#me when things are not mutually exclusive

[saintbobbynash]

God I'm so annoyed by both Eddie defenders AND Eddie haters rn

On one hand, Eddie is grieving just like Buck is and they're not talking about it so yes it's going to explode and I think we should give Eddie the same grace we give Athena and use Karen's words "you're grieving so fair can mind it's damn business"

On the other hand, this isn't an isolating incident, Eddie has been a lot meaner to Buck this season than he has ever been since the infamous grocery store fight and some of it was even before Bobby's death so we can't just blame it on his grief. And it's been established that Eddie has anger issues and he usually takes responsibility for it and tries to rectify it but with Buck, Buck usually is the one to apologize and actually say the words "I'm sorry" and Eddie doesn't. Did he call himself a dick and bring Christopher to cheer Buck up? Yes and tbh I don't think that's very nefarious like ppl are making it out to be. It's his own way of apologizing. But does that mean it's an actual apology? No. And in this instance they really needed to apologize and talk about it since the whole reason Eddie got mad at Buck in the first place was that Buck wasn't talking about it

Can Eddie be super unhealthy and prone to get angry and mean? Yes! Just as Buck can be unhealthy too. Can aspects of Buck's and Eddie's friendship be unhealthy and toxic? Also yes but on BOTH sides. Now, do I think Eddie emotionally hurts Buck more than Buck emotionally hurts Eddie and that their relationship is unbalanced? Yeah I do

HOWEVER, does that make Eddie abusive? Absolutely not!! Fuck off with that bullshit!

Eddie has never been physical with someone since the fight club when he was at one of his lowest points and almost killed a dude and realized he doesn't want to be that guy. Also, that was, somewhat, a controlled environment where there were two consenting adults fighting.

It really rubs me the wrong way how people are calling a Latino man abusive and violent (when that's a REALLY racist stereotype) but then some in turn want a white man (Tommy) to threaten violence on him bc of that. Like y'all do you hear yourselves????

Also out of the two, Buck has been the one to (unintentionally) physically hurt Eddie (but y'all aren't ready for that conversation yet)

Anyways, Eddie Diaz is a flawed human (like every single character on this damn show) who I still love very much and there are things that have been REALLY irritating about his character lately that I desperately need them to address and have him grow more (mainly his anger issues and how he treats and invalidates Buck). Both statements aren't mutually exclusive.

Thank you for coming to my TedTalk

[torchiiko]

i love giving my opinion on things nobody cares abt!!!! for example:

a few(?) vtuber artists got in trouble for holding raffles & not fulfilling the prize even after a year onward. some ppl are saying "who cares, its not like youre losing anything by not getting free art" & others say "artists should know how to prioritize their workload & be able to deliver as promised"

both are true! lots of ppl enter art raffles specifically bc they cant buy commissions, they usually cant afford to or might even be too young to use payment processors & things like raffles & requests are their only chance. life can get in the way sometimes & some artists rely on comms to pay the bills so free work has to be put off, understandably. but 2 whole years to deliver a raffle prize while actively doing other work is a little absurd

an artist can get a lot of engagement holding raffles, half the point is building up their audience to get more eyes on their art, so it feels a little scummy to profit from that engagement & then just not make the art that was promised. makes you seem a bit untrustworthy

but again, the winners arent actually Losing anything. they didnt get what they were promised & missed the chance to get smth they maybe couldnt have gotten otherwise, & it of course sucks to have to leave the situation empty-handed, but they have just as much as they did before the raffle

ultimately, it is unprofessional as an artist to offer free art if you arent in a state to fulfill it within a timely manner, & the raffle winners have a right to be disappointed. however, as the winners didnt have to give anything for the opportunity to get said art, theyre only so entitled to it & should just cut their losses & leave it be when it becomes clear the artist likely wont deliver

[nibeul]

uncle aaron in spiderverse fucks me up so badly because here is a man who has done terrible, unforgivable things, and he loves his nephew very much

[unpretty]

I don't know if this even counts as kink taxonomy but this is the only place I can feasibly complain about it so here goes: so I stumbled across weird audio only hypnosis porn. As one does. Turns out it doesn't really do anything for me sexually BUT oh my god it functions as the most effective guided meditation I have ever come across. Traditional guided meditations never work for me but a woman with a nice voice gently domming me into relaxation? Magical.

