#like it’s outrageously wrong and all the tags are like so true op

[absolutelynotsanebaby]

.

[oldmanffucker]

It’s not enough to say prev. You deserve ur tags posted bc you’re so right @houseswife

image description under cut

[ OP is 4 screenshots of 2 different wilson- patient interactions.

“Is he a good man?” “He’s a good doctor.”

“Do you know him? Is he–is he good?” “He is an excellent doctor.”

screenshot of prev tags that read:

"god he's so fucked up / one of the main roles that wilson serves in both the narrative and his friendship with house / is to be house's conscience / he’s meant to be the morally outraged ethical compass / who swats down house for being a bad bad man / because that’s what house needs from him / but i can’t quite tell where the line between his construction and his true beliefs starts and ends / because at times he does genuinely feel that house is selfish and horrible ( half of the time he’s wrong about it / but other times it’s like he’s more akin to cuddy. Just trudging through the charade when he knows he’s going to enable him anyway / honestly? I do think he believes house is a bad person. At least until their ‘I’m dead’ reunion in the finale / that’s why he constantly exposes himself by telling patients etc that house is a bastard / like. They are all very much aware that he’s close friends with house. He could save face and justify himself / but instead he punishes himself for his perceived flawed attraction / and his own morally ambiguous tendencies that he indulges in when he’s with house / he’s saying look at me. I’m dancing with the devil / meanwhile. of the two of them. House may be more intrinsically good… / he just doesn’t try quite so hard to be / he won’t say that house is good because if house is good than all his effort and his guilt doesn’t matter / one of them has to be righteous. Yin and yang. And wilson’s so scared of it not being him."]

[warmbeebosoftbeebo]

/PAVLOVEWHORE/status/1315759891668242433?s=20 on twitter

oh her (she also thinks b is grooming kids because his music is appealing to them, the puppet, etc, and thinks grooming means... culture appealing to kids and younger adults? when it means a significantly/much older person building a relationship with a kid, introducing them inappropriately to sex eg porn, pornographic phallocentric sexuality, in order to sexually abuse/exploit them. so she may be suggesting that b’s doing it so he can have more kids to abuse a la the anon accusations). if you (general you, not the anon specifically) read ronan farrow’s catch and kill you know rich men protect themselves by doing crazy shit (spying, ndas, trashing accusers, blackballing women who rejected them or spoke out about sexual assault, catching and killing accusations) and this new accusation is in that same boat of crazy shit... but a non-plausible crazy shit. 

why would someone rich (unless this was happening vices era and before, when b and sarah were far from rich) bribe FANS to have accounts online smack talking breezy, dallon, accusers, etc. if so, they’re doing a terrible job, because there is so much shit being said about b, and now sarah, it’s unreal. (with zack, there are both substantiated and unsubstantiated, anonymous claims. i find some of the later claims plausible. he’s being taken far less out of context than b is. i don’t think he’s absolutely evil, but he’s clearly sexually harassed breezy, has been sexist/misogynist on his twitter, etc. i’ve talked about this more my tag for him.) i’ve come across comments on twitter, instagram, etc where two to none of the claims made about him are true the rest are... idk where most of this bullshit comes from. i’m tempted to do a debunker side blog here (eg the plausible, implausible, true, definitely false, etc). the rumor mill is really something. especially in the age of social media online.

i don’t think sarah and zack would do this. as we have seen over this summer fangirls (and boys) turn on their idols like WHOA. gives one whiplash just looking at it. it would be profoundly STUPID and shortsighted to use fans, because today’s fan is often tomorrow’s basher. fans also have no... loyalty in a sense to their celeb (eg it’s not like a religion, political belief system, country even), no job on the line, no contract, no lawsuit worries... all it would take for this to come out if it were true is someone within that circle of fans getting bribes to smack talk breezy to turn on sarah and/or zack and blab to others, show screenshots, etc. it could NEVER be private very long. even not turning per se, but just realizing it was wrong and sharing the convos, etc they had with them publicly. fans also LOVE talking about and showing the contact we have with our chosen celebs and celeb adjacent people, posting about it publicly. seriously, it is so foolish to try to have private GROUP convos where people bribe TEENAGERS and 20somethings with merch, tickets, photo ops, private photos of b, etc both on the levels of the youth and frequent fickleness of fans (how many leave an artist/show/fandom/franchise/etc after months, a year, a few years...), plus the outrage culture/cancel culture going on where some of the outraged are former fans, etc. 

even employees who agree to spy, hack, create fake personas online and in person, etc can turn on their employer, but someone who’s just there as a fan? there is literally not just no guarantee it won’t be found out, it probably fucking will. and quickly at that. the question is more when than if.

this situation, if it did happen, is also plausibly someone pretending to be sarah and/or zack and catfishing fans. chelsey was mentioned, and frankly... this is in her wheelhouse. she has extensively impersonated b and others online, for a few years. she has also hacked accounts and gotten photos/video of b that were supposed to be not public. and another important question, did these freebies eg ticket upgrades, photo ops with b, materialize? or did they not happen? the fact that some girls can be seen on the tour vids doesn’t prove they got them as a quid pro quo in exchange for slandering others and defending b online at all. (btw, the fact that there are chelsey defenders absolutely ASTONISHES me. wtf. there’s a lot we don’t know with breezy, b, etc so i can see to some extent people based on part of the picture, siding with “one side” and deriding the other, but with her? how? what?)

i know this is a crazy fucking idea on twitter for sure, and probably elsewhere online, but one (like me) can like both breezy & dallon AND brendon & sarah. fucking deranged, isn’t it, in this polarized fandom/these fandoms. b is getting the worst of it, but breezy is getting a lot of shit too. and i feel sorry for both of them in particular. again, the rumor mill: assertions of fact without evidence, even people coming forward with their names/faces, being spread around like wildfire and taken as confirmed, undoubtedly true fact eg the claim that breezy said that b knew about all the sexual harassments by zack of her the whole time (eg how could he have? eg how would he know what zack texts her? he obviously would have known some of it but those likely seemed in line with the joking around they did, would be my guess. i also think his anxiety and trying to fit in can come into play. he may have been a bystander to things zack did that crossed lines eg with breezy, idk. speaking of speculation, here’s me doing it. i also don’t think b did nothing wrong, and i’ve also talked about various things when i’ve come across them that i’ve had a problem with. 

there’s also aspects going on that i want to delve into, but i’m debating eg that one young male fan who’s apparently friendly with breezy and dallon now but used to be obsessed with b (including making sexual comments to him on twitter, wanting to look like him) and is claiming zack took advantage of him (jobwise). seems to be a history of mental instability there and a serious lack of boundaries. it’s not about monstering him; i feel bad for him. 

edit to add i’m still reading things on twitter, what i can find anyway, and another thing i’m ambiguous about discussing is breezy’s dms with others because ppl are posting screenshots. obv there’s more to read there too. in one she thought zack was doing the getting fans to target her and dallon thing in exchange for perks eg meet n greets. the closest she’s gotten to saying anything bad about b was saying he wasn’t always sweet (didn’t say if it was to her and/or dallon) and that she thinks he could have changed, that i’ve seen posted anyway.

also, there’s posts ppl are screenshotting of breezy from years ago to say how gross or disgusting or whatever she is and i’m just like “she’s so saucy, i love her.” it’s mostly pg level stuff too, and mostly about dallon, or brallon. like i said before, notice how what damns breezy (being sexual) excuses zack to many people. at most he’s an “old school roadie” who might have an apology to make, they dunno, but not really, people are so sensitive and breezy is a bitch who is to blame for everything. (seriously, there’s people who think she started it all eg the firezackhall tag, and somehow the accusations against b too. fuck outta here.)

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Last week, Twitter tried something new. When President Trump tweeted that “There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent,” Twitter appended this message to Trump’s tweet: “Get the facts about mail-in ballots” — which in turn, linked to a page with the headline: “Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud.”

Given the dangers misinformation poses to both democracy and public health, many believe social media platforms have a responsibility to monitor and correct misinformation before it spreads. But can corrections like this even work? And what role should social media platforms play in combating misinformation?

