself create and uphold conditions which make for crime? Does not the invasion and violence upon which all governments rest cultivate the spirit of intolerance and persecution, of hatred and more violence?” Crime, then, “is the result of economic conditions, of social inequality, of wrongs and evils of which government and monopoly are parents. Government and law can only punish the criminal. They neither cure nor prevent crime. The only real cure for crime is to abolish its causes, and the government can never do because it is there to preserve those very causes.” This suggests that crimes “resulting form government, from its oppression and injustice, from inequality and poverty, will disappear under Anarchy. These constitute by far the greatest percentage of crime.” [What is Anarchism?, p. 151] Nor should we forget that today we are subject to rule by the anti-social, for the “owners and rulers” are “criminals” who are “powerful and have organised their dominance on a stable basis” (“Who is more of a thief than the owners who get wealthy stealing the produce of the workers’ labour?”). [Malatesta, At the Café, p. 100 and p. 130]

“Crime”, therefore, cannot be divorced from the society within which it occurs. Society, in Emma Goldman’s words, gets the criminals it deserves. For example, anarchists do not think it unusual nor unexpected that crime exploded under the pro-free market capitalist regimes of Thatcher and Reagan. Crime, the most obvious symptom of social crisis, took 30 years to double in Britain (from 1 million incidents in 1950 to 2.2 million in 1979). However, between 1979 and 1992 the crime rate more than doubled, exceeding the 5 million mark in 1992. These 13 years were marked by a government firmly committed to the “free market” and “individual responsibility.” It was entirely predictable that the social disruption, atomisation of individuals, and increased poverty caused by freeing capitalism from social controls would rip society apart and increase criminal activity. Also unsurprisingly (from an anarchist viewpoint), under these pro-market governments we also saw a reduction in civil liberties, increased state centralisation, and the destruction of local government. As Malatesta put it, the classical liberalism which these governments represented could have had no other effect, for “the government’s powers of repression must perforce increase as free competition results in more discord and inequality.” [Anarchy, p. 47]

Hence the apparent paradox of governments with flowing rhetoric about “individual rights,” the “free market” and “getting the state off our backs” increasing state power and reducing rights while holding office during a crime explosion is no paradox at all. “The conjuncture of the rhetoric of individual freedom and a vast increase in state power,” argues Carole Pateman, “is not unexpected at a time when the influence of contract doctrine is extending into the last, most intimate nooks and crannies of social life. Taken to a conclusion, contract undermines the conditions of its own existence. Hobbes showed long ago that contract — all the way down — requires absolutism and the sword to keep war at bay.” [The Sexual Contract, p. 232]

Capitalism, and the contract theory on which it is built, will inevitably rip apart society. It is based upon a vision of humanity as isolated individuals with no connection other than that of money. Such a vision cannot help but institutionalise anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued “it is not love and not even sympathy upon which Society is based in mankind. It is the conscience — be it only at the stage of an instinct — of human solidarity. It is the unconscious recognition of the force that is borrowed by each man [and woman] from the practice of mutual aid; of the close dependency of every one’s happiness upon the happiness of all; and of the sense of justice, or equity, which brings the individual to consider the rights of every other individual as equal to his [or her] own.” [Mutual Aid, p. 16] The social atomisation required and created by capitalism destroys the basic bonds of society — namely human solidarity — and hierarchy crushes the individuality required to understand that we share a common humanity with others and so understand why we must be ethical and respect others rights. Significantly, as Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett note in The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, more unequal societies have more crime and bigger prison populations (equality, as well as reducing crime, consistently deliver other advantages for people).

We are not saying, however, that anarchists reject the concept of individual responsibility. While recognising that rape, for example, is the result of a social system which represses sexuality and is based on patriarchy (i.e. rape has more to do with power than sex), anarchists do not “sit back” and say “it’s society’s fault.” Individuals have to take responsibility for their own actions and recognise that consequences of those actions. Part of the current problem with “law codes” is that individuals have been deprived of the responsibility for developing their own ethical code, and so are less likely to develop “civilised” social standards (see section I.7.3).

Therefore, while anarchists reject the ideas of law and a specialised justice system, they are not blind to the fact that anti-social action may not totally disappear in a free society. Nor are they blind to the fact that, regardless of our hopes about a free society reducing crime, we will not create it over-night (“all the bad passions … will not disappear at a stroke. There will still be for a long time those who will feel tempted to impose their will on others with violence, who will wish to exploit favourable circumstances to create privileges for themselves” [Malatesta, At the Café, p. 131]). Therefore, some sort of justice system would still be necessary to deal with the remaining crimes and to adjudicate disputes between people.

This does not, it must be stressed, signify some sort of contradiction within anarchism. Anarchists have never advocated the kind of “freedom” which assumes that people can do what they want. When people object to anarchy, they often ask about those who would steal, murder, rape and so forth and seem to assume that such people would be free to act as they like. This is, needless to say, an utter misunderstanding of both our ideas and freedom in general. Simply put, if people impose themselves by force on others then “they will be the government” and “we will oppose them with force” for “if today we want to make a revolution against the government, it is not in order to submit ourselves supinely to new oppressors.” [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 99] This applies to defending a free society against organised counter-revolution and against those within it conducting anti-social (“criminal”) activities. The principle is the same, it is just the scale which is different.

