#passive defense

[carbone14]

Exercice d'alerte gaz dans un hôpital londonien – 1940

©Imperial War Museums - D 654

[thebad-lydrawn-sanses]

Uhm. Uh. I loev the way you drew Dream and Nm. idk. HEHEHAJb

Dream: No bitches?

Ink: i have done nothing but teleport bread for 3 days Dream: YOU'VE WHAT-

Dream: INK FOR THE LAST TIME I DON'T LIKE STATUES

Dream, injured: (in the sweetest, most innocent cute voice ever) Ink if you purposefully cause negative emotions while I'm fighting my brother again I'm going to rip your spine out <3

Blue: I'M TERRIBLY SORRY IF THIS IS TOO PERSONAL TO ASK, BUT… WHY DO YOU DISLIKE INK SO MUCH? Flashback Ink: well, actually… what happened to your universe was preventable. i kinda… let it happen? most multiverses need a Dream and Nightmare soitwaskindanecessarysorry Dream: . . .

BONUS

[rawliverandgoronspice]

I don't get why people hate the timeline so much, its not like you can't pretty much completely ignore it when you play the games. The only time it even approaches mattering to the story is when there is an explicit sequel like botw and totk or zelda and zelda 2

Hey sorry your ask got lost in the sauce of my broken tumblr, but: yeah!

I mean, I get why in some sense. It's been a heated point of debate and I think some people understandably resent the space it has taken not only in fandom discourse, but in how people began to understand the game and its narrative aesthetic choices. There is such a thing as over-rationalizing everything to hard logic, and sometimes it's just not the fandom for that --especially when you begin to forget it's all just fan theory and start to forget what the games are supposed to be like and evoke beyond just strict facts displayed in a linear way.

What I think bugs me with TotK in particular is that it both evokes and relies on continuity and the idea of a timeline, of archeology, of history itself, while being so loose and vacant with it that it both is doing Timeline Shit while also completely failing to understand why some parts of the fandom were invested in Timeline Shit to begin with.

But that's just my two cents of course!

[p-clodius-pulcher]

Need to be insane about aeneas again I feel myself getting depressed

[kanerallels]

Oh also I don't know if y'all have seen Homestead but it's good. You should watch it

[wonder-worker]

"The division between the two families [the Woodvilles and the Nevilles] and their allies can be seen in the royal charters that they witnessed. Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville of York, while serving as chancellor and afterwards, were fairly constant witnesses to royal charters and consequently often appeared together. This was not, however, the case for other family members and friends. From 1466 to 1469, if Scales or Woodville associates like Sir John Fogge, John Lord Audley or Humphrey Lord Stafford of Southwick witnessed royal charters, then members of the Neville group, such as John Neville, earl of Northumberland, or John Lord Wenlock would not, and vice versa. Discounting the ubiquitous Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville, of the twenty-four charters issued between February 1466 and June 1469, twelve were witnessed by men associated with the Woodvilles, eight by men associated with the Nevilles and two were witnessed by no member of either group beyond the two earls at their heads and the archbishop; only two charters, both from 1466, featured associates of both families.

Such striking segregation of witnesses suggests that something more than simple convenience or availability was at play. [...] The evidence of these witness lists does show the extent of the split between the two groups from early in Edward's [first] reign and of the need for political society to work with that cleavage in the heart of the Yorkist regime."

— Theron Westervelt, "Royal charter witness lists and the politics of the reign of Edward IV"

*This is specifically applicable for Edward IV's first reign; in contrast, the charters in his second reign displayed a great deal of aristocratic and domestic unity and cohesion.

[news4dzhozhar]

[poet-to-none]

Whoever's the Vampire Chronicles Pope these days can you help a guy out and tell everyone my ship's a canon ship? They share:

1) a love confession

2) a cuddle

3) a grief of absence

4) a reunion

5) a kiss

6) a maker-fledgling bond, arguably THE most enduring intimacy of the vampire's strange little emo lifecycle

Furthermore, is it REALLY in terrible taste to ship an intellectually invigorating 15thc Gay Dilf and a gregarious gorgeous 18thc Bi Babyboy who only did not jump each other willingly because one's a mortal trying out dating his childhood crush and the other's an immortal barely keeping himself going anymore from his secret crushing personal traumas???

