#gary bias

[jt1674]

[mitjalovse]

The 10's also shocked us by causing many veteran musicians to stop their recording hiatuses as if the world was on fire or something. I mean, if I told you Earth, Wind & Fire continued to release records during the previous decade, you might've done a double take. Sure, you can expect them to tour, but to record? Then again, the 10's did show their influence to be present in the opuses of many of their genre, which is why one can be slightly disappointed that Now, Then & Forever sounds so safe. Mind you, the album is a pleasant listen, yet you wish they would've done something more … in the style of their past? No, you just want to hear them stretching themselves more, yet the absence of some key members on that one might have something to do with that.

[sanuue]

I’ve been listening to a lot of kpop lately, and while I’m not some huge fan that knows every member’s name or anything, Stray kids make some absolute bangers.

So because of that, I’m giving the head canon that Gary is a closeted K-pop AND vocaloid fan.

On another note, I made myself a personal blog for when I wanna post things that aren’t Bully related, I’ll probably make an about me post with it if y’all are interested in seeing more of my art.

[dooxliss]

hiii gari for the expressions chart could i pleaaase request either 3a for talia or 5g for peri 🤩

(send a mario character and an expression!)

talia’s my favorite mario character 🔥

[effervescentdragon]

Gary actually looks real good in Germany like damnnnnnn

[obaewankenope]

Read about the BBC censorship riot going on right now with Lineker and Sir David Attenborough's 6th episode of Wild Isles that looks at nature devastation in the UK and stuff. Like wowsa.

In Sir David Attenborough voice: and here we see the British Broadcasting Corporation, the supposed pinnacle of impartiality, adhering to the will of its Tory Masters of the last 12 years to lick their own arseholes! Wonderful!

[not-poignant]

Hi! I don't know if this has been asked yet. But reading falling falling stars, there's a bit where efnisien talks about how he was meant to be a culmination of the 'worst' parts of Crielle and penny (penny's brutality and Crielle's ability to control it). do you think instead he got the 'best' parts of them (beauty and brains) instead and is why he was still preferred to Gwyn, but not in the specific shape they wanted him in?

Hi anon,

I think Efnisien's assessment is understandable, but it's also like...just his thoughts about something, and not reflective of reality.

He didn't get the best or worst parts of Penny or Crielle. He was raised by abusers, and there were good things and terrible things in that household, but most of the things were terrible. Efnisien's beauty is 'fragile' because he was malnourished so badly, that's not a 'best' thing that he inherited from his family, that was something inflicted on him. His thinness is a symptom of his upbringing and abuse. His pretty face is genetics, he got that just as much from his ancestors as from Penny.

Likewise, his intelligence - as Crielle actually rightly points out - works against him often. It's not a 'best' part at all. People who are highly intellectual but raised in abusive homes often are prone to coping techniques like intellectualisation and catastrophisation, and highly intellectual people are actually more prone to mental illness. Efnisien's ability to think things through without wisdom or guidance or maturity meant he was able to convince himself that he was evil with far more complexity than what Crielle was saying, to reinforce everything she was saying.

These things are not 'best' traits for everyone, anon. Someone being 'ugly' is not the worst thing it's possible to be, and someone being intelligent isn't always the best. Crielle's intelligence was used to manipulate, torture, and sadistically brainwash Efnisien. Is that really her best quality? Her beauty was used to manipulate, deceive and convince people that she was harmless, because folks mistakenly think that 'beautiful' also means 'good' and 'pure' (they're wrong, but it's for this reason that attractive abusers are actually less likely to come to justice than 'ugly' ones). It wasn't one of her best qualities. And it also wasn't something she had a choice over. That's 100% down to genetics.

Also, he didn't inherit that from her anyway, he's Penny's son. And her beauty is also 100% down to genetics.

I'm very wary of attaching words like 'best' or 'good' to traits like beauty (subjective) and intelligence, anon. Like, philosophically, I would not say those were 'best traits' and nor where Penny and Crielle using these qualities in helpful, compassionate, useful, or caring ways. Efnisien didn't either for a long time. In fact he himself makes it clear that he used his prettiness and his beauty to deceive people, and this is why the story makes him look less pretty outside of scenes as the story goes on. He wears less handsome clothing, he wears more comfortable clothing, he doesn't make his hair fashionable any longer, etc.

