#i like it when bad things happen. i like to suffer with them actually :)

[cometconmain]

Just gonna point out here (targeted in the direction of anyone calling the CEO shooter a terrorist) that this constant slapping of 'terrorism' on shit that isn't by people in power who want to delegitimise acts of measured violence against specific people in power who actively caused the suffering and death this was about are making people stop treating that term seriously and I think that's a really big problem.

Nobody else died. Whoever did definitely kill the CEO didn't blow up an entire building to get to one guy. He didn't do a mass shooting of the building to get to the one guy. He didn't target random civillians and hold them hostage and sexually assault and slaughter them while planning killing as many people as possible regardless of what they've done or not done as individuals. He didn't attack a concert to get one guy. His only political statement with the murder was 'these people have been murdering us in the tens of thousands for decades and it's time they understood we've had enough through the only language they seem to understand because they ignored us when we were talking peacefully and went on killing us anyway because due process was never going to stop them when they have the game rigged in their favour.' And he made sure only the person responsible for these acts of horrific fatal negligence against innocent people was the one who died and no one else. That's not terrorism. At most it's assassination and we can argue about whether or not that's a helpful mindset to be accepting in the long term as much as people like but for fuck's sake people HAVE TO STOP labelling shit terrorism that isn't. It's watering the term down and people who are rightfully angry at being shut down at every turn when they do things that can't be swept under the rug (which applies to all kinds of non-fatal activism so don't come at me on that) are starting to ignore actual terrorism when it happens because their experience is that anyone using that word is just trying to remove the last shred of power a group has to stand up to their oppressors.

Do we have to just also make sure we consciously don't let ourselves redefine that term in either direction? Yes. But it's a two way street and everyone else misusing that word in the first place need to meet us in the middle in not waving it around slapping anyone and any activism they're made uncomfortable by like it's a wet noodle regardless of what the people they're slapping are ACTUALLY doing or not doing.

If we decide terrorism is bad (and obviously actual terrorism genuinely is!!), and then decide anything involving any form of violent resistance in the face of increasingly violent oppression is now terrorism, what kind of message do we send to all the people who are basically being told they're not allowed to resist that oppression now even if the situation isn't changing enough from the peaceful measures because every time they come with an olive branch they're met by a policeman/soldier's baton/tear gas/taser or even bullet?

The longer we go without listening to people when they ARE talking, and shutting down all other avenues to reach change except for the violence we also condemn as blanketly wrong regardless of circumstance, the more enraged and violent those people will get. It's basic psychology and easy enough for people not experiencing that inescapable oppression to say kindergarten level shit like 'violence is bad; killing is wrong.' If someone tries to kill you in the street and necessary escalation to stop them results in their dying, is that wrong? But they were trying to kill you. Were you supposed to limit yourself and increase your chances of death because they had a family? What about your family?

There have to be nuances to this because the world is more complicated than the play room where all the toddlers who can't handle that nuance are. Little Tommy isn't stopping little Johnny from talking to him because he doesn't have that kind of power. An adult can step in and resolve the child-level issue and make Tommy listen to Johnny and teach them to handle conflict peacefully and respectfully.

That doesn't apply to the adult-level capitalist world where money over millions of people's lives is the norm and intricately rigged and enforced so it never changes through peaceful resolution (we can keep chipping away and we do make things more bearable than the rich people want to give us, but it's a constant and exhausting battle while in the meantime everyone we love is either dead, dying or at risk of dying around us every day this goes without being properly fixed). In a world where a homeless man can be murdered in cold blood on a subway train after the attack stopped, but a CEO who has killed a horrific number of people in cold blood himself gets shot and his killer made an example of to the angry populace who see this discrepancy and understand that the powerful are only trying to maintain their status quo, there is only so much saying "Please pretty please stop killing us. We're human beings. We've justified to you over and over again why what you're doing is wrong and you still kill us with no consequences and no end in sight but maybe if we just keep talking and expecting a different result it'll happen" can do to stop the status quo that is constantly being propped up by corporate and governmental interests.

No one actually wants to be in a civil war. Most of us don't want to kill people. Bringing the rich and powerful who have killed so many to justice through due process and a proper trial is always going to be better and healthier for our society than walking up to them and shooting them.

But if you give people no other choice because you will never see that proper trial by your own design...

