#leave society for so long

[mozart-the-meerkitten]

Been rewatching the early Marvel movies and apparently this is the time of my life where I just get re-obsessed with characters I love so here's some random thoughts about Loki/Thor the Dark World:

Why. In the world. In the universe. Did Odin not ask Loki ANY questions when Loki was brought before him for judgement in Dark World? Like, at the BAREST MINIMUM he should have asked where Loki got an ARMY, the last time he'd seen Loki was when Loki fell off the Bifrost and then he vanished for a year and showed back up with the glowstick of destiny and an army that Thor says "are not of Asgard or any world known". ODIN. WHY ARE YOU NOT ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS?!

Like, we are aware that Odin is. partial to giving his kids harsh punishments. He obviously doesn't care about Loki's motives. Like, a good parent would look at their kid who disappeared for a year and then came back insane and be like "hey so what happened to you when you disappeared? you didn't get captured by a super powerful being and tortured into submission did you?" (Thanos tortured Loki I have SOURCES and I WILL cite them upon request) But even a bad parent who was a decent king would wonder how their kid suddenly got an ARMY out of NOWHERE and yet Odin never questions this at all. Even Thor in Avengers at least asks Loki "Who showed you this power? Who controls the would-be king?" (which just shows Thor would honestly be a better king than Odin tbh) but Odin is just like "nah this is not important. imprisoning my son for life and telling him how worthless I think he is is more important in this moment."

I wonder if she'd had more time if maybe Frigga would have been able to get Loki to tell her what happened and if maybe that was part of her goal of visiting him (beyond just, you know, actually being a decent parent who cares about her child and wanting to keep him company) because we know she's clever (she's smarter than Odin good gravy, is there like an age difference between them is he going senile or something) so PERHAPS she thought if she talked to Loki she could puzzle out what had happened to him and find out if there was, you know, a potential universal threat Asgard should be aware of. And like, if she had found out anything what was Odin going to say? He can't actually punish his wife in any meaningful way (lol imagine he tries and she just grabs her two grown sons and leaves, help xD) especially if she found out IMPORTANT INFORMATION that he SHOULD have discovered on his own.

This does kind of highlight an underlying problem with Odin, where he seems to think that Asgard is invincible and is, well, lazy about defending it. Like, I've seen posts about how Loki letting the Frost Giants into Asgard in the first movie is actually him not just showing that Thor is not ready to be king, but also demonstrating that Asgard has dangerous holes in its defenses. Because yeah, Loki can HIDE HIMSELF FROM HEIMDALL and sneak into Asgard. Heck, he can sneak OTHERS into Asgard while he's not even WITH them. That- that is a security threat, because if anyone BESIDES Loki could do that then Asgard could easily be invaded and- wait a second, that happens in The Dark World! The Dark Elves hide themselves from Heimdall and sneak an invasion force into Asgard! Destroying it's defenses and KILLING ITS QUEEN. Like, my goodness, do you think Loki is the only person with these abilities? Are you even trying Odin? At all?

TLDR; Odin is an idiot for not questioning Loki about the Chitauri/where he was for a year between Thor and Avengers, not to mention an awful father and an incompetent king.

[rachymarie]

Tryna get advice for anything to do with your own schizospec disorder on Google be like:

"tHe 4 SuBtYpEs:" "PaRaNoiD sChiZoPhReNiA" "Healthline" "WebMd" "My schizophrenic mother was an abusive a-hole so now i will NEVER trust another schizospec again"

We get that you are hurting but we are not your mum and we are hurting too!

[yuridovewing]

tbh this depends on whatever happens with her in TBC and if i like it or not, but… kinda tempted to make razorverse dovewing stay with the guardian cats rather than go to shadowclan. and shadowsight/lightleap (?) go with goldenheart to shadowclan while pouncestep stays with her

[nutterzebutters]

Hey so hot take

Saying "I'm not going to turn into a pedophile by consuming media with pedophilia in it" in the face of "maybe don't go out of your way to consume inherently disturbing material 24/7" is purposely obtuse and you are missing the point.

No, you are not going to turn incestuous by watching Game of Thrones, you want to know why? Because Game of Thrones actively shows why cersei is delusional in the midst of her incestuous relationship with her twin brother. The show actively makes it a point to show other characters clear disgust and adversity to the mere idea and shows the active side effects of her actions. Stop using it as your safety net against the argument "fiction can affect reality."

