#is pretty fucked up

[karaspal]

the whole point of act two is that vi doesn’t have to take care of jinx anymore and now they can have a more balanced relationship where they both look out for each other. vi herself acknowledged her sister doesn’t need her protection anymore and it’s clear she sees jinx as an equal now (asking about her opinion on vander, suggesting they both stay so they both can help). so the whole point of “jinx had to die so vi could be free” is not only objectively wrong to say (because jinx was never a burden to vi, vi wanted to make sure her sister is okay), but also, not true to where the characters, and their relationship, was left off at the end of act two.

[handsoffthefuckinshield]

nothing quite like finding out someone's care for you is entirely conditional

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

I think what's happening with Taylor and her fanbase is most interesting for what it says about her marketing strategy more broadly and its consequences, even more broadly. I think part of the reason that Taylor Swift has such an intensely parasocial fanbase is because she's encouraged it throughout her career. Franchesca Ramsey has an interesting tiktok about it (that I don't totally agree with, but I think makes the point well). Taylor has always done things to blur boundaries with her fans, like the secret sessions she used to do where she invited them to her home, her team (and even her mom) would choose fans at shows to bring to the VIP box or to meet her backstage (though admittedly I don't know if she's doing that at Eras tour, she's done it in the past), she will periodically like and comment on random tiktoks about her, she jokes on stage that she knows what fans/fandom are saying and references her own fandom jokes. It has obviously served her well in terms of making her career massively successful, but it also clearly has some weird and not great impacts on her fanbase. There's an almost panopticon-like sense that at any given moment Taylor might be watching, and so if fans perform fanhood well enough, they might be "chosen" by her or get her attention. Which is unsettling enough on its own for the ways that it makes what's ultimately a one-sided parasocial relationship feel like it might at any moment actually be two-sided, but I think it also helps explain why her fans are out here putting out statements about her dating Matty Healy, because I think it leads fans to think their random tweet or tiktok might actually reach or impact Taylor, the way it might've if they'd posted an Eras tour outfit that she liked.

Obviously none of that justifies fan behavior or makes it any less troubling. I agree with you that I think if people behave this way parasocially, it suggests something about the way they behave in their actual social lives, and I think it also contributes to the ways that celebrities have a difficult time just existing as people in ways that are undeniably harmful to them as humans (like the crowds following Taylor around NYC). But there's something troubling to me about the asymmetry of it - boundary blurring good when it's for financial benefit, bad when it's strangers having public takes on a celeb's dating life. I think the asymmetry is in part natural, because of course fans can only control their own behavior and response and not the way that Taylor chooses to market her music, but I still just feel pretty icky about it, especially because it's largely operating on an unconscious level. I don't think a fan sees Taylor Swift comment on another random fan's concert video and goes, oh, this is a marketing tactic designed to boost engagement with the artist and encourage the creation of Eras tour content to keep it viral. I think a random fan, especially a young person, sees that and goes, oh, that could've been my tiktok, that could be me, Taylor might notice me and think I'm cute or funny or whatever. There are obviously a lot of differences, but it does in some ways remind me of the conversations around the impact of algorithmic content and its unconscious impact on our brains, like whether even people who are intellectually aware that they're being served more content that makes them feel angry, because that gets the most engagement, are still impacted by seeing that content. I don't think it necessarily lends itself to an actual answer, but I do think it's extra unsettling as more artists use similar marketing tactics to engage their fanbase on social media.

I've seen this argument before and while I think there might be points that are worth considering - I completely and utterly reject the idea that it has any relevance to fans response to Taylor being in a relationship. In fact the idea that Taylor's engagement with fans might be relevant to the fact that fans engage her relationships to me crosses boundaries.

To me the key question is: Do you think that everyone who you invite to your house gets a say on your relationships? (Or even more precisely - do you think everyone who you invited to your house 4 years ago gets a say on your relationships now?) I sure hope the answer is no - and if the answer is no for you - then what the fuck could the fact that some fans were invited to Taylor's house have to do that some fans (probably not the same people) think they have a say on her relationship.

There is an argument that the fact that Taylor responds to social media content and sometimes references internet communications contributes to people's belief that they can communicate to her through internet content like an open letter. But my problem with the open letter is not that people are trying to communicate with Taylor. It's that the letter shows a belief that fans get a say over Taylor's life.

I also want to push back a bit at your idea that there's an asymmetry in how boundaries being blurred are being judged. Your model seems to be that there is a set of boundaries that should exist an artist and a fan and that any depature from that from either side is crossing boundaries.

That's not how I think boundaries work. I don't think Taylor was crossing any boundaries when she invited people to her house four years ago. Anymore than I was crossing boundaries when I invited someone to my house today. That's the whole point of boundaries - we get to decide who comes to our personal space.

Likewise "strangers having public takes on a celeb's dating life" isn't a problem and has nothing to do with boundaries. Having opinions publicly about someone doesn't cross any boundaries - we're not entitled to control what everyone says about us. There's a huge difference between having opinions about someone in public - and making those opinions the person's problem. Fans are entitled to say whatever they like about Taylor's relationship - and change their behaviour in any way. But to make demands about what she should do about fans feelings - that's very different.

