#it wasn't even anything weird

[epicfirestormer]

What I love about Hellboy and Abe Sapien's dynamic in the comics is that, if you came into this blind, you'd expect Abe to be the voice of reason or the straight man to Hellboy's impulsive and hotheaded personality. But no, Abe is more often than not the crazy one. Hellboy would deal with fighting evil monsters and bad guys by just sighing and getting it over with, while Abe is going rabid over tearing the creature apart when he does get into a fight. Hellboy acts like it's a 9-to-5 job and will reasonably talk things out with a guy that had nearly killed him before, Abe acts like a madman in a slaughter house and his first instinct is to shoot first kill second and ask third. They're both insane, but on completely different levels.

[unanottexxx]

oh, of course ford might have been naive for believing bill's manipulations but that doesn't exactly mean he is stupid too. sure, bill's intentions were far more different than what he told but regardless, he chose ford. out of every human he could use, he trusted ford's intelligence to build an inter-dimensional portal. and mind you, he succeeded.

"bill was using you" then what? ford was using him too. they were on a deal, actually. that means both parts get something out of it. plus, he was a little too much focused on his feelings, his admiration. if not he would've definitely realized something is off with bill.

would he though?

when bill told a story about how he cut a disrespectful garbage's head and displayed it on a square, a lesson to all, ford murmured. when bill sectioned human kind in two; people like ford & others and talked about how much of a material waste others are, how they will never understand ford and exploit his intelligence, ford thought about certain someone who looks just like him. he nodded in agreement when bill casually kept going on how it would be better if they erase out of existence.

he had similar thoughts after all. bill was just more open and violent about them. but wasn't bill always like that? ford never saw those ideas as cracks in bill's mask or slip-ups from his manipulation. he was just bill.

even now he doesn't think bill lied to him all the time because he didn't have to. ford felt himself shiver. those weren't cues for him to realize. he knew and admired bill regardless. admired him with them. admired him because of them.

[ask2pame]

// i've been around for most of the fandom and it's phases and i can tell you confidently that 2015 was probably the worst time

[claypigeonpottery]

sold

I had a night terror about a creepy hand once. very unsettling

[timiddot]

my good buddies

my reference image + snowball

[mademoiselle-cookie]

She didn't say "children".

She said "common children".

English is not my first language so I didn't know if I was overinterpreting and that it was something that was actually said in English. But apparently no, it’s a deliberate choice. So let's overinterpret.

Let's leave aside the fact that she criticizes Tood and Ambrosius at the same level while the latter only defends himself against idiotic attacks and arguments (you can argue he should have been calmer but everyone was against him, not just Todd, and he has a few problems with his boyfriend).

First of all, it’s not the first time she hears something like that, like when Tood mocked Ballister (in a really classy way) at the beginning of a very important ceremony or when he complained about Ambrosius and his "lavender smell". She clearly heard that, but she didn’t say anything. She could have : bullying someone or imitating and insulting another of being a "dork" and having a good smell (?) are way more childish behaviors. At least for the second case, she could have at least frowned (Todd said this literally in front of her from a distance of a meter).

(Yes she looks like she ate a lemon but she looks like that throughout the whole scene, not just for Todd)

So the problem has never been how they act but how they don't act. They are currently not acting in ways that she deems useful but are instead wasting time. (And she is definitely only complaining about Ambrosius and Todd, not the other knights who joined the latter in accusing the former of nonsense. Alone against everyone, Ambrosius is not the problem, much less the one who started it)

I put it there, but when did the nobles (apart from Ambrosius who is not only an exception but is also obliged to appear impeccable) show themselves to be more distinguished than the commoners? Without wanting to defend them, when we see commoners acting in a despicable way, it is largely because they are being lied to and manipulated. The knights have no reason to harass Ballister - Ambrosius doesn't - and seeing as the squire is a fan, he's probably not the only one. It doesn't take a genius to know that you shouldn't harass people, no matter the situation.

Do we have a scene with a knight like with this woman in the subway who gives a coin to a musician? Todd when he's on the wall in honor of Nimona? OK, but that's after the ENTIRE kingdom has learned their lesson (meaning it's not just him and that's exceptional) and having been a huge asshole for the entire movie.