The story itself is like 'uh, being beautiful and smart can still turn out psychopathic torturers.'

Not best traits, anon. Not worst traits either. Just things that exist, that are used as tools by people both consciously and unconsciously towards all ends. Be wary of thinking this way yourself anon, it sets up an unconscious bias towards believing that people who are ugly and not as smart are somehow 'worse' than people who are beautiful and intelligent.

And the world doesn't work like that at all.

[nevertrustanoracle]

Top 5 VTM characters?

*sigh* I saw this coming, and knew I would never be prepared for it. VtM is so varied that while I can pick like “favourite characters in X-thing” I can’t then rank those against each other. So you’re getting my top characters from five different categories. Don’t try to make me rank them beyond that. I’ll probably cry. 😅

Top general lore character: Roger de Camden.

I’m sure you saw that one coming. As does anyone who listened to the first NYbN live stage where I said that while asking the cast who theirs is. Started looking into him due to wanting to run Old Wounds and quickly fell headfirst down that rabbit hole, yet to emerge.

Top actual play character: Jasper Heartwood.

He’s the reason I’m a VtM fan tbh. Sure, I decided to try watching LAbN for Taliesin Jaffe, but it was Jasper who got me hooked. I was immediately entranced by him and Alex Ward’s incredible acting as him. I just couldn’t look away. Love him to bits. Cried buckets over the finale.

Top Choice Of Games character: Sheriff Qui.

It’s actually a hard choice between him, Arundel, and Lettow; I adore them all. But he is like 40% of the reason I tried PoK (the other 60% is the rat famulus Nossie PCs get). I love him so much and his romance route is such fun. Forever laughing over the timing of the phone call on the, uh, “morning evening after”. Also his backstory and the reason behind his apparent lack of his clan curse is really interesting.

Top video game character: Omnis.

I literally have a poster of them on my wall. Immediately became my favourite in Bloodhunt upon their introduction. I can’t wait to learn more about them. They’re the one NPC I even vaguely trust in BH. Which will probably come back to bite me but oh well. I mean, we already know that they and Maia are lying to the others…

Wild card fifth place: Beckett.

He could count for three of the categories (all four if you count the mention of him in PoK). I always get excited when he shows up or even just gets a mention. Gotta love the feral nerd. Funnily enough, while my other favourite clans came about due to a specific character, I loved the Gangrel well before I knew about Beckett.

[suja-janee]

I was also rewatching some of the Simpsons

Look, just hear me out-

[theworldgate]

I have to explain what is going on in the UK, because it is absurd.

So, this is Gary Lineker:

He's known for a fair few things over here. He was a very good (association) footballer, playing for England in the 1986 and 1990 World Cups, winning the Golden Boot in 1986, and managing to never get a single yellow card in his playing career. He played for Leicester City, Everton, Barcelona, and Tottenham, before finishing his career in Japan. But if you aren't in your mid 30s, you probably know actually know him him for a couple of other things. The first is the role of spokesman for another Leicester icon, Walkers Crisps (which are sort of equivalent to Lays, but hit different), as pictured above. Despite being a notably clean player, he used to play a cheeky serial crisp thief. I don't think he's done that for well over a decade, but his ads were on the telly a lot when I was a kid and it's a bit like learning that the hamburglar was an incredibly clean (American) football player or something.

The second thing Gary is widely known for is having presented Match of the Day, the big football program on the BBC, the sort-of state broadcaster, since 1999. He is, incidentally, very well paid for this (though with a consensus that he could get even more if he went to one of the non-free-to-view broadcasters because he is very good at the job). He also has a twitter account. And political opinions. So, the UK government has got itself dead set upon doing heinous stuff that will totally somehow work to prevent people who want to come to the UK making the perilous crossing of the Channel (between England and France). By heinous, I mean "openly advertise that they won't attempt to protect victims of modern slavery" stuff. It's very obviously using a legal hammer to victimise a marginalised group of people in order to win votes. And, uh, I should clarify that by "legal" I mean "using the passage of laws" - the policy is, in addition to all the other ways it's awful, probably incompatible with the Human Rights Act and the UK's international law obligations. Gary, top lad that he is, objected to this. On Tuesday 7th March, he made a quote Tweet of a video of the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, bigging up the policy, he wrote "Good heavens, this is beyond awful.". This got a bunch of backlash from extremely right-wingers, and then he made the tweet that really got him in trouble (with right-wingers): "There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?".