I do think there are useful and interesting conversations that can be had about Taylor's actions towards her fans - the personal element, the marketing element, and the impact on her fandom. I just don't think boundaries is a useful model for that discussion, or that it has any place in the discussion of fans' entitlement over Taylor's relationships.

[puppppppppy]

filipina miku!! my mom helped me with her outfit ^_^

[clownboybebop]

if you’re ever in the position to choose between giving up and accepting defeat, and actually trying to fight the ancient unkillable god that is about to peel apart reality like a string cheese, remember this: scientifically speaking, you might as well give it a shot!

1.there were trees at the beginning of the world! there were trees so long ago that they predate bacteria that causes wood to decay. when a tree fell, it would lie there in stasis and there wasn’t any way of breaking down wood xylem on a molecular level in that way.

2. it seems obvious to say, but wood eating bacteria are literally incapable of comprehending what they’re breaking down. It’s just not information conciously available to a microorganism. they don’t know what they’re deconstructing, where it came from, bacteria have no way to even fathom the existence of a tree as a concept.

3. Regardless of the facts above, the world we live in today is a world where wood inevitably decomposes

it is worth fighting the unkillable god no matter how pointless it seems. it is worth taking the risk even though youre trying to accomplish something impossible. the reality in which you live was also once reality in which trees didn’t rot. You live in a reality that allows for existence before the possibility of destruction. you live in a reality where uncomprehending microbes break down matter that is so far beyond the scope of their comprehension that it feels comical to specify something so obvious. you live in a reality that occasionally allows unshakeable physical truths to be altered with no warning.

It is worth fighting the unkillable god because trees are so old they predate the source of their destruction, and it still did not spare them. It is worth fighting the unkillable god because bacteria rots unthinkingly, because there is room in our cosmos for destruction without comprehension on the part of the destroyer. It is worth fighting the unkillable god because now and then reality retracts the promise of immortality without fanfare, and when that happens there is no mercy for the ancient. the unmaking is not softer for the desecrators ignorance. for all things, existence is endless until the exact point where it ends.

so you might as well try to kill the unkillable god. it doesn’t seem likely, but at the beginning of the world, trees didn’t rot. so you never know! you never know

[ink-the-artist]

Love the contrast between the Americans’ “Apollo” and the Soviets’ “Sputnik.” You got the Americans naming their rocket after a Greek god trying to communicate the grandness and importance of this rocket. And you got the Soviets naming their rocket “fellow traveler.” Like a friend you go on an  adventure with together. This rocket is our little friend lol 

[scriblesandbits]

God IS a middle schooler and we ARE a science project except he does know we exist and has very mixed feelings about the whole ordeal

[inkskinned]

okay is she being actually immature or is it just a woman over 30 expressing a human experience you find to be immature.

like yeah. at certain ages... let shit go. im not defending the real immature shit. im not defending the karen you're picturing. i worked in retail i hate those people too. (once somebody got mad at me because she didn't like how our winter window decor was a snowman smoking a pipe. i wish i was joking).

but men at 57 will write books about how 17 year old girls are soooo sexy. they will invent worlds where women have to be naked for "armor reasons." they will write songs that treat women as objects. people rush to defend them. meanwhile a woman at 35 will be like "heartbreak is hard, actually" or "i feel betrayed by a friend" or "i am struggling with something emotionally." immediately people will say stuff like this woman is 35 by the way. by the way this woman is SO OLD to be experiencing this. BY THE WAY.

im 31, almost 32. the other day a poet was blasted online because at her "big age", she had written a poem about feeling unloved. top comment was "this woman is 29 by the way." this woman is too old to still be useful, by the way. she has to behave better . maybe if she was a good wife and mother she could stop existing loudly, and the story could continue on without her. this woman has served her purpose, by the way. she's so cringe, by the way. at 29 - so old! - she still hasn't figured out that her existence should be one of shame.

[enthyrea]

a jayvik dbh au that has been on my mind for a while, really interested with the idea of viktor being the one to pull the "reanimate ur partner from the dead" shtick

aka, oopsie the android you created because you couldn't get over the death of your partner actually possesses a will to live and shatters your view of the line between humanity and machinery!!

[mist-the-wannabe-linguist]

Hot take

Night furies are actually perfectly evolved for hunting and killing other dragons and the only reason they aren't a dragon-hunting species like the death song or deathgrippers are is because DreamWorks couldn't have their adorable main character dragon be a "cannibal"

(below I'm gonna try to summarize what we've figured out in a convo with friends on discord)

(also tw animal death via predator)

First of all yes I'm aware that pretty much every decision made about their design was with consideration of the effect it would make on human audiences but hear me out

Night furies are most iconically known as dive-bombers. They are built for speed, high maneuverability, night-time camouflage and for striking targets from above. If we remove human settlements out of the equation (which would not have existed long enough to actually influence night fury evolution, come on), what does that leave us with?