Also, the knights and the Director, when have they really been around a commoner? Who is the only commoner they know? Ballister. Ballister who most represents the values that the Institute and the knights are supposed to embody. He's the best of them (1st in his class), he's courageous, kind, intelligent (he built his arm on his own), competent (he infiltrated the Institute several times without being detected), strong (the fight of 2 against all) and he sincerely wants to protect the Kingdom. He is also much more polite (he is the only one to have thanked the squire).

Are you trying to seduce me gay boy?

As far as I know, he was always very courteous to everyone, especially to the Director. Her only real reference to commoners is a hard-working, competent and polite man. (The only time he was "wild" was when he attacked a wooden mannequin before entering the Institute. But he was a child, and it didn't exceed the level of violence of Todd, an adult.)

The Director uses commoners as an insult, when overall, commoners act much more distinguished than nobles.

[tev-the-random]

Remember when I asked what S1 design people would like me to make the most? So yeah, I forgot to post it-

It's he!

[stop-breaking-my-heart-telltale]

if dorian didn't show up, do you think louis would have shot minnie?

I do. I know some people think either he wouldn't have or he would've missed so that's why the writers had him shoot Dorian instead, but mmmmmm no, I don't personally think so. I like to think that if he had taken the shot, his shaky hands would've caused him to shoot her fatally.

Mostly because I'm already so normal about the fact that of the Ericson crew, Marlon and Louis are the only ones with a body count. Well, that we know of, but shown to us in the game, at least. Plus, we know it's Louis' first kill.

Like yeah, Clementine and AJ become part of the crew and they have bigger body counts, and if we're counting indirect kills caused by actions, then Tenn has a count... and I guess everyone has blood on their hands for blowing up the boat... but I'm talking about killed directly with a weapon like....... I lied, I'm not normal about that at all, Louis and Marlon are the ones who have killed someone in Louis' route. I'm also not normal about the fact that Louis kills Dorian and then even as he's clearly in shock, he tries to go with Clementine to get AJ, and then later on when they talk about it, he says it feels like bile but not quite and he's glad he has it in him to do it.... listen, listen, listen... I'm obsessed with that.

Anyway, so if Louis shot Minerva, I think he would've accidentally killed her and can you imagine? He's already enough of a mess after killing the woman who pinned him down and tried to cut his finger off [or succeeded] but he knew Minerva, they were friends before the twins were taken. Even Violet couldn't kill her even though that would've been the smarter thing to do, and we know thanks to meta knowledge that killing her would've saved lives, but Violet couldn't, and I don't think Louis would intentionally either.

Speaking of Violet, if Louis killed Minerva, I hate to think about what that would've done to Vi. I think she might've actually left at that point, like what was planned before it got changed to her being burned. I don't think she would've attacked Louis over it, though, like yeah she attacked Clementine in the cell but Louis? I don't know, but I don't think so just because it's Louis and he'd be a mess about it anyway.

Though if he did kill her, it would be a neat parallel to draw... y'know, because Louis forgave AJ for killing Marlon even though he was pissed and heartbroken, and Violet was annoyed with him the entire time... but could she ever forgive Louis for killing Minerva? Y'know? We already have a similar parallel with AJ shooting Tenn, but still.

If Clementine killed Minerva in that moment, though, then I could see Violet attacking her since in her eyes, Clem proved her right.

So yeah, I get why they added the Dorian kill to his route. It adds another compelling element to Louis as a character, but we also need Minerva alive for episode 4; Louis can't kill her, he can't miss, and he's not going to stay with her because we need Violet to stay on the boat and him to be on shore for all routes.

