#or if it’s just this copy in particular or something

[narsh-poptarts]

my dark link thoughts coalesced into wonderful headcanons and crazy amounts of forced perspectives and dutch angles

also sorry HW i would have included your dark link(s) but i do not have passion for your game <3 maybe next time

Some thoughts below

I have thoughts about dark link that boil down to basically two things: 1. it's always the same dark link, and 2. dark link has a very difficult time changing.

No matter how many times dark link is brought into existence, he is formed from the shadow of link usually to test link's will. that shadow can be duplicated (as seen in HW) but generally speaking it's the same guy, sharing the thought space, you know how it is. In terms of sentience/thinking for himself, I don't think there's all that much of it. He is a dark reflection/shadow of link, so shares his abilities and thought patterns (for combat) with added aggression and. evil. i guess.

As said by navi, "conquer yourself", and all that. He's a challenge to the inner will power.

That being said!!! he can have a little bit of individuality, as a treat. Just in the form of being mean and sadistic <3 he's got thoughts, he's not just a combat doll (tho in times of low power, or a greater power having the reins, he reverts to that), so he can be frustrated, vindicated, happy, etc etc. though when your thoughts are mainly "evilevilevilevilevil" your idea of these emotions are a bit skewed.

When he's summoned for each different link, i hc that it's all the same magic, so the same dark link every time. he "remembers" in an abstract sense of his role in the same way a link or zelda "remembers" their own reincarnation. tho his is less of a reincarnation and more being used over and over again. a persistence.

The iteration that's summoned reflects the current link at the time, the part of link that needs testing/defeating, so it's not an existence that he himself can change to match the present. he's locked to that first copy/shadow only. So if he were to have a second encounter with an older link, he'd look like the first time they fought, unless he was specifically re-summoned. i hc he's got limited magic, so this is not something he can do himself.

in a links-meet scenario, his form would be limited to those specific forms of the links, and it would always be the points in time in which he first encountered them, unless there's other magic either he or someone else has access to to allow him to change forms to match.

now you might be saying at this point "wouldn't he be a weaker match if he was put up against an older link?" yeah probably lol. but also!!! i like the idea that with the limited magic he has, he's able to change juuuust enough to stay relatively evenly matched. being able to play to different strengths and all that. but the base stuff is still the same, so he is decently easy enough to read if link remembers the kind of stuff he was pulling back when he originally fought dark link.

dark link also knows about all this so while limited to the particular skillset, is able to adapt slightly.

but yeah been thinking a lot about a links-meet au where dark link is there choosing a different link to be every time he appears to the party.

though there are a couple links that he never impersonates in their games!!! so can't change into those guys unless he gets a new round of copycat magic.

Anyways goodbye guy standing there with standard camera angle, i have dutch angles and forced perspective

[taylorswiftstyle]

Out and about | New York City, NY | November 9, 2024

Vivienne Westwood 'Sunday Striped Cotton Dress' - $2,390.00 For Future Reference ‘Vintage 1970s Ancient Bronze Coin Necklace’ - $12,750.00 Vivienne Westwood 'Granny Frame Purse' - $210.00 Aquazzura ‘Twist 95 Pleated Sandals’ - $795.00

This outfit has a lot of recognizable, repeat elements going on for it which is something Taylor does a lot with her fashion. Weaving new but familiar pieces in with repeat pieces keeps her wardrobe consistent, but fresh.

Take the dress for starters. For every era there is often a silhouette or item that Taylor has elevated to be its most iconic or associated. For TTPD, it’s definitely been the bustier/corset. And in terms of designers, Vivienne Westwood was an early pioneer in bringing the style to the masses making the house a natural choice to wear.

If the silhouette of the dress looks particularly familiar, it’s because we have actually “seen this film before.” Taylor has worn the checked version of this ‘Sunday’ top to the Chiefs vs Saints game and the blue version of the ‘Sunday’ dress in personal photos shared by Brittany Mahomes from Amsterdam, Netherlands in the summer.

The layering of colours on the bodice feel like a painting of a sunset to me.

If you’ve been following along with Taylor’s fashion, you’ll likely recognize this bag immediately because of the adornment on its front. As a fashion refresher, the symbol is the Vivienne Westwood ‘orb’ logo - an iconic design within VW house codes. It was designed to be a take on the Sovereign orb of the British Royal Family and a cheeky reference to Vivienne’s self-described title of “queen” of fashion.