Well, it turns out there is evidence that fact checks do work. Numerous studies have demonstrated that when confronted with a correction, a significant share of people do, in fact, update their beliefs.

Political scientists Ethan Porter and Thomas J. Wood conducted an exhaustive battery of surveys on fact-checking, across more than 10,000 participants and 13 studies that covered a range of political, economic and scientific topics. They found that 60 percent of respondents gave accurate answers when presented with a correction, while just 32 percent of respondents who were not given a correction expressed accurate beliefs. That’s pretty solid proof that fact-checking can work.

But Porter and Wood have found, alongside many other fact-checking researchers, some methods of fact-checking are more effective than others. Broadly speaking, the most effective fact checks have this in common:

They are from highly credible sources (with extra credit for those that are also surprising, like Republicans contradicting other Republicans or Democrats contradicting other Democrats).

They offer a new frame for thinking about the issue (that is, they don’t simply dismiss a claim as “wrong” or “unsubstantiated”).

They don’t directly challenge one’s worldview and identity.

They happen early, before a false narrative gains traction.

So despite a few studies suggesting that fact checks may make misinformation more prevalent (most prominently a widely-cited paper from political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler in 2010, which popularized the concept of the “backfire effect”), the overwhelming majority of studies have found that fact checks do work — or at the very least, do no harm. Still, some pieces of misinformation are harder to fight than others. And this episode involving Trump has several qualities that may make Twitter’s “get the facts” approach not exactly effective.

First, there’s the source: Donald Trump. Trust him or doubt him, chances are you have an opinion of the president. And if you already trust him, who are you going to trust more in this particular disagreement? Trump? Or CNN and the Washington Post (the two sources Twitter listed in its fact check)?

But given Trump’s notoriety, his misstatements may just be harder to combat. In one of Porter and Wood’s experiments, they took an op-ed by Trump and issued a correction on two versions of the piece: one (correctly) attributed to Trump and one attributed to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The authors found that the fact-check of McConnell moved significantly more respondents toward the accurate position than did the fact check of Trump.1

Next, there’s the fact that Twitter referenced articles from CNN and the Washington Post to correct the record. Research shows that an unlikely, surprising source for debunking misinformation, like a fellow Republican criticizing Trump, is just much more effective at making a correction stick than a more predictable and unsurprising source (like CNN or the Washington Post, both of which Trump has also cast as his enemies).

A Trump-supporting reader might take a closer look if told that Republican state officials in Idaho and Washington had complete confidence in the security of voting by mail, or that an exhaustive 17-month law enforcement inquiry into voter fraud in Florida, a state governed by fellow Republican Ron DeSantis, found no evidence of wrongdoing. This combination of surprise and credibility, in theory, would activate a closer look — the kind of attention required for mental updating.

And although Republicans en masse did not criticize Trump’s tweet that equated voting by mail with voter fraud, one recent example of a surprising debunk (and therefore, perhaps a maybe more effective fact check) is the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board’s take down of Trump’s allegation that cable news host Joe Scarborough was responsible for the death of a female staffer while he was a Republican congressman in Florida. The WSJ editorial board wrote that Trump’s suggestion “that the talk-show host is implicated in the woman’s death isn’t political hardball. It’s a smear.”

But fact-checking Trump is also further complicated by the fact that he is just really good at making memorable — if misleading or completely baseless — allegations. Remember Trump’s bizarre assertion that the hacker who released the DNC’s emails was not someone in Russia but instead “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds?” You probably do. It was a memorable, specific image, and catchy enough that “400poundhacker” briefly trended on Twitter. And as a memory expert will tell you, the more specific and outrageous the image, the more likely you are to remember it. This latest tweet was no exception. And this makes refuting Trump’s claim by simply dismissing it as “not true” especially ineffective. Political scientist Emily Thorson calls this phenomenon a “belief echo,” or the phenomenon that even when an idea is rejected as false, it can still continue to shape attitudes.

Think about someone like President Nixon saying “I’m not a crook” in response to the allegations that he oversaw a break-in at the Watergate Hotel to wiretap his political opponents. By refuting the allegation, he’s also repeating it, and therefore, making it more memorable. And the more evocative and colorful the original claim, the stronger the echo, Thorson finds, if the rejection also repeats the claim. “Unfortunately, this means that the times when we are most tempted to repeat misinformation — a horrifyingly inaccurate graph, an offensive comment in a debate — are also the times when it is most likely to create belief echoes,” Thorson wrote.

Rather than simply saying there is no evidence to support Trump’s claim that voting by mail will lead to widespread voter fraud, an effective fact check might offer an alternate explanation for why voting by mail doesn’t cause voter fraud. For instance, a good fact check could explain that many governors support voting-by-mail to protect vulnerable family members from getting sick from the coronavirus, not because they think it will benefit their party politically. Or it could detail all the specific measures governors are taking to ensure a secure process, like signature matching and ballot tracing.

But this brings us to perhaps the trickiest obstacles regarding effective corrections in this situation: partisanship and worldview. Research shows that people can easily incorporate new information — even if it’s inaccurate — as long as it fits in an existing worldview. Take Trump’s misstatement on voting by mail causing voter fraud. Even though there isn’t evidence to support this, it already fits within a preexisting narrative that many Republicans believe — that voter fraud is widespread and Democrats help perpetuate it. This is what makes the problem of combating misinformation so challenging.

When premises are familiar (e.g., Democrats perpetuate voter fraud), it’s easier to incorporate new information uncritically, especially when partisanship is involved. Partisans are typically much more receptive to any facts that make their side look good and any facts that make the other side look bad. Likewise, they’re likely to reject facts that make their side look bad and make the other side look good.

Practically, this has meant that as Democrats and Republicans have cocooned themselves in separate information streams, they’ve increasingly incorporated not only different worldviews, but also different sets of facts to support those worldviews. The more partisanship itself becomes an identity, the more intense this motivated reasoning has become.

But there is one thing that might make this particular correction effective: It was issued simultaneously with the misstatement. And research has shown that the most effective corrections are immediate responses. A team of researchers led by Nyhan recently found that “disputed” tags, like the one Twitter issued, successfully reduce belief in false stories on social media.

There’s a very real question, though, of how much these tech platforms should be controlling what we do — and don’t — see. Facebook, for instance, has taken a different approach than Twitter so far. Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg criticized Twitter’s new policy, saying that, “I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.” Twitter and Facebook are also two of the very few places that both Democrats and Republicans turn to for news, even if their feeds rarely overlap.

Finally, even an effective fact check might not make the difference that policymakers are hoping for in political attitudes. While it’s possible for fact checks to shift beliefs, attitudes are much harder to change and much more resilient to fact checks.

In other words, even if some Twitter users now know that voting by mail doesn’t cause voter fraud, it’s unlikely that their attitudes about Trump will change, let alone their attitudes about voting by mail (they might find other reasons to oppose it, or still be concerned about the possibility of fraud, even if they don’t think it is widespread). After all, in our two-party system, it is still a tremendous leap for a Trump supporter to defect to voting for a Democrat. Fact-checking can help with updating and correcting prior knowledge, but breaking the hyper-partisanship that nurtures misinformation in the first place will require a whole lot more work.

But the more aggressively Twitter combats misinformation coming from Trump, the more it risks both the ire of the Trump administration and a potential loss of angered Republican users. A more comprehensive corrections department that fact checks all public figures (not just Trump) might allay some criticisms from the right that Twitter is biased against conservatives. But it would also cost money to employ more fact-checkers, and it might still disproportionately correct conservative voices if they do share more misleading information than liberals. If so, the information echo-chambers may fracture further, with liberals and conservatives seeking out their own platforms even more. That could make fact-checking even harder.

Social media companies will have to balance competing demands in deciding exactly how — and how much — they want to correct misinformation. The good news is that fact-checking does work. But the bad news is that it’s going to take a lot of concerted fact-checking efforts to make any difference — and even that might not be enough.

