#he approached the situation differently

[valewritessss]

“Percy would finish what Luke started”

Um, I think we need to rethink this

[muninnhuginn]

Ngl definitely thinking back to the cartoon-making chapter now we know that Twilight doesn't realise studying/pursuit of knowledge can be fun. No wonder the cartoon he made sucked. He was approaching it purely from the educational angle with zero idea of the entertainment aspect that makes edutainment programming effective.

It's not that he was really bad at writing the fun parts. He plain didn't realise there were meant to be any in the first place for it to work.

Copying the aesthetics with no understanding of what was underneath.

[affluent-havoc]

Ranking the Trio based on how they'd potentially parent

Makoto - He definitely has the most in regards of handling kids. I doubt he just sat their and did nothing while Komaru was growing up. Not that he'd be able to do TOO much since Makoto and Komaru aren't that far in age, but I feel he would have had the opportunity to observe and learn that way. Being an older sibling as well lends him to have a bit more experience with caring for those younger than him. Thus, I can see Makoto being pretty good at this. Or well, he'd say it's average but this guy can't help but undersell himself like that. Feel he'd be a good, classic dad.

Byakuya - Yeah. He has absolutely nothing. Or does he...??? OoOoOo! After all, there could be a SLIVER of chance though that he was educated in how to care for kids due to the fact that he's the heir. He's gotta make a ton of them. Buuuuuut, he could just, give the kids off to the maids or butlers something. So yeah. Circles back around to nope. He's got nothing. The added part is that he was the youngest in his family too, specifically in the competition though still the youngest there. Thus, he'd probably have a lot to learn before he can start potentially raising the kid.

Kyoko - Like Byakuya, she probably has minimal experience due to both her personality and how she was raised. However, unlike Byakuya, she doesn't have the "she might have learned at least something about childcare due to rich boy" excuse that might give her a change of having prior knowledge on kids. She legit has nothing. However, unlike him, I feel she'd be quicker to learn and, in adulthood, understand kids more than he does though both of them would be in a bit of a learning curve together regardless. Byakuya's just going to take more time and be petty with the fact that Kyoko and Makoto are excelling at this child care stuff more than him.

In regards on how I feel the three would work together in a parenting scenario (either the three are a thing or they're all just helping out), I feel they'd work good together! They'd really be able to cultivate a well rounded child with their differing approaches and ways of handling a child. Feel Makoto would be good with giving the kid a good sense or morality, Byakuya would ensure the kid knows their worth and can be proud of their achievements, Kyoko can teach the kid good critical thinking skills, and that's just scratching the surface of the possibilities! The trio would also be able to help each other out if the other's not as well versed with a certain task. For example, I feel Byakuya would have trouble changing the baby. There's also the mix of just general parenting troubles they'd face along the way. Furthermore, some other general thoughts I have on this concept is Hiro would be such a goofy uncle. He gives such good weird uncle energy. The kind of uncle one would wanna hang out with for sure and hear crazy stories from. Maybe a few conspiracy theories might be told as well though I'm sure the kid could eventually snuff out the truth eventually, no matter if one, two or all of the trio are parenting the kid. All three of them are smart in their own ways, that's for sure! Moreover, I feel Hina would be a cool ass aunt, definitely trying to get the kid into swimming and being nice to have donuts around every time they visit. Feel she'd also just be really fun to be around (she IS the older sibling in her own family too), the type of aunt who'd spill embarrassing stuff the trio might of done as in their youth. Feel Toko would also have good aunt potential too in a different way than Hina. She'd be the type one would get good book recommendations from. Also, while Hiro and Hina are more high energy, Toko's a lot more reserved so visits with her would be a lot less chaotic and more of an opportunity for learning for the kid whenever they're around. (Syo can supply any chaos anyway) Not saying Toko can't be fun to be around on her own! Feel she'd definitely say some memorable things around the kid, maybe roasting Hiro behind his back which would be humorous. Additionally, feel Toko would underestimate her ability regards to being around kids. Like, she'd think she wasn't doing as good as she was or just have those seeds of doubt in her about it. She has good potential to be just as cool of an aunt as Hina though, Komaru too which one can't forget her! Feel Komaru would be around when Toko is too so Toko isn't just doing it all alone, she's got some help with Komaru in terms of the kid and their potential visits. Also, no clue how to squeeze this in but I just have that weird gut feeling that Komaru would bring the kid to the zoo or the park or just some form of outing. I just feel she would.