Now, I am not actually subjecting myself to watching a video of Suella Braverman bigging up a cruel policy to say whether the specific comparison of the language to 1930s Germany is accurate. But needless to say, Ms Braverman was amongst the many figures on the right of UK politics objecting to Gary's rhetoric. And here's the part where a fact about the BBC comes in: it is nominally neutral and impartial (and so, of course, is routinely accused of bias from all sides but particularly the right-wing), and has something of a code for its contributors to this effect. Now, that code has previously been applied to Gary Lineker, over a comment about whether governing Conservative Party would hand back donations from figures linked to the Russian regime. But it generally hasn't been applied too strongly to people like Gary, whose roles have nothing to do with politics (such as presenting a "here's what happened on the footie today" show), on the basis that, well, their roles have nothing to do with politics. However, when directly asked about whether the BBC should punish Gary Lineker for his tweets, government figures basically went "well, that's a them problem". But a couple of days passed, and it seemed like Gary's approach of "standing his ground because he did nothing wrong" was working and everything would die down. He was set to get 'a talking to' but not much more than that. The Conservative right, after all their fire and fury earlier, had gotten bored and moved onto something else. And then, on Friday 10th March, the BBC announced that he would be suspended from hosting Match of the Day this weekend. But it could still go ahead, because there are, like, other hosts! Except, well, funnily enough, when you take a beloved figure off air, for making a fairly anodyne tweet, no one wants to be the scab who actually takes up the role of replacing him. Gary's two co-hosts, Alan Shearer and Ian Wright, said that they would not appear without him. People who (co-)host Match of the Day on other days followed suit. The net result is that Match of the Day is currently set to air without hosts, BBC commentary, or global feed commentary. And the solidarity shown to Gary Lineker, over what is very flagrantly actual cancel culture and an attack on freedom of speech (the logic implied is that institutional impartiality requires that no one say anything too critical of the government ever), has continued to grow. The BBC has pretty much been unable to run pretty much any live sports content today, and has resorted to raiding the BBC Sounds archive to fill the sports radio channel. And, as of 17:30 on Saturday 11th March, the situation shows no signs of improvement, though some are calling for the Chairman Richard Sharp, who is separately facing corruption allegations, to resign (yes I linked to the BBC itself there, there is nothing, nothing, the BBC loves more than going into great detail about how much the BBC sucks).

[jt1674]

[somewhereincairparavel]

Literally where do people get the idea that Jason was full of himself and that he thought he was better than Percy? This is legit brought up in so many 'why-i-hate-jason-grace" arguments it just screams lack of reading comprehension and obvious Percy bias saltiness. Like just say you are bitter that Jason is written as percy's equal and that you want Percy to have nobody rival him 💀

Never once in his povs did he ever think about how much better he was, on the contrary it's just him not feeling good enough about himself. He and Percy NEVER said anything bad about eachother.

His and Percy's rival is just a joke between two powerful demigods who have rival dads, that's literally it. Even if Jason did indeed think he's better, so what about it? What's the big deal?

he has worked hard and accomplished great things, so he has like, every right to be confident in his power, stop acting like hes all weak and inferior when he canonically killed a titan with like his bare fucking hands till the point Krios swore vengeance on him. No he's not "weak" or morally inferior to Percy as a person. You are merely trying to cope. Not to mention the way people judge a character's worth SOLEY based on their abilities is a huge red flag in itself, but that's a discussion for another time.

he shouldve canonically had more achievments and power than he originally got in the books as a son of jupiter. but rick made Percy too OP and fumbled jason for the sake of keeping percy's spotlight intact. Has it ever dawned on people that Percy is shown to have cool abilities like bending tears but Jason is never shown to have abilities like controlling lungs? Yeah, that's authors privilege for ya.