Except then they usually try to get you off through the power of hypnosis (does not work for me) or it ends up being some other kink thing when I just want to be dommed into actually letting the tension out of my shoulders for a change. This is the stupidest problem I have ever had.

akljasdlkjasdkl as someone who specifically can't listen to guided meditations because of my 'who the fuck do you think you are' impulse this is so funny to me. i feel like there must be some kind of hypnosis asmr on youtube that would work because they can't get into porn with those but youtube asmr is a taxonomy hell all its own. SOFTLY SPOKEN WAS SUPPOSED TO MEAN YOU'RE NOT WHISPERING YOU FUCKS WHY CAN I HEAR YOUR TEETH.

[mediumgayitalian]

okay i’ve seen the take around and i have to add. it’s killing me.

i do not agree that will would avoid the medical arts when he gets older.

i see the argument about trauma and growing from it. and, like, yeah. he had so much on his shoulders from so ridiculously young, it had to be rough.

but it’s also like.

what he’s good at.

let me tell you a story. there was a girl. when she was a year and a half old her first sister was born. and her mother’s family warned her to keep her away from her sister: she had been an only child for her entire life up to this point, she would be jealous of the baby. she might even try to hurt her.

but the mother shook her head and reclined on her hospital bed with her new baby in her arms. and she called her daughter softly up and showed her how to sit, how to fold her hands. she placed her newborn into her daughters arms and her daughter, he toddler, stayed there for hours. for hours, mesmerized by her baby sister, holding her carefully.

that daughter doesn’t remember, obviously. but her mother tells her this story often, smiling. the daughter had hands to hold from infancy.

the daughter gets another sister when she is three. and another when she is eight, and a brother when she is ten. she has been surrounded by babies her whole life, while her parents work. she learned to change diapers before she could divide, learned how to cook before she learned to play properly with friends. she has known domesticity every day of her life.

and she excels at it.

she chafes, a little. of course she does. when she takes her baby brother to the park people confuse her for his mother — she is ten years old. she is used to walking with a child on her hip. her name was her brother’s third ever word, and sometimes — often times — her siblings seek her out instead of her parents. she is made to do thrice the chores her siblings must because she is more organized, because she is more capable. she is meant to take them safely to places — no one takes her safely to places.

but she glows when her siblings need her. at family reunions, she volunteers to mind the babies, nervous about conversation with adults. she is the only one patient enough to tutor her siblings when they’re struggling and frustrated and pride blooms in her chest. when she cleans, her anxious mind quiets.

she grows up to be an elementary school teacher, after a couple years of discovering.

do you see the projection connection i am trying to make here. it is hard to be trained your whole life for something — there is part of you, always, that will resent it, that will wonder.

but it is another thing when the training is so easy because you are so good at it already. when doing what you have been trained to do makes you calm after a long day, when the tedious tasks that others spurn brings a smile to your face. yes, i’m sure healing carries a lot of pain for will. yes, i’m sure he’s frustrated. yes, i’m sure he takes some time to experiment.

but he is good at healing. and he likes to be needed, to be the rock upon which others need: if he is the rock it means he is strong, he is steady. when he doubts himself he can remember those he has helped and it is impossible to write off his own importance. he has healer’s hands, builder’s hands, carer’s hands — to be anything else would be a struggle, first, but it would not bring the same relief. the same steadiness in knowing that he is capable and righteously proud.

i don’t know. this isn’t a real essay and i don’t have a real conclusion. i just cannot find it in myself to imagine a future where my path is dark and overgrown with foreign weeds, rather than peppered with the flowers i grew up tending. i doubt will can either.

[somepinkthing]

Imagining nie huaisang having a flock of spiritual birds.

Just his mother knowing early on that he would likely never be a great cultivator and getting him two spiritual beasts in the form of birds—wanting him to have something to protect himself with and figuring he might actually take an interest in training the beasts if they were his favorite animal. It would be just her luck that the two birds (that were both supposed to be male) end up a mated and bonded pair once fully grown. Luckily, they also appear to view huaisang, who raised them from chicks, as the leader of their little bird flock. Her husband, viewing this as both useful and hilarious, decides to build their son an aviary—aka a giant nesting area for giant birds. Which is fantastic if you are a humongous, newly mated bird looking to start a bird family. You see where this is going.