[abrahamvanhelsings]

if you would ever like to elaborate further on the mountain dog/hunting dog joplittle dynamic you mentioned in the tags of that “Blanky about to lose his leg” gifset…. inquiring minds are simply piqued 👀

hi sorry that this took me. FOREVER. i didn't have time to answer the ask at first then i did it halfway and didn't have time again and i promise you this ask has been hounding me (hah hah) since the day it appeared in my inbox but i never seemed to be able to make the time to reply to it asfjdfjfd anyway! here it is now :')

ok im basing the idea of hunting dog = jopson and mountain/working dog = little on their respective personalities, the way they seem to think and how they react to specific circumstances. and slightly on their physiques as presented in the series but that's of minor importance. ofc both of them are loyal and listen well to superiors - to one man in particular, which is fairly common among dog breeds as well (i.e. whoever trained them), so that's not necessarily distinctive, but it does ofc make them dog-coded in general. but there are many many ways in which to be dog-coded and they're very different abt it so!

why i think jopson is more hunting dog coded is bc he is extremely competent, but quietly so, not noticeable until it becomes necessary. he's very skilled at providing specific information about the crew and the general goings-on around terror to crozier, and he becomes more focused in highly tense situations - in fact these are moments where he specifically stands out for how well-suited he seems to the task. and he is not aggressive, but there is definitely a sharpness to him that he can and does direct to those who threaten him or crozier first and foremost.

and all that really does remind me of hunting dogs - a good hunting dog is extremely well-trained, knows exactly what he is supposed to do, listens to commands, and stays at his master's side. im thinking especially of pointing dogs, i.e. dogs that point a hunter in the direction of prey that they have sensed:

these are of course very precarious situations wherein a hunter relies on his dog to steer him, and if hunter or dog make a wrong sound or movement, they may alert prey to their presence. there's a a correspondence here between dogs trained for these moments of focus to jopson, who is crozier's silent aid but also excels in such tense situations, and who is decisive, swift and capable. and i think it's really funny that being 'birdy' is a wanted trait in these dog types, bc 'i've shot smaller hawks than you' the comparison literally writes itself. also, pointers/setters tend to be lean dogs, which i think coincides well with jopson's natural elegance and grace

edward on the other hand is supposed to be sturdy, good-natured and broadly dependable. he appears increasingly anxious in the series, but that is because he is shouldering a lot of responsibility throughout it all. he'll take the insults and he'll take the extra tasks and he'll do it with barely a complaint. in fact it makes me think of the fact that dogs treated badly can come to exhibit traits that are not desirable in the breed at all. imo edward in ep 1 displays what i would call the desirable traits of, say, the bernese mountain dog, but events and crozier change that very rapidly.

you can fuck up any dog if you treat it badly for long enough, and edward is an abused dog to me.

id also say that edward is generally amiable, though he will make a point when he feels it is absolutely necessary, and he does have an innate want to protect what or whom he finds important, though he is seldom if ever very aggressive about it. he has an intense feeling of responsibility for the crew and the expedition as a whole, set against his feelings of loyalty towards crozier, who he wants to please almost at any cost as well. and then of course he also has a large family.

'search and rescue work'. yeah. and then of course mountain dogs are generally of a sturdy build. obviously matthew mcnulty is no absolute unit but by god the series tried their hardest to make edward appear like a well-built countryside boy. and by god does he try to carry every burden ever on those shoulders, like a dog pulling a cart bc that's what it was trained to do and it was enjoyable once. and he seems practically immune to scurvy and fares well in the cold, which, again, very mountain dog of him.

additionally, newfoundlands (neptune!) aren't mountain dogs, but they're big, sturdy, excellent swimmers, and therefore often used for rescue, so that's also a breed i associate with ned.

[echidnana]

also the notes on the last post are so bad LMAO like fundamentally mouthwashing is about the systems in place that enable abuse in the workplace. like to say any of the men "did nothing wrong" is simply incorrect and ignores the point. every man on that ship was benefitting from the system that allowed anya to be abused. jimmy's actions, while obviously made of his own free will, were informed by the environment he was in and the fact that he FELT COMFORTABLE abusing anya. he had zero regret for assaulting her, only that there was evidence (her pregnancy). this is because he fundamentally did not see abusing her as being wrong. he only expresses guilt that he tried to crash the ship, hurting curly.