[realityhelixcreates]

Lasabrjotr Chapter 56: Breaking the Fast(Over Someone’s Head)

Chapters: 56/? Fandom: Thor (Movies), Marvel Cinematic Universe Rating: Teen And Up Warnings: none Relationships: Loki x Reader (There We Go) Characters: Loki (Marvel), Thor(Marvel), Stephen Strange, Tony Stark, Bucky Barnes, Steve Rogers, Vision Additional Tags: Post-Endgame: Best Possible Ending (Canon-Divergent), Bitches Gonna Bitch, When Shall We Three Meet Again, Here Have Some Foreshadowing

You woke in incredible comfort, tucked into Loki's arms. You'd never been in a more comfortable bed; the pillows and blankets were like clouds, and the company even better. Loki lay silent and still, his hair mussed, his pale face serene. You'd spent so much time kissing, and caressing, and cuddling that you had just eventually fallen asleep holding each other.

You stared into his sleeping face, absorbing everything that had happened. The way he had cupped your face and kissed you with such sweet ardor. How he'd held you in his lap and let his hands roam over your body, enthusiastically praising you, telling you about how he had been falling for you over all this time. You couldn't help but to babble about how you felt about him, in between kisses.

What it all boiled down to was that Loki Odinson, Crown Prince of Asgard, Scourge of New York, royalty, alien, and god...was totally into you. Somehow. And it sounded like he had been for some time.

In hindsight, it was really kind of obvious.

You smooched his nose, and he yawned, his eyes opening into an expression of delight.

“It wasn't a dream.” He whispered, and held you even tighter. “We're going to stay right here all day.”

You giggled. “As much as I'd love that, you know we can't. There's stuff to do, and royal guests to see...”

Loki mock-frowned. “You just had to bring them up, didn't you? And it was such a perfect morning. Speaking of, did you sleep well, my darling?”

“Um, yeah. Really well, actually.”

“Good, that's good. I want nothing but pleasure and comfort for you, when you are in my arms.”

He began kissing you again, heedless of any pointless little concerns like morning breath, but you knew from how he'd acted last night that you really would be here all day if you didn't do something.

You let it go on for a few more minutes-he really was intoxicating, after all-then pushed at his chest.

“Is something wrong?” He asked as he pulled away.

“We've gotta get up. Get some breakfast. Bathe.”

A sly smile broke across his face. “If you insist...”

“Not like that!” You slapped his chest. He released you, and you rolled out of bed. Your had slept in your dress, and it was badly rumpled now, the metal clasps cutting into your skin. Loki was up and out of his tunic in one motion.

“You know, it's okay to bathe together.” He said. “We do it all the time. I won't try anything.”

“Yeah, but...” But today was not the same as yesterday, and there wasn't any reason not to, was there? And Loki's hunger for intimacy was still clear and present. “Well...okay. But no funny business!”

“Yes, my Seidkona.” He breathed. His voice sent a shiver spiraling down your spine. You might be the one needing to keep a rein on yourself. You had seen Loki naked before, and it was a sight to behold.

You both changed separately, and Loki turned his back so that you could get into the bathtub. He was very gentlemanly, and you allowed him to scrub your back, which he did reverently, kissing the little marks the metal in your dress had left on your skin.

Watching Loki wash his hair was very distracting; the soap and water trickled down his body in the most alluring way.

This was so much like a fairy tale. The handsome prince, the steamy bath, the myth, the magic. Were you sure this was real?

“Is something wrong, dear?” He asked, soaping your arms. “Are you...rethinking?” The nervousness was palpable in his voice.

“No, no, nothing like that! It's just...What are we now? How will we make this work? Do we have to keep it secret? Will this cause a huge scandal?”

“Of course it will cause a scandal!” Loki laughed. “Why, when Thor brought his mortal home to Asgard, I was in solitary confinement in the dungeons, and even I heard about it! Such a thing had never happened! But once people got past the initial shock and outrage, they were mostly fine with it. Not entirely, of course, but he didn't have the whole of Asgard against him. This is where we have an advantage; we aren't the first to do this. For once, I'm not the lead in a scandal. And we are here, on Earth, surrounded by humans. Mixed relationships won't be uncommon. We shall be pioneers, you and I.”

You took the soap from him and shyly rubbed the suds over his chest and shoulders.

“So...does that mean you're my boyfriend now?” It was a strange word to apply to someone like Loki.

“You're my inamorata, yes, if you would like to be. I would like you to be.”

“And is this, um, is this an exclusive thing? I'd prefer that personally, but I get it if you want to keep your options ope-”

Loki snatched you into his arms with fierce speed, squishing your body against his slippery torso.

“I would have no one but you.” He nearly hissed. “I will not split my affections. I couldn't even think of it.”

“Oh. Well that's very reassuring.” You said, heart pounding. He had said he wouldn't try anything. “I just kinda want to know where we stand, what we are, you know, all that.”

“What we are is glorious.” Your skin slid against his, the muscles rippling under the soap, bringing a pink heat to his face. “And very slippery. Please pardon me, I got a little carried away.” He released you, stepping away. “I just wanted to assure you that I take this seriously. I am not toying with you; I would have this relationship grow, if you also would.”

You nodded, satisfied for the moment. This was real, not a fluke, not a seduction, not a dream.

The dress that awaited you was a soft and luxurious thing of green, orange, gold, and red, snake and floral embroidery trimming the hem. All of the warm layers had been taken in for you; you could tell from the brand new stitching.

Your book of sagas had illustrations in it as well as stories and, true to Saldis' explanation, all the women dressed like you now did, all the way down to the big, oval brooches that fastened to your shoulder straps, and the beads strung between them.

You still found it rather sweet that the tailors here were trying so hard to put you in what they thought would be 'familiar' clothing, and to dress you like what they felt was a fine, high class human lady.

High class American ladies didn't dress like this. In fact, nowadays, classy clothing was almost indistinguishable from everybody elses' clothes, just better tailored. It was less about the garment itself, and more about the name on the label. And the jewelry too, but the jewelry you wore with these lovely clothes was also very different from the classy ladies back home. A simple, minimalist approach was the preferred method for displaying wealth and importance back home. A diamond tennis bracelet, pure gold studs, a delicate chain with a single diamond drop.

Your jewelry, though no lesser in quality, definitely reflected an older approach. The oval strap brooches were large to you, the size of an egg-though the illustrations in you book showed that such brooches had one been much larger-and delicately engraved with elegantly knotted horned serpents, green stones winking from their eyes. Three strands of beads were strung across your chest between them; one of gold and silver, one of amber, and one of pearls. These were different than your usual strands of glass beads, or brightly colored yarn braids. In fact, everything was top of the line today: there were charms hanging from your beads, little moon-shaped crescents with intricate granulation, multi-looped clasps shaped like swans that you were meant to hang your chatelaine from. That consisted of your tiny, cylindrical emergency sewing kit, made of bone and silver, a silver, scallop-shaped hand mirror, a silver and shell compact containing tweezers, nail clippers, a file, tiny scissors, and a weird little spoon shaped object that you didn't yet know the function of, and the key to Loki's quarters.

Your apron was decorated with many strips of woven ribbon; red, orange, and yellow in geometric patterns, and the seams of your sleeves were trimmed with thick, clearly visible contrasting stitching,  your belt embroidered with birds, their long necks and long tails interlocking, flower-shaped silver buttons tacked on along its length, the ends clasped in decorative metal tips.

It was very cold this morning, so a warm, woolen cap, and a pair of gloves had also come along with the  ensemble, just as finely made as the rest of it. The cap had shimmering beads embroidered all around the rim, looking to you like a crown.

Everybody in this whole palace complex knew what you had gotten up to last night, didn't they? And now they were pulling out all the stops, or at least, as many as they were allowed to. They had sent you earrings, matching the little crescent moon charms on your bead strands, and an entire separate necklace, made of amber beads, and yet more crescent charms. Your slippers were embroidered velvet, and the stockings underneath were so soft and smooth that you almost couldn't stop touching them. Even the little phone holster that clipped onto your belt was touched with small details, the leather embossed with the image of a tree.