Beastmaster huaisang except the beasts are just giant birds with the IQ of a pack of very loyal second graders who only listen to the commands of one of the most dramatic men in all the jianghu

[zuzu-romeave]

i know people are mostly joking when they insinuate that troy is too possessive or jealous to have a polyamorous relationship with abed but like that idea annoys me so much. when troy and abed both agree to take mariah the librarian on a date, troy is entirely okay with it UNTIL mariah chooses him over abed and then later calls abed weird. after that he tells abed “there’s someone out there for us.” he just wants someone who also wants abed, and that doesnt mean he wont get jealous over it. you can be polyam and still struggle with jealousy, which is the situation that troy’s in

[jasontoddenthusiastt]

Batman Annual #25

Before Talia took him in, before he was dunked in the pit to have his memories restored, even when operating purely on survival instinct, he always split a meal with the other homeless people. It may not have been essential to his survival, but caring about and helping other people when he couldn’t even help himself was just always such an intrinsic part of Jason’s core.

[lord-squiggletits]

Honestly it annoys me that pride, ambition, and generally having a big ego are always villainous/evil-coded personality traits because personally I think if you genuinely are a prodigy at what you do you are 100% within your rights, perhaps even deserving, of flaunting your skills and being proud of the fact you can do something that only a small fraction of other people can do. Is it even ego at that point if you genuinely are as good at your field/skill as you say you are? Are people not aware that becoming a prodigy at something is something that takes lifelong sacrifice and practice sometimes to the point of giving up on having a normal life, relationships, etc even potentially destroying your own health???? God I fucking hate how pride in your own skills and ambition are so villain coded all the time. As if it's evil to want to be good at something and be recognized for what you rightfully earned

[fromtheseventhhell]

I also find it funny that fandom will only accept Lyanna being her non-conforming, wild self in the context of saying that Arya isn't meant to be pretty; Any other day we get back-to-back posts about how Lyanna is actually super traditionally feminine cause she sniffled at a song once, so she's actually more like Sansa. Instead of constantly speaking on Arya and Lyanna, how about you guys reflect on why your standards of beauty for women are attached to how well they perform feminity within the patriarchy?

[historyartthings]

Absolutely loving, adoring, Le*nda de L*sle’s review of MacCulloch’s work...

My thoughts, feelings, opinions I’ve put below. It gets very long because I cannae haud me wheesht

I don’t know why she’s obsessed with the idea that he mustn’t have loved his wife. ‘the supposedly grieving widower’? I don’t think the arrangement of a marriage for a king - which Henry obviously agreed to - is a sufficient way to judge what Thomas’s relationship with his wife was like. The (foreign and domestic) political, religious and dynastic factors at play there can’t be ignored in favour of extrapolating that he didn’t understand marrying for love. The “happy marriage” in quotation marks😭 have got to laugh. her condescending cynicism is based on nothing tangible, as far as I can work out. She shades MacCulloch as well through the, ‘he believes that although the evidence is sparse, Cromwell was indeed a grieving widower'…. Ngl I would argue it’s not a particularly strained logical leap to assume he might’ve been upset.

We know barely anything about their relationship. Mostly what can be concretely said is he, unusually, never remarried - we’ll obviously never know the reason(s) for that, but still. There was seemingly one notable relationship outside of it, which we only know of because it resulted in an illegitimate daughter, a wee while after his wife passed away. But even that isn’t for 100% certain. He also atypically didn’t have a mistress. There’s also exactly one (1) extant letter from him to his wife, which is pleasant enough, but not much revealing - he asks her for news of home and sends her a deer. she didnt live long enough so as to have any external remarks on their marriage once he entered court spheres. Essentially it’s impossible to draw anything more than speculative conclusions, but based on what can be tentatively extrapolated from his actions, it seems more likely he grieved for his wife than didn’t imo. And also just considering natural, human emotion??