[rawliverandgoronspice]

I know tp ganondorf looks Like That during his execution because there's no sense in doing a full 3D model for a two minutes cutscene, but.

first of all, bold choice to condemn a man to die by impalement and decide it's not as fun if there's not heavy plating in the way trying to prevent you from doing just that, but also.

who did his hair and makeup.

[cdroloisms]

I just came across your post about vagueposting and I think I agree with it, but the situation you most likely wrote it about is hardly a "vagueposting" because you could say who it was about after reading it literally one time and that person got jumped and insulted in the anon ask anyway so discussing it in person could be safer...

I'm reeeally sorry for bring up a past situation, but I don't think it's a good idea to write nasty things about another person and specific details about how they interact with the fandom and their post, say things that will help to easily identify a person and at the same time insult them or say how you think they feel about the characters or the story based on your feelings about their one take that you didn't like and then call it's "vague" because there is no name in the post. I mean, It can lead to bad consequences, it literally did in that situation.

And yes, I do think people have the right to discuss bad takes or takes they don't like, but there's a way to do it without giving away every detail about the post and the person who wrote it so everyone knows who you're talking about, and if you're not good at being vague, just discuss it in a private chat.

this ask is old but i was busy last week, so forgive me for the late response. i was debating answering it at all, but i dont want myself to be misunderstood, so just. to clarify under the cut.

i'll agree with you that the post/situation in question wasn't vagueing. now, i don't know exactly the difference between the number of followers i have and the number of followers that the blogger in question has, and when it comes to the number of active dsmp followers i think both of us have even less of a clue. that being said, both of us frequent much of the same circles, so i think it's fair to say that many of my posts will end up being exposed to a very similar audience to his, and so therefore this response about the situation you're talking about will be just about as clearly traceable to a specific person as the post he made that started the situation in question. just as a general observation.

if i'm understanding your ask correctly, while vagueing a take is fine, the vague shouldn't be clearly identifiable if you're going to speak badly about it or disagree heavily. to which i have to ask what, specifically, is defined as clearly identifiable? i think most takes in this fandom can be pretty easily traced to a person, even if that person is not the only person that believes in that take--just as an example, c!tommy as a butterfly pinned behind glass was a take in response to the c!sam and c!dream stream after techno escaped, and grew to be a pretty prominent theme to the point of a zine being modeled after it, but i can also trace it to a pretty specific tumblr post with a name attached. i also think that that same statement probably isn't true for many fans who maybe joined later on in the fandom. i mean, i'm aware that i'm being pedantic here, i'm aware that the situation in question created conflict specifically due to it being within dreblr and in a space where multiple people would've seen both posts and felt ensuing awkwardness bc they know both people either on a personal or acquaintance level, but i mean the same applied ages ago whenever strategist-interpretation and trauma-interpretation c!dream apologists felt like going at it again on the dash.

in this scenario specifically, what made the situation clearly identifiable was the nature of the take that was being discussed. the main identifying detail was the take that the asker was asked about, imo, and i mean ... yeah i mean. most takes that haven't blown up pretty heavily do end up being tied to one or two people? i mean, staged finale is a take that can be tied to three people who argued in favor of it the most before the rest of dreblr got on board only in late 2021. i simply don't think that a take that maybe only one person has argued for (which, i dont remember the statistics of the take in this situation, so i dont remember how many notes it had or how many people in total may have expressed public agreement towards it, honestly) is exempt from discussion when it is posted in a meta or analysis space as an analytical piece, which i do think applies to this take from what i remember about it and how it was tagged.