You wondered if the clothiers had beads and brooches and charms just sitting around in piles, or stashed in boxes. If, every day, they strung beads and charms onto strings and paired them up with whichever dress they had chosen for you that day. These brooches, with their green-eyed, horned snakes, seemed awfully specific for them to have had already made, and you wondered if Loki had had them commissioned. And if so, when?

Loki met you at the door, almost as decorated as you were. Asgardian men did not tend towards jewelry, beyond the occasional bead in their hair or beard, or the coronets that you assumed only Thor and Loki had the privilege of wearing. Instead, most of their precious metal and jewels were embedded into their clothes, in the form of armor or strap embellishments. Loki himself seemed to prefer asymmetrical hems and diagonal elements, and he was properly decked out in both. In fact, the cut of his black overcoat made it look like some kind of odd, tailed tuxedo, trimmed in silver and covered in embroidery, also black, that was only visible when the light struck it in a certain way.

“Ready for breakfast, precious?” He asked with a smile.

“We're laying it on a bit thick just for some oatmeal, aren't we?” You laughed, and he offered you his arm.

The banquet hall was full, for the first time since you had been there, full of Aesir and Avengers, Icelandic officials and Asgardian nobles. They all stopped talking, turning to look at the two of you, Loki standing tall and proud, his expression bright, you hanging off his arm, wearing something that evoked the image of a crown, and you were suddenly very aware of how all this must look.

Today was very different than yesterday.

“Good morning friends.” Loki said. “I hope the day finds you well.”

“Not as well as it finds you, evidently.” Tony grumbled. Pepper elbowed him in the side.

Nobody else said anything about it, going back to their conversations, but the sly looks, knowing grins, and glares followed you to your seat at Loki's side.

Breakfast was an elaborate affair that morning; to reflect the importance of the guests, you thought. Fruit carved like flowers, the fluffiest eggs and pancakes, plump sausage links, lingonberry preserves, and hot, sweet coffee. There was oatmeal and toast for those who wanted it, milk and juice as well.

Thor and Brunnhilde had seated Dr. Banner next to them, and were chatting amiably away. Banner looked a bit rougher than you expected him to, but you assumed that makeup and hair gel were a regular part of the photoshoots. Dr. Banner was notorious for not making live appearances, interviews, or PR tours, and you supposed you couldn't blame him. If anyone prized their alone time, it would be him.

Natasha Romanoff and Clint Barton had been seated next to you, though Clint seemed less pleased by the proximity to Loki. He kept shooting wary glances at the prince, who made no indication that he noticed. But as Natasha chatted with you about daily life in Asgard, Loki pressed his leg against yours under the table, gently nudging your foot with his.

He would become shameless, if you let him.

It was tempting.

After breakfast was a time of mingling, Aesir, Avenger and officials. Many of the nobles left, but those that stayed were drawn to the Avengers; new faces, reputed to have been strong and resourceful enough to pose a challenge to their prince. The language barrier posed a problem, but there were enough of them who could speak English to provide translation to their fellows.

Several of the officials approached you for various reasons; to inquire about your health and safety, to ask about the human encampments and the recent fight, and even to compliment you on your dress. You weren't sure how much information you were meant to give, and kept your answers short and polite. You didn't want to cause any trouble by being too loose-lipped.

The dour, somewhat scruffy fellow you recognized as being the Winter Soldier-but not anymore?-approached you on Steves behalf. “He wants to say he likes your dress, and that he's sorry for causing you problems last night. He didn't know you were involved.”

“None of that is his fault.” You pointed out. “I asked him to dance, and Loki wasn't communicating as effectively as he could have. Neither was I, I guess. I'm pretty sure it's safe for Captain Rogers to talk to me himself. Sorry you've gotten tangled up in this, but I'm putting an end to it now, Mr....?”

He paused, wearing an expression somewhat like a confused dog. He must have expected you to know his name already, but you only knew him by his former moniker.

“...Barnes.” He said, after along pause.

“Mr. Barnes. I don't want anyone playing this silly 'telephone' game. People are allowed to talk to me face to face, Loki doesn't actually control that. If he wants to get jealous about it, I'll just remind him why he shouldn't be.”

One corner of his mouth ticked upward, giving his sleepy eyes a rakish look. If he really was the same age as Steve, then he was probably a charmer, in his day.

“Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, I'm sure.” He said, then threw a look over his shoulder, to Steve. “Hey!” He called. “Talk to her yourself!”

You snorted in held-back laughter as Steve put his face in his hand, and Loki perked up like a cat who had just heard the scratching of a mouse. This was so much like something Tara would do.

Speaking of which...

“Excuse me for a moment.” You said, finding an unused corner of the hall and snapping a selfie, which you sent to Tara and your father, with a morning greeting. The phone was a godsend of the most literal kind, allowing you contact back home, so you didn't have to worry about how everyone was doing, and they could know how you fared as well.

The bakery at the grocery store you used to work at was apparently famous now. They sold baked goods themed after you and Loki, Thor and Asgard. It was ridiculous and goofy, and you were utterly charmed by the pictures Tara sent you; of cupcakes with sparkly icing to represent your magic-the cat was out of the bag on that-of croissants in Loki-themed packaging.

You were profoundly relieved that the people back home had decided to celebrate all this, rather than condemning and hating you, and you hoped the bakery would be wildly successful. You had to show Loki those croissants, though. He would love them.

You noticed Loki, the wizard Strange, and one of the Avengers you hadn't been formally introduced to-a tall, but relatively average looking man-all slipped into one of the banquet halls' many smaller side rooms, and wondered if you were supposed to be with them. But no, if you had, Loki would have come to collect you. They were probably just discussing something about magic. Maybe that unknown fellow was another mage? It seemed like there was always someone new on the team, however temporary.

“My mistress says that you are even more a fool than she first thought.” Said a barely familiar voice. You turned away from Mr. Barnes to the unwelcome sight of Gloa, and her maidservant.

“Oh, it's you guys again. Were you at the table? I hadn't noticed.”

Gloa spoke; her servant translated.

“She had believed that humankind was without manners or decorum, but you have proved it this morning by flaunting yourself so shamelessly. Who do you think you are?”

You heard Barnes shifting uncomfortably behind you. An Asgardian catfight was probably beyond his experience.

“I am Loki's Seidkona.” You said simply.

The servant sighed at her mistress's words. “You are Loki's harlot. You think it gives you importance, but you are nothing more than a powerless, decorative, and above all, temporary creature.”

“You know, the last person who called me something like that ended up in jail. So, what does she hope to get out of this? Is she jealous or something?” You were tired of this already, and it wasn't even lunchtime yet.

Gloa went red in the face.

“She says she would never have a creature so low and debased as Loki, that, prince or king, he will always be beneath her, and that only mortal slime would accept such as him. She says that he should start preparing your funerary boat early, and learn what it really means to mourn.”

You drew yourself up as tall as you could-still shorter than both Gloa and the maid-suddenly aware that you had at least as much jewelry and at least as fine clothing as Gloa did. She was probably stinging at your status being elevated to hers, as if she had done anything other than being born to earn hers. You were also aware that Mr. Barnes was no longer behind you, and was, in fact, nowhere to be seen.

You were alone in this.

“Your threats are pointless, and you are wasting my time, you useless, catty bi-”

                                                                          *****

“We need to keep in touch.” Strange said.

“I disagree.” Loki answered.

“Let me guess; it's because you hate me.”

“Very astute! I did not think you had it in you.”

“There are things we must discuss.” Vision interrupted, calm in the face of the other's ire. “About the stones.” In this private room, he had abandoned his human appearance, the yellow gem sparkling brightly in his scarlet forehead.

“Well, I've got mine, and he's got his, and you clearly have yours. What is it that we need to discuss?”

“Do you have yours?” Strange asked. “It's obvious that Vision has his, and quite clear that mine is still in my keeping.” He gestured to the pendant resting against his robes. “But all we have to assure us that you still have yours is your word, which, you understand, holds about as much water as a sieve here on Earth.”

Loki glared, holding out his hand. A ball of blue ice glowed in his palm, which also slowly turned blue.