It should be remembered that just because the state monopolises or organises a (public) service, it does not mean that the abolition of the state means the abolition of what useful things it provided. For example, many states own and run the train network but the abolition of the state does not mean that there will no longer be any trains! In a free society management of the railways would be done by the rail workers themselves, in association with the community. The same applies to anti-social behaviour and so we find Kropotkin, for example, pointing to how “voluntary associations” would “substitute themselves for the State in all its functions,” including “mutual protection” and “defence of the territory.” [Anarchism, p. 284]

This applies to what is termed justice, namely the resolution of disputes and anti-social acts (“crime”). Anarchists argue that “people would not allow their wellbeing and their freedom to be attacked with impunity, and if the necessity arose, they would take measures to defend themselves against the anti-social activities of a few. But to do so, what purpose is served by people whose profession is the making of laws; while other people spend their lives seeking out and inventing law-breakers?” [Malatesta, Anarchy, pp. 43–4] This means that in a free society the resolution of anti-social behaviour would rest in the hands of all, not in a specialised body separate from and above the masses. As Proudhon put it, an anarchy would see the “police, judiciary, administration, everywhere committed to the hands of the workers” [General Idea of the Revolution, p. 281] And so:“Let each household, each factory, each association, each municipality, each district, attend to its own police, and administer carefully its own affairs, and the nation will be policed and administered. What need have we to be watched and ruled, and to pay, year in and year out, … millions? Let us abolish prefects, commissioners, and policemen too.” [Op. Cit., p. 273]

Precisely how this will work will be determined by free people based on the circumstances they face. All we can do is sketch out likely possibilities and make suggestions.

In terms of resolving disputes between people, it is likely that some form of arbitration system would develop. The parties involved could agree to hand their case to a third party (for example, a communal jury or mutually agreed individual or individuals). There is the possibility that the parties cannot agree (or if the victim were dead), then the issue could be raised at a communal assembly and a “court” appointed to look into the issue. These “courts” would be independent from the commune, their independence strengthened by popular election instead of executive appointment of judges, by protecting the jury system by random selection of citizens, and so “all disputes … will be submitted to juries which will judge not only the facts but the law, the justice of the law [or social custom], its applicability to the given circumstances, and the penalty or damage to be inflicted because of its infraction”. [Benjamin Tucker, The Individualist Anarchists, p. 160] For Tucker, the jury was a “splendid institution, the principal safeguard against oppression.” [Liberty, vol. 1, no. 16, p. 1]

As Malatesta suggested, “when differences were to arise between men [sic!], would not arbitration voluntarily accepted, or pressure of public opinion, be perhaps more likely to establish where the right lies than through an irresponsible magistrate which has the right to adjudicate on everything and everybody and is inevitably incompetent and therefore unjust?” [Anarchy, p. 45] It is in the arbitration system and communal assemblies that what constitutes anti-social behaviour will be discussed and agreed.

In terms of anti-social events when they happen, “when there remains a residue of criminals, the collective directly concerned should think of placing them in a position where they can do no harm, without delegating to anyone the specific function of persecuting criminals” [Malatesta, At the Café, p. 101] In the case of a “police force”, this would not exist either as a public or private specialised body or company. If a local community did consider that public safety required a body of people who could be called upon for help, we imagine that a new system would be created. Such a system would “not be entrusted to, as it is today, to a special, official body: all able-bodied inhabitants will be called upon to take turns in the security measures instituted by the commune.” [James Guillaume, “On Building the New Social Order”, pp. 356–79, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 371]

This system could be based around a voluntary militia, in which all members of the community could serve if they so desired. Those who served would not constitute a professional body; instead the service would be made up of local people who would join for short periods of time and be replaced if they abused their position. Hence the likelihood that a communal militia would become corrupted by power, like the current police force or a private security firm exercising a policing function, would be vastly reduced. Moreover, by accustoming a population to intervene in anti-social as part of the militia, they would be empowered to do so when not an active part of it, so reducing the need for its services even more. In this way “we will defend ourselves … without delegating to anyone the special function of the defence of society” and this is “the only effective method” of stopping and reducing anti-social activity. [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 132]

Such a body would not have a monopoly on protecting others, but would simply be on call if required. It would no more be a monopoly of defence (i.e. a “police force”) than the current fire service is a monopoly. Individuals are not banned from putting out fires today because the fire service exists, similarly individuals will be free to help stop anti-social crime by themselves, or in association with others, in an anarchist society.

Of course there are anti-social acts which occur without witnesses and so the “guilty” party cannot be readily identified. If such acts did occur we can imagine an anarchist community taking two courses of action. The injured party may look into the facts themselves or appoint an agent to do so or, more likely, an ad hoc group would be elected at a community assembly to investigate specific crimes of this sort (subject to control and recall by the community). Once the investigating body thought it had enough evidence it would inform the community as well as the affected parties and then organise a court. Of course, a free society will produce different solutions to such problems, solutions no-one has considered yet and so these suggestions are just that, suggestions.

As is often stated, prevention is better than cure. This is as true of crime as of disease and so crime is best fought by rooting out its causes as opposed to punishing those who act in response to these causes. As Emma Goldman argued, crime “is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, moral conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statues can only increase, but never do away with, crime” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 71] Erich Fromm, decades later, made the same point:“It would seem that the amount of destructiveness to be found in individuals is proportionate to the amount to which expansiveness of life is curtailed. By this we do not refer to individual frustrations of this or that instinctive desire but to the thwarting of the whole of life, the blockage of spontaneity of the growth and expression of man’s sensuous, emotional, and intellectual capacities. Life has an inner dynamism of its own; it tends to grow, to be expressed, to be lived .. . the drive for life and the drive for destruction are not mutually interdependent factors but are in a reversed interdependence. The more the drive towards life is thwarted, the stronger is the drive towards destruction; the more life is realised, the less is the strength of destructiveness. Destructiveness is the outcome of unlived life. Those individual and social conditions that make for suppression of life produce the passion for destruction that forms, so to speak, the reservoir from which particular hostile tendencies — either against others or against oneself — are nourished.” [The Fear of Freedom, p. 158]