Y'all put Percy in an obnoxiously high pedestal and that's not a good thing. It diminishes his flaws and makes him appear so saint like and Gary Stu even though he's not. the fact that ppl get so sensitive over their rivalry and try to belittle jason by making up scenarios (like claiming jason thinks he's superior and shit) and go around saying that to ppl to reduce his value DESPITE being well aware that he has like enough hate already, is so insanely petty. BOTH Jason and Percy deserve equal amounts of respect.

God forbid a teenage boy say he's better than the other as a joke, he's such a terrible, stuck up, and shitty person who deserved death for that, isn't he?

[obaewankenope]

Sir David Attenborough being censored will piss off swing voters who tended toward Tory voting, and those who are of older generations who were practically taught about the world by his shows, books, and radio appearances. Basically, a lot of the people who liked Old Lizzie II.

The footy thing with Lineker is a working class foghorn that is absolutely rekindling resentment, disdain, and distrust with British media and a Tory government that was caused by the travesty of reporting around Hillsborough.

The BBC could only fuck this up further if they went and said "well, it's only a game".

(Which, by the way, you just DON'T say about footy unless you want every footy "hooligan" demanding to be the one to crush your skull with a casey.)

So just how badly do you think Attenborough could scupper the BBC's reputation if he chose to right now? I feel like he could easily galvanise a lot more people behind him than Lineker if he chose to kick up a stink about having his show censored to appease the right wing loonies

I think the Lineker stuff could have more of an impact tbh. The football commentating middle class have rallied around what I’d honestly describe as a pretty inoffensive liberal tweet because the idiots at the BBC have made it seem way more groundbreaking than it was.

And now the BBC has fucked it with previously uninterested and disengaged people boycotting match of the day of all things.

[witchthewriter]

𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝

I thought I should make a post explaining why I add a moral alignment to every character I write for! 

This way of describing characters came about in a 1977 version of the Dungeons & Dragons handbook by Gary Gygax. The alignment system was based on the fantasy stories of Michael Moorcock and Poul Anderson.

It was a way for players to decide how their characters would think and act in the game. And I’ve now integrated it as a part of how I see characters and their motives. 

Here’s a few alignment tests if you’d like to find out for yourself! 

(P.s each test has different questions so one might not give you the same answer as the other. Quite like the Hogwarts House quizzes). 

Comment down below or reblog with your result!

Test One. 

Test Two. 

Test Three. 

Test Four. 

Test Five. 

𝐋𝐀𝐖𝐅𝐔𝐋 𝐆𝐎𝐎𝐃

𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒: Superman, Brienne of Tarth, Robocop. 

Crusaders

・They’re the protectors, but also seen as morally rigid and stubborn

・Always do the right thing; what’s expected of them by society

・Feel very uncomfortable breaking the rules

・They believe in societal rules and expect everyone to follow those rules. They can be blinded by their righteousneous at times. 

・They get angry when people get away with breaking the rules

・Believe good deeds and behaviours will be rewarded

・This alignment has good intentions; there is no malice in their actions - even if something bad may happen because of them

・They take pride in bringing ‘bad people’ to justice 

・The upside of this alignment is that it combines honour and compassion. 

・The downside of this alignment is that it retricts freedom and criminalises self-interest

・Sees Lawful Good as Honorable & Humane

・Sees Neutral Good as Humane but Unreliable

・Sees Chaotic Good as Humane but Dishonorable

・ Sees Lawful Neutral as Honorable but Apathetic

・Sees True Neutral as Unreliable & Apathetic 

・Sees Chaotic Neutral as Dishonorable & Apathetic 

・Sees Lawful Evil as Honorable but Ruthless 

・Sees Neutral Evil as Unreliable & Ruthless

・Sees Chaotic Evil as Dishonorable & Ruthless 

𝐍𝐄𝐔𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐆𝐎𝐎𝐃

𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒: Jon Snow, Gandalf, Spiderman. 