“Just because I do not flaunt it like you fools, does not mean I don't have it.” He dropped his hand, the icy orb gone. “So are we done? You showed me yours, I showed you mine, are we a secret society now?”

Stephan grimaced at the innuendo, but Vision just tilted his head, not comprehending.

“There have been some odd fluctuations that I cannot quite explain.” He said. “I can sense when they are happening, but not what is causing them, nor whom.”

Loki took a seat, brow furrowing. “Fluctuations in the stones? What can you tell us about it?” That was indeed something worth discussing. Four of the stones were on Earth right now-something Loki thought very dangerous, but it couldn't be helped. The stones had chosen their own guardians, finally settling into balance. Loki didn't have any say in it.

“As near as I can describe it, since the stones are all at least somewhat sentient, the Mind Stone can sense them, perhaps even communicate with them. I cannot; I believe the higher functions of the Mind Stone work at a higher frequency than my matter-based body can reach. But I can feel it sometimes, and I believe what I am sensing is someone utilizing the power of at least one of the stones.”

Strange and Loki stared at him.

“That is very concerning.” Loki said. “Well. It's not me. I have not used the Stone for most of a year. I will use it again, but only to help better our Bifrost, and only when our engineers have worked out more of the stabilization problems.”

“Haven't used it at all.” Strange said. “No need for it.”

“And I use this only inasmuch as it allows me to exist.” Vision stated.

“The space pirates?” Strange ventured.

“Impossible.” Loki said. “It took all of them together just to contain the Power Stone, and they can no longer safely wield it without the flora colossus at full strength.”

“And our...ally on Vormir has not contacted us.” Vision pointed out. “He is not very loquacious, even with the technology we left him, but I am certain that if someone made an attempt at the soul stone, he would tell us.”

“Damn.” Loki said. “My brother is going to kill me.”

“As entertaining as that would be...why?” Strange asked.

“Because I believe we are going to need to contact Dr. Foster.”

“Ah, the sting of lost love.”

“Do they not get along?” Vision asked.

“Well, no...it's not that. It's a little complicated. But my brother has been extravagant in his vows never to bother her again.” Loki explained.

“You however, have taken no such vows.” Stephen pointed out.

“I have not.” Loki confirmed.

“So what is it with Asgardian royalty, and human women?” Strange asked. “Is it a fetish, or...”

“That's none of your-”

The door popped open, and Bucky peeked in. “Hey, Merlins. I think your girl's gonna get in a fistfight with some other lady. Tall dame, acting like a real pill. Doesn't speak a word of English, had someone other lady translating for her.”

“Gloa...” Loki said darkly. “Excuse me gentlemen... and Stephen. I have to go head off an incident.”

[levymcgarden55]

[id: twelve images, all of tumblr comments. They read:

1: “desperate comment to try and get a response from you,” “Unwanted comment!,” “Snide comment,” “long outraged comment accusing all parties of heinous behavior, wildly misrepresenting what was said and making huge leaps of logic to justify anger,” “~generic emoji to feel like a participant~,” opinion”

2: Comment about gay stuff not being gay enough,” Delighted comment on post even existing,” “Heavy handed personal opinion that no one asked for,” “Spam comment trying to sell you promethazine legit 200$ buy now”

3: “Spam comment seeking sugar children since i am a sucrose father,” “vaguely political comment,” “Poorly disguised bot bringing you sexy singles in your area, send in credit card number now”

4: “Comment with Ridiculous Take riddled with typos. And extra. Dots where……., They're. shoulnt be,” [plaintext: comment with ridiculous take riddled with typos and extra dots where they shouldn’t be], “I am in love with you,” “unnecessary comment related to my blorbo,” “comment begging the gay community on tumblr to leave mr gaiman alone”

5: “An emoji that is completely unrelated,” “The most horrendous dad joke you've ever heard,” Comment that references the original posts tags to get people to look at them.”

6: “comment that parrots at least 3 other nearly-identical comments in the thread and adds nothing to the conversation,” “Ray ban scam,” “Effusive comment sharing love for the whole thread and fandom,” “comment about how this post reads like its from the good old tumblr days (2012) when IN FACT—,” “Unhinged, off-topic soliloquy with no punctuation and no regard for readability.”

7: “advertisement about freshly shaved balls,” “A comment that makes it obvious that I didn't understand the original post but I'm going to pontificate on another topic entirely,” “Poorly veiled badly misunderstood innuendo in an attempt to participate,” “Comment on how I can't believe Neil Gaiman is on tumblr,�� “Redundant slang reaction,” “The duality of man”

8: “CONFUSED COMMENT ABOUT A HUSBAND NAMED CHARLES THAT WAS CLEARLY WRITTEN BY A CONFUSED FACEBOOK GRANDMOTHER,” “Demand for something both unreasonable and unrelated,” “Mandatory ‘Serious Sugar Daddy’ comment,” “Comment asking why is nobody talking about the gay stuff???,” “Comment posted on wrong thread,” “Hermetic reference to 19th century French Literature”

9: “Comment criticising the most bad faith interpretation that could have been made, full of projection,” “comment that completely misses the joke,” “Song lyrics related to the post,” “Unnecessary response defending gay people/stuff”

10: “comentario en español para sentir que participé,” “Comment aggressively bringing up past drama about op and shaming everyone for interacting,” “generic ‘lmao so true’” The entire exchange, rendered in calligraphy,” “Tangentially relevant gif reaction,” “Rant on unrelated fandom bullshit that this vaguely reminded me off”

11: “A reblog chain that has descended into roleplay about one of the characters traumas, and the characters are either OCs, from a media you've never heard of, or kpop band members,” “Six different people arguing with the same comment. The original comment definitely sounds like the worst opinion you've ever heard, but it's already been deleted.”

12: “Someone who taken every critique of the post in a weirdly personal way and has spent hours arguing with commenters,” “A reblog about how this is them and daddy/their kitten, has several emojis including a smily face, and tags a blog with a name like kittys-slutty-candyland (they ofc have a matching url)”]

gay stuff

Some half-assed reply.

[fair-fae]

As much as I don’t want to bring this up again (though the drama is still going strong on Twitter, so still relevant enough, I guess)... As tempting as it is to point all the fingers at Oz and blame them for everything that happened, to make them the one and only big bad guy, take a step back and look at how the community failed Oz’s victims, and how you and the people around you may have contributed to that.