and back to the discussion of what's acceptable as far as directly responding versus vagueing, i mean, a lot of the discussion i've had on my blog (abt discourse etiquette in General in meta spaces on dreblr moreso than this specific situation, largely bc i did want to avoid commenting on a situation that 1) i really had no business in and 2) i have reason to be biased about. the main reason why i'm talking abt it now is bc hopefully enough time has passed for feelings to be less fraught and bc i want to make certain thoughts of mine clear, in case they weren't clear enough in my original posts abt dreblr and whatever) revolves around both direct responses and vagueing having their reasons as well as pros and cons, and both will likely continue to exist in analysis spaces and generally i don't think it's productive to really comment on what people can or can't do on their own blogs. in this scenario, i don't think "vagueing about one specific person in a way that may be clearly identifiable to parts of their audience" is uniquely unacceptable? a direct response very clearly would make the person in question identifiable -- outside of how it's kind of impossible to make a post vagueing someone in a way where No One has Any Idea who you might be talking about without making the post like, incoherent inherently, if vagueing (not identifiable) is okay and directly responding (identifiable) is okay, then why is vagueing (identifiable) not okay?

now, i understand that any situation where the person in question might be identifiable, some people may take the open disagreement as permission to harass them. and obviously, harassment sucks. part of the whole point of opening up this conversation on my blog was bc i worry, with the way that a single conflict between dsmp opinions has kind of rippled through dreblr recently and the responses to this "situation," that an environment is being created with too much of a forced global consensus that punishes people for stepping out of the status quo in both opinions and behavior, which is obviously bad for the whole community, and was looking to voice some of that and have a conversation on solutions. and i understand that in this situation, a lot of your problem with the blogger has to do with his general attitude in discussing the take and his statements on the person who made it. now, i think you have every right to find his statements offensive and disagreeable and to unfollow and/or block him. that being said, i am not exactly a PR agent, and i want to reiterate that what people do on their own blogs isn't my business and i don't think it should be my business. or uh, anyone's business, for that matter. i don't think that everyone "in dreblr" is beholden to keeping to a certain person's standard for "acceptable" disagreement and "acceptable" sharing of their own opinions on their own blog as long as they're not inciting harassment, which entails, like, actively encouraging harm to happen yk. i mean, you can think that the blogger was being rude or an asshole and prefer to never see him again, that's fine. that's your prerogative. but i mean, i'm not gonna tell the guy how to interact with the fandom on his own blog, haha.

to be clear, im not telling you what you can or can't do on your own blog either. if you wanna make a post about how his posts contain harmful rhetoric, how he's an idiot, or how he's rude bc you disagree with his public posts on this situation or on the dsmp as a whole, i mean, i'm not gonna handwring over it and tell you that you're not allowed to do that. it's none of my business, and i like to think i'm not that hypocritical. and honestly, i think that in a space where we're talking about analysis, commenting on harmful rhetoric happens often and should happen often when it happens -- literally anyone can make an analysis post that has harmful rhetoric, and sure it's fiction and no one has to answer to the analysis police for making a bad analysis post, but i've also been in this space and seen enough truly mind-boggling amounts of parroting takes about torture that make people sound like CIA psyops to go "well saying that someone's analysis post contains harmful rhetoric is really rude" pfft. again, i'm not saying i'm immune to hypocrisy, but i've certainly malded enough times in public about the shit people have said in this fandom to take issue with that. now, getting a little less into the strictly-analysis side of things, i understand that insults like calling someone an idiot may not sit right with everyone, to which i say. block to your heart's content. but c'mon man i've called people idiots before i'm no saint 😭😅

anyway. i hope this clarified some things, anon. take issue with whatever and whoever you like, honestly, whether that's me, the person that i just not-vagued for the last however many words, etc etc -- again, your prerogative. and i agree, it's a shame the situation devolved into stuff like insults in both bloggers' inboxes when it really didn't have to be like that like. at all.

[calypsolemon]

Feeling some kind of way about how Steven sings a beautiful, empathetic song about how his mother's upbringing and his own are similar, about how both their guardians loved them but simply don't see them as capable and believing thats the core of the issue, right before experiencing torturous punishments (which his own guardians would have never done to him), alongside some of the most extreme physical and psychological abuse he experiences throughout the series, all done to him under the pretense that the perpetrator believed he was his mother.

[ectonurites]

SUPER DARK TIMES (2017) DIR KEVIN PHILLIPS

[8cfc00]

augh who up feeling like they should be humanely euthanised for liking media the wrong way... sorry for fandomising certain characters but not fandomising others enough in the right way.

[cloudbends]

Oh god. OH GOD.

[so-called-quail]

'Trapped in the end!' said Sam bitterly, his anger rising again above weariness and despair. 'Gnats in a net. May the curse of Faramir bite that Gollum and bite him quick!' 'That would not help us now,' said Frodo.