Benefactors

・Believe in doing what’s right, even if that means going against the law 

・They help others because they have the desire to do so, not because the law or anyone else, tells them to do it 

・They recognise that the law can be unjust. They don’t blindly follow it. 

・Most protagonists embody this alignment. 

・They - usually - don’t kill, even if the villain is right in front of them. 

・The upside of this alignment is that they will do whatever they can to help those in need

・The downside of this alignment is that they can become unpredictable when they think they’re doing the right thing 

・They don’t disregard the law completely, but will break it if it means helping someone

・The difference between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good, is that CG hates authority and the government/leading state. While NG thinks there is a reason for rules. 

・It’s a great alignment because it means doing good without bias for or against order. But can be a bad/dangerous one because it can limit the actions of the truly capable. 

・Sees Lawful Good as Humane but Strict

・Sees Neutral Good as Practical & Humane

・Sees Chaotic Good as Humane but Lax

・Sees Lawful Neutral as Strict & Apathetic

・Sees True Neutral as Practical but Apathetic 

・Sees Chaotic Neutral as Lax & Apathetic

・Sees Lawful Evil as Strict & Ruthless

・Sees Neutral Evil as Practical but Ruthless

・Sees Chaotic Evil as Lax & Ruthless

𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐎𝐓𝐈𝐂 𝐆𝐎𝐎𝐃

𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒: the 11th Doctor, Robin Hood, Mary Poppins. 

Rebels

・They don’t care about society’s rules, they care about what’s doing right 

・Freedom is their highest value 

・Detest authority

・This is the best alignment you can be because it combines a free-spirit with a good heart. 

・They believe freedom is the only way a person can feel true happiness

・The upside of this alignment is that they will do absolutely everything in their power not only to help innocence, but bring about change if they can

・The downside of this alignment is that they disrupt the order of society and punish those who do well for themselves 

・CG will keep their word to anyone who isn’t evil

・The difference between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral is that CG is self-aware of their actions. They don’t want other people to get hurt.

・They’re willing to lie, cheat and steal if it’s for the greater good 

・CGs’ don’t put their desires above the greater good; they want to help in every way they can. 

・Sees Lawful Good as Humane but Dogmatic

・Sees Neutral Good as Humane but Conformist

・Sees Chaotic Good as Independent & Humane 

・Sees Lawful Neutral as Dogmatic & Apathetic

・Sees True Neutral as Conformist & Apathetic

・Sees Chaotic Neutral as Independent but Apathetic 

・Sees Lawful Evil as Dogmatic & Ruthless

・Sees Neutral Evil as Conformist & Ruthless

・Sees Chaotic Evil as Independent but Ruthless

𝐋𝐀𝐖𝐅𝐔𝐋 𝐍𝐄𝐔𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐋

𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒: Dwight K. Schrute, Percy Weasley, Judge Dredd. 

Judges

・Lawful Neutrals’ always act in accordance with the law, tradition or code. 

・They behave in a way that matches the organisation they follow. They’re deathly loyal to it. 

・Because they are so emotionless when following their tradition/law, they can come off as Lawful Evil

・The upside of this alignment is that they are reliable and honorable without being a zealot 

・The downside of this alignment is that they seek to destroy choice, freedom, individuality, diversity. 

・They believe in the government wholeheartedly, even if it’s hurting its citizens. Even if it is becoming tyranical. 

・LN have blind loyalty

・They rarely seek things for themselves. Their desires line up with the laws and traditions. 

・The difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral is that LG will question the laws that are hurtful to others. They aren’t completely following blindly. They speak up. 

・Lawful Neutral doesn’t consider morality when abiding by the law

・Sees Lawful Good as Honorable but Idealistic

・Sees Neutral Good as Unreliable & Idealistic

・Sees Chaotic Good as Dishonorable & Idealistic

・Sees Lawful Neutral as Honorable & Realistic

・Sees True Neutral as Realistic but Unreliable

・Sees Chaotic Neutral as Realistic but Dishonorable 

・Sees Lawful Evil as Honorable but Egotistic

・Sees Neutral Evil as Unreliable but Egotistic 

・Sees Chaotic Evil as Dishonorable and Egotistic 

𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐄 𝐍𝐄𝐔𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐋

𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒: The Chesire Cat, Lara Croft, Malcolm Reynolds. 