Oz alone didn’t terrify anyone into submission, hiding, and harm. Oz alone did not alienate anyone and make them feel unwelcome in the community as a whole. Oz alone did not flood anyone’s inbox with hatemail, death threats, and nasty anons. Oz alone did not spread lies and rumors about people through the community and give them traction. Oz was the catalyst, but it was their friends and the community who did the real dirty work in so many cases. When the secrets blogs started to get bombarded with demands for “evidence” about the “The Crusader” and their misdeeds, all I and I’m sure many more of their victims could do was laugh. A lot of the evidence was public. Painfully public, in front of everyone’s eyes, and so many people didn’t care. It was not secret, it was not hidden, it was just ignored, or even lauded on as some form of righteous justice. I wonder how many people now acting outraged and disgusted with Oz aided in the harassment of Oz’s victims and believed the lies about them? How many of you reblogged callouts and gossiped with friends, blocked and avoided people, denied them from your FC’s and linkshells, even sent them nasty anons or treated them rudely when you encountered them? How many of you had your own beef with a victim, and used the claims Oz had created to harass them, even perhaps knowing they were untrue? How many of you already hated a victim and were just so bent on having them burned at the stake in the community that you were eager to jump onto the crusade bandwagon Oz had created against them despite it being total bullshit? You may think this makes you a victim as well, that you were misled and deceived. And perhaps that’s true in a way. But you’re adults with your own decisions and agency over your own actions. You hurt people, be it with your own malice, or carelessness, or misplaced, zealot-like sense of justice. The venom of Oz’s crusades, the lengths they went to for “justice,” the lack of proof, the wild and baseless claims, they were right in front of you. You chose not to see. That’s on no one but you. You’re more perpetrator than victim. I hope you will be more considerate and careful of your actions in the future. I’ve had several people people apologize to me, some anonymously and some not, and I appreciate it and hope Oz’s other victims have been receiving similar apologies from those who believed the lies about them and wronged them. But the community as a whole needs to examine our own behavior and not fall into the same mistakes, not enable and encourage another abuser. When you see a “callout post,” look for evidence. See if the evidence matches the claims, or if they seem to be exaggerated or taken out of context. Look at the tone of the post and if it seems rational and reasonable, or if it’s laden with personal insults, hyped up SJW buzzwords, and unnecessary jabs at the person. Think about what you know of the accused’s behavior and personality and if it seems to match up. Ask yourself what the OP could have to gain for making these claims about this person and how trustworthy you believe them to be. Ask yourself if the alleged behavior is something you deem concerning and relevant or not (i.e. I’ve seen a lot of people “called out” for RL relationship drama which is not something we can know or that I care to boost on my FFXIV blog; you, of course, are welcome to feel differently on that matter). Keep in mind that even if there is “evidence,” anything can be faked. Conversations and quotes can be taken out of context, cropped, and cherry-picked. The /echo function can be used to fake in game conversations. Screenshots and photos can be photoshopped. Copy/pasted logs can be edited or fabricated entirely. Editing web pages can be used (no, that’s not even getting into “hacking”--a longshot, but I guess also always a possibility) to alter any web page or conversation there upon. Fake accounts can be made using the same handle or similar handles and matching icons to impersonate another person.  Use your own brain. Be a grown ass adult with your own thoughts who makes your own decisions. Find the careful balance to protect yourself/your friends/your FC yet not potentially contribute to the slander and alienation of an innocent person. Don’t gossip. Don’t spread the rumors. Give the accused a chance if the claims against them seem shaky and you can find it within yourself without jeopardizing your own stability and safety. Think twice before you leave a comment, like, or reblog on vague posts and look into things a little bit. A post that says “Kill all Nazis” may seem innocuous enough and worthy of a “like.” But then, maybe it’s not when you scroll down the OP’s blog a little and see the post was directly following them making an entirely false accusation about someone else being a Nazi. Maybe someone’s “like this to piss off a homophobe” post was made directly after someone politely asked them to tag their risque posts (that happened to feature a same sex couple) and now the person who didn’t want to see psuedo-porn on their dash is getting bombarded with anons calling them a homophobe. I’m not pulling these out of my ass btw; these are real examples I’ve seen. What might seem like a generic “bad thing is bad” post becomes something else when someone has just been wrongfully accused of that “bad thing.” Instead, it’s a tactic of intimidation and alienation. The OP is making this post knowing that well-meaning people are going to like it, and their the victim will see the notes and think “all these people believe that about me, all these people hate me.” Don’t fall into their trap, don’t become an accessory in their harassment. And, for the love of god, don’t believe you read.

[unpopularly-opinionated]

What is or isn’t a ‘Microtransaction’

Full disclosure, yes this is 100% in response to Gearbox CEO, Randy Pitchford’s tirade against Game Informer for their article on Borderlands 3 having microtransactions.

If you google the word “Microtransaction”, that is the definition you will see come up first-hand: “A very small financial transaction conducted online.” Now, it’s reasonable to say that this is the technical definition of what a microtransaction is. It is what, at the end of the day, is the definition of a microtransaction.

I know some people might take issue with using Urban Dictionary as a source of information, but since it is essentially crowd-sourced information and with most every day people not being in control of how updated our dictionaries gets, it’s as close to a daily-updated lexicon that we have; it’s essentially a dictionary for modern words, which the word microtransaction sort of is (Google marks it’s first appearance in 1961, however it is only after 1985 that it began to increase dramatically in usage, reaching it’s peak in 2003, and by ‘peak’ I mean 0.0000000814% of people used the word).

If you go on Urban Dictionary and look up microtransaction, you get these definitions:

“The cancer of modern gaming.”

“A pay-to-win or pay-to-play method that game companies use to make the consumer’s wallets burn.”

“Pay-to-win in gaming.”

The central themes throughout these three definitions are that microtransactions are “pay-to-win”, an aspect that is not included in the technical definition of what microtransactions are, and the general reaction to them is clearly a negative one.

It’s no surprise that the inherent reaction to microtransactions is a negative one because, and I fear that it’s almost not hyperbole for me to say this, we’ve been trained to view microtransactions as a negative. They have brought nothing good to the video games industry.

There’s the nefarious lootbox pseudo-gambling mechanics, sometimes including gameplay-enhancing benefits, sometimes including only cosmetic items but all with the same randomized concept of not knowing what you’re going to get on each attempt.

Or the in-game currency that comes in packages deliberately designed to make you have to pay for the more expensive packages in order to get enough of it to buy the items that you want, of which may include items that are only obtainable via purchase.

Or the direct-purchase items with outrageous price tags for what you’re getting in return, like for example, the red-dot sight in Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 that cost a whole $1, which in itself is designed to look like not that much money but when you consider what you’re getting in return it’s outrageously overpriced.

And even outside of the games themselves, they’ve done absolutely nothing to benefit the public image of a company, and have in general brought down the perception of many long-since praised companies like Bioware and Bethesda. Companies who used to have the respect, faith, and trust of many of us and who have now since lost all of it.

All of these different issues that microtransactions have brought up, along with the sensationalist gaming media, it’s no wonder the overall perception of microtransactions would be a negative one.

But I’m not here trying to convince you that microtransactions are bad, you already know that, I already know that, we all already know that. What this post is meant to be about is utilizing the technical definition, alongside the Urban Dictionary definitions or what I will refer to as the colloquial definitions, to ascertain what exactly we consider a microtransaction to be.

At face value, using the technical definition alone, it seems like an obvious question with an obvious answer: microtransactions are any purchases made through an online store, specifically an in-game store in this case.

I argue that this definition is far too broad and includes many different kinds of purchases that we don’t typically think of when we hear the word microtransaction used in relations to a video game. From the colloquial definitions, we can clearly get the idea that most people tend to consider microtransactions to be “pay-to-win” items and/or mechanics.

However, I also argue that that definition is far too narrow and doesn’t mention or include things like loot boxes, something that (by word-of-mouth) is the centerpiece of any discussion revolving around microtransactions, as they tend to be the most prominent and the most nefarious forms of microtransactions.

All of that being said, I bring in now the topic of Game Informer’s article on the microtransactions in Borderlands 3, and Randy Pitchford’s colorful response:

“Despite Gearbox CEO Randy Pitchford’s comment about ‘no microtransactions’ in Borderlands 3 during today’s livestream, we’ve been told cosmetic items are still purchasable.” - Game Informer

Now, to be clear, at face value, nothing said here is wrong; this tweet is technically speaking true. However, going by the earlier definitions of microtransactions that I laid out above, it’s disingenuous, and that’s what makes it wrong.

I’ve spoken on numerous occasions about my opinions on Overwatch’s cosmetic-only loot boxes, of which I will not be getting into with this post, but an aspect of that I’d like to reiterate here: having purchasable cosmetics in a video game is not a bad thing.

It’s not what is immediately thought of when you hear the word “microtransaction”. Microtransaction, as the dirty and/or taboo word we view it as, brings up the idea of pay-to-win mechanics, lootboxes, and purchased in-game currency, not directly purchasable cosmetic-only items.

It’s important to keep in mind that, yes by technical definition alone, even directly purchasable cosmetic-only items are microtransactions, but so too are any purchasable content, including DLC. However, no one looks at DLC, especially not the kind typical for a Borderlands game, and considers it to be on the same level as Battlefront 2′s pay-to-win lootboxes, because that would be absurd.

This tweet and related article are essentially the equivalent to someone writing “My neighbor does a LOT of drugs” when their neighbor is a frail old woman who needs to take twenty different pills to stay alive. By technical definition, nothing said there is wrong, but it should be obvious why saying something like that would be wrong in that circumstance.