VW describes the bag as a “a vintage-inspired silhouette and a kiss-lock closure, recalling antique coin purses from the early 20th-century.” Fitting given the vintage coin necklace she’s wearing around her neck, don’t you think?

Despite the “vintage” vibes of the bag, I can’t help but feel that it’s a bit stark and disjointed against the rest of the outfit.

Taylor has also previously worn both the necklace and shoes here. The oversized coin necklace has been seen on two occasions. Its debut was at the Chiefs season opener against the Ravens back in September and its first repeat just a few days following paired with a Gucci monogram dress (For Fashion History lovers, shall share in Stories!).

Of its three outings, this is my least favourite styling of this necklace (the Chiefs game ‘fit was my fave of the three). I would guess based on the cut of the dress Taylor may have been going for a throwback / vintage look my first impression was renaissance fair meets oil painting) but something about the pairing of the scale of the necklace here isn’t working for me.

The necklace itself was a special one-of-a-kind vintage piece from the 70s that For Future Reference founder Randi Molofsky told me was “heavily influenced by the disco movement and Italian resort style.”

To pick up on the colours in the bodice of her dress, Taylor wore a coordinating pair of repeat velvet sandals. You might recall that Taylor previously wore these in September 2023 while out and about in NYC (That particular outfit was a noted copy + paste for me. Will share to stories!).

The velvet here adds a lush, seasonal texture to a going out ‘fit.

Photo by Aeon via Getty Images

[contemplatingoutlander]

When the Soviets called their enemies “fascists,” they turned the word into a meaningless insult. Putinist Russia has preserved the habit: a “fascist” is anyone who opposes the wishes of a Russian dictator. So Ukrainians defending their country from Russian invaders are “fascists.” This is a trick that Trump has copied. He, like Vladimir Putin, refers to his enemies as “fascists,” with no ideological significance at all. It is simply a term of opprobrium.

Putin and Trump are both, in fact, fascists. And their use of the word, though meant to confuse, reminds us of one of fascism’s essential characteristics. A fascist is unconcerned with the connection between words and meanings. He does not serve the language; the language serves him. When a fascist calls a liberal a “fascist,” the term begins to work in a different way, as the servant of a particular person, rather than as a bearer of meaning. [...] A liberal has to tell a hundred stories, or a thousand. A communist has one story, which might not turn out to be true. A fascist just has to be a storyteller. Because words do not attach to meanings, the stories don’t need to be consistent. They don’t need to accord with external reality. A fascist storyteller just has to find a pulse and hold it. This can proceed through rehearsal, as with Hitler, or by way of trial and error, as with Trump. [...] A Leader (“Duce” and “Führer” mean just that) initiates politics by choosing an enemy. As the Nazi legal thinker Carl Schmitt maintained, the choice is arbitrary. It has little or no basis in reality. It takes its force from the decisive will of the Leader. The people who watched Trump’s television ads during sporting events had not been harmed by a transgender person, or by an immigrant, or by a woman of color. The magic lies in the daring it takes to declare a weaker group to be part of an overwhelming conspiracy.

The one thing that is not arbitrary about the choice of an enemy is that it must exploit vulnerabilities. The Trump ads projected a fantasy of Kamala Harris allowing millions of sex-changed foreigners to take jobs from Americans. This touches, all at once, on gender, economic, and sexual vulnerability. We are unprotected and impoverished and will be replaced by something alien. And this is all orchestrated by a shadowy enemy in the background—in this case, a woman of color who knows how to laugh.

[centipede-podcast]

vinylheads(?) is this remotely normal

[youngyoo-apologist]

When it comes to OG!Cale ships I like both OG!AlCale and OG!ChoiHan but it really depends on the scenario

For example, I like OG!AlCale in both regression aus and TBoaH adjacent timeline things because I think a huge thing I like in their dynamic is how mysterious they both are to the other party. The fun of their dynamic is them discovering more about each other and the various miscommunications they have cause of their own personalities, and I think that works very well no matter the universe.

But with OG!ChoiCale, I feel like I can really only enjoy it in TBoaH adjacent things or if they both have the memories of the first life.