[lloydfrontera]

related to that last post that's kinda why i think cpsm revealing that javier had died three years earlier than lloyd is poignant in a very understated way.

javier's original fate was to live when everyone he cared about didn't. he was meant to be the protagonist of that world, to face all kind of threats and survive all of them, but with no one at his side.

he's the narrative's favorite but the narrative's love is not gentle and it is not kind and it will hold you close until you suffocate under its themes and parallels. for the world would bend itself for javier to be at it's center but it would not allow him the comfort of sharing that spot with anyone else.

he was always meant to be the last one standing. fate won't kill him but it won't allow him to die either.

and then comes lloyd with his plot breaking meddling saving everyone around them and shoving his way into the protagonist role, sharing the burden javier wasn't even aware he was carrying. and fate tries so hard to correct itself, it tries by all means possible to put things back the way they were meant to be, but in the end the best it can do is to try and make it so there will only be one main character in the world. the way it was always meant to be.

it concedes. it won't take away everything from its favorite anymore. but it won't stand for there to be two of them.

and the thing is. it wins. it gets what it wants. in the end javier can't save lloyd, he can't take his place, he can't keep him alive, he has to stand and watch him sacrifice himself for everyone else. for javier himself. in the end when the battle is over javier is again the last one standing.

when lloyd comes back and the fate restoration doesn't start up all over again, he thinks it's because lloyd frontera's original body disappeared and he came back in his own body. i don't think it was that. i think the reason fate didn't try to restore itself again is because it had already achieved what it wanted.

the narrative won. not completely. not the way it was originally meant to. but in the end javier ended up as the lone protagonist who watched his loved one die before his eyes.

only then was it satisfied and allowed javier to leave its grasp. only then was he allowed to become a person and not just the main character.

a person who could spend a lifetime with all of his loved ones and when the time came, die peacefully in his sleep, knowing at least the person he came to care the most about will outlive him. at least this time, he won't be the one left behind.

[shikai-the-storyteller]

Aypierre just said his mods will ban any idiots in the chat being stupid about the QSMP situation, lmaooo. Absolutely based, get their asses.

[corvidcall]

i very rarely get a sense of satisfaction from completing tasks. ive heard people say this is an ADHD thing, but idk. personally i think i might just be bad at being alive

[infiniteglitterfall]

Me, looking through books on Palestine: "Ilan Pappé wrote one called 'The Biggest Prison On Earth?!' People in Gaza hate it being called a prison. There's an entire hashtag for it. There's been an account dedicated to collecting pics and videos of #TheGazaYouDontSee for 6 years.

"Is Pappé even Palestinian? oh god wait I can tell already. this is gonna be an 'Israeli apologist' isn't it." Internet: "Yeah, Pappé's Israeli."

Me: "For fuck's--- so people will believe Israelis unquestioningly if they're shit-talking Israel, but in all other situations, Israelis are all liars?"

Internet: "Pretty much. Also, at best, Ilan Pappé must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians."

Me, admittedly in full schadenfreude now: "What?!?!"

Internet: "Benny Morris. That historian who's extremely hard-core about primary source documentation, who wrote that detailed book about how and why each group of Palestinian refugees left in 1947-9. He reviewed three books about Palestine."

Me: "Holy shit. And the book by Pappé is about the Husaynis. The family that Nazi war criminal Amin al-Husseini came from, the guy who fucked absolutely everything up for both Israel and Palestine."

Internet: "That's the one. Morris wrote, 'At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two.'"

Me: "Why??"

Internet: "He says, 'Here is a clear and typical example—in detail, which is where the devil resides—of Pappe’s handiwork. I take this example from The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine'....

"Blah blah blah, basically in 1947 the UN voted to partition the land into Palestine and Israel, and extremist militias started shooting at Jewish towns and people. David Ben-Gurion was the leader of the Jewish community there, and his journal describes a visit from a scientist named Aharon Katzir, telling him about an experiment codenamed "Shimshon." Morris gives us the journal entry:

...An experiment was conducted on animals. The researchers were clothed in gas masks and suit. The suit costs 20 grush, the mask about 20 grush (all must be bought immediately). The operation [or experiment] went well. No animal died, the [animals] remained dazzled [as when a car’s headlights dazzle an oncoming driver] for 24 hours. There are some 50 kilos [of the gas]. [They] were moved to Tel Aviv. The [production] equipment is being moved here. On the laboratory level, some 20 kilos can be produced per day.