Sword in hand Sam went after him. For the moment he had forgotten everything else but the red fury in his brain and the desire to kill Gollum. But before he could overtake him, Gollum was gone. Then as the dark hole stood before him and the stench came out to meet him, like a clap of thunder the thought of Frodo and the monster smote upon Sam's mind.

Now he tried to find strength to tear himself away and go on a lonely journey – for vengeance. If once he could go, his anger would bear him down all the roads of the world, pursuing, until he had him at last: Gollum. Then Gollum would die in a corner. But that was not what he had set out to do. It would not be worth while to leave his master for that. It would not bring him back. Nothing would.

Sam and vengeance in today's entry

[bylertruther]

i don't like season three when viewing it as a continuation of seasons one and two, but i do very much like season three when viewing it as the prequel to seasons four and five... hmmmmm.

[elequinoa-world]

last night i fucked up so bad in bg3 lol

spoilers for act 2 under the line

so i was exploring the shar gauntlet, found some rats, read too quickly through their lines and understood that if i left them alone, they would guide me to some treasure. so naturally, everywhere i saw the rats, i followed!!! i was doing some exploring along the way, did the trials (i was so mad at myself because i picked up the game one after one week of vacation and forgot that we could HIDE and had to restart the HIDING trial so. many. times UGH i'm so dumb) anyways

i followed the rats. now you remember that while you're exploring the shar temple Raphael has tasked us with killing an old foe of his in exchange for intel abaout astarion's scars right???? that's what i wanted to do. find the foe. kill him. make my vampire boyfriend happy.

but i fucked up. i fucked up so bad x)

i followed the rats down to some bone pit, where they promptly attacked me without warning. i killed them all. then the guy the rats were made of (?) appeared, he was the last dark justicar of the temple. i killed him too, naturally. he had some good stuff on him, i was happy.

I carry on exploring the temple, with difficulty. i stumble upon a room with some friendly (?) dudes and one big guy who turns out to be raphael's foe that he asked us to kill!!!!! but i don't know that when i find him chilling in his throne room. so i talk to him. turns out the dude has been fucked by raphael (of course), his contract specified that he had to kill every. last. dark justicar. in the temple. but he couldn't, because that guy turned into rats and hid forever!! and by killing that guy, i fulfilled that dude's contract, free him basically.

raphael pops up, is mad at me. because he lost his contracted guy.

astarion is mad at me cause now raphael won't tell him about the scars.

everyone's mad.

i was livid. x)

anyways i reloaded a MUCH earlier save, did not kill the rats, managed to find the big dude ambush by myself this time, promptly killed him without mercy (poor guy he was just being played by raphael in the end) and then at camp raphael showed up and astarion got what he wanted. also i wanna kill cazador so bad (((((((((((((:

and then i went again and killed the rats lol

[notanotherinfjblog]

ENTJ: Wait, you know Professor XY (an ENTJ)? I love his papers, they are always so straightforward and clear. They are so good!

INFJ: Yeah, he taught at my old university. It‘s always so funny to watch ISFJ become a little fanboy when he talks about his work because I know all the beef that people have with him.

ENTJ: Like what?

INFJ: You see, my old university was very laid back when it came to hierarchy and formality and all that. But then there was him who didn‘t bother to learn other people‘s names before they had a PhD.

ENTJ: Okay, but to be fair, you don‘t learn the names of your students. Why would you?

INFJ: I do.

ENTJ: What? How? I‘m not going to make them wear name tags and go around in a circle asking each of them who they are. I don‘t care.

INFJ: Well, I do. I want to know who I‘m talking to. And since I‘m asking them to address me by my first name, too, it just seems fair.

ENTJ: … what?

[clay-cuttlefish]

I think most of the reason Vic and Helena's relationship works so well for me is that it doesn't work and wouldn't have worked long-term even without the dramatic breakdown. They both mean well! It's good while it lasts! But Vic is approaching it from a perspective of "I can fix her", and that isn't a great start for a mentorship, let alone a romantic relationship. Sure, it's a lot more charitable than the Bats' attitudes to Helena, and it's coming from wanting to help her find herself and get her some of the help he had, but it's still not a good foundation.