To me, a big thing about OG!ChoiCale is about the life they lived together, how they hated eachother, how they both didn’t know eachother for years, how they could have spent time together during the war due to unfortunate circumstances(there not being enough people left)

Like, I think OG!ChoiCale can be such a cool dynamic, such a sad, but comforting one at the same time. It’s a little bitter how the man you thought you would hate forever became a close companion, how he’s more similar to you than your younger self woild have ever thought, but do you really hate it?

Can you really hate having a person who understands you, when so many people have died? When so many are gone?

Something about the sadness of it all, how it was tragedy that brought them against each other at first, but now it brings them together. How they could only ever grow to understand eachother because of the pain they face, the pain that they shared. At some point, can you really hate him, even until the end? After all those years? After coming to understand him? No, you cannot.

Like, it adds in extra layers when they both care about each other at some point mid-way through the war, but they still can’t really talk to eachother properly. They care, but they frustrate one another, anger each other. Choi Han doing increasingly more risky and self sacrificial things because ‘I’m a hero’ ‘I have to do it.’ ‘It is justice to save people’, despite the fact that it’s at the expense of himself

And Cale’s frustration at Choi Han’s attitude. He can never wrap his head around the fact that Choi Han destroys himself for the sake of other people, and believes it’s heroic(He knows Choi Han doesnt, he know Choi Han hates it too, but he doesn’t know what else to say to himself other than the fact that ‘it’s for the greater good’, because he will go crazy if he doesn’t)

He’s mad, but there’s some twisted sense of understanding in there too. Cale understands, because he became trash for his family, he became trash to protect them, he had to do it.

But that’s only what he thought.

He was older now, he had lost them all, and he had seen how his trash act hadn’t done anything to protect them. It only distanced him from them, and now they were gone, and he could never see them again, he could never make amends.

Cale is mad at Choi Han for sacrificing himself because while Choi Han is hurting himself, the people who he loves, and the people who love him, watch him do it over and over again and he doesn’t listen to their worried cries.

He’s mad, but he understands. It was frustrating to be on the other side, watching someone destroy themselves for the sake of others when the people who cared about them wanted the exact opposite. The only difference between him and Choi Han was that Choi Han was never a good liar, he could never hide how much pain he went through.

In a way, Cale thought it was better that way.

At some point, there is love that is there. Love that follows them, and it’s so painful because they both know the tragedy edy to it that is how they are doomed, how they can never be happy in the first time line where they knew each other.

Because as Cale and Choi Han, they can’t be happy. Not when so much has been lost, not when the world is falling apart, they may love each other, but loving each other as they are means being in a world where everything else they love is gone.

It is a cruel kind of love.

Like let’s say they do pursue these feelings, even though knowing those two I don’t think they’d ever say anything in that scenario. If they did it would probably be Cale going like:

“Choi Han, do you love me?”

Choi Han doesn’t say anything, but his silence in place of adamant refusal is enough of an answer.

“Do you love me, Cale?”

Cale doesn’t say anything either, only smiling at Choi Han with his signature, cynical and bitter smile.

He didn’t deny it either.

It was a confirmation of feelings, but unlike the confessions from romance novels and stories, the main character and lead do not end up together and live happily ever after.

They stay together, but the world around them is not happy, not at all. They are together, but not as partners or as lovers, but two people who live in their suffering because all they can do is live.

I feel like anything they do together would always have an air of melancholy to it. Maybe they kiss, once, and no more, because there is no point in making it a regular thing. Not when everything in their world will end, even if they keep on fighting for it to not be that way.

They kiss, and it’s short, but in that short moment, the world is nothing but Cale and Choi Han.

Isn’t that selfish? If it’s like this, then they could ignore how everything has gone so badly. But that is exactly why they cannot be together, there is no ignoring the reality of their situation, no matter how sweet it would be to live in a false dream and never wake up.

I like my OG!ChoiCale a little doomed.

[shesmyscar]

do you ever just cry while thinking about how tender creature is with lisa or are you normal?

[t-rex-bongo]

I have seen this also coupled with the idea that people reacting over bucktommy is erasing the other queer representation, and I think is more about that it speaks to a certain age queer (or not queer) viewers.

Hen and Karen started the show already with an stablished live, who knows how many years married and with a kid, their problem is not about them being lesbians: Hen cheat on Karen with another woman that has a deep connection with  (now I think this is great representation that queer couples don’t own the story to be perfect), they have conflict and then they solve it. And the rest of their arc is about expanding family and the obstacles that been a queer couple and a black couple can inject to that.