(Even if you want to suggest they didn’t marry for love in the beginning - and/or weren’t in love by the end - they were married for what? Roughly a decade and a half? With no signs of estrangement, and friendly correspondence in letters to Cromwell asking him to pass on their regards to his wife. So even if it was simply an amicable relationship, on a basic level being with someone in such close proximity, for that long, and losing them is probably going to be upsetting?)

On a tangential note, as MacCulloch does point out, the valentine to Mary mentioned here wasn’t at all romantic - it’s misleading to present that, as she does, as an attempt for he himself to marry into royalty. Or more charitably, I think she misremembered the context for it from the book

I’d also question de Lisle’s point about the executions. Personally I don’t think it suggests a greater misogyny than any of his contemporaries? Imo it’s indicative of the broader pattern of a brutal, violent ruthlessness towards those he saw as any enemy, in his way, and/or as going against the crown/policy etc. As opposed to any particular or especial hatred towards women. This isn't meant as an excuse for those actions in any way, because they're - quite obviously - horrific. I just question the rationale behind such a judgement of even-worse-than-usual-for-the-time-misogyny based upon it. Such brutality wasn't isolated to women, men were treated just as abominably. She talks of their humiliation to evidence her point, but again, men were faced with the same. (Ask Richard Whiting who got dragged up Glastonbury Tor at nearly 80, whose case involved, 'to be tryed [presumably for treason] at Glaston and also executyd there' from cromwell's remembrances; or John Forrest, who was strung up in chains, which is a humiliating - to use her term - prolonged death in itself, but was also supposedly burnt using kindling made from a statue of a saint - oh how clever of you!). We don’t (afaik) have letters or remarks which reflect cromwell’s views on women in the same way as for Norfolk, for example. it's just a bizarre extrapolation to me. again, imo it's an incredibly dark, ruthless streak through his personality. it seems to have been his standard handling of any major execution. Also, to be clear, I’m not suggesting he wasn’t sexist/misogynistic, because ofc he was. All men back then were, as a symptom of living and socilisation in such a patriarchal society.

(also interesting for her to pair this suggestion w/ her thoughts about his marriage come to think of it. she seems to be linking the two in a broader picture, I assume wherein this should be added to the ‘evidence’ he didn’t/couldnt have loved his wife)

also the contrast of his physical looks in the Holbein, against his 'becoming' a 'convivial figure' in MacCulloch's work, is disappointing. not reading personalities from portraits, nor ascribing negative character traits to appearances and/or weight (implicitly or otherwise) shouldn't be a big ask, but apparently is. It'd be a wee bit different if she’d pointed to his expression - I still think that’s an unsound way to go about things fwiw - which at least isn’t intrinsically linked to his features, but alas no.

Lastly, re: MacCulloch’s arguments, i would say he’s more impartial than she implies. He might be Anglican, but I wouldn’t say he’s ‘on the Protestant side’ particularly. I struggle to see how his presentation of Catholics - from what i remember, altho it’s been a while since i've read it - is less than fair? He directly praises more and fisher iirc. but someone with a better knowledge of the book could correct me on this point.

also, positioning that he's on the 'protestant side', alongside the next line being about his argument that cromwell was grieving, is an interesting choice. is the suggestion that if you agree with the latter your sympathies must lie with "protestantism"? that it's only through a biased lens you could reach that conclusion? sksjksjk diabolical suggestion that that's the only reason anyone might consider he mourned his wife. like am i going insane or is it genuinely what she's saying??… i cant see why she'd juxtapose those specific points otherwise. Like critiquing mantel's comments about catholics and their presentation in wolf hall is fair enough, but connecting that with the fact she wrote cromwell as 'heartbroken' and that he loved his wife, comes across to me as though she's suggesting the former should invalidate mantel's interpretation of the latter. which again i dont think is fair based on the evidence we do have..

I would also question (because it is confusing to me) despite the fact that MacCulloch and Mantel were friends, why the “”””””happy marriage”””””” across both works is the way in here??? like why are you so bothered as to both lead and finish the article with that?