Therefore, by reorganising society so that it empowers everyone and actively encourages the use of all our intellectual, emotional and sensuous abilities, crime would soon cease to be the huge problem that it is now. As for the anti-social behaviour or clashes between individuals that might still exist in such a society, it would be dealt with in a system based on respect for the individual and a recognition of the social roots of the problem. Restraint would be kept to a minimum. Anarchists think that public opinion and social pressure would be the main means of preventing anti-social acts in an anarchist society, with such actions as boycotting and ostracising used as powerful sanctions to convince those attempting them of the errors of their way. Extensive non-co-operation by neighbours, friends and work mates would be the best means of stopping acts which harmed others. Thus Malatesta:“In order for crime to be treated rationally, in order to seek for its causes and really do everything possible to eliminate it, it is necessary for this task to be entrusted to those who are exposed to and suffer the consequences of crime, in other words the whole public, and not those to whom the existence of crime is a source of power and earnings.” [At the Café, p. 135]

An anarchist system of justice, we should note, would have a lot to learn from aboriginal societies simply because they are examples of social order without the state. Indeed many of the ideas we consider as essential to justice today can be found in such societies. As Kropotkin argued, “when we imagine that we have made great advances in introducing, for instance, the jury, all we have done is to return to the institutions of the so-called ‘barbarians’ after having changed it to the advantage of the ruling classes.” [The State: Its Historic Role, p. 18] Like aboriginal justice (as documented by Rupert Ross in Returning to the Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice) anarchists contend that justice be achieved by the teaching and healing of all involved. Public condemnation of the wrongdoing would be a key aspect of this process, but the wrong doer would remain part of the community and so see the effects of their actions on others in terms of grief and pain caused. It would be likely that wrong doers would be expected to try to make amends for their act by community service or helping victims and their families.

So, from a practical viewpoint, almost all anarchists oppose prisons on both practical grounds and ethical grounds. Prisons have numerous negative affects on society as well as often re-enforcing criminal (i.e. anti-social) behaviour. Anarchists use the all-to-accurate description of prisons as “Universities of Crime” wherein the first-time criminal learns new techniques and have adapt to the prevailing ethical standards within them. Hence, prisons would have the effect of increasing the criminal tendencies of those sent there and so prove to be counter-productive. In addition, prisons do not affect the social conditions which promote many forms of crime. Simply put, prison “does not improve the prisoner … it does not prevent him from committing more crimes. It does not then achieve any of the ends it has set itself” [Kropotkin, Anarchism, p. 228] Moreover, they are a failure in terms of their impact on those subject to them: “We know what prisons mean — they mean broken down body and spirit, degradation, consumption, insanity”. [Voltairine de Cleyre, quoted by Paul Avrich, An American Anarchist, p. 146] The Makhnovists took the usual anarchist position on prisons:“Prisons are the symbol of the servitude of the people, they are always built only to subjugate the people, the workers and peasants … Free people have no use for prisons. Wherever prisons exist, the people are not free … In keeping with this attitude, [the Makhnovists] demolished prisons wherever they went.” [Peter Arshinov, The History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 153]

With the exception of Benjamin Tucker, no major anarchist writer supported the institution. Few anarchists think that private prisons (like private policemen) are compatible with their notions of freedom. However, all anarchists are against the current “justice” system which seems to them to be organised around revenge and punishing effects and not fixing causes.

However, there are psychopaths and other people in any society who are too dangerous to be allowed to walk freely. Restraint in this case would be the only option and such people may have to be isolated from others for their own, and others, safety. Perhaps mental hospitals would be used, or an area quarantined for their use created (perhaps an island, for example). However, such cases (we hope) would be rare and “should be cared for according to the most humane methods of treating the mentally afflicted.” [Voltairine de Cleyre, The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, p. 160]

The one thing that needs to be avoided is the creation of a professional and specialised “justice” system as this would be a key means by which the state could reconstitute itself. As Malatesta explained, “the major damage caused by crime is not so much the single and transitory instance of the violation of the rights of a few individuals, but the danger that it will serve as an opportunity and pretext for the constitution of an authority that, with the outward appearance of defending society will subdue and oppress it.” In other words, it “would truly be a great piece of foolishness to protect oneself from a few violent people, a few idlers and some degenerates, by opening a school for idleness and violence” [Op. Cit., p. 101 and p. 132] The libertarian perspective on crime does not rest on an idealised vision of people. “We do not believe”, as Malatesta suggested, “in the infallibility, nor even the general goodness of the masses”, rather “we believe even less in the infallibility and goodness of those who seize power and legislate” and so we must “avoid the creation of bodies specialising in police work”. [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 109 and p. 108] As George Barrett argued:“All that we can say is that … disputes are very much better settled without the interference of authority. If the two [parties] were reasonable, they would probably mutually agree to allow their dispute to be settled by some mutual friend whose judgement they could trust. But if instead of taking this sane course they decide to set up a fixed authority, disaster will be the inevitable result. In the first place, this authority will have to be given power wherewith to enforce its judgement in such matters. What will then take place? The answer is quite simple. Feeling it is a superior force, it will naturally in each case take to itself the best of what is disputed, and allot the rest to its friends. “What a strange question is this. It supposes that two people who meet on terms of equality and disagree could not be reasonable or just. But, on the other hand, it supposes that a third party, starting with an unfair advantage, and backed up by violence, will be the incarnation of justice itself. Common-sense should certainly warn us against such a supposition, and if we are lacking in this commodity, then we may learn the lesson by turning to the facts of life. There we see everywhere Authority standing by, and in the name of justice and fair play using its organised violence in order to take the lion’s share of the world’s wealth for the governmental class.” [Objections to Anarchism, pp. 349–50]

