#paterns in nature

[kristo-flowers]

Launaea arborescens

[homoangel]

[identityquest]

here with me

[usyrps]

aegon can understand high valyrian very well, but he struggles speaking it. studying languages is difficult for him, it took him long to pick up the basics of it even in writing because he doesn't have the patience required for it. he also never felt much innate bond with his targaryen/valyrian ancestry, never felt the need to connect with his father in that way, and so it seemed irrelevant to him.

[sanasanakun]

Maybe I’m stupid (likely) but I feel like Gojo resembling Toji in his battle with Megumi!Sukuna is trying to show that he is a paternal figure in Megumi’s life. Like the two different sides of Megumi’s male paternal figures (or I guess the two most consistent male adult figures in Megumi’s life)??? I don’t buy that Gojo was a father figure for Tsumiki and Megumi (to me he was more like Spencer from ICarly lmao) but like…i feel like the outfit similarity is trying to say something about their relationship on a familial or paternal scale…but im too dumb to fully phrase this how i want so maybe just ponder on this for me hahaha

[gothsuguru]

love delving into suguru’s overthinking brain <3

[mosscreeper-ao3]

You ever see a fandom opinion that has you like

and you have to force yourself to be normal about it because it’s ultimately harmless but also jfc how did you miss the point that hard.

[cealtrachs]

One of my favorite things about Vagabond is how beloved Kojiro is within the narrative. A deaf-mute swordsman with a kill count nearing the triple digits. Referred to as a "monster." A "beast" and "crazy tiger." A "person purely devoted to the sword."

"Even if you love him, you've got to fear him." And yet, he is wholly loved by so many.

Animals love him. Birds land on his body, and cats curl up in his lap. An untamable horse on the verge of being put down accepts Kojiro as its sole rider.

Children love him. They follow him like mayflies and giggle when he notices them. They give him group hugs. They beg him to train them.

Women love him. Sex workers refuse to charge him and even thank him for being a good lover. They comment on his warmth. The women in Kokura adore him (as do all village residents, within a day of meeting Kojiro).

Even his enemies love him. They refer to him as "cherished by all swords." They remark on his sparkling eyes as they are disemboweled and beheaded. They note that Kojiro fights without hatred or rage - only a look of mild curiosity, or open joy. They watch him develop new techniques on the battlefield, and celebrate!

They seek and - it's fairly ambiguous whether this is supernatural, or a projection placed onto Kojiro by outsiders - fully understand what Kojiro is conveying through his swordsmanship! And Kojiro is excited by this. Being seen. Understood.

Swordsmanship not as a method of domination or centralizing political power but an expression of love. A dedication to craft and singular method of communication!

Kojiro's opponents almost never survive, of course. But when they do, they imagine him telling them to become stronger. They see him in their dreams. They speak of him as they would an old friend, years later. Even Musashi - Kojiro's natural antagonist, in history and in fiction - thinks back on his "way" while watching Kojiro spar.

"So their primal instincts tell them that they are not enemies."

[blue-eyed-giant]

we've talked enough about ellie's "fuck you tuck me in". time for joel's "fuck you let me tuck you in"

[aboriforma]

Unending envisioning enveloped in shatterproof folds

[Published Aug 28, 2018]

‘What are the objectives,’ the warframe growls, and Warren bounces back to the mission director’s signal – still silent.

‘I don’t know…’ Warren sighs, ‘they seem to have gone dark now.’

The loki keeps its distance from the market settled just meters from the resting transport carrier, even as the Martian dust whorls around the comforting invisibility. And Warren allows them, merely presiding over the mission as they wait for the mission director to return. Small paws pad through the dust as the warframe eyes the transport ship, waiting beneath its massive shadow as the cloak persists – impatient.

Warren’s thoughts choke, this is his chance. ‘Do you have a name?’

‘Does it really matter?’ the loki snaps back, turning over a shoulder as they feel the teenager’s presence float over his nerves.

Warren sulks, turning away from the merging senses, he berates himself as he waits for the passive voice of the director to guide him. Following orders is so much easier than forcing himself to be pro-active… mind holding his sensory cheek in resentment. He observes as the loki snaps his cloak back on as they wait, a shiver shaking down their spine.

Silence…

‘Sorry,’ the warframe returns, heaving a sigh through their dark blotched vents, glancing over the abandoned Martian architecture surrounding them. Barren and laid waste with blast marks, the adobe structures sit smoldering and splattered with blood and gory remnants of the small colony. The loki’s dull cerulean eye slits browse over the landscape, hoisting the catalyst between their arms.

▬▬▬▬

Jade Shadows epilogue - Teshin's Refuge (excerpt)

There is a child in my head. Not you, my love. Some battle-shattered thing, a ghost, a dream. She calls me by a name I do not choose.

Who are you? I ask.

"Your operator," the child says, "C'mon."

What did they DO to you?

"Let's go! We're being called up! Time to fight!"

My hand raises of its own volition. It is trembling. I hear the unvoiced tears in her thoughts.

"I can do this. I'm a Tenno. I can do this."

I repeat softly, firmly: What did they do to you?

I feel the child curl up, fetal. She whimpers.

"I... I want my mom."

[gedwimora]

it’s probably a sign that one of the things i do while half asleep in bed is tinker with phrasings for how i want to explain the massive canon divergencies i have planned for rhaen.yra and dae.mon…

[richs-pics]

Colours of autumn

[aronarchy]

Changing perspectives