What else are those suffering and dying meant to do? Just keep suffering and dying quietly? Accept this constant violence toward them only to have their desperate violence called unacceptable and wrong and terrorism while yours is quietly swept under the rug?

Never target innocents. Never try to wipe out an entire group of people for the actions of a few. That IS terrorism and unjust and unacceptable because it's unnecessary force against random innocent people. But if the few who are doing those horrific actions aren't being stopped by normal societal methods of dealing with them peacefully and they continue shutting down every avenue you try to take to make them face justice non-violently and you actively make sure only to target them that's not terrorism. That's being pushed to the brink and finally breaking the way everyone will eventually under that type of oppressive violence and then making sure only the people actually committing that violence against you receive violence in return. That's self defence.

This literally is the only course left in a truly dystopian system where there truly is no end in sight except through making it clear people can't take it anymore, because they don't let people express that peacefully either. What else are those people supposed to do when you will never go to trial and ALSO refuse to let due process and proper trials happen to those you want silenced?

Terrorism stopped sounding like a bad thing to us when people made it mean anything they didn't like. And that's seriously fucked up because actual terrorism where people are targeted indiscriminately for a political or religious statement really is wrong and fucked up and unnecessary and has to stop. It's never necessary to do that even if it's about fighting the status quo and increasingly violent oppression. You can do that without killing or even risking innocents. The guy who shot the CEO proved that. There's a middle line to walk here and we have to make sure we don't let people flopping labels around like wet noodles make us think that terrorism is just ok now because it's been applied so frequently to defence of the public both violent and peaceful in a system where they shut down all other methods of change they would have to listen to otherwise.

And the people treating it like a wet noodle only to go on to committing acts of violence and aggression to terrorise the public with no repercussions themselves have to stop doing all of that and all the shit this is about in the first place. We know what the authorities are doing with this public spectacle and all it's doing is making people angrier and happier to commit more violence. This is how you get more and actual terrorism, not less of it, because people with less care for those nuances are going to see you doing this shit and decide that makes it necessary to expand the crosshairs. (Again, people need to know the difference and choose not to do that; but you know these assholes will jump on that the second it happens to lend credence to their decrying of genuinely necessary and properly measured violence against them to stop their constant unrelenting oppressive violence against everyone else. And then all the bootlickers who have not yet experienced the leopards eating their faces will tut tut and decry everything too in support of the leopards all while those leopards are eyeing up their faces next.)

Honestly I'm pretty sure the Redcoats would have called the Americans fighting for their freedom 'terrorists' during the American Revolution if that had been something they could use to delegitimise the Americans' cause in the public eye. It would be interesting to see what they did say instead because it's unfortunately a very effective tactic people in oppressive power over others use all the time now. I wonder if people used to fall for it as badly back then too as they do in the modern era.

"I’m very concerned about my client’s right to a fair trial in this case.  He’s being prejudiced by some statements that are being made by government officials. Like every other defendant, he’s entitled to a presumption of innocence. But unfortunately the way this has been handled so far his rights are being violated. And as you know, Your Honor, there’s a wealth of case law guaranteeing his rights to a fair trial, but none of the safeguards have been put in place yet here — in fact it’s just the opposite of what’s been happening. 

He’s a young man, and he is being treated like a human pingpong ball between two warring jurisdictions here.

These federal and state prosecutors are coordinating with one another at the expense of him. They have conflicting theories in their indictment, and they are literally treating him like he is some sort of political fodder, like some sort of spectacle. 

He was on display for everyone to see in the biggest staged perp walk I’ve ever seen in my career. It was absolutely unnecessary. He’s been cooperative with law enforcement. He’d been in custody for over a week. He waived extradition. He was cooperative at all accounts. There was no reason for the NYPD and everybody to have these big assault rifles — that frankly I had no idea it was in their arsenal — and to have all the press there the media there. It was perfectly choreographed. 

And what was the New York City Mayor doing at this press conference, Your Honor? That just made it utterly political. And as your honor knows under Loro v. Charles, the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has held it to be clearly established that these staged perp walks to the media unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement objective is unconstitutional. And I submit that there was zero law enforcement objective to do that sort of perp walk. There’s absolutely no need for that whatsoever. 

And frankly, Your Honor, the mayor should know more than anyone about the presumption of innocence that he, too, is afforded dealing with his own issues. And, frankly, I submit that he was just trying to detract from those issues by making a spectacle of Mr. Mangione. 

And there are consequences to this. 