So instead of prisons and a legal code based on the concept of punishment and revenge, anarchists support the use of public opinion and pressure to stop anti-social acts and the need to therapeutically rehabilitate those who commit them. Rather than a parasitic legal system which creates and defends inequality and privilege, anarchists agree with Kropotkin: “Liberty, equality, and practical human sympathy are the most effective barriers we can oppose to the anti-social instinct of certain among us”. [Op. Cit., p. 218] “We want justice, not rigid, but elastic”, argued Tucker, “we want justice, not stern, but tempered with mercy, with eyes sharp enough to detect causes, conditions, and circumstances; we want justice, not superficial, but profound.” The current system of rigid law imposed by the state and implemented by a judge was false and “no such justice is wanted in any civilised community.” [Op. Cit., Vol. 13, No. 5, p. 4]

In summary, then, anarchists have spent considerable time discussing the issue. Somewhat ironically, given that many think the issue of crime is the weakest point of the anarchist case, the outlines of a solution to this problem are well established in anarchist theory, both in terms of what not to do and in terms of combating both crime and its causes. Anarchy is based on people being free but freedom does not mean the “freedom” to violate the equal freedom of others. That is oppression, that is exploitation, that is the embryo of the state and capitalism.

We can recommend the section “Crime and Punishment” by Malatesta (Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas) as well as Kropotkin’s essays “Law and Authority” and “Prisons and their moral influence on prisoners” (both within the Anarchism collection). Emma Goldman’s “Prisons: A social crime and Failure” (Red Emma Speaks), de Cleyre’s “Crime and Punishment” (The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader) and Colin Ward’s “How Deviant Dare you get?” (Anarchy in Action) are also worth reading. A useful collection of writings on this issue are found in Under the Yoke of the State: Selected Anarchist Responses to Prisons and Crime (edited by the Dawn Collective).

[popculturebuffet]

Valentine's Superhero Wedding Review Poll III

Hello all you happy people. For the past two years to celebrate the lovelist day of the year with my love of men, women and that beautifulu techiclor rainbow inbetween in costume who punch what good by letting my fine patrons pick out 3 superhero weddings, myself pick one, and you fine folks pick one of these for me to review. What says love more than some asshole in a costume crashing your wedding no?

So for your voting pleasure, here are this years nominees and the poll to pick your faviorite is below. Voting will close in a week. If it's a tie it's sudden death baby and if that ties.. well i'll just hav eto do both won't I. So vote whenever, vote soon, and vote with your heart, here are your nominees!

Lex Luthor and Adora of Planet Lexor (Action Comics 318-319)

Lex's pre crisis marriage has him doing the usual lex luthor things: escape prison, go to a planet he once fooled into thinking he's a great hero and Superman a villian.. then invite superman after the wedding to fake his own death and blame Supes for it.

Emma Frost and Tony Stark (Invincible Iron Man #10) Ones a life long playboy whose lasting relationships end in tears, betryal or the next set of writers wanting him to screw around again. The other's a life long career woman whose fine to flirt but mostly spends her time saving humanity and whose longest relationship was with a man she stole from his wife via very sketchy therapy practices. Naturally marriage is less out of love and more as a smokescreen to screw over a massive anti mutant biggot who used tony's tech to create a waking nightmare for mutant kind, but damn if it won't be fun anyway.

Luke Cage and Jessica Jones (New Avengers Annual #1) A relationship began in casual hookups and deep seated trauma, became one of marvel's most lasting and wholesome marriage and Hero for Hire Luke Cage and PI for hire Jessica Jones became the couple with the least time for your nonsense but the cutest baby. Naturally for their courtship their wedding involves a proposal luke announces to hold her to saying yes, a fight with an old foe turned into a scary monster/ super creep, and takes place just before the super hero community cracked in half.

Wally West and Linda Park (The Flash 132 and 159)

He was a fuck boy, she was a girl who didn't take his shit. Could they make it any more obvious. As wally west grew from irresponsible young ass to true hero worthy of the mantle flash he found his rock in reporter Linda Park, someone on his level willing to both call him out when he stupid, and support him when he's beating himself up too hard. Naturally given their marriage would be in trouble for the 2010's thanks to Dan DiDio's personal mission to make Wally West Fans suffer, their wedding ends in a magician making Linda disappear from everyone's memories, with the two finallyg etting married after antics with angsty future selves, Linda being Impulse's imaginary friend, and a picnic wedding to give us a happy end to Mark Waid's long and storied run and a happy start to one of the best marriages in comics

[eaymtb]

This will never stop being funny to me:

"Originally, Lazard was going to flee. As soon as Veld confronted him later on in what ended up being chapter 9 about the money, Lazard was going to save his skin and run. And then Veld actually happened, dear gods, he’s so fucking hot??? I have issues and I don’t even care. Anyway, Veld was supposed to be Threat, not Daddy, and Lazard was supposed to skedaddle and I’m really glad that didn’t happen, because I thoroughly enjoy their interactions.

Also my self indulgence created a whole ass tag on AO3 for this crack ship."

Anyway, the Turks are one of the very few things where I intentionally ignored the FF7 timeline. Several of them are recruited during the events of Before Crisis, which doesn't even start until the end of Feb 2001 (Or [v] - εγλ 0001), but I didn't want to make up characters for the Turk investigation when there are a whole bunch that already exist and that I really like. So I just decided this was going to be one of those rare instances where I would say fuck it, canonical accuracy (or as accurate as one can be with the mess of incomplete and contradictory lore that compilation has) can take a hike, and they're all magically already Turks. And then I went ahead and also named Nunchaku Tamaki (Because his character and design instantly made me think of Tamaki Suoh from Ouran High School Host Club) and Knife got named Chau (Because of Scott Pilgrim, despite not having anything remotely in common with the character otherwise, lol.) I also just decided that Chau and Tamaki were on Aerith rotation for September so I wouldn't have to try and explain who they were in text, which is why neither of them ever get mentioned, ha. And probably ~never will~ either. They just get to live in my head.