Yes, technically speaking, taking some Tylenol for my headache means I’m “doing drugs” but if someone came and told you that I was doing drugs, would your instinctual assumption be: “Oh, he’s probably just taking something harmless like Tylenol or DayQuil or whatever”? No, probably not. You would immediately assume ‘drugs’ means something akin to cocaine, meth, heroine, or the like.

The gist of what I am saying here is: context is important, and Randy Pitchford seems to agree with that sentiment, as was expressed by his reaction to Game Informer’s tweet and article. A lot of people criticize Pitchford for his reaction, saying he lied when said there would be no microtransactions, but it’s important to note two very important details here:

A) When Pitchford initially said that there would be no microtransactions, he clarified immediately after that there would be directly purchasable cosmetic items, as there were in Borderlands 2.

B) As expressed in earlier parts of this post, directly purchasable cosmetic items are not what is colloquially considered to be microtransactions.

Assuming they stick to their promises, something which I know seems unlikely in today’s video games industry but assuming they do and that there will be no microtransactions in Borderlands 3, we need to praise them for it. We need to praise the companies, big or small, that do not add in $1 red-dot sights, or lucrative gambling mechanics, or purchasable gameplay-enhancing benefits.

We need to emphasize to the video games industry that that is what we want from our video games. We can complain and complain and complain all we want to on our various internet forums, social medias, and articles, but clearly that isn’t working. So we need to show appreciation to the depressingly few companies who put out games that don’t give in to these disgusting “live-services” money-making schemes.

What I’m saying is, the next time you’re buying a video game, consider buying games like Borderlands 3 instead of Call of Duty: Black Ops 4, or Fallout 76, or Anthem, etc.

[pilawforhire-archived]

[[[ edit: Thank you, everyone, who has been so kind and wonderful as to answer the questions with your thoughts. These are posts that have been shared in response, and I’m linking these in case anyone wants to read them. By someidioticurl, ask-heartstealer-law, trafalgar-bleedingheart-law. Thank you.

Hi guys, so I’m requesting a little help here. I’ve been trying to get a better understanding of Law’s character, and unfortunately, the more I think about things, the more I feel confused and uncertain.

Thus, I would like to reach out to other Law muses, with some questions and headcanons that you might have considered in your portrayal. (Ps you don’t have to indulge me, of course. But if you want to, please go ahead, thank you.)

Of course, this extends to just about anyone who wants to humour me and wouldn’t mind telling me what you think! And speaking of humour, this is all about it!

Without further ado, my biggest question, or the question I started out with earlier, was:

What is Law’s sense of humour? What are your HCs regarding that?

(some more related questions below the read more)

Tagging: @ask-heartstealer-law @trafalgar-bleedingheart-law @eviscxration @nobedsidemanners @locum-magneticum (sorry guys, ps just overlook this if you’d like, it’s time-consuming and I kinda doubt anyone would want to read it tbh..)

***NOTE: THIS IS LONG, and mostly for my own future self-reference, but I’m not sure if anyone might find reading about it useful. ***NOTE: You don’t have to read all this! You can just comment/reblog/etc with what you think in general on the topic of humour. I appreciate any and all thoughts on the matter. This is just for anyone who wants to read up more on the types of humour, if it may help in understanding your character.

***QUESTIONS >> You don’t have to read the bottom notes. Here are some questions I had, instead, if you may feel like you want to answer them. Again, mostly for my future reference, but maybe it might help someone...*

What are situations that amuse him?

How does he show it? (Smile vs laugh till he cries-- if he would ever do that vs hide his amusement)

Is he able to laugh at himself/life (when things go wrong or when he self-reflects)?

Does he seek or avoid confrontation? (He doesn’t seem like someone who would go picking fights, yet his cocky behaviour pre TS seems to me like he enjoys rubbing people the wrong way)

What is his self-esteem/self-confidence/self-worth levels? Does he hate himself, and how long does he dwell on it before moving on?

Does he understand most jokes?

Does he use humour to cope?

Does he keep silent if something rubs him the wrong way? (His shock at his own outward declaration of hating bread seems to infer that he usually doesn’t vocalise his concerns or when he doesn’t like things. And yet, in Dressrosa, he was complaining a lot, but that’s because he was under a lot of stress, exhaustion, and the circumstances meant he probably couldn’t care to hold things in anymore.)

Does he worry about what people think of him? (He seems to value his reputation, and likes that people think of him as cruel/sadistic though I believe those are limited to rumours)

He's always cool-headed and calm, but is he overly sensitive? (It seems like he is? Although he doesn’t show it.)

What does he think of himself? Does he hate himself? (He would seem to harbour guilt of his failure to protect Corazon and his family; to have failed as an older brother, have low self-worth.)

Does he find amusement in others’ misfortune? (I don’t see it. Like he’s humble, and I don’t think he laughs at others’ disabilities or misery, and yet he isn’t beyond messing up his enemies in a cruel way. SO! What are his limits? Where does he draw the line in his ‘cruelty’?)

Does he meditate?

What does he do when stressed?

What does he do when things get hopeless?

My brief thoughts:

Initially, I thought he wouldn’t be someone who could laugh at his own misery/life, but I think it would sound like something he could use to cope with past trauma. He’s not the self-defeating kind, at least, not outwardly?

The only display of humour from him (that my idiot memory remembers) is at Zou when he comments that a display of clone jutsu would be cool, and maybe in SA when he was amused by Luffy’s outrageous nature towards the CD. Also perhaps he is somewhat amused when he messes with enemies using his Ope Ope, switching personalities, body parts, taking their hearts..

Anyway, as I’ve read up (briefly), there are 4 main classifications of humour, and I think everyone has a percentage of each type to a certain degree.

Humour styles according to wiki, summed up roughly, credit to here

Affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive, self-defeating

Affiliative:

used to enhance one’s r/s with others in a positive manner; used in self-accepting way

used to charm and amuse others, ease tension

spontaneous jokes, witty banter, enjoys laughing with others

individuals with high levels of this more likely to initiate friendships/increase group cohesiveness and promote creativity in group settings

associated with increased levels of self-esteem, well-being, emotional stability, social intimacy

individuals who use this tend to have higher levels of extraversion and openness to experience

telling jokes about things everyone might find funny

to bring people together, fellowship, happiness

Examples:

I don’t often joke with my friends

Jerry Seinfeld

Self-enhancing:

good natured attitude towards life; the ability to laugh at yourself, circumstances, idiosyncrasies of life in constructive, non-detrimental manner

used to enhance self in a positive manner; coping or emotion regulating humour

to look on the bright side of a bad situation, find silver lining

decreases levels of depression and anxiety

individuals more likely to exhibit extraversion and openness to experience

Examples:

If I’m feeling upset or unhappy I try to think of something funny about the situation to make myself feel better.

Even when by myself, I’m often amused by the absurdities of life.

Aggressive:

detrimental towards others

use of sarcasm, put-downs, teasing, criticism, ridicule at expense of others

individuals don’t care about the impact on others

examples are prejudices like racism and sexism

seems playful fun but the underlying intent may be to harm or belittle

related to high levels of neuroticism, lower levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness

individuals more highly aggressive and hostile; used by bullies

Examples:

When telling jokes or saying funny things, I am not usually concerned about how people take it.

If you think people are laughing at you, they probably are.

Self-defeating:

potentially detrimental humour towards the self; gain approval from others

laughter at own expense; “poor me”

pleasing others by being butt of joke

sometimes seen as form of denial; humour used as defense mechanism for hiding negative feelings of self

individuals frequently using this style show increased depressive symptoms

higher levels of neuroticism, lower levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness

associated with low self esteem, well being, intimacy

Examples:

I often try to make people like or accept me more by saying something about my weaknesses or blunders or faults.

I cover up problems and unhappiness by joking around, so closest friends don’t know how I feel

Further reading:

What do different personality types think about how people understand or misunderstand their sense of humour?

Analysts (INTP/INTJ) most likely to feel their humour is misunderstood. They are good at problem solving and generating ideas but may not translate well into humour. Visionary, highly intelligent personality types may engage in humour they understand but fail to make it relatable. Extraverted analysts, however, less likely to feel their sense of humour is misunderstood, as they have higher confidence in their abilities and are more outgoing.