He has a right to a fair trial. And I just want to put on the record statements that the mayor made publicly about my client. Nothing saying “alleged” for example. And he said “I wanted to send a strong message with the police commissioner that we’re leading from the front. I’m not just going to allow him to come into our city. I wanted to look him in the eye and state ‘You carried out this terrorist act in my city, the city of New York that I love.’” And he wanted to show symbolism. 

Your Honor, he’s not a symbol. He’s somebody who is afforded the right to a fair trial. He’s innocent until proven guilty. And the mayor was talking to jurors — future potential jurors that elected him. Those are the people that elected him that he is talking to and calling this man a terrorist.

So, Your Honor, I just want to make a record of this and put everyone on notice that this has to stop, and my client is entitled to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence."

[fakeusernamelol]

Shermie: Ma, what happened to father..?

Stan: Eh, you know him, he's off on business - now, do ya still wanna cut your hair short, munchkin?

Shermie: Father's letting me?! :D

Stan: Eh, nevermind him, it's your hair, not his...

Shermie: Okay!!! :D

OMFG THIS ONE IS BEAUTIFUL INTERACTIONS YESSS 🤩🤩🤩💖💖💖💖 i will make a draw of this but i already owe one and i have a lot so say about this particularly so sorry but im about to yap a lot....🙇🙇 (Tw: Transphobia, Mysoginy and abuse you know 🤷)

Shermie doesn't know it but in this bad ending he's lucky af lol. I mean, Ford's not the best dad lol, he's mediocre at best, always busy with his research so prefers to leave the job to take care of the kids to Stan, not even when they were babies ford helped Stanley with them (Fiddleford did way much than him lol) not even when they get bigger Ford try to be more closer to them, Shermie and Mariana didn't really know much about Ford, The father-kid moments they have had have been so few that they do not remember them well other than eating together or reading a book with him. They only saw him in the mornings having breakfast, sometimes coming out of his basement walking around the shack or going outside to the woods and coming out at night right before stanley quickly sent them to their room and put a small music box to put them to sleep and for absolutely no other reason 😉

The only thing they DID know about Ford was that he was a strict man, for some reason didn't like it to be called Pa (He would get very annoyed if any of them called him that...) so they were only allowed to call him father or at best Dad, and Dad was the one who decided everything. If they wanted that cool cereal with marshmallows they will have to ask their father permission and if he didn't allowed then there was nothing to do, no matter if ma allowed it. A new toy, new clothes, a new haircut It was always answered with « Ask your father first. »

Shermie always wanted a haircut, he was just 10 so he didn't really know yet what he actually was but he did know that he didn't like being so girly unlike his twin (bows look better on his neck, not on his head!) but no matter what he did ford always said no. He tried helping with cleaning, doing all his homework, getting good grades, organizing his room but anyway ford said no! Sometimes he insisted more than necessary, making Ford scream at him and ending up crying on his Ma's lap.

That was one of the few things that did pissed off Stanley, He could put up with Ford's abuse because he was already used to holding back on things because he told him to but just seeing how his little kid cried for the same simple thing he has been wishing made him sick

Now that ford was gone, sure he needed to get him back (he was still very emotionally dependent on him because you know they are the fucked up brothers 😗) but while he wasn't here there was no one to told them what to do, he finally could do what he wanted and have a voice for their kids.

Shermie's going to be loved for sure, Stanley's will make sure he Will never have to get through the things he has gone, when shermie's a teenager they could get through their transition together in real father-son quality time 🤭🤭

Their kids are happier but stanley suffers even more in this au lol you win something you lost something 😗

[timeisacephalopod]

The type of Christian who asks atheists how they don't like, murder people on the reg are so funny to me because they seem to think their religion makes them the Peak of Morality when statements like "if you don't believe in God how comes you don't do X thing" all but outright state they have no idea why shit like murder and rape is bad except that God doesn't like it lmao. Like way to admit you have no intrinsic sense of morality and need to be afraid of a higher power to be a decent person, but I promise if you're not a piece of shit it's actually very natural not to want to do heinous evil shit all the time potential punishment from a higher power or not 🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️

[blessthishouse]

Not to be too rude on main but I have one friend (not on tumblr) who only messages me to vent about how their family drains them..you live halfway across the country, aren’t financially supported by them, and have a loving partner with a family that accepts you. Yes having a toxic family is difficult (I know from the way I grew up) but there comes to a point where it’s just, why stay in contact at that point?