"Morris says, 'This is the only accessible source that exists, to the best of my knowledge, about the meeting and the gas experiment, and it is the sole source cited by Pappe for his description of the meeting and the "Shimshon" project. But this is how Pappe gives the passage in English:

Katzir reported to Ben-Gurion: 'We are experimenting with animals. Our researchers were wearing gas masks and adequate outfit. Good results. The animals did not die (they were just blinded). We can produce 20 kilos a day of this stuff.'

"'The translation is flecked with inaccuracies, but the outrage is in Pappe’s perversion of "dazzled," or sunveru, to "blinded"—in Hebrew "blinded" would be uvru, the verb not used by Ben-Gurion—coupled with the willful omission of the qualifier '"for 24 hours."'

"'Pappe’s version of this text is driven by something other than linguistic and historiographical accuracy. Published in English for the English-speaking world, where animal-lovers are legion and deliberately blinding animals would be regarded as a barbaric act, the passage, as published by Pappe, cannot fail to provoke a strong aversion to Ben-Gurion and to Israel.

"'Such distortions, large and small, characterize almost every page of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. So I should add, to make the historical context perfectly clear, that no gas was ever used in the war of 1948 by any of the participants. [Or, he later notes, by either Israel or Palestine ever.] Pappe never tells the reader this.

"'Raising the subject of gas is historical irrelevance. But the paragraph will dangle in the reader’s imagination as a dark possibility, or worse, a dark reality: the Jews, gassed by the Nazis three years before, were about to gas, or were gassing, Arabs.'"

Me: "Uuuuggghhhhhhhhh. Yeah, it will."

Internet: "He does say, 'Palestinian Dynasty was a good idea.' Then he does some really detailed historian-dragging about the lack of primary sources and reliance on people's interpretations of what they say instead.

"'Almost all of Pappe’s references direct the reader to books and articles in English, Hebrew, and Arabic by other scholars, or to the memoirs of various Arab politicians, which are not the most reliable of sources. Occasionally there is a reference to an Arab or Western travelogue or genealogy, or to a diplomat’s memoir; but there is barely an allusion to documents in the relevant British, American, and Zionist/Israeli archives.

"'When referring to the content of American consular reports about Arab riots in the 1920s, for example, Pappe invariably directs the reader to an article in Hebrew by Gideon Biger—“The American Consulate in Jerusalem and the Events of 1920-1921,” in Cathedra, September 1988—and not to the documents themselves, which are easily accessible in the United States National Archive.

"'Those who falsify history routinely take the path of omission. They ignore crucial facts and important pieces of evidence while cherry-picking from the documentation to prove a case. 

"'Those who falsify history routinely take the path of omission. They ignore crucial facts and important pieces of evidence while cherry-picking from the documentation to prove a case. 

"'But Pappe is more brazen. He, too, often omits and ignores significant evidence, and he, too, alleges that a source tells us the opposite of what it in fact says, but he will also simply and straightforwardly falsify evidence.

"'Consider his handling of the Arab anti-Jewish riots of the 1920s.

"'Pappe writes of the “Nabi Musa” riots in April 1920: “The [British] Palin Commission... reported that the Jewish presence in the country was provoking the Arab population and was the cause of the riots.” He also quotes at length Musa Kazim al-Husayni, the clan’s leading notable at the time, to the effect that “it was not the [Arab] Hebronites who had started the riots but the Jews.”

"'But the (never published) [Palin Commission Report], while forthrightly anti-Zionist, thereby accurately reflecting the prevailing views in the British military government that ruled Palestine until mid-1920, flatly and strikingly charged the Arabs with responsibility for the bloodshed.

"'The team chaired by Major-General P.C. Palin wrote that “it is perfectly clear that with... few exceptions the Jews were the sufferers, and were, moreover, the victims of a peculiarly brutal and cowardly attack, the majority of the casualties being old men, women and children.” The inquiry pointed out that whereas 216 Jews were killed or injured, the British security forces and the Jews, in defending themselves or in retaliatory attacks, caused only twenty-five Arab casualties.'"

Me: "Yeah. I'm looking at that report right now and it says there had been an explosion, and then people were looting Jewish stores and beating Jews with stones, and in one case stabbing someone. Some people said that some Jews got up on the roof of a hotel and retaliated by throwing stones themselves.