In the begins episodes of course we get more of Hen embracement of her sexuality and in the Karen episode at her Uni about how she had to shift her life plans because of DADT.

This is great representation and it is the main in 9-1-1, no more comments. But it is stablished (and if they even insinuated to break them u, they would bring absolute havoc).

You have Josh that is just absolutely underutilized as Maddies gay friend (and current Glee sponsor) but that also has this terrible story if fishing and being assaulted. They kind of gave him this pretty boy from the dispatch centre fire, but nothing else was ever known about it.

But the story of Buck and Tommy is also of value and the reason in particular that has resonated with so many is because it talks of having lived in the closet but isolating yourself (that is different than Michael building a family with Athena for 16 or so years, that I think can catch with generation X). For millennials having lied and being a person you are not proud of, then making the work and change for the better and still feel like you are not enough, this is something that resonates with a lot of us. Also the romance of it all: Buck is absolutely smitten, it is kind of problematic because it even feels that he hasn’t rationalized that he is bisexual as much as that he is infatuated with Tommy. And up until the end of 8x06 they seem to be happy and Buck sees a future for them.

So yeah, of course viewers have emotions towards this, I have read on IG copies of the discussions here, but also a lot of queer people first responders or family of them that are sharing how the story resonates with them.  Also having Buck, that we know almost everything about it, and Tommy, from which we have an stablished outline brought but we know almost anything about it, brings so much possibilities to unfold in a relationship.

Okay listen, I get that I have little experience in the 9-1-1 fandom, but what in the actual hell is the weird response to the bucktommy breakup? It was never this weird with other love interest breakups right? Of Buck’s love interests, Abby and Taylor were the only ones developed enough to warrant any sort of strong reaction. Tommy had no development.

Seriously. What did we know about him?:

He’s gay. He’s a pilot. He has a history of sexism and racism. He likes basketball and Muay Thai. And….? We saw nothing of his personal life, we saw little of his personality, and we didn’t see him and Buck actually power through any obstacles. Because that was the point, he was a plot device. It was painfully obvious he wasn’t going to be a lasting love interest…was it not? I don’t mean how little he was developed (because obviously that dev could’ve been done), but because of how HEAVILY Eddie haunted the narrative. Bucktommy’s first kiss genuinely shocked the hell out of me and my casual viewer sis-in-law because both of us felt it was obvious that Buck was trying to get Eddie’s attention. (seriously, that whole scene with Eddie on the phone in the firehouse and Buck peacocking to try and get Eddie’s attention…That was fucking obvious. I got a bruise from how hard that smacked me in the face.)

I realize I’m a buddie shipper so I am biased, but I’m a buddie shipper BECAUSE that is what the narrative has led me to. However, when Tommy was reintroduced, I made an actual effort to like him. I tried not to engage with the Buddie majority that hated him because I wanted to see if my mind could be changed, and ya know what? All it did was make me believe that there’s literally nobody else that they can end up with. Whether it was accidental on the writer’s part or purposeful, Buck and Eddie have been written into a romantic corner with only one way out, and that’s through each other. (Unless they somehow introduce two love interests that can beat a 7-season long slow burn friends-to-lovers with insanely good late bloomer queer representation. lol.)

I’m genuinely trying to understand though. How are people going this insane over Tommy? What exactly did he do that was so fantastic and amazing that he deserved undying loyalty? The kind of loyalty that sparks people to write weird fucking messages on Oliver’s instagram about him being biphobic(???????) and then making jokes about deporting him and Ryan. What the fuck.

I could maybe understand the outrage if it was a character who was well developed and beautifully written (like Chimney or Hen), and I could even see it if it was a beloved side character (like Ravi or May), but. seriously. Tommy?

Anyway, normally I would say “eh who am I to judge what people get attached to?” But in this case I am a little bit judgmental.

[yagi-toshi]

Agata’s expression and Sabu patting his shoulder are killing me

[mariocki]

Funny Games (1997)

"Why are you doing this to us?"

"Why not?"