[jascurka]

Contrary to popular belief, I actually like the fact that my beloved blorbos suffer. I may do comics about healing and so on but I'm there for the suffering. In fact, I wish my blorbo suffered more. Can I get one more suffer for my blorbo please? He can take it.

[dimensionzero]

anyway every spider-man in the multiverse is alone except for miles. can anybody hear me

[widevibratobitch]

omw to play emotional support for my mom disguised as ✨fun family bonding time✨ for the rest of the week <3333 there's something so deeply wrong with me uwu teehee

[healingheartdogs]

Saw a post earlier of someone being like "see how my puppy isn't bothering me while I eat and is minding his own business playing in the other room? That's because in this house animals aren't ever allowed to have people food from the moment they come home with me so they never even learn to want it." The post and most of the comments on it were very high and mighty "I'm a better owner than other people, I'm the boss of my dog, I don't allow my dog to offend me by showing desire for highly desirable resources" attitude and were very much judging other people for not having the same boundaries and annoyances about dog behaviors around food with their own dogs in their own homes and I just like... absolutely can not relate at all, tbh. There is a type of person who uses phrases like "people food" unironically, thinks that dogs being allowed to have good things that are usually intended for humans is somehow offensive and wrong, gets annoyed by a dog even being allowed to exist in the same room when people are eating, and thinks a dog just looking at them for more than 30 seconds while they have food or hanging out watching them doing stuff is the dog bothering them and being rude, and every time I encounter this type of person it makes me wonder why they even own a dog when they clearly hate natural dog behaviors and are bothered by dogs just wanting to be around people, do things with them, and receive human attention more than once in a blue moon.

When I make breakfast after I wake up and take it to my room to eat Hermes always eagerly follows right behind me because he expects he's going to get something from me. That expectation is almost always correct, and I feel absolutely zero shame about it. Him laying calmly at my feet or next to my chair quietly watching me eat is not "bothering me". He's quite literally not doing anything to be a bother, he's just patiently chilling. If a dog hanging out nearby and calmly watching while people eat bothers you enough to consider that bad nosey behavior that is deserving of you ridiculing other dog owners for allowing it that's uhhh... weird af? At least to me it's weird, sorry not sorry. Like maybe you actually just don't like having dogs around then if they can bother you without even really doing anything? Cuz IDK about y'all but I love my dogs hanging around me and wanting to be close to me and even seeking engagement from me. I love them being excited about being around me and following me around because they know I give them good things. I also like having their attention and eyes on me in general - especially Hermes, as a dog of a breed that is often more environmentally focused than handler focused and whose attention I've had to work for and earn. Looking at me is something that I specifically reward all my dogs for and immediately start to capture during their initial introductions to clicker training because I find it to be beneficial during training sessions (as well as a good way to charge the clicker), so it would be ridiculous and unfair for me to get annoyed by it and discourage it in other scenarios like when I'm eating. In fact, I see Hermes calmly laying down nearby and politely seeking eye contact with me whenever I look his way while I'm eating my breakfast as a sign that he knows how to act to get what he wants because he understands his training well, and that he is putting that training to work by being an attentive calm good boy and waiting patiently for me to respect my end of the deal that I have taught him and give him his reward for the behaviors he's offering that I have repeatedly asked him for in the past.

Also like... if he is in the way somehow while people are eating or if we're eating something he can't have and I don't want him near us just in case someone drops something (even though he has an extremely solid leave it, still better safe than sorry) then I just tell him to go to his bed??? and then share a little bite of my food with him to reward him for going to lay on his bed if it's safe or give him something else like a couple of small dog treats or a pork chew on his bed if my food isn't dog safe. After that he will stay on his bed and keep being a calm patient boy because he's learned that staying on his bed after being told to go to it means he will continue to occasionally get more treats or small pieces of my dog safe food tossed to him for the duration of his time there until he is released. Often times because he's working so hard to be calm and patient to earn a few bites of my food he just ends up falling asleep next to me or on his bed, which is definitely the opposite of being bothersome. I like to thank him for that patience and calmness by gently waking him up to share the last bite of my food or give him a little treat jackpot and some praise before releasing him.