Fandom, and fiction itself inherently has the goal in mind to make human connection across media, and a lot of the time are passion projects created from the human soul. because of this you can never truly separate the fiction mirrors reality argument. No, you should not be policing your thoughts, but you need to understand where the argument tends to take place and why you need to evaluate why you're feeling attacked.

The prime argument is in the face of things like pro-shipping or pro-fiction and those in FAVOR of incest, fetishizing lolicon, abusive relationships, ECT, people who did NOT know how to separate their fiction from reality. People who actively engage for enjoyment in these specific subjects. There is a fine line between consuming your media in moderation while that media properly depicts the disturbing content versus overindulging in media that tends to glorify or fetishize said disturbing content. To say that this 24/7 consumption will not affect you is either naivety or denial, especially when ppl are prone to things like being an "irl" (people who genuinely believe they are those fictional characters because of the state of psychosis) or those with online 🌽 addictions aligning with dopamine rushes for these fiction dynamics. You also have children on the internet who were groomed into these concepts and don't know any better, so they have a habit of overindulging in these fantasies as well because of the lack of moderation.

This also applies to people who claim it as a coping mechanism, if it is a coping mechanism it has to affect your reality in order to do something for you. Coping mechanisms are built to better your behaviors in the face of trauma. If you are struggling with trauma I promise you the indulgence and problematic media will not help you, in fact it will most likely make it worse by validating the very behavior you suffered from, there are better more effective ways to help you heal from your trauma. And for the love of god, many things like non-con kinks are a completely separate conversation, the way you role play that is most likely for the CONSENT OF HAVING CONTROL and is NOT the same as romanticizing the outright actions. If you do, then it's time to seek therapy in other means to dismantle that within yourself. Stop bringing in the bedroom conversation when it's based off of the consent factor and safe space with your own partner, not the wild fantasy that a character is being 🍇'd- WHICH AGAIN. IS WHO THIS CONSERVATION APPLIES TO AND TARGETS.

If you are a person who reads things like darkship, power Imbalance, or anything that contains these subjects but never romanticizes them THIS CONVERSATION NEVER APPLIED TO YOU and you shouldn't be listening to those who think it does. That is 10 steps further than we needed to go and is 9/10 not a good faith part of the conversation nor is it coming from someone who is fully informed or aware of what they're claim means, exposure is actually a really good thing. In items like Game of Thrones built for mature audiences, the exposure lets us know yeah, it happens, and if you're curious you can learn more about it, children's media largely cannot and should not enter the chat here- as children can handle heavy topics as seen in bluey and be taught right from wrong. But should NEVER contain that type of content. Exposure in and of itself can be a small reality pointer which is good! We need to know about how these things work, and it's important that stories are written that explore these things thoroughly from neutral or personal POVS while being mature about it.

In the same breath, there is a reason we think of pro-shippers and people who tend to fetishize prepubescent anime girls or are into non-non and make their whole internet persona about how much they fantasize about it, that is because the "fiction doesn't affect reality" statement is a safety umbrella for them.

Once more, if you consume your media in moderation without that media romanticizing or otherwise trying to glorify inherently immoral subjects this conversation never applied to you and should never have accused you. No you are not going to suddenly be gay by consuming queer media, absolutely nobody of sane mind has claimed that. If you are not actively promoting dynamics that tend to reflect or represent something that's very harmful to real ppl, again this conversation does not apply to you. It applies to people who do not know how to handle themselves properly, and you trying to make the argument look absolutely insane has every warrant to have people assume that you are the issue in question. If you are not being a weirdo online pressing it on other people by making them look stupid for being against it, go ham.

Who cares if it's not canon, the people who care have long since forgotten what fandom etiquette even looks like and don't remember what fandom looked like before the "Great Tumblr Purge". But they're not the topic of this conversation.