(And, frankly, MacCulloch paints a picture of a happier marriage - he writes that the simplest explanation is, ‘he couldn’t bear to marry anyone else’ - than Mantel does. Who presents their relationship as literally (as in, textually), ‘loves’ but not ‘in love’. and has him actively wanting to remarry. she had a line in TMATL that goes he was ‘mostly faithful’ which? I’m not sure if she meant to imply infidelity but… altho she did present a picture of him missing her i guess)

[glubandeepspace]

what if mc were to somehow through some other big incident remember all their past lives with rafayel and then gets like a few minutes with him being a mess about it before the weight of it all hurts both emotionally & physically too much for mc's brain to handle and then passes out in his arms and maybe it's hard to wake back up again and he kind of hates himself for even partly wishing mc could remember if it meant this and

[silkpages]

the dichotomy of crushing on both cole and jindrax

[blastthechaos]

Sometimes I wonder if I'm too mean to Season 3 of GX...then I see that people genuinely believe Judai is selfish/doesn't take things seriously just because that garbage ass season said it, then I rage again.

[wonder-worker]

I heard that Edward IV and Elizabeth Widvile were known to be very beautiful. Were there any reports on their appearance at the time?

anon 😂

But yes, contemporaries and post contemporaries in the 16th century were pretty much unanimous in praising their appearance. I'll list some of the ones I could find:

Elizabeth:

"The most beautiful woman in England" - Jean de Waurin

"Her very great beauty" - Jean de Waurin

"Her beauty of person and charm of manner" - Dominic Mancini

"None of such constant womanhood, wisdom and beauty" - Hearne's Fragment; its author was one of Edward IV's servants

"A daughter of prodigious beauty' - 1469 Continuator of Monstrelet's Chronicle

"Both faire, of a good favor, moderate of stature, well made and very wise" - Thomas More

Edward IV:

"The beauty of your personage it hath pleased Almighty God to send you" - James Strangways, Speaker of the Commons in Parliament

"The king is a handsome upstanding man" - Gabriel Tretzel, travels of Leo of Rozmital

"A handsome prince and had style" - Oliver De La Marche

"In the flower of his age, tall of stature, elegant of person" - Croyland Chronicle

"One of the handsomest knights of his kingdom" - 1469 Continuator of Monstrelet's Chronicle

"A handsome and worthy prince" - Pietro Alipranto

‘...Tall and strapping as the king’ - John Paston, Paston Letters

"He was young and more handsome than any man then alive" - Philippe de Commynes

"A man so vigorous and handsome that he might have been made for the pleasures of the flesh" - Philippe de Commynes

"The handsomest prince my eyes ever beheld" and "I don't remember ever having seen a man more handsome than he was" - Philippe de Commynes

"A very handsome prince" - Louis XI, from the Memoirs of Commynes

"He being a person of most elegant appearance, and remarkable beyond all others for the attractions of his person" - the Croyland Chronicle, referencing Edward a few months before he died

"He seized any opportunity that the occasion offered of revealing his fine stature more protractedly and more evidently to onlookers" - Dominic Mancini, writing shortly after his death

"He was a goodly personage and very princely to behold...of visage lovely, of body mighty, strong and cleanly made; howbeit in his latter days, with an over liberal diet, somewhat corpulent, but nevertheless noy uncomely" - Thomas More

Etc.

I'm tagging @edwardslovelyelizabeth because I think you got a similar ask?

I hope this answers your question, anon! I don't generally pay a lot of attention to the physical appearance of historical figures (I find it pretty irrelevant), but in this case, it ultimately does play a role in both Edward IV and Elizabeth's historiographies for better and for worse, and seems to have actually been a personal prop of Edward's kingship, so I don't mind discussing it :)

[shootinwebs]

alastor being canonically aspec made me finally realize and accept that i am aspec, but due to so much aphobia, i'm still not any less afraid to be open about it to people i know in real life. even allo people who claim to be "ace allies" simply don't seem to get it, and i've seen that manifest in this fandom so vividly.

i know fandom can make things different, since characters typically don't just explicitly state or explain certain parts of their identity. but for the love of god please don't pull apart the way aspec people choose to characterize alastor. it's none of your business how we experience our own aspec identity in all its nuances, nor is it your problem how we write made-up things about made-up characters lol