Maybe I'm a "bad" trainer (lol) but I enjoy spoiling my dogs by sharing some of my dog safe "people food" with them in moderation, and you can definitely share "people food" with dogs without making them annoying or untrustworthy around food. Despite what the person who made that post seems to incorrectly think, simply letting a dog have a taste of "people food" sometimes does not create unwanted bothersome behaviors around food. Rewarding unwanted behaviors that bother you instead of wanted behaviors that don't bother you is what causes that. That's it, that's the sole cause. Like... you could just only share food with them if they're being calm or waiting patiently on their bed or whatever it is you want from them during meal times. Boom, the "bothering" problem is solved and your dog still gets to enjoy a special treat. In fact, my experience as a dog trainer is that the high value and novelty of that special "people food" treat often makes the rewarding of the not-bothering behavior you want from them while you eat much more motivating and effective than giving them one of their regular treats or chews as a reward or distraction, so the settling down not-bothering behavior you want is even more likely to be consistently freely offered up in the future since it is so highly rewarded.

When I've had clients in the past express concerns about causing begging by giving their dogs "people food" or tell me they feel guilty about it because they've been told by people like that poster I saw that it's a bad thing to do in general, this has been my advice to them - not to stop doing the whole sharing thing that makes them and their dog happy, but just to make it more productive for the kind of relationship they want to have with their dog and the behaviors they are wanting to see. It's a simple solution that can turn a meal into a nearly effortless high value training session for teaching settling during household activities and around food, which is something that is a common frustration to achieve for a lot of inexperienced dog owners. If you handle your dogs sometimes being given bits of food scraps as treats this way then everyone wins, especially the people who like to spoil their dogs and share food with them (which is VERY NORMAL TO WANT TO DO BECAUSE WE ARE A SOCIAL SPECIES THAT BONDS THROUGH RESOURCE SHARING) because now those people can turn that desire to spoil their beloved companions into some easy training. Just be sure to consider if ingredients are dog safe or not and be mindful of oversharing and sharing foods with high fat content because maintaining a balanced diet is important for health.

Also that OP apparently doesn't realize this yet based on the wording of their post, but if you have a dog that is at all decently food motivated then just ignoring them while you have food and never sharing is not going to teach them to leave people alone in the presence of food and never try to seek food from anyone. This is especially true if anyone ever accidentally drops something around your dog (it'll happen eventually) and they snag it and self reward because you never actually taught them not to do that, or if anyone else in your house isn't as firm with that boundary or is unable to enforce it consistently and ends up giving them food purposefully or accidentally (as can often happen in households with children or that sometimes invite guests over). "I don't ever share people food with animals in my house starting from day one and I ignore them when food is out so they never learn to even want it to begin with" is not training your dog to leave food or people who are eating food alone. That's doing nothing and hoping that your new puppy or dog doesn't care about the delicious smells of food or people gathering together in the house for food related activities multiple times a day enough that they will quickly get bored and give up on trying to investigate all "people food" related activities for the rest of their lives without you training them, which is an absolutely ridiculous expectation. Just not ever giving a dog any of your food doesn't make it stop smelling like food to them and won't magically make them never be curious about seeing what you have and if they can get some of it. They don't have to be given food by you off your plate to know that it smells interesting or to figure out that seeing you eating it means it might be something they can eat. Having a superiority complex about NOT actually training your new puppy how to act around food and ignoring them as "training" instead is certainly funny, in a "not funny haha, funny weird" kind of way. It's also pretty irresponsible since some foods that humans eat are dangerous to dogs. Instead of just ignoring them when food is around and hoping they'll learn to leave all food that isn't their dog food alone on their own, a responsible owner should actually be actively teaching their dogs to leave food in general alone unless it is offered to them, even when food is left where they can easily get to it.

Anyway, if people could just stop being weird about dogs doing normal dog things and existing in spaces around humans, do some basic research on dog behavior and how dogs learn before getting a dog, actually train their dogs to the minimum level required to make themselves not be regularly upset at their dogs for acting untrained and "bothering" them, and stop developing weird superiority complexes because they get lucky for a while right after bringing home a new dog or puppy and it manages to not cause them any problems or upset them yet... that would be cool.

[waywardsalt]

was going through my blog trying to track down an old post i made talking abt my feelings on jolene and it was. much longer than i remembered it being. and haha yeah i still agree with it. i need to fucking. sort out my feelings on that character and that subplot

[coolspacequips]

have been rooting around looking for spooky aesthetic supernatural series to watch, and randomly dipped into watching Legacies for the first time. It's one of those things where I can see why it's a 'hear me out' series for a lot of ppl, so I'm waiting for the show to grow, there's a lot of stuff that I like here but....