You may notice that I mentioned IRLs. Many of these ppl do not need your "reality check" either, you are not a licensed medical professional or a psychologist, hell even a psychiatrist. You still don't get the merit to do so even if you took 101 classes, you can harm them and it can backfire, BAD. Again, these ppl do need to be careful about what they consume and how they consume it because there are people prone to not being able to separate the line and it can end up hurting themselves in the end, rarely have I seen hurt it others but I don't need it to affect outside of the IRLs bubble for me to care about how IRL got there and what they might be doing to themselves in the face of distressing/conflicting information, it's a state of mind realistically nobody wants to be in. Many of you act like saying "if you can't separate fiction from reality then that's an issue" isn't also where "fiction affects reality" comes from. We are well aware. That's why we're saying it.

I should also preface this, you should never want to label yourself as pro-ship/pro-fiction when the biggest and most well-known definition applies to somebody who absolutely does not know where to draw the line. If you are "anti-harassment" about the tame ships, maybe it is time to come up with a new term and to stop associating yourself with such ppl. If you immediately jump to defense, maybe you should dismantle why that is, bc you're not fooling anyone. No, there is no proof that violence and video games will cause a school shooter to become a school shooter, they were most likely already subjected to the ideas and desensitized, the violence of the video game only ever promoted it and their fantasies, two things can and should be true at the same time. I'm tired of y'all making it seem like the ppl saying "Hey maybe we shouldn't over indulge in something that gives us a vicious cycle of dopamine based in seeking disturbing/immoral content" are insane. Again, maybe dismantle why you feel the need to get defensive about it.

[bonestrouslingbones]

also i hate to admit it and i swear i DO understand the importance of them but fellas i fear i may be steadily morphing into a humanities hater

[wonder-worker]

people really do not know what they're talking about when it comes to Elizabeth Woodville's social status, huh?

[good--merits-accumulated]

truly truly Neil Charlie Todd triumvirate is king please share any thoughts you have on them

OH BOY ANON YOU HAVE OPENED A CAN OF WORMS.

I. OPENING THESIS?

Basically, here’s my abstract for this whole thing:

(Les Misérables, trans. Isabel F. Hapgood)

And having put this down, I’ll ask you to overlook it, lol. Or treat it as a very loose guide! (If you haven’t any idea what the context of this refers to, here’s a quick rundown: a chief is a leader and someone who people rally behind. A guide is an enthusiast about all things and an advocate for progress, someone who checks the rampant idealism of the chief. The centre is warm, loyal, and acts almost as a mini-Sun for the chief and guide to orbit around, to stop them shooting off on their own wild trajectories.) In the interest of complete transparency, reading Les Mis at a young age had this irreparable effect on me where I now have to think of every triumvirate as a chief/guide/centre dynamic, but I don’t think this model applies 1:1 towards Neil/Charlie/Todd. Instead, I think of them a little as composites, interplaying with each other – Charlie as a guide who would much rather be a chief, Neil as a chief who works better as a guide, and Todd as a centre who’s never given the grace to grow into that role. Let’s go!

II. CHARLIE AS THE CHIEF-GUIDE

Charlie is like if rowdiness was a Guy. He’s big, he’s brash, he’s the instigator and he’s the captain and he’s the shameless one and he’s a side character! I have always found this very interesting whenever I watch DPS; despite Charlie’s main character-ness he is secondary, and doesn’t even get his own sideplot in the same way that Knox (for example) does. He’s a born leader who by virtue of the trappings of his story is relegated to supporting others, although you can so, so clearly see him fighting for space in the story. He gets pushed into being a guide almost by default; only the trait of enthusiasm really applies here. If Neil wasn’t there he’d be the leader of their group, no question. And the thing about Charlie is that he gets things done. He’s the one pushing the most for the re-creation of the Dead Poets Society after Neil, he’s caustic about things that are in his way (“Well, why don’t you stay home?”), people follow him! See Knox running after him, asking to be taught:

Charlie is the man of action – the telephone stunt is the biggest incident of that. And the way the boys gather around him afterwards as he regales them is chief-like; here he is acting as the chief, because this is around the same time that Neil’s chief role starts to slip away from him. But more of that later. 

The big thing is that Charlie never gets to really assume that role of chief, because Neil is always there. I talked earlier about how he pushes for the re-creation of the Society; well, Neil is the one who finds Keating’s old annual and reads it aloud to them. Charlie is the one cutting down the guys’ concerns about sneaking out after school: Neil is the one who suggests it – more than suggests it! Almost commands it, in a way that leaves little room for debate:

(Note that in this section, it’s Charlie who does the arguing for Neil, who doesn’t speak except to lay down the law and then ask who’s coming. Real king and knight energy.) 