They aren't built for catching fish for sure, they aren't very hydrodynamic and their head is round, wide, and their teeth are dull. Honestly, the monstrous nightmare is much better suited for catching fish, with its long neck, almost pelican-like jaw and rhamphorhynchus teeth

Compare to

Yeah the jaws look kinda like a porpoise of some sort but for that the whole body would have to be a lot more aquatic imo. The light fury looks a lot closer to an aquatic diver, it has a sleeker body, rounded fins instead of spikes, and a long neck.

I don't really see them hunting land animals either, they just don't look like they're adapted for that minus the resemblance with large felines and even then, they're too large to effectively hunt in forests.

The one thing I can kinda imagine them hunting is large mainland megafauna, but we're working with a setting that takes place pretty much exclusively on islands. And overall, dragons are the only abundant species there with the exception of fish and human-bred sheep and chickens.

In general, night furies have duller teeth, smaller claws and are smaller than most dragons. Disregarding the movies making Toothless weirdly OP, a night fury would be disadvantaged against most dragons in a 1v1 fight and besides, it has four huge weak spots that would highly discourage it from a direct physical fight - the primary and secondary tail fins. One unlucky rip in the membrane and the night fury is fucked.

The night fury however noticeably resembles falcons, given their dive-bombing ability and high maneuverability.

Falcons too have smaller beaks and weaker claws compared to most birds of prey, and for that they compensate by simply picking up speed, balling up their talons and Punching. Really. Hard.

And they use that ability to kill other birds, even much larger ones, by knocking them right from the sky.

Here, the night fury's plasma blast works the same way as a falcon's punch. Dragons are fire-resistant, so what the plasma blast does is really just a densely packed bolt of energy that has the effect of either stunning or outright killing prey by damaging its spine. And what the plasma bolt doesn't do, rapid contact with the ground would finish. And if even that doesn't do it, the night fury's wide jaws and dull teeth are just fine for simply clamping around the unlucky dragon's neck and strangling it, like a lion or a pitbull.

The night-time camouflage allows the night fury to soar for extended periods of time perfectly unnoticed in the night sky, and by the time it strikes, the dragon wouldn't even know what's coming.

Unless

Say the hunting night fury is aware of other dragons sleeping under the trees, as most dragons probably would at night (village raids aside, most dragons seem to be diurnal), so how does the night fury get them in position where it can use its signature attack? Well, there's That Iconic Screech Of Death. Since in the movies it tends to appear not just during dive-bombings but also when charging up a blast, I imagine it's something the night fury is able to control to some degree. So by simply fake-diving in close proximity to sleeping dragons, it can effectively terrify them into leaving their hideout and fly out into the open where it can easily take them out.

I dunno, the possibility of night furies as predators to other dragons just makes so much sense to me, I really don't know what other reasons there would be for them to evolve these particular adaptations.

And one more little headcanon to add to this whole rant - since night furies are significantly smaller and less equipped for dragon vs dragon fights and are primarily speed-based predators, I imagine there is this very likely scenario:

There is one dragon who resembles a hyena, a lil bit

Ok, rant over

[journey-to-the-attic]

"karasu search how 2 cheer human up"

"karasu search difference between sad human and zoning out human"

"karasu search how long is it safe for humans to zone out for?"

(+ a longer look at each scene:)

[everwalldigan]

Ok but Bruce’s “batglare” except it has specific stages that mean you’re in varying degrees of trouble. Allow me to elaborate:

Level 1: isn’t even really considered a glare in Bruce-speak, more of a suspicious squinting

Level 2: standard Disappointed Dad look, the most you’re gonna get is a reprimand

Level 3: resting Bitch face. Less of a glare and more of a sharp look that WILL follow you around and creep you out

Level 4: worried batglare, features aren’t as sharp as with the standard batglare. Usually smooths out when his kids/teammates stop being idiots and putting themselves in danger

Level 5: standard batglare, regular criminals are usually at the end of it, most of the kids have gotten pretty used to it

Level 6: You’ve Fucked Up. Expect a screaming match or a lecture of at least 30 minutes. Also you’re grounded

Level 7: full batglare on steroids, makes grown men piss their pants, usually reserved for the joker. Most of the kids have received it only once and that was MORE than enough for them to never want to receive it again

Level 8: Alfred.

[crystallized-cheese]

so like imagine Undertale characters but they're all crafts supplies Part Triple (Sans and Papyrus) (Undyne and Alphys) (Frisk and Flowey) (Napstablook and Mettaton)

[puppppppppy]

abogagos……..

[t4tails]

have you guys seen the mod of r/samandmax losing his shit over ppl drawing gay fanart and deciding to ban all sam and max shipping from the subreddit

[qoldenskies]

i think its so funny when people take the way donnie acts at face value even though its a horrible lie because he's a horrible liar, while understanding leo is bullshitting very well despite him actually being GOOD at bullshitting. many such cases