I'm like 6 eps in, operating on the assumption that these old ass looking teens are probably meant to be 18 like they often are, but I forgot that in a lot of these teen drama series they're actually 16, and in fact have been 15 this whole time which they drop after a sex scene and everything!!!!! MAN!!! I wish there were more shows like this for adults dflaksfjadskfja

[medicinemane]

Really really don't get why so many people seem to have this burning hatred for Ukraine where they'll just... bring them up randomly purely to drag them through the mud and it's like... ok... but... do you actually know a single thing about Ukraine or what's been happening there?

Do you for instance remember when a major dam was destroyed by russia causing massive ecological damage?

Like I'm dead serious here, can you tell me a single thing that's happened in Ukraine in the last 2 years? Can you in any way demonstrate any basic understanding of the situation?

Cause if not... why do you think you should have an opinion on it, especially if your opinion is gonna be how awful people getting bombed are?

Just legit bothers me and... even more so bothers me the number of smart and caring people I see doing this. Basically I'm not even trying to be rude here, I'm trying to remind you to pay attention and remember that not everything you read on the internet is true, a tumblr post isn't a source unless they're giving you a reputable source

Cause like me? I can go track you down articles about the Nova Kakhovka dam being destroyed, and I can talk about all the reason why it's pretty clear that russia destroyed it

Can you do the same for me? Can you back up your claim about Ukraine with something concrete?

In many ways I'm not even asking you to support Ukraine, I get we have a limit to how much we can focus on, it's ok if you focus on your cause and I focus on mine and... both of us giving our undivided attention, maybe we both make some small impact on the world

What I'm asking is you don't be an asshole for no reason. You don't need to throw Ukraine under the bus. Don't you think your cause stands up on it's own two feet?

And again I'm not Ukrainian, I don't know as well as someone there, though... I spare you a lot of the stuff that crosses my dash because I don't want to burn people out with horrible stuff, but please understand it's worse than you probably think

So no, not Ukrainian, but I'll tell you why I'm still worth listening to: I've followed this every day since the invasion began. I keep my ear to the ground. I do know a fair bit and again can back what I have to say up

Anyway, my plea is to just not be a dick to people for no reason. The correct number of bombed civilians is zero, that's my stance

[tenok]

.

[dogbunni]

chronic pain off the shits rn I wish I could talk openly about what is happening to me without it being triggering/taboo

[volfoss]

i cant even like post about the horrors that are going on currently because im gonna get too mad but oh my god. like i would give her really good credit for writing a character like marius that has 0 self awareness about his insanely disgusting behavior bc like. that CAN work. you can make the reader feel disgust and see things through the eyes of someone who is horrible while not romanticizing the behavior. clearly anne did not get the memo for this one.

[knaveofmogadore]

Kfkdks

[mad-hunts]

as far as jack could tell, jervis was really out of it; and it made him wonder it was due to something that had happened while he was out with his father, or when they'd gotten here. perhaps both. jack gnawed on his bottom lip, his eyes darting to jervis's hands, which were flexing like he was struggling with something. an eyebrow rose as jack contemplated asking whether he needed some pain medication.

since he didn't receive an answer to his question yet, jack figured he might as well introduce himself. ❝ uhh, well, you don't have to talk to me if you aren't feeling up to it. my sister told me that you fainted in front of her out there — so, i understand if you're still feeling sick. my name is jack, ❞ he scratched at the back of his neck as he continued to observe jervis. whenever the man tried to get up, jack approached him and was about to caution jervis that maybe he shouldn't by lightly touching his shoulder.

but he remembered matilda telling him something about the other really not liking to be touched, so he merely was going to verbally tell him. up until jervis laid back down himself, anyhow. jack couldn't hold himself back from frowning at his poor present state before venturing out of the room with a 'i'll be right back.' and indeed he had been, with two different vials, alongside a few syringes to inject into that IV bag: should jervis want to be medicated. jack figured it'd be easier to just do that rather than forcing him to swallow anything.