And the head-canon notes below that, because that's actually something I can just copy paste out of that tab in the spreadsheet, read:

Reno is in his head, extremely intuitive but flighty, chatty, distract-able. Rude partners well with him because Rude is grounded and pragmatic, he keeps them focused and directed and notices details. Alvis and Freyra work well together because Freyra is enthusiastically determined to prove herself but she’s a country girl, while Alvis can be lackadaisical about protocol and is a city boy. Freyra makes sure they dot their I’s and cross their T’s, and Alvis isn’t competitive about being the best so he’s really happy to cheer on and support Freyra, and gives her credit for keeping him on task. Juget and Ruluf are what Tseng considers his heavy-hitter team. An ex-mercenary and an ex-mob enforcer, they’re both ruthless and pragmatic. Ruluf also genuinely treats Juget as one of the guys which they appreciate. Together they have a ranged combatant and a close combat combatant. Ruluf is very familiar with Midgar and it’s slums, and Juget is familiar with hunting down a target out in the world. Maur and Cissnei pair really well for canvassing and investigations that require speaking to people. Cissnei covers the innocent pretty young girl and Maur the older, respectable and polite hard working man, which covers most civilians really well. Maur also treats Cissnei respectfully, and can be protective of her, which Cissnei finds sweet (and also secretly appreciates). Emma’s strengths lie in forensic accounting and researching. She works best alone. Balto and Chau pair well together personality-wise. They both appreciate beauty and wish for the world to be a better place. They are surprisingly idealistic for Turks.

I put that bit of thought into what Turks Tseng would assign to what activities back in chapter 4. It was some of the research and world-building done alongside figuring out Cloud and the kid's journey and the investigation itself. Ruluf and Juget get assigned to investigate the caves under Banora with a SOLDIER 2nd because they're the most effective combat team. Emma does the forensic accounting, while Maur and Cissnei canvas Hollander's neighborhood, speak to his colleagues, and investigate his home. And Freyra and Alvis came along with them to Banora because they're, in my mind, kind of like Reno and Rude 2.0: The Rookies. The fact that Alvis uses a rod weapon, has red hair and was also a slums rat; he's so obviously a baby Reno, it's adorable.

[hyperfixatinglove]

Hi Roe! Can I get uhhh... 🪽, ✨ and 💛 for Jacob plz (assorted ask game) <3

🪽 - imagine an au where your f/o is your guardian angel. what kind of relationship dynamic do the two of you have? are they the type to be more exasperated by your silly actions or protective over you?

Jacob would be very protective as guardian angel. I think he would show himself to humans a lot more than it's safe or even allowed to do so, as Jacob is romantic at heart & what could be more romantic than literal guardian angel falling for their charge?

He'd still be just as silly as in canon, as he would love to be source of laughter and for mortals to forget their troubles for just a moment. I also think he'd be curious about mortal world and how it would work, even if he wouldn't understand everything.

I think his halo wouldn't be golden but silver & he would have something about him that doesn't make him entirely an angel or different from other angels. Maybe clipped wing or accessory from past charge.

Our dynamic would mostly remain the same. Him being the teaser and silly one with vulnerable moments, with me being the quieter and serious. But he would be the one defending & protecting me, it comes with being immortal angel.

He would love to just float next to me when I'm doing errands and talk to me, as I bet only the person who's assigned to an angel can see that particular angel.

✨ - share some headcanons about your f/o! this can be visual headcanons, sexuality or gender, disabilities and neurodivergencies, etc!

Well considering his 80's outfit is literally sports jersey turned into crop top, I do headcanon he likes to dress sporty & collects sports clothes. He does also dress up more casual & bland, as his 50's and default outfit are gray & black.

For sexuality headcanon I must do something for Jacob as the game presents him as straight since his former love interest is Emma. As I'm not a woman and not a man either, Jacob has to put it mildly, crisis during the story I've created. This part is already over when Quar.ry as a game starts. Jacob does think of himself as straight but then unlabeled as Eden comes along and flips his thoughts. Perhaps he doesn't label himself at all or maybe he's either bi or pan.

Actually I think he'd like pan, as he can make as many jokes & puns before queerphobes can. And I think he'd like the flag colors & it would suit him more.

Given how clumsy he is & how he seems to be impulsive or not think about his actions having consequences I do think he could be neurodivergent but I don't feel that as confidently as I do for Ryan & Bobby who both strike me as autistic. He could just be naturally clumsy etc.

But I do headcanon he does end up disabled by the end of the night. In ch 6 of the game he will step on bear trap regardless of player input & if he isn't bitten he will have that ankle fucked up the entire night. He can still outrun Chris as Werewolf for a short time but it could be adrenaline working. I think getting your ankle fucked up by bear trap & then not getting medical help until morning, which is canonically at least 7 hours could end up making him disabled or at the very least have a limp for the rest of his life. Maybe the wound will ache like phantom pain occasionally?

Jacob loves romance movies & genre. He especially has soft spot for romcoms as it combines the two things he loves the most, jokes & romance. He is ashamed of this and hides it from other counselors expect of course Kaitlyn knows. He hasn't seen period drama romance before he gets together with Eden & survives events of the game but he's open to watch some and becomes a kinda of fan. He prefers more modern romance, but he won't say no. His biggest guilty pleasure are the bad romance christmas movies.

And now I headcanon Jacob as Barbie fan.

💛 - what is something most people consider a flaw of your f/o that you find endearing? why is it that you like that trait?

Let's see here. Clingy, possessive, clumsy, arrogant, careless.. There's a lot of traits people consider massive flaws of Jacob.

Many fandom people utterly despite him but considering how many thirst over Travis whom I consider to be way worse than Jacob, I don't put much weight into fandom opinions. It seems like tumblr fandom is dead anyway.