Undecideds

・True definition of ‘on the fence’

・They neither want to hurt nor help others; they only want to keep themselves alive and will do whatever that means to make sure it happens. 

・They don’t uphold the laws but neither do they rebel

・The upside of this alignment is that they act naturally - without prejudice.

・The downside is that they lack conviction and are apathetic. 

・Basically...they are nice to those that are nice to them and hurt those that hurt them. 

・True Neutrals’ are offended by those with big opinions 

・They despise bigots

・And usually avoid philosophical ideals altogether 

・Will keep their word if it’s in their best interest 

・Will never betray a family member, friend or ally unless the situation is dire 

・True Neutral characters stay non-committed to any cause, legal or moral system. 

・Sees Lawful Good as Strict & Idealistic 

・Sees Neutral Good as Practical but Idealistic 

・Sees Chaotic Good as Lax & Idealistic 

・Sees Lawful Neutral as Realistic but Strict

・Sees True Neutral as Practical & Realistic 

・Sees Chaotic Neutral as Realistic but Lax

・Sees Lawful Evil as Strict & Egotistic 

・Sees Neutral Evil as Practical but Egotistic

・Sees Chaotic Evil as Lax & Egotistic 

𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐎𝐓𝐈𝐂 𝐍𝐄𝐔𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐋

𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒: Han Solo, Captain Jack Sparrow, Catwoman. 

Free-Spirits

・Chaotic Neutrals’ follow their heart, but in comparison with Chaotic Goods’ they won’t self-sacrifice for the greater good. 

・They hate being given orders, and actively go against the law. Even if it’s because of something petty. 

・They can easily slip into Chaotic Good or Chaotic Evil with one step 

・This alignment is the best you can be because it represents true freedom from the law, societal standards and a moral code. 

・They can be a dangerous alignment because they want to destroy authorative figures and structures; even if it’s doing good for the community. 

・They believe there is no order to anything, even their actions. They’re completely unpredictable and may do things on a whim. 

・This alignment is usually the con-mans, the gamblers, insurgent. Aka, the uncomitted free-loader who desires nothing more than self-gratification. 

・CN will keep their word if it serves their self-interest

・These people don’t want people to suffer because of their actiohs - but don’t care if their actions may hurt others. 

・Sees Lawful Good as Dogmatic & Idealistic 

・Sees Neutral Good as Conformist & Idealistic 

・Sees Chaotic Good as Independent but Idealistic 

・Sees Lawful Neutral as Realistic but Dogmatic 

・Sees True Neutral as Realistic but Conformist 

・Sees Chaotic Neutral as Independent & Realistic 

・Sees Lawful Evil as Dogmatic & Egotistic

・Sees Neutral Evil as Conformist & Egotistic

・Sees Chaotic Evil as Independent but Egotistic 

𝐋𝐀𝐖𝐅𝐔𝐋 𝐄𝐕𝐈𝐋

𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒: Darth Vader, Dolores Umbridge, Lex Luther. 

Dominators

・This alignment is a tyrant 

・They have no problem with for-going morals in honor of the law. 

・The downside of this alignment is that evil combined with law, means a society-wide regimes. 

・Fannatics, dictators and extremists fall under this alignment

・This alignment cares about traditions, enforcing the law and keeping order

・These people/characters consider themselves the best because they combine ‘honour’ with a dedicated self-interest. 

・However, this is the most dangerous alignment because these people will manipulate the law to suit their desires

・They hold any Lawful alignment as honorable, chaotics as dishonorable. 

・Lawful Evil absolutely hate Chaotic Good people/characters very ... very much. They pose the most threat. 

・Labelled ‘diabolical’, Lawful Evils’ will always use the rules. No matter how evil they are, they will never break the rules. 

・They will do anything; kill, maim, torture - as long as it doesn’t break the law. 