he placed those also on the table before tilting his head at the quote jervis had said until it clicked a few seconds later, ❝ that's a quote from through the looking glass, isn't it? and one that the red queen said in the story if i remember correctly. she was basically teaching alice that staying in the same place is falling behind, right? ❞ jack squinted his eyes at that before a thought came to mind. a soft snort left him, but one that was done of an innocent sort of amusement rather than malice. ❝ that is a kind of roundabout way of talking about survival of the fittest. but hey, lewis carroll was all about the whimsy of things, i guess. and its no big deal. ❞

jack pretended not to see the tears that the other shed for jervis's own sake. the blood on his lips was something he couldn't ignore, no matter how hard he tried, though. jack grabbed a washcloth from his pack and held it out towards's jervis's hand. once it was out of his hand was when jack set down that teacup, the slightly too long stripped pants he wore swaying across the ground. ❝ mm, you and dad were both asleep for nearly four hours. sure — i don't think that's silly at all. i keep something on me all the time from when my brother, julien, was still around. ❞ the bracelet he showed the other on his right wrist then seemed to be made up entirely of tiny conch shells.

julien was a big fan of the sea, which jack thought made his death all the more crushing. after seeing the state that the stuffed animal was in, he figured that that bunny must've been really loved; though it didn't really matter by whom it was. the end result was the same, as love changes you. jack knew this well as he'd never wanted anything more than to be embraced by the warmth of it.

he quickly shook that thought off, only to grab the two vials he got from the fridge once more. ❝ eh... the four hours actually went by rather fast. ❞ jack cleared his throat then, ❝ you know, i couldn't help but notice that you aren't looking so hot still, and so i grabbed some meds for you. but i won't force you to take them. i have a pain reliever as well as something that relieves vertigo. are either, or both of these, something you want? ❞

Eigengrau.

A faint hum buzzed in his ears; his mouth was so dry it felt like he’d swallowed a wad of wool.

The thin sheet beneath him brushed his fingertips as Jervis flexed his hands, cracking his eyes open a sliver. The room tilted, everything blurring at the edges. Ah… so he had fainted. Just as he’d suspected. No glasses, then.

"Hey. Ahh, you're awake… That's awesome. How are you feeling?"

The new voice was barely a whisper, young and uncertain—belonging to a boy, maybe sixteen or eighteen by the timber. Was this another of Barton's assistants, a friend of Matilda’s, or perhaps her brother? Jervis couldn’t quite remember; hadn't Barton mentioned something about having more than one child?

He winced, his body feeling heavy, leaden; aching everywhere. Slowly, he exhaled and tried to push himself upright—tried being the keyword. The effort brought only a wave of vertigo, dizzying and blue-hot, making his vision swim.

… ohh, god…

He swallowed thickly, curling into himself. Something wasn’t right. His glasses and gloves weren’t the only thing missing. He was in his socks, jeans, and a now damp charcoal t-shirt, his body slick with cold sweat. His graying auburn curls clung to his neck in tangled ropes. His boots were beside the cot, his messenger bag on a desk across the room. His overcoat and maroon button-down were draped over a chair.

A flicker of discomfort in his right arm. Burning. Tugging.

Jervis glanced down at the source: a plastic tube. A peripheral IV catheter.

"Ah, you know... 'It takes all the running you can do, to stay in the same place,'" he muttered, his voice clipped and hollow; Bermudian accent casual, almost detached. He turned his eyes to the boy; offered him a faint, strained smile. "Keeps things interesting, I suppose... but I appreciate your concern, lad."

He lifted his fingers to his cheek, feeling the moisture trickle down—salt on his lips. Tears, sharp and stinging. Jervis flinched and quickly scrubbed them away with the heels of his hands.

Cold metal pressed into his spine, tight around his neck—the chain with his and Sylvie’s wedding rings twisted against his skin. He must’ve been thrashing in his sleep. There was blood on his lips.

"Forgive me…" His vision swam as he watched the boy set a teacup on the small table beside the cot, just within view. "But I'm afraid I've rather lost my sense of time. How long has it been since I…?" He paused, his voice barely steady. "... if... if you don’t mind, could you please reach into my coat pocket? You'll find a small cuddly toy. A rabbit..." He rubbed his mouth, lowered his eyes. "It sounds foolish, I know... but it... it was my daughter's, you see..."

The boy nodded, moving quickly to retrieve the toy from Jervis’ coat pocket, and placed it on the table beside the teacup. The bunny was missing one of its button eyes, its white fur faded and matted. A pink satin ribbon around its neck was frayed and tattered.

“Thank you,” Jervis said hoarsely. “I must have been out of it for quite a while.”