"And then it literally says, 'The point as to the retaliation by Jews is of importance because it seems to have impressed the Military and led them to imagine that the Jews were to some extent responsible for provoking the rising.' That's the only thing it really says about anyone blaming the Jews.

"Except.... the very beginning gives some historical context. And it does say that when the Balfour Declaration came out, Muslims and Christians 'considered that they were to be handed over to an oppression which they hated far more than the Turk's and were aghast at the thought of this domination....

"'If this intensity of feeling proceeded merely from wounded pride of race and disappointment in political aspirations, it would be easier to criticise and rebuke: but it must be borne in mind that at the bottom of all is a deepseated fear of the Jew, both as a possible ruler and as an economic competitor. Rightly or wrongly they fear the Jew as a ruler, regarding his race as one of the most intolerant known to history....

"'The prospect of extensive Jewish immigration fills him with a panic fear, which may be exaggerated, but is none the less genuine. He sees the ablest race intellectually in the world, past-masters in all the arts of ousting competitors whether on the market, in the farm or the bureaucratic offices, backed by apparently inexhaustible funds given by their compatriots in all lands and possessed of powerful influence in the councils of the nations, prepared to enter the lists against him in every one of his normal occupations, backed by the one thing wanted to make them irresistible, the physical force of a great Imperial Power, and he feels himself overmastered and defeated before the contest is begun.'

"Wow! What a great fucking example of how 'positive' stereotypes are actually used to fuck people over! We're not antisemitic, we actually think Jews are the smartest, most powerful, richest group with tremendous global power! So positive!! Not at all being used here to justify antisemitic violence!

"Also, immigration from all over the world actually meant that different agricultural and manufacturing techniques were brought into the region, and yes, financial investments to start businesses sometimes, which meant that Arab Palestinians there had the highest per capita income in the Middle East, the highest daily wages, and started a lot of businesses of their own. But go off, I guess."

"Anyfuckingway.... it basically says that the Muslims and Christians were angry and scared, the Jews were too quick to set up the functioning government that the Brits were supposed to be there to help both sides create -- and which the Arab leaders completely refused to create for Palestine, because (1) fascists and (2) didn't want Jews nearby -- and that they were "ready prey for any form of agitation hostile to the British Government and the Jews." Then it says the movement for a United Syria was agitating them real hard, and so were the Sherifians.

"Is that what Ilan Passe, I mean Pappe, meant by the Palin Report blaming the Jews?! That when it says it's understandable the Arabs were freaking out, because antisemitism, Pappe thinks it's saying the Jews were provoking them?!"

Internet: "I don't know. I kinda tuned out after the first hour you were talking."

Me: "OGH MY GOD"

Internet: "So anyway, then Morris ALSO says, 'About the 1929 “Temple Mount” riots, which included two large-scale massacres of Jews, in Hebron and in Safed, Pappe writes: “The opposite camp, Zionist and British, was no less ruthless [than the Arabs]. In Jaffa a Jewish mob murdered seven Palestinians.”

Me: "What the ENTIRE FUCK? There was no united 'Zionist and British' camp! The Brits would barely let any Holocaust refugees in, ffs!"

Internet: "Morris says, 'Actually, there were no massacres of Arabs by Jews, though a number of Arabs were killed when Jews defended themselves or retaliated after Arab violence.

"'Pappe adds that the British “Shaw Commission,” so-called because it was chaired by Sir Walter Shaw (a former chief justice of the Straits Settlements), which investigated the riots, “upheld the basic Arab claim that Jewish provocations had caused the violent outbreak. ‘The principal cause... was twelve years of pro-Zionist [British] policy.’”

"'It is unclear what Pappe is quoting from. I did not find this sentence in the commission’s report. Pappe’s bibliography refers, under “Primary Sources,” simply to “The Shaw Commission.” The report? The deliberations? Memoranda by or about? Who can tell?

"'The footnote attached to the quote, presumably to give its source, says, simply, “Ibid.”

"'The one before it says, “Ibid., p. 103.”

"'The one before that says, “The Shaw Commission, session 46, p. 92.”

"'But the quoted passage does not appear on page 103 of the report.