Clingy is fine to me, possessiveness is actually kinda hot, clumsy is just adorable & makes him doing sports much harder and he still tries so admirable since he has muscular build & is canonically jock stereotype and described as athletic.

Arrogant is mostly player determinant, the only ways it shows in canon is him trying to be brave about seeing werewolf in cage & taunt it & ask if it wants to fight him.

One could consider him still pining & trying for Emma's love who wants nothing to do with him but can't convey that as arrogant. But I can't exactly put all that blame on Jacob since it takes two to tango & Emma still flirts with him and sends mixed messages until the end of the game. I firmly believe Emma & Jacob bring out the worst in each other. Their theme song could very well be Unlike Pluto - Worst In Me

He's careless & arrogant when he sabotages the van at the start of the game, but honestly I can't bring myself to cast such harsh judgement most players do. Jacob could not have known about werewolves & if player chooses to steal tiny part the van is repairable. Besides it was Kaitlyn who gave Jacob the explicit details how to sabotage as Jacob did not know how. He just wanted innocent, one more night of fun & memories and hoped he could ''repair¨ his relationship with Emma. Selfish yes, but like he said, ultimately harmless. And yet he blames himself for everything. If anyone dies during the game you can fucking guarantee he will feel responsible. Most of the fandom already does, as this, this one act, is sited as the main reason why people kill him off, why they hate him, why he's the worst character.. The writers forced him to do it, without him we wouldn't have the game.

Some of the other characters have done worse, namely Laura & especially Travis. For fucks sake Travis has canonically kept two people imprisoned for two fucking months after drugging them.

No one blames Hackett family for having two werewolves, their niece & nephew running around at night killing people. The said niece & nephew being the reason why the original werewolf Silas is running around free and why they're werewolves. They have cages to keep them in, Chris himself is chained in their attic for fucks sake. Without Hacketts, the counselors would've spent one more night playing truth and dare, swimming & spending time together, without trauma.

But Jacob is the most hated character. Yeah okay.

@the-green-knight

[ultrahpfan5blog]

Barbenheimer Part 1: My thoughts on Barbie....

So I did Barbie and Oppenheimer in one day with a 50 min break between shows. Definitely quite the experience and a really good cinematic experience at that. First up was Barbie.

Now, first thing's first, as a guy, I am clearly not the target audience for the film. Not that you need to be a guy to enjoy the movie but the social commentary is clearly aimed at women. So keep that in context when it comes to my opinion. When it came to the movie as a whole, I really liked about 75% of the movie and about 25% of it fell flat. Still leveling out to be quite a fun watch, but it does have some obvious flaws. I watched it with a crowd that was buzzing and it was really cool theatrical experience.

The good stuff is really good. Firstly, I have to compliment the production design of the movie. Barbie World is gorgeously created. The colors just pop on screen. Same with the costume design for all the Barbies and the Kens. The humor, when it works, is really funny. The film is consistently light but also digs into deeper issues without descending into heavy drama. Also, clocking in under 2 hours, it is very well paced and does not overstay its welcome. Also, the performances are excellent across the board.

When it comes to issues, the film's humor is a bit hit and miss. When it hits, its terrific, and I do think it hits most of the time, but there are several points where the joke just doesn't land. Also, a few character beats, such as the reconciliation between Gloria and her daughter, feel rather rushed. Additionally, the Mattel employees aren't used very well as characters. The film is very over the top in its depiction of the real world as well as Barbie World, which was a bit weird and took away from the movie a bit. When the real world is just as wacky, it makes Barbie World look more normal. I also didn't quite get the mechanics of how this world works. Stereotypical Barbie faces an existential crisis because of Gloria, but there must be thousands of Stereotypical Barbie out there. So why the connection to just Gloria's doll? Additionally, there are a few times, like with Ken's resolution, where they could have played it straight and that would have made for a deeper and more emotional ending for him, but they choose the jokier route. Also, the film is very blunt. It is not even the 's' of 'subtle' in its depiction of the dynamics between men and women. While this is done on purpose, it does feel like they lay it on a bit too thick at times.

As I mentioned, the performances are terrific across the board. Margot Robbie anchors the film beautifully. She has the balance of looks and acting chops to pull this off. Ryan Gosling steals the show with his comedic timing as Ken. You do feel a sense of sympathy towards him. America Ferrera is very likable as Gloria and she kind of gets the big monologue which is the film's thesis in a way. Will Ferrell is largely wasted here as Mattel CEO, though he does have a couple of good laughs. Ariana Greenblatt is effective as Sasha. Kate McKinnon brings her brand of energy to weird Barbie. A host of other stars like Emma Mackey, Alexandra Shipp, Simu Liue etc... also deliver effective supporting turns as specific Barbies and Kens. Also want to give a special mention to Helen Mirren's narration in the movie. It accounted for arguable the biggest laugh in the whole movie.

Greta Gerwig is 3/3 with her filmography. I wouldn't say this is her best though. Her directing is excellent, but the script isn't as strong as for Lady Bird and Little Women. I think this may be her weakest film of her solo director features, but it is still a solid and fun film which is already on its way to being a monster hit judging by the reaction in the theater, and I feel really happy for her for that. Overall, I would say this is a 7.5/10.

[lilacmoon83]

A Rat in Storybrooke

Also on Fanfiction.net and A03

Chapter 5: Ratigan's Undoing

Goldie used a compact mirror to primp one more time, before they were about to go live. She rubbed a finger over her teeth to make sure there was no red lipstick on them and closed the compact.

"Mommy…why is she putting so much makeup on?" Eva asked innocently, making David nearly choke, trying to swallow a laugh. Eva had always been fascinated with anything girly and even had her own little playset of fake makeup so she could pretend to put it on while watching Snow. But her mother never used so much.