Charlie never quite manages to edge into centre stage. You can sort of see how there might be resentment there – perhaps there would have been if they had gone on uninterrupted. But then of course Neil dies, and Charlie assumes the chief role by default, but it’s no longer glorious or something he can covet. But he does it anyway; he wakes up Todd, he breaks the news to him, very, very gently, he wipes Todd’s mouth with snow when he vomits and tells the others to leave him alone. But by this point, Charlie going into the chief role he’s so good at isn’t enough to stop the splintering of their group or his own expulsion.  

III. NEIL AS THE GUIDE-CHIEF

Part of Neil’s tragedy is that he would be good at the things his father wants him to do! He’s a wonderful all-rounder, he's the perfect all-American specimen, there’s no doubt in my mind he would have been a great doctor – except he wouldn’t, because the enthusiasm and the motivation would have been lacking entirely. (As someone who just did a shit ton of medical school interviews, yeah, they would have sniffed this guy out really fast. Or maybe they wouldn't… not sure how stringent they were in the ‘50s.) He would have been technically great. But being able to do something doesn’t mean you should; these are the things that Mr. Perry conflates and which Neil is never able to verbalise to him, except in a way in which he thinks he’ll understand:

In this scene, when he talks to him post-performance it’s not “I enjoyed it”, but a very simple, “I was really good”. And despite this concession of terms he says it when his father can't hear, because he knows he would never relent, oh God.

Actually, a lot of what I wanted to say about Neil has already been said in Charlie’s section. (The summary is basically that you must imagine me offstage with a megaphone as the movie plays, yelling, “YOU TWO NEED TO SWITCH PLACES, FUCKOS”.) Neil is a good leader, but that doesn’t mean he likes being one, or that he should be one! He has a few characteristics of a guide – he’s enthusiastic about everything, he has this boundless kind of delight in the things he loves (not idealism; that’s slightly different). But this is honestly where the model falls apart. I don’t think that Neil would make a great guide either, logic not being his forte; the irony is that the role of the triumvirate he most fits IS the chief, it’s just that that’s what kills him. The responsibility that comes with being someone who “speaks and people listen” isn’t good for him – this dichotomy of having “control” over the friendship group/no control over his personal life is terrible. He does get to lose the chief role, but it’s not in a way that is good for him; instead this manifests in a loss of control that happens very very quickly, which just makes him reach for ways in which he can control his own life. And besides, stepping outside of a leadership role with a great deal of responsibility and losing control over the course of your own life are two very different things. I just think that he should get to go offstage for a little bit and rest, with zero expectations on him ever. (Also there’s something here about how he gets to play Puck – a side character who has major effects on the story but doesn’t have to actually put his skin in the game. This is what I think Neil should get to do In Real Life.)  

IV. TODD AS THE PROTO-CENTRE 

One thing about Todd is that in my mind, I always imagine him as much redder than he actually is in the movie. I don’t mean I imagine him to blush more often – I mean ruddier, more flushed. Going back to the Les Mis quote – in my mind he does “possess all the qualities of a centre, roundness and radiance”! Todd is a catalyst like Keating in a way that Keating isn’t; this is never explicit at all but he has always felt to me like someone who inspires others by their presence. He’s such a wonderful, calming, grounding influence. Even when he talks to Neil and they have that non-argument he tempers Neil and reminds him what’s at stake without looking down on him. And when he realises how serious he is, he goes with it and supports him to the best of his ability – he says “Oh, Neil, Neil, you’re crazy” but it’s fond, he’s overjoyed for him. And you can see similar behaviour perhaps to a lesser extent with Charlie in the way particularly he calls him Nuwanda after his request, which is taken as ridiculous by other characters: 

And even after Neil’s death he does so, refusing to go back to normal:

But the reason I’ve put “proto-” for a prefix is because these are all singular occasions. The thing is that I think Todd could be that brilliant, grounding, assured man, a lighthouse of a man, almost. But he isn’t – he clearly isn’t – at the beginning of the movie he is shy and diffident and the non-argument I mentioned early does go a little sour, because while he speaks from a place of concern and love, his anxiety manifests in the conversation and makes him a little less tactful than he might have been otherwise. If things had gone on better than they went, and if Todd had been allowed to grow and develop more and without worry, he really, really would have blossomed into this kind of centre, this very steady man who would have reminded Neil of the consequences of his actions and made Charlie care about the consequences of his. But he doesn’t get to do that – by the time he grows and becomes more confident it’s too late, the worst has already happened. 

