#ok... see ya

[vegaseatsass]

DFF 11 spoilers

I still refuse with all my heart to believe that Non is dead, but in the version of events where this is true - so the version of events Tee believes is true - Tee "rescued" Non by delivering him into labor that killed him, like he watched Non work himself to death before his eyes, but first, his response to Non's life-threatening wounds, the idk, potential internal bleeding, whatever is going on in Non's body that has him so run down he can't yell at his bully without nearly collapsing from coughing, was to. Hand Non a first aid kit and be like "you know what to do, right?"

lmaoooooo TEE. A whole mess of a young man.

[hinamie]

alongside someone like you

[shatouto]

i've seen a poll about gale and anders but i feel like this one is a more difficult one to answer

[xxplastic-cubexx]

Hi!! Your Cherik is so good and gorgeous 🤩🤩 If you don't mind wanna try to draw some Fall of X Cherik please?

thank you so much !!

i have a couple of ideas relating to the fall of x period specifically since theres. A Lot i wanna play with, so i hope this lil thing may be a satisfactory start :]]

and the obligatory bonus:

[nibbelraz]

This is my favorite type of Moshang

[orphetoon]

as a kid i used to spend my time online looking at this site called pokecenter, it was before pokemon actually owned the us url so it was some random guy selling pokemon merch from japan. as an eleven y/o who couldn’t actually buy anything i used to look at all the plushies in wonder, hoping one day i could buy them

anyway those plushies are hundreds of dollars now so i will instead learn to sew

[anonymouscheeses]

LEE POMNI PLSSS LER GUMMIGOO OR RAGS!! <33

La Pomni!! I was lazy mid way sorry for that buuuttt here's the way I like to draw her (not redesign just a fun way to draw her I like)

Pomni y ella... amigos.... totally...

This might not be what you meant buuut I LOVE both ships equally so sooo much I couldn't let the chance go. Any funnygummy shippers??? 😭

[m4rrison]

this is how that arc went right.?

[lemongogo]

they should get to kill each other at least twice .i think

[moeblob]

A lil guy !

[shotmrmiller]

going to a different secondary school than cbf!soap and not recognising him in his new uniform also his big big shoulders

your school friends 🫣youknow him?? and you being like 😳i thought i knew him

okay but he acts like you're the only thing that matters (it's because you do.)

like when he was at bootcamp, he'd take out a worn, creased picture of you and stare at it, reminding himself who he does it for and who he's coming back to.

"doin' it for my one," he tells the others but the picture is one he hastily took of you when he broke into your room and:

1. it's blurry cuz you were quick on throwing him a shoe

2. naked where it matters

3. suspiciously stained don't ask questions

[slowestlap]

Max working out with Jimmy and Sassy chilling around

↳ Anatomy of a Champion - Viaplay documentary | Part 3/3

[qiu-yan]

in order to say "wei wuxian is morally good," you must first define what it means to be morally good

though this is by no means exclusive to them, one logical fallacy i sometimes see wei wuxian stans make in their arguments is that they begin their analysis of wei wuxian as a character with the statement "wei wuxian is morally good."

so their argument becomes:

wei wuxian is morally good.

a morally good person would do XYZ.

therefore, wei wuxian would do XYZ.

alternatively, when they're objecting to someone else's argument about wei wuxian, their counterargument becomes:

this argument says that wei wuxian would do ABC.

a morally good person would not do ABC.

wei wuxian is morally good.

therefore, wei wuxian would not do ABC; the other person's argument is wrong.

while this is in fact a valid argument structure to use for other kinds of traits (ie. "brave," "doesn't think of the consequences," even something like "afraid of dogs"), this format of argument in fact cannot be used for a descriptor as vague as "morally good"--because, unlike the other traits, "morally good" is not precisely defined enough for the above argument structure to work.

"morally good" is not a character trait in the same way that "wants to defend the weak," "is angered by innocent people being harmed," and "does not fear consequences" are character traits, because what is considered "moral" can vary significantly from person to person. what a utilitarian considers to be moral, for example, diverges significantly from what a deontologist considers to be moral. if i were to say "wei wuxian is a morally good person," i have frankly said less about wei wuxian's personality and more about what i myself believe to be ethical.

thus, the reason why the above argument pretty much never works in the wild is that the depolyers in question rarely actually define what they mean by "morally good."

consider the case in which two different wei wuxian stans write on their blogs "wei wuxian is a good person." however, the first person follows a moral philosophy that centers courage in the face of certain failure, while the second person follows a moral philosophy that centers reason and pragmatism. thus, what the first person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who courageously chooses the correct path even when he is doomed to fail," while what the second person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is a reasonable and pragmatic person." these are no longer the same statement.

or consider the case in which the first stan follows a moral philosophy that centers agent-neutral harm reduction, while the second stan follows a moral philosophy that centers agent-relative reciprocity. in this case, what the first person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who helps others regardless of whether they've helped him before," while what the second person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who always repays kindnesses done unto him." again, these are no longer the same statement.