Diplomats (INFP-T/INFJ-T) likely to feel others misunderstood their sense of humour. Though their personalities centre on relations with others, specifically tolerance and harmony, they are also most likely to take things personally and suffer insecurity. Desire to create harmony + overly sensitive nature = recipe for feeling misunderstood

Sentinels: Prefer traits like loyalty and trustworthiness to spontaneity or playfulness. Observant and Judging, values clarity, facts, observable things, as opposed to imaginative and unexpected. Sense of humour consists of tried and true, straightforward approach vs unpredictable humour.

Note to self: Read up more on personality types, since I know nothing of the matter other than the brief general basics.

20 types and forms of humour:

Which forms do you think Law enjoys?

I would think, dark/morbid, deadpan/dry, mordant? But those are the forms I think he would show. The kinds of humour he would enjoy, I’m still thinking about.

Other links to types of humour

Well. Thanks if you got that far. ]]]]]

[fuck-customers]

THE CUSTOMER. COMES. FIRST.

I work at a grocery store and was scheduled to attend self scan when I got this older middle aged maggot of a woman who lives in a perpetual state of wanting to feel wronged and offended. You know the type.

I was standing at my podium when a coworker walking by said something to me. I turned my head to reply and in the 5 seconds that took, this woman got all outraged that I didn't immediately notice she needed help. At least I assume that's what happened, because she did this super exaggerated wave coupled with a sarcastic "HelloooOOooOoo!!!!!" to get my attention. It was so over the top, you'd think she'd been having trouble getting my attention for 5 minutes. Also if you need help there's a button you can press that summons me over and it's harder for me to miss than you silently glaring at me or w/e it was she was originally doing to try to get my attention.

I went over and she was immediately like "How are you?" in this incredibly passive aggressive and almost accusatory tone. It was weird. I think she was angry at me for talking to my coworker for what was literally like 5 seconds? I could tell she wanted me to respond rudely so she'd have an excuse to flip out. I didn't take the bait and responded "I'm good! How are you?" Disappointed, she didn't bother to respond before jumping into the issue she was having. Basically, she just needed to scan a coupon, drop it in the slot, and then press the continue button. idk why she couldn't figure out how to do this herself, especially seeing as the machine was issuing directions, but I guess that's what I'm there for as far as she's concerned.

Problem solved, I went back to my podium. Then I had a different customer who needed help with something. As I was helping him one of the scan it gun alarms went off. At my store we have these scan it guns customers can use to scan their groceries as they shop, bagging as they go and then using the gun to pull their order up at a register or self scan machine. Customers get the guns from one of two charging racks on either end of the store but naturally they can't be bothered to actually return them to the rack despite the fact that they're located next to the doors that they exit through, BUT WHATEVER. So basically, self scan is located next to a charging rack and all the charging stations on that one are kept full by me but I can't run to the other end of the store every time a customer leaves one of the guns behind, so as I collect them off the machines I just put them in a hand basket. When someone comes round to do baskets they grab the basket of guns and put them in the other charging rack.

The guns are designed to go into an alarm mode if they're carried past the doors to prevent theft or being forgotten in carts. The only way to get the alarm to stop is to place the gun in a charging station. The alarm is LOUD and incredibly annoying by design. Whenever one goes off customers whip their heads around because they think someone's stealing or something. So needless to say, when a gun goes off dealing with it becomes a bit of a priority. It's disruptive, headache inducing, etc. For some unknown reason, a gun can randomly go off even if it's nowhere near the door. It happens maybe once a week.

That's what happened on this occasion. The customer I was currently helping was like "WOAH what IS that?" because it's so loud and annoying. I explained as I finished fixing his issue and then went to grab the gun to place it in the charging rack. The rack was full but fortunately there was a customer there about to get one and a spot would be freed up. So I was standing behind that gentleman, waiting on him, when I heard the woman from before trying to get my attention, her tone none improved. It was the same weirdly aggressive, overly exaggerated shouting, like "HELLLOOO I NEED HELP OVER HERRREEEE!!!"

I ignored her. I could have turned around and motioned that I'd be right with her or whatever, and for any other decent customer I would have, but not this woman. Like, anyone could see that I was clearly dealing with something and the alarm was loud enough to lend plausibility that I couldn't hear her. It was also only going to take like 10 seconds so I figured she could suffer the great injustice of having to wait. I was wrong. She came stomping over, furious, telling me that she needed help. I told her I'd be right with her once I put the ear splitting alarm emitting gun in the rack. She stomped back to the machine.

When I went over, she was PISSED. I can't even remember what the issue was this second time, but it was another simple fix. She demanded my name despite the fact that we wear very prominent name tags. I kept my tone light, acting like I was unaware of how angry she was. I think this made her angrier, lol. I told her my first name and she was like "[FIRST NAME] WHAT?" I wasn't about to give this woman my last name so I told her I was the only person with my name working at the store which seemed good enough for her, because then she moved on to being like "I WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR MANAGER. WHO'S YOUR MANAGER?" I gestured out over the front end and told her anyone wearing a certain color uniform shirt, which is half true. Our supervisors and the front end manager all wear the same color shirt but the managers above that don't wear uniforms, they wear business casual. But I wasn't going to be like "Oh, today it's Rick~ Let me go fetch him for you~" Like, if this blight of a woman wanted to go complain about me she could do the legwork herself. I wasn't about to do her any favors, lol.

She paid and then stomped off to the customer service desk, where she encountered Diana. Now, none of the supervisors really take customer complaints seriously but Diana gives ZERO FUCKS. She has a policy that customer complaints stay with her. Unless the customer asks to speak to a manager above her and complains to them personally, no one higher up than her ever hears the complaint. She knows customers are full of shit 99% of the time. So she probably nodded and was like "Oh no! She made you wait 10 seconds? I'll have a word with her right away!" without actually caring.

I don't think the woman was totally convinced because on her way out she stopped by self scan to scold me herself. I can't even accurately describe her tone, but it had me half laughing at how outraged she was. She was like "[FIRST NAME]! THE CUSTOMER. COMES. FIRST." I told her there was an alarm going off that I couldn't just ignore. I think she was kind of caught off guard that I defended myself because she had the lamest response ever, which was something like "I! DON'T! CARE! NO ONE COULD HEAR IT BUT YOU!!!" Which was obviously untrue, lol. Like, no one misses that alarm unless they're hard of hearing or deaf. I don't think she was either, she just didn't know how to respond to logic.

Clearly she's incapable of realizing that she's not the only customer in a store and that most customers don't appreciate loud obnoxious alarms when they're trying to shop and speak to their cashier. I was putting the well being of the ENTIRE store first, requiring her to wait what amounted to SECONDS. I don't think I've ever encountered a more impatient and entitled customer before. Reading back on this story I don't think I'm really accurately capturing just how angry she was. She was livid. If she had the ability to fire me, I'm sure she would have. The way she was behaving was absurd.

Also kind of funny to note is that the first time I went over to help her there was a man with her who I assume is her husband. He disappeared as soon as she started freaking out, probably too embarrassed to stick around. And I realize the absurdity of all of this makes it sound like a fake story. You might already have thought to yourself "Okay, OP totally changed minutes to seconds to make them sound more sympathetic. They were probably talking to their coworker for a long time and ignoring the customer that needed help or they're leaving out some other really important detail" but no, it was literally seconds and I'm not leaving anything out. This woman became enraged because she had to wait literal SECONDS for my help, which she wouldn't have even needed in the first place if not for her own incompetency and incapability to follow simple directions.

I was actually really angry about this for like 24 hours after it happened. She was so abusive and outrageous. The way she used knowing my name as part of her power trip kind of grosses me out. Like ngl, I've done some stupid ACTUAL complaint worthy shit while working and have legitimately screwed up before without anyone complaining about me. So the one time someone DOES complain about me, it's over something totally petty? It's ridiculous. But I'm starting to find the humor in it.

This woman needs to get a grip and/or therapy for her anger issues. I bet she does this type of shit everywhere she goes with her husband noping out immediately and disappearing to the car.