"In the text of Palestinian Dynasty, Pappe states that “Shaw wrote [this] after leaving the country [Palestine].” But if it is not in the report, where did Shaw “write” it?'"

Me: "I'M ON IT. [rapid-fire googling] OMG. This is.... Not the first time. In 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,' he reported that in a 1937 letter to his son, David Ben-Gurion declared: 'The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as war.'

"It's not in the source he gave. It's not in any of the three different sources he's given for it.

"He apparently has never responded to any requests for an explanation, either from the journal he published in, or from other historians. But it says he did "obliquely [acknowledge] the controversy in an article in Electronic Intifada, in which he portrayed himself as the victim of intimidation at the hands of “Zionist hooligans.”'

"This is absolutely fucking wild. THEN it says the chair of the Ethics Committee where he was teaching eventually said that the second part of the quote ('but one needs,' etc) was a (combined?) paraphrase of a diary entry and a speech Ben-Gurion gave, and that the first half is 'based on' a letter to his son.

"And it's so convincing! The chair says, 'Shabtai Teveth[,] Ben Gurion’s biographer, Benny Morris and the historian Nur Maslaha have all quoted this letter. In fact their translation was stronger than the quotation from Professor Pappé: ‘We must expel the Arabs and take their place.’ Professor Pappé has documentary evidence of these quotations and the source will ensure that this is correctly cited in any future editions of the publication or related studies.'

"And IT'S NOT EVEN TRUE?!

"Ben-Gurion's actual diary entry (not a letter) says the opposite.

“'We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places.... All our aspiration is built on the assumption – proven throughout all our activity – that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.'

"Benny Morris misquoted it as "We must expel the Arabs and take their places" in the English version of his 1987 book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, although it was correct in the Hebrew version. He corrected himself in the 2001 book Righteous Victims.

"Teveth also misquoted it in the English version of his 1985 book Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, but again, had it correct in the Hebrew edition.

"And both Morris and Teveth explicitly point out the rest of the entry. The part about all their aspiration being built on the assumption and experience that there was enough room in the country for everyone.

"Historian Efraim Karsh’s 1997 book Fabricating Israeli History pointed out and corrected their mistakes.

"This is apparently a very well-known issue among historians of Israel and Palestine. It was a big deal in 2003, when an evangelist Christian publisher put out a book FULL of disinformation, which not only used the same quote as Pappe does, but also could not give a real source for it.

"But Pappe STILL USED THE MISQUOTE AND DOUBLED DOWN ON IT EVERY SINGLE TIME."

Internet: "Are you done? I know all this already."

Me: "Also, there are literally only two places where the phrase 'twelve years of pro-Zionist policy' shows up online, and they're both about Pappe making quotes up.

"NOW I'm done."

Benny Morris wasn't, though. The review continues at the link below. And the next part starts, "To the deliberate slanting of history Pappe adds a profound ignorance of basic facts. Together these sins and deficiencies render his “histories” worthless as representations of the past, though they are important as documents in the current political and historiographic disputations about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Pappe’s grasp of the facts of World War I, for example, is weak in the extreme."

[nochangeintheplan]

It’s a shame the game doesn’t have daigo and saejima as his crew mates. It would’ve been such a good opportunity. Or it being an au historical spinoff like ishin where other character reprise their roles. But that probably would’ve been too expensive sooo

My copium is that they will be in it much later as Majima gets his memories back or something but also probably not. Historical AU woulda been sick but this is just a gaiden, so it'll probably be limited only to the unique characters of this game. Like the child... and tiger... Hoping this game is good actually; I know it's just one trailer but man I am deflated lmao

Changing his palette is the one thing that I would forever actually cope and seethe about I don't care if its minor and stupid I hate it. I like y3 the way it is I dont need a k3, a k3 would be really nice just because i like the game so much but if its at the cost of Mine's palette i'd push the button to delete it

[cidnangarlond]

you guys ever have a dream so bizarre you wake up with your heart pounding and it makes you throw up

[sysig]

How is skeleton shaped (Patreon)

[taibhsearachd]

Dogs will see you cleaning a pile of literal garbage that built up during a long depression and be like "...but that was my emotional support trash. I liked that trash!"