・Sees Lawful Good as Honorable but Self-Righteous

・Sees Neutral Good as Unreliable & Self-righteous

・Sees Chaotic Good as Dishonorable & Self-Righteous

・Sees Lawful Neutral as Honorable but Irresolute

・Sees True Neutral as Unreliable & Irresolute 

・Sees Chaotic Neutral as Dishonorable & Irresolute

・Sees Lawful Evil as Honorable & Determined

・Sees Neutral Evil as Determined but Unreliable 

・Sees Chaotic Evil as Determined but Dishonorable 

𝐍𝐄𝐔𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐄𝐕𝐈𝐋

𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒: Voldemort, Jabba the Hutt, Milady de Winter.

Malefactors

・Is selfish and has no issue with harming others to get what they want 

・They might follow rules if it serves them, but they do not feel bound to them

・This alignment usually makes alliances with others to further their own agenda, but have no issue with double-crossing their allies

・They don’t see much value in having a moral code 

・They’re feared because they carry out evil for evil’s sake

・They believe themselves the best alignment because they advance themselves without regard for others

・This alignment is only out for themselves; they don’t care about bringing down social structures. Instead, they have a desire and they will do whatever it is to get it. 

・The difference between Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil is that LE still follows the law and its structures. NE may follow the law - only if it works in their favour, then they have no problem going below it to their gain

・The difference between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil is that the latter is completely unpredictable. NE will at least have a reason why they’ve allied with someone, or are following the rules in some way. CE will do things for absolutely no reason. 

・Sees Lawful Good as Strict & Self-Righteous 

・Sees Neutral Good as Practical but Self-Righteous

・Sees Chaotic Good as Lax & Self-Righteous 

・Sees Lawful Neutral as Strict & Irresolute

・Sees True Neutral as Practical but Irresolute

・Sees Chaotic Neutral as Lax & Irresolute

・Sees Lawful Evil as Determined but Strict 

・Sees Neutral Evil as Practical & Determined

・Sees Chaotic Evil as Determined but Laxed

𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐎𝐓𝐈𝐂 𝐄𝐕𝐈𝐋

𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒: The Joker, The Night King, James Moriarty. 

Destroyers

・These characters are malevolent 

・Villains vying for revenge usually fall under this alignment 

・One may see this as the most evil as they set out to destroy everything - order, life, tradition, freedom. 

・They think they are the best alignment because they choose freedom and self-interest 

・These people/characters never feel the need to keep to their word 

・They prefer to work alone

・Just like the other Chaotic alignments, they too hate authority, and actively seek to destroy it

・Will kill for pleasure, has no moral code, doesn’t care at all about the wel-fare for others

・They believe self-discipline and honour as restrictive 

・Seen as the most frightening because they are so unpredictable and violent 

・ Lawful Good is the antithesis of Chaotic Evil

・Chaotic Evils’ believe that freedom should only belong to those strong enough to keep it

・Sees Lawful Good as Dogmatic & Self-Righteous

・Sees Neutral Good as Conformist & Self-Righteous 

・Sees Chaotic Good as Independent but Self-Righteous 

・Sees Lawful Neutral as Dogmatic & Irresolute

・Sees True Neutral as Conformist & Irresolute 

・Sees Chaotic Neutral as Independent but Irresolute 

・Sees Lawful Evil as Determined but Dogmatic 

・Sees Neutral Evil as Determined but Conformist

・Sees Chaotic Evil as Independent & Determined 

[brainsqueals]

I attempted to reblog something earlier with these but it didn't seem to go through... so I'll post them separately.

I saw The Libertines this Thursday just gone, it was my first ever show of theirs and I was just behind the first row at barrier. I came out sporting a few bruises but I'd say it was worth it...

A lot of these are pictures of Carl and I won't deny my bias. Love me a tortured poet

More talking under the cut:

Just at the end of the show when Gary shouted free Palestine, some bloke behind me made a remark about "not wanting politics, just drums" which I thought was rather silly - considering you're at a Libs show, and as far as things go they're quite openly political. You don't need to be a genius to hear and understand the lyrics to half of their songs.