V. SUMMARY

I’m so sorry, anon, this is a prodigious answer to what was a very simple ask, but you hit on the subject I have Very Strong Feelings About. Not to toot my own fanfic horn, but there’s an excerpt from the fair folk AU which I think sums this up pretty well:

TL;DR: Charlie gets pushed into a secondary position which doesn’t suit him; Neil gets pushed into a leadership position which suits him, but he hates; Todd is willing to step into that secondary position as a behind-the-scenes supporter, but never actually gets that opportunity. Hence the tragedy. Hence the taking of lives. Hence how many fucking tears I have shed over this movie, Jesus. 

(I had a lot of fun writing this – thank you for giving me a reason to!)

[gatheryepens]

Today has been such an awful day….

[binders-and-beanies]

Tbh I’m convinced a lot of people would not be satisfied no matter where they live. Cities are trash, suburbs are trash, rural areas are trash. Every region and climate and state and country is trash to some people. Like what is it that people actually want in a home or community bc I hear from so many people who cannot see the good in Anywhere no matter how much privilege and resources and beauty they have in their life. To the point where they’re mad at other people finding anything to appreciate despite their own challenges. I understand there is a lot to be afraid of and complain about rn but running away will not make you feel better if you will continue to shit all over whatever life you build somewhere else

[queensparklekitten]

time princess players how do y'all picture the MCs of every story

like since every set and piece of official art has a different hair colour, length, and style with every picture of them, and sometimes there's descriptions that don't match the images, which one do you go with

and do you make half of them look like your avatar or have your own designs

[lesbianlenas]

let us remember that marriage is intrinsically tied to capitalism and exists in its current form so that property could be passed through patrilineal lines. the only way a man could ensure that a woman was having HIS baby was to make her his property. and that was so important when wealth and status was tied to property so it was necessary to have a (male) heir to pass it down to. i am not against marriage as a concept but we need to remember that it IS an oppressive institution for women and women should consider it w that in mind. the patriarchal roots of our existing marriage institution have not been erased even with the progress that has been made.

[the-worms-in-your-bones]

Anyone else constantly think about the inherent loneliness of being a renegade time lord? No, just me, okay

[hollownekomata]

making you the patron saint of something

patron saint of heartbreak

not of comfort. not of condolences. there is a heart and there is a fissure, a fracture, something that starts to splinter and break open. you're the patron saint of the way a heart is rent open. the way it tears itself apart. patron saint of the rift. patron saint of the gash. when they say to "open your heart" to somebody, you are the patron saint of bleeding out.

[thesnowqueen]

if i had a nickel for every time the best friend duo that was the cornerstone of an entire trilogy got split apart at the end of the 3rd movie, ruining the entire trilogy for me, i'd only have 2 nickels, but it's strange that it's happened twice

[rotzaprachim]

the thing about Hawai’i politics is that. You absolutely need to criticize the local government. But you also need to stand the economic and political politics of living in a place where the local government doesn’t have an iota of the power of the mega corporations like Hilton and Sheraton that run mega resorts here, nor the billionaires like mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, or Jeff bezos that run second homes here or have quasi-feudal estates or exert far far more power than the relatively progressive county and state governments

like. You have to clock what it is that a man worth over 100 billion dollars purchased 98% of an island. What that’s like. What power does a city councilman who represents that island in a council have over a man worth over 100 billion who both owns the land people live on AND the hotels they work at

[aldruthebrovahkiin]

Somethings that's been on my mind for the past couple of months is slowly or, perhaps faster, transition away from being a terminally online gremlin.

Start spending less time online in online spaces with people, who I may never meet and just stick to people I've known for a good handful of years if not well into a decade or almost two.

Save up a pretty penny or two (when I legally can) and travel the world, see some sights and places I've been longing to see before it's too late. Afterall the amazon is burning and the great barrier reef is dying, both trips I want to take sometime.

But who knows, maybe nothing will happen or the opposite and I get what I bargained for with the monkey's paw curling in on itself.