"Because she'd scare years off us without it," Emma commented, as David couldn't help but chuckle this time. His kids had no filter and he loved it. Goldie glared at the teen.

"Excuse me…but this is standard television makeup. I have to wear it so I won't be washed out by the lighting. With that fair skin, the lot of you are going to look like ghosts," she retorted.

"You'll be lucky if you look half as good as me when you get older, sweetie," she added. Eva's eyes widened in horror and she looked up at Snow.

"That's not true, is it Mommy? I don't wanna look like her," Eva whimpered, as her siblings snickered in amusement. Snow tried not to smile and leaned down to cuddle her daughter close.

"No honey…you're going to be so beautiful and you'll look nothing like her. I promise," Snow said, as Goldie glared at the Mayor.

"LeFou…are you ready or not!?" she snapped, as she picked up her microphone and prepared to make her live report.

"And we're live in five, four, three, two…" he said, trailing off.

"Good Morning Storybrooke! I'm Goldie Phillips coming to you live, on location, from the Mayor and Sheriff's residence with a special, exciting report today," she said, as Ratigan took his place beside her.

"We are witnessing history here in Storybrooke today, as the Mayor and Sheriff have vowed to resign their positions of power and leave our little town behind, all while we usher in the dawn of a new era with Ratigan as our new Mayor," she said, as she put the microphone up to him, but suddenly felt something fall onto her head. She gasped in horror, as she realized a bird had just released its droppings on both of them.

Leo burst out laughing, as some squirrels and rabbits scurried around their feet.

"Owe!" she cried, as she felt one of them bite her.

"You little brat!" she cried, as she started toward him, but David pulled him back.

"Easy…he hasn't done anything," David said. She huffed.

"Oh really? He's not making the animals stir crazy?" she asked.

"No…you two are doing that by creating this crisis in town," David replied.

"ENOUGH!" Ratigan growled, as he pointed his gun at David, who immediately pushed Leo and Emma behind him, while Snow stood in front of Eva.

"I have had enough of your foolish stalling, Sheriff Charming…and your children's antics. Tell the town you are resigning and handing the reins over to me or I'll shoot you in front of your family," he threatened. David glared daggers at him and stepped forward, before turning to Snow, as they spoke to each other with their eyes. They were out of time and she understood exactly what they needed to do now.

"Good…" Ratigan said, as the camera was now on him.

"Your Sheriff has surrendered to me and this town is now under new management…" Ratigan said, as he suddenly choked on his words, as Charming elbowed him in the throat and then grabbed for the gun, pointing it at the sky, as he tried to take it.

"Go…" Snow whispered to the kids, ushering them toward the house.

"Hey!" Goldie said, as she drew her arm back with the intent of hitting Snow with her mic, only to cry out, as Emma shoved her to the ground, right into the mud. She screamed in rage and pulled herself to her feet. She was a mess and she started to stalk toward them, only to be stopped by a growling wolf in her way.

"I hate you…I hate your whole family!" she screamed.

"LeFou…get me out of here!" she cried, like the diva she was, as they scurried back to the news van. David knocked the gun out of his hand and Snow was quick to pick it up. David punched the professor square in the face and shoved him back, as he wobbled, trying to stay on his feet. Snow handed the gun to her husband and he pointed it at the scientist. Ratigan smirked, as his minions encroached upon them and stood in front of him.

"You won't shoot your own citizens…" he said deviously.

"He won't need to," Regina said, as she and Paul arrived and began to immediately spray people with the antidote. Ratigan watched in horror, as his captives came out of their stupor and looked around in confusion.

"No…no…you're ruining everything!" he cried, as he started to run away, but David tackled him to the ground and cuffed him.

"You're under arrest, Professor Ratigan and with the list of charges you've racked up, you'll be lucky if you don't get life," David said, as marched him toward the patrol car and put him in the back. Snow sighed in relief, as she hugged Emma and the twins.

"What's going on?" one of the nurse's asked.

"I'll explain everything back at the hospital. I'd like to do a random blood test on all employees, just to make sure Professor Ratigan's drug has no long term effects," Paul announced, as his employees dispersed. He and David shook hands.

"Thanks for the help…both of you," he said. Paul smiled and Regina nodded curtly.

"Any time…thanks for making sure no one got hurt," the doctor replied, as Snow sided up to him and put her arms around his waist. He slid his arm around hers and kissed her tenderly.

"I'm going to take him to the station and process him, but I should be home soon," he promised.

"Okay…how about we meet at Granny's for dinner?" she suggested, as the twins cheered for that option. He smiled.

"Sounds perfect," he replied, as he kissed her again, before getting into the patrol car and heading for the station.

"Will you and Uncle Robin and Roland come to Granny's too?" Leo asked. Robin smiled, as he joined his wife.

"I think we can do that," Robin answered. Regina smiled.

"Sounds like fun. We can make fun of your parents when they start dancing to one of those cheesy ballads in the jukebox," the former Queen quipped.

"Hey…those are classics," Snow protested.

"I think the word you're looking for is old and cheesy," Regina teased.

"But tried and true, just like us," Snow said and no one could argue with that.

~*~

"This is quite a litany of charges you've leveled at the Professor," George stated, as he looked over the paperwork. David had locked Ratigan up in a holding cell, after processing him and then sent the paperwork off to the District Attorney's office. Unfortunately, George was still in the position and they really had no one else qualified to run against him, except Mitchell Herman, but he was content at the time to run his practice and serve as just about the only defense law firm in town.

"And let me guess, you're going to argue with me," David replied.

"I'm just pointing out that this is Storybrooke and we don't have many with knowledge like Professor Ratigan. Most of our teachers, save for Frollo, aren't actual teachers," George said.