[vaugarde]

me: oh i gotta finish my novella and work more on my pmd fic and world and also work on that wc rewrite loose outline and oh i wanna get back to my sonic one eventually

also me: omg what if i made an anthro pokemon world based on the main series but the main gym leaders and protags are all replaced by their pokemon (not to be confused with pmd, this is just the main series but the humans are gone)

[socialbunny]

you guys wont believe whos memories im doing

[rachthechaosbi]

i read too many fantasy books i just read the new ones and go wow

read this before

and i haven't

unfortunately i have unkillable love for side characters syndrome so as much as the whole premise may be kinda halfway to shit and the main character is once again the most special ever and the lead is the same fifty shades of morally grey and bland hot i will still read the books and the sequels just so they don't kill off my new children

and then they do

[britneyshakespeare]

I love AbeBooks bc you can absolutely tell who is trying to rip you off

[sunspira]

so did any of you freaks also sort of enjoy church as a child because you hyperfixated on some of the new testament bible stories, like as works of fiction. not fiction in a 2004 reddit way but fiction as in compelling storytelling media that may or may not might also be a true story. as if an intense fixation couldn't already be a borderline spiritual experience in itself, also thinking these figures were real and present and celestial yet human beacons of love and life and compassion and hope. i think maybe every monk was on the spectrum

[aeide-thea]

[ID: Screenshot of (1) a tweet by weird medieval guys that reads:

harvesting words, france, 15th century

above an image from an illuminated manuscript that shows a field strewn with Gothic-style letters the size of people's heads, which workers are raking into baskets and tucking into their aprons; and

(2) a quote tweet by Sasha Wilmoth that reads:

early illustration of field linguistics

/end ID]

[catgirltoofies]

link shortening

okay. let me tell you one of my pet peeves. it's when you send a link to something and the link takes up a full paragraph. amazon is especially egregious with this; as an example, i'm going to use the sweet essentials goat milk & honey perfume. here's the link i get if i just copy/paste it:

https://www.amazon.com/Goat-Honey-Fragrance-Perfume-Organic/dp/B07D5N4XRP/ref=sr_1_1?crid=368RN4BTXC5R9&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.0tHv-eu2F7iPFRQB2q9yXdLcYOv4rURViCCRfaecKCxZGmUW01KbdXZU3Q1GrGr9CUE97ZgO2tqSFilCtwDhBDwZrkPHvIwyX3KwtbHn1H2BjGo6Kv2RNKzHD4vUn6cdGQvpxat_DCpR1LJaDNrxuYElr7x_GZHixDS4r3SWdrQ67ov2O0MBOQ3F7vH9sclQyOCOsPB-xuzdAbugWTjAw7PODjXTSswWuLJG56uZkMUaJ5ob8xIEy6tpHvu21E8uYKJtnWdyGBoK5Wd5mo7S3urQt-rJX9twnr3RwS0Kk_s.kW9z0gieuOP4prMF2tSrHmrMuB8XObk-xguJ8Cub1YI&dib_tag=se&keywords=sweet+essentials+goat+milk+and+honey+perfume&qid=1726618258&sprefix=sweet+essentials+goat+milk+and+honey+perfume%2Caps%2C58&sr=8-1

do you see this shit? that link is longer than my introduction paragraph. and most of it is totally unnecessary and just gives amazon tracking data. so i'm going to quick breakdown the link:

https://www.amazon.com/ is the domain. this tells your browser to go to the internet, to amazon's address. can't do without.

Goat-Honey-Fragrance-Perfume-Organic/dp/B07D5N4XRP/ is the sort of directory. this is where the meat of the link is; it gives the browser the information of where in the amazon domain it should look for what you're looking for. sort of like when you ask a librarian where a book is and they say "it's in this area of the library, i can show you if you like"

every single thing after that is optional. most, if not all, of it is just tracking data that tells amazon who looked it up, how, where they found it, etc. etc. and you can totally safely remove it.

so, our final, shortened link is:

https://www.amazon.com/Goat-Honey-Fragrance-Perfume-Organic/dp/B07D5N4XRP/

and you can test it for yourself, both the really long link and this nice clipped link lead to the same page. this is generally applicable to most websites; if a link feels a little too long, experiment and start removing bits off the end. generally anything that shows up after "?[text]=" is probably safe to remove, as with "&[text]=". sometimes those have particular jobs, though; for example, youtube links with a particular timestamp will include "&t=[number]s" and while removing this will keep the link to the video, it will remove the timestamp. similarly, youtube sometimes uses "&v=[text]" to encode the id of a video, so without that you're left with just the youtube homepage. if a link has "?si=[text]", that's all safe to remove, because that's pure tracking data.

in short: clip your links. don't give them any more than you need to. experiment a little. have fun and be yourself. i love you