I think it's funny when people will be surprised when openly political people who are consistently vocal about world issues are, well, vocal about world issues. You can enjoy the music as much as you like without wanting to personally "get involved" so to speak, but why should you be surprised at them doing exactly what they've been doing all this time? Was interesting. Not sure if I've worded that very well but it's going out anyway

Free Palestine! Do your daily clicks. Donate.

[tcifob]

Knowing Your Worth

Oct 22 2024

World Cup champion and Olympic gold medalist Tobin Heath visited Marlborough on October 22, 2024, to speak at an All-School Meeting (ASM). Hosted by the Play for Equal Pay club and expertly moderated by club leaders Alexa B. ’26, Cara H. ’26, and Sydney K. ’26, Heath shared her experiences fighting for gender equity in sports and her vision for the future of women’s athletics. Speaking to an enraptured audience of students who grew up watching her dominate the soccer pitch, Heath offered candid insights into her journey from a young athlete to an advocate for equal pay.

Heath reflected on her early experiences with gender inequity in sports, recalling how even when she was outperforming male students in gym class, she was separated into different participation opportunities solely on the basis of gender. “This really bothered me because it had nothing to do with ability or potential,” Heath shared, highlighting the early seeds of frustration that would fuel her fight for equality throughout her professional career.

As a key figure in the US Women’s National Team’s landmark equal pay lawsuit against the US Soccer Federation, Heath emphasized that the case was not simply about equal pay—it was about fair pay and treatment. “We didn’t just want ‘equal’ because everybody knows we were better. We wanted to be paid fairly for what we were accomplishing,” Heath explained.

The path to victory was not easy. Heath described the complexity of simultaneously competing for the United States while suing her employer. “We had to come in contact with these people all the time and then be on separate sides of the negotiation table,” Heath said. “The same people that were in the stands cheering for us, wanting us to win World Cups and Olympics, were the same people saying that we weren't deserving of equal pay. It was really, really complicated.” Even when faced with setbacks, including an initial dismissal by Judge Gary Klausner in 2020, the team persevered. “There are going to be so many people in your path that don’t agree with what you are doing,” Heath mused. “Instead of accepting that and saying, ‘Oh, the door is closed,’ know that there are always more doors and you can create them.”

Heath underscored that the fight for equality extends beyond soccer. She spoke of how inspired she is to hear from folks who, spurred on by the US Women’s National Team’s fight, took up their own fight in their own industry to advocate for equity. Heath encouraged students to view their frustrations as business opportunities, citing the example of building new women’s sports infrastructure and media companies. “I hope there are some entrepreneurial-minded students in this room because your frustrations are huge business opportunities. Whenever you're going to be put under an umbrella, because of the history and bias in this world, you are always going to be less than in that umbrella. So do not go under an umbrella however beautiful it looks. Create your own,” Heath challenged.

Looking to the future, Heath expressed pride in seeing the next generation of athletes enter a world where they have viable career paths in professional women’s sports. She also emphasized that when she refers to “women’s sports,” she imagines a lot held within that phrase. She explained: “I actually think women's sports goes beyond gender. I feel like we have an opportunity to be inclusive of all folks. When everyone watches women's sports, we are supporting something so much greater than the sports themselves. We are supporting the future.” As hopeful as Heath’s messaging is, she made sure to stress that there is still work to be done. “We would be remiss if we don’t keep our foot on the gas because there’s a lot left to do,” Heath said.

The soccer star concluded with a call to action for students to imagine and create the future of women’s sports. “I want to get the very best, the very brightest minds—all of yours included—thinking, dreaming, and going after what is possible in women’s sports,” Heath said, emphasizing that this next generation sitting inside Caswell Hall will determine the future of athletics. Her visit left students with a powerful message about perseverance, innovation, and the ongoing fight for equity in sports. Driving her point home, she reminded the community: “Before you can fight for anything in this world, you have to know your own value and your own worth, because this world is pretty excited to determine it for you.”

Through her powerful remarks about her experiences and vision for the future, Heath demonstrated how the battle for equity extends beyond the confines of a soccer pitch and touches on broader themes of justice, opportunity, and systemic change.