"And most are still stunted by the remaining effects of the curse. My children aren't and we enlist Belle's help to make sure their curriculum is challenging enough. Ratigan isn't fit to be around people, let alone children," David argued.

"Hmm…I suppose you have a point," George said reluctantly.

"What became of the drug paraphernalia?" he asked. David smirked.

"Paul has already disposed of it. We have enough victims and testimony that we don't need the actual drug for evidence. Mind control drugs are much too dangerous to keep around so I guess you won't get to find out if they could work in your favor," the prince replied.

"I don't appreciate your assumptions that I would ever do such a thing, Sheriff," George snapped, as he sighed off on the charges and stormed out.

"Nice seeing you too, as always," he called sarcastically. Thomas shook his head.

"He's always a ray of sunshine," he commented.

"He still craves power and hates that Snow trounces him every time he tries to run against her as Mayor," David replied, as Leroy and Happy arrived for the night shift. He tossed the keys to Leroy and grabbed his leather jacket.

"Hot date?" Thomas teased.

"The hottest. Dinner at Granny's with the most beautiful woman in the world and three adorable, hilarious, and mischievous kids," David replied, as he made his way out for the night.

He made the short drive to the diner and the door opened with a chime.

"Daddy!" the twins called excitedly, as they barreled toward him and he scooped them up.

"That was so awesome when you punched that rat!" Leo said excitedly and David chuckled.

"Daddy, I got bad feelings from that bad man, but Mommy said he's going to jail now?" Eva asked.

"Yeah…he's going to jail for a very long time," David answered, as he pressed a kiss to her forehead. He put them down and let them run back to the table, while he slid into the booth beside Snow.

"Hey handsome," she cooed, as they shared a kiss.

"Hey yourself, beautiful," he replied, as they smiled at each other.

"I'm hungry…" Leo complained, as Ruby approached the table.

"Well, we better fix that," she said, as she took their orders and returned to the counter, as the song changed on the Jukebox and David offered his hand to his wife.

"Might as well work up an appetite while we're waiting," he said, as she took his hand.

"This song is so cheesy," Emma complained.

"Nah…just classic, like us," David said, as they started swaying closely, arms around each other.

"I'm sure you'll have songs with someone special someday, sweetie and then your kids will think they're cheesy too," Snow said.

"Yeah, hopefully when you're thirty," David commented sourly.

"Our baby girl is going to date, honey," she said, earning a grunt from him.

"But they'll always be our babies," she added.

"Yeah…sometimes I wish I could just freeze time for them," he said. She smiled.

"Me too," she agreed, as Regina and her family arrived. Gold and Belle soon followed and once again, the diner was full of family and friends. They ate and enjoyed dinner together, as they did often, and then the kids started a board game, leaving Snow and David to cuddle in the booth behind them. They watched their kids fondly and David pressed a kiss to her hair.

"You know, even though Ratigan was dangerous, I had fun on another adventure with you," she said. He smiled.

"Me too…Storybrooke is never boring, that's for sure," he replied, as he leaned in for a kiss, just as the diner door opened.

"Oh Sheriff…there you are!" Drizella called in full dramatics. Snow huffed.

"What the hell are you doing here?" she asked.

"Excuse me, Madam Mayor…but this is a public establishment and I run the Storybrooke Mirror, after all. I'm here to interview the Sheriff about his incredibly heroic takedown of the dastardly Professor Ratigan," she said dramatically.

"I'll fax a copy of my report to your office in the morning," David replied.

"But Sheriff…don't you want to recount the details of the event for my article personally?" she asked. He shook his head.

"Not really…and it wasn't all my effort anyway. I could have never done it without my deputy, Dr. Sakura, Regina, Mr. Gold, and of course, my beautiful wife," he replied, as he smiled fondly at her, a gesture which she returned. Drizella huffed.

"Sheriff…" she started to argue, when she felt something pelt her in the back of the head. Her face scrunched in confusion, as she reached back and pulled an earthworm out of her hair. She shrieked at the top of her lungs and flung the worm toward the ceiling where it stuck.

"Which one of you little cretins did that!?" she growled, as she approached the Charming children.

"I did," Leo said, as she snarled at him, only for Emma to squirt her in the face with the mustard bottle.

"Whoa…direct hit!" Leo declared and Eva giggled.

"Why you…you little…" Drizella stammered, as she tried to wipe the mustard out of her eyes.

"Oooohhh…" Lucifer winced, as he rushed to her and handed her a single napkin.

"You idiot! How is this going to help?" she shouted. Snow walked up to the bar and Ruby handed her the nozzle from the soda wand behind the bar.

"Let me help," she said in a sweet voice, as she sprayed the crazy woman with soda.

"You…you monster! Mother was right…you're the real monster!" Drizella bawled, as she fled the diner with her assistant chasing after her.

"I guess that was kind of mean," Snow said, as she returned to her laughing husband.

"Nah…you're just protecting what's yours," he replied, as she gave him a coy smile and gently cupped his face in her hand.

"Mmm…you are so right," she replied, as they shared another kiss.

"Mom…that was awesome," Emma said.

"You too sweetie, but remember, we never do that to people, unless it's Drizella Tremaine, no matter what," Snow said. The kids nodded, knowing that their Dad's crazy stalker was the only exception for that kind of behavior.

"Guess we better head home," he mentioned.

"In a hurry, handsome?" she asked.

"I'm so turned on right now," he whispered to her. She smiled and bit her bottom lip.

"Ruby…check please," she called, as they paid the check and said their goodbyes and with that, the Charming family headed home. Storybrooke was safe and normal once again. Or as normal as Storybrooke could ever be. In a town full of characters the world considered to just be fairy tales…they weren't simply just anything. In their little corner of the world, belief, hope, and true love were everything and the cornerstone of a happily ever after that was really just the beginning and middle of their lives. And true love would never fail this family…

The End.