in general, if one wishes to argue that "blorbo is morally good," one must first specify what exactly they mean by "morally good," because not everyone follows the same definition of "morally good." many blorbo stans, however, don't actually do this. instead, they write their arguments as if their own definition of morality is already universal law; a reader can thus only reverse-engineer what the op believes to be morally good from their post. and this leads to no shortage of disagreements: two different blorbo enjoyers might find themselves in an argument over what they believe to be their blorbo's characterization, when in reality they are actually disagreeing over what it means to be ethical at all.

on the topic of disagreement, another fact that must be acknowledged is that wei wuxian himself is also a character with his own specific thoughts and feelings. wei wuxian is not an abstract paragon of righteousness whose definition of morality just so happens to perfectly match the reader's definition of morality; wei wuxian is a specific fictional character with his own specific thoughts as to what is right and what is wrong. and every reader has to accept that what wei wuxian considers to be right can in fact be gleaned from the text--and that what wei wuxian considers to be right will not always match what the reader considers to be right. wei wuxian might, in fact, disagree with you.

thus, if you want to make any sort of statement regarding wei wuxian's moral character (whether that be "he is morally good" or "he is morally bad") you in fact have to consider not just one, but four different questions:

what do you consider to be morally good? what moral framework and/or school of moral philosophy do you use to determine what is ethical?

how well do wei wuxian's actions adhere to what you personally consider to be morally good?

what does wei wuxian consider to be morally good? what moral framework and/or school of moral philosophy does he use to determine what is ethical?

how well do wei wuxian's actions adhere to what he himself considers to be morally good?

all of these are different questions! they cannot be conflated with each other.

to write a good analysis, you must accept that [what you consider to be morally good] will not always match [what wei wuxian considers to be morally good]. when such disagreements arise, rather than distort wei wuxian's character to match what you personally believe to be morally good, perhaps consider just allowing wei wuxian to disagree with you instead. even if he's doing something you honestly can't defend, maybe wei wuxian is still striving to live as best he can according to his own ideals, and it just so happens that his ideals do not match your ideals. you really should not distort wei wuxian's motives or beliefs just to make him more palatable to you, simply because you have wedded yourself to the idea that "wei wuxian must be morally good by my own standards."

closing thoughts: this isn't really exclusive to wei wuxian stans. i've seen all sorts of character stans in all sorts of fandoms make this same logical fallacy. i certainly think that some of the jiang cheng analyses i see from fellow jiang cheng stans are born less from an objective analysis of his character and moreso from the op's desire for his actions to align with their moral compass. but, out of all the characters in MDZS, it seems like people commit this logical fallacy when discussing wei wuxian specifically far more often than they do with any other character, save perhaps lan wangji.

[toodrunktofindaurl]

as promised, see here

[beeqisch]

timkon wip

[voicesfoundmymemories]

(Me note: I really wanted to do the last prompt from this, so hello again, this might be a little short)

Nanami x Reader, Fluffy, Maybe a little suggestive CW: None that I can think of Word Count: idk like under 100 perhaps

"Ours."

It'd been nearly a month since your date with Nanami and though things might've been moving a little fast you felt it was long overdue seeing how long you'd had the teensiest of crushes on him.

He was so sweet and charming and kind and not to mention a gentleman, it was hard not to.

He was everything you expected and more, and he'd asked you out right after the date because he said he'd "Wanted our second date to be as a couple."

Which was so sweet it made your heart burst into pieces anytime you thought of it.

Your second date didn't last that long, dinner forgotten on his table and a litter of clothes that made a messy trail to his bed.

You'd both taken to staying over on the weekends at each other's houses, too caught up in each other to find the urgency to get home at a reasonable hour.

You knew Nanami was an early riser because he'd send you sweet good morning texts before your alarm went off for work but he always managed to sleep in when you were staying over.

The smells of breakfast wafted throughout the small apartment, filling it with the warmth of you. The pot sizzled as you hummed to yourself in the kitchen, struggling to flip a few pancakes when you felt a pair of arms languidly wrap around your waist.

"Good morning-" A smile slowly forms on your face, watching your pancakes bubble.

"Morning." He gruffs, face in the crook of your neck as he breathes you in. "Is that my shirt?" He muses and you let out a laugh.

"You mean our shirt? Yes. Yes it is." You scoop the pancakes out of the pan and put them on a plate.

"Ours? Really?" You could hear the grin in his voice, heart warm with the need to see him.

"Mhm." You smile, turning around in his arms. "I like it. Its nice and soft and it smells like you." You hum.

"Hm." He looks down at you, sleepy eyes still holding enough warmth to heat an oven. His hands shift from your waist to the counter behind you, lips pressed sweetly against yours. "Ours."