#is he just dumb or was it on purpose?

[gavidaily]

GAVI during training | 30.03.2023

[obsessedwithstarwars]

Question for the DP fandom:

Do you think Danny’s hair turns white when it falls out? It’s technically dead cells anyway but when it naturally falls off his head, do you think it turns white? Because I think it would be hilarious if his hairbrush just has white hair, no black strands whatsoever, and his significant other thought the worst until they know his secret.

[shroombell]

im drawing a lot of vortex during pride month.... are you trying to tell me something, texxy?

[ch1zzie]

The original in the bottom

Plus the picture I mainly drew but decided to draw the rest for funny

[vitasexualiiis]

poor fukuzawa is soooo out of his element with these two???

there's no way between mori, dazai, and ranpo he doesn't feel like a stone cold dumbass like 75% of the time even though he'd otherwise be the smartest person in the room.

[pmpknsoup]

[solargeist]

it must be so confusing to parent xelqua bc one days he’s tiny and cute cuddling up with grian to nap and. Next day he’s this overgrown bastard bird thats Much older than grian and causes problems on purpose

[sapphic--kiwi]

slaymas vibes with gus and matt ✨❤️💚

[twinstxrs]

thinking about kageyama’s “it’s the setter’s job to break the wall in front of the spiker” in reference to how kenma sponsoring hinata while he’s in brazil and onwards is effectively doing that on a financial level. once a setter always a setter.

[nightswatchdisbandmentera]

I really don’t think we should be treating morality as a linear thing in ASOIAF because what often happens is that we start to stray from the actual conversations that we need to be having regarding the depths of making a moral choice and even the circumstances involved. To try and blankly paint any one character as the “most morally good” isn’t really taking us anywhere. And it certainly isn’t helpful when people in this fandom want to try and prove that characters are “grey” but not moral (what does that even mean??) because they did one “bad” thing. If ASOIAF stans were to have their way, then:

Jon is not a morally good person because he threatened Gilly

Dany cannot be considered to be compassionate because she sanctioned torture against the wine seller’s daughters

Arya cant be good because she has killed people

and so on, and so on….

But this is such a draining, and oft times frustrating, conversation to have because you see just how shallow the above listed examples are? Readers are listing only singular instances across a narrative that spans thousand and thousands of pages, and there’s absolutely no context involved. Why did Jon threaten Gilly? Why did Dany resort to torture and at one point did she do it? Who did Arya kill and why? And why do those singular instances negate everything else in their arcs?

What usually happens when we have the 12847647282th unnecessary conversation about who is the “most good” character in ASOIAF is that we start getting blanket statements with no elaboration. And the only people ever considered are Ned, Brienne, and Davos, and sometimes the children like Shireen or Tommen. Mind you, Ned and Davos are not perfect or without their own faults either; much has been said about Ned’s abilities as a father and it’s implied that Davos was not entirely faithful to his wife. And based on her current arc, Brienne will surely have to make morally tough choices regarding oaths and knightly honor. Plus theres the irony of including literal children when they have not been put in situations where they actually have to make morally difficult choices and live with the consequences.

ASOIAF shows us that people who are capable of incredible kindness and compassion are also capable of doing unpleasant things.

Jon threatened Gilly….because he was trying to save another child whom he believed to be at risk of human sacrifice(!!) and was stuck between a rock and a hard place. But why does that singular instance negate the fact that his arc has been about him standing up for the “lesser than”? Why does that negate the fact that he stood up for Sam against a superior when there was nothing to gain for him? Why does it negate the fact that he went out of his way to equip Arya in a way that society would have deemed inappropriate? Why does it negate the fact that he dedicated the entirety of his time as Lord Commander to fight an institution that had upheld racism/xenophobia for millennia? Why should we filter out all those moments of kindness, compassion, and deep empathy that Jon has even without him thinking?

Dany sanctioned torture….but she was trying to solve the murder of an innocent victim AND this brought her no joy. But why does that negate the fact that when she gained unimaginable power, she could’ve high tailed to Westeros to use it to her benefit and become queen, but instead chose to stay in Essos where she has no personal responsibility just so she could fight the institutional evil that is slavery? Why does it negate Dany who went to personally treat plague victims at great risk to herself?

Arya has killed some….but it’s in self defense or in defense of others who are disenfranchised. But why does this negate that she is one of the few people in the series how goes out of her way to show kindness and friendship to those who are not as economically or politically advantaged as she is (e.g., Mycah)? Why does it negate that she took fellow slaves under her protection when she herself had little power to fight for her own survival at Harrenhall? Why does it negate that when she saw those caged soldiers whom she was angry with for their actions, instead of leaving them to die instead offered them the only kindness she could at the moment: a drink of water?

Trying to have arguments about morality but stripping everything down to ‘x character did y bad thing (regardless of context) and that’s why they can’t be good’ is, to be blunt, ridiculous. And it isn’t a particularly interesting way to engage with the text. Character journeys, especially well written ones, are rarely ever in a straight line. There’s amazing highs and terrible lows. GRRM gives us so many characters like Jon, Dany, Arya, Sansa, Ned, etc. who even in their lows, have gleams of compassion and exceptional kindness. It doesn’t do anyone any good to filter those moments out to make the books more digestible; and I’m being a little generous here, because so many readers have a very shallow level of engagement with the series and it shows in conversation. And we also shouldn’t pit these characters unfairly against those who have never been in similarly difficult situations that required them to make hard choices. Because when we do, we start to completely miss the point all together.

[foxytonic]

Not to be Naruto posting on main in 2024, but polyamory could have fixed them, actually.

[fear-no-mort]

thinkign about how alone and unloved morty was for all his life and rick was the first time anyobdy ever put such an amount of intense attention and dependency onto him . and rick had a whole new family and losing them made him stop seeing the value in other people as a whole and morty was the one and first thing that woke him up

[13eyond13]

If I have to see one more "Light was so dumb for giving everybody heart attacks instead of changing the types of deaths to different things" galaxy brain post....

He did it on purpose.... it's literally in chapter one...

[littlehatmouse]

lots of doodles because i forget to post art here most of the time

[dennisboobs]

Things I need to happen in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia s17:

Robert McElhenney III stops being worried about Mac being ~Bad Gay Rep~ and rather than having him consistently be More Sympathetic and Less Bad than the other members of the gang he's also shown as being manipulative and cruel and having some sort of character again outside of being Dennis' stupid, pathetic lost pet a Gay Man.

Do you guys remember when Mac was "bossy" and "the brains".

[maceemayson]

You are incandescent

You are my sun