Anyway, someone get over here and affirm that the vampire church supports my doctrine I am ready.

[lastseance]

i really am gonna need all trans people to learn about gendered socialization as a sociology concept, then make actual effort into unlearning those social roles we were taught SINCE BIRTH because lots of us dont actually do that. we just transition to try and match those gender roles that especially subjugate women. its why we have such issues with transphobia and misogyny in our communities. unlearning gender socialization, realizing there's more ways to be a man or a woman and your gender doesnt mean you naturally prefer to be dominant or submissive or whatever, is what ever trans person should do when we come out. i get that it can cause dysphoria but the socialization we're put through actively harms afab people so we have to work on it instead of ignoring it.

[kaurwreck]

as a Japanese fan of bsd you’ve hit the nail on the head to why i hate this fandoms tendency to go with the “oh it’s so disrespectful to the authors” bc yea it’s my hatred of Japanese nationalism and its agenda to portray their cultural exports as untouchable…it also feels infantilizing in the sense where they can’t picture asagiri doing transformative critique of his country’s “classics” and they are adopting that very same idolatry of Japan

It's also such a flaccid, insincere interpretation of respect that is itself inherently dehumanizing. There is nothing untouchable, and substituting discernment for fawning is much worse than being superficially disrespectful, especially when the subject of your disrespect cannot possibly perceive it, and the only beneficiaries of your deference are states, institutions, and ideological concepts.

I've noticed people tend to strip agency and conscious commentary from Asagiri too. It is exceptionally infantilizing.

[inkykeiji]

*me, grabbing you by the lapels and shaking you gently* touya’s ice is not a quirk awakening!!! it is, more or less, a hysterical strength thing!!! aaaaAAAAAAAAAH

[gayofthefae]

Just realized how evasive Mike was in his apology to Will in season 4 in one specific way.

He apologizes for ignoring Will since the fight but does not explain why he didn't keep in touch; we know that. But he also does this:

He addresses Will's core concerns. Will asks him "why didn't you keep in touch? Why do you ignore me when El is around?" He uses the classic strategy of replacing it with the easier questions "did you want to keep in touch? Do you still care about me as your best friend?"

He tells Will he does. And because this validates the core of Will's concerns, it seems interchangeable. But it isn't. He arguably used the same tactic with El, it just didn't work on her. "Why can't you tell me you love me" "I do care about you". He attempted it, but because it was a direct response and not two days later it was easier to see the inconsistency between the question and his answer.

But with Will, Will asked why Mike treats El differently and Mike answered "it isn't because I love her more than you". Had it been back to back like El's was, I think it would have been more visible that, however nice, that isn't what Will asked.

Mike is essentially pulling the "I can't tell you why, but trust me: it's true," and so many people including Will fell for it without even batting an eye, at the very least on the first watch - I know I sure did.

But all Mike is doing is raising more questions. Before we had "why do you treat Will and El differently?" Not too "queer" a question, is odd behavior but doesn't raise NEARLY as many eyebrows as "I can't tell you".

Mike doesn't want Will to feel bad or blame himself so he apologizes. He prioritizes Will over his pride and takes full responsibility. But to do that and still do it so surgically, feigning resolution to avoid further questioning, is to admit to the audience "the answer to this question is one that I will take to the grave". And whatever the question was could never be nearly as suspicious as that.

[suguru-getos]

Me and my roommate had the biggest fight ever bc she’s one of those people who sneakily comment & taunt on you when they have a problem with something and after 2 weeks of it I finally exploded and now suddenly I’m the problem because how could you Ena

[moriparty413]

so it turns out. even if you're playing in peaceful mode. the deep dark is still very scary.

[burgerspeople]

I talk to my students way too much about listening to their teachers for someone who put their principal on do not disturb today. 🤣

[crime-scene-psychic]

Rewatching clips from season one of Cobra Kai and oh my god Daniel was a cunt how the fuck was I still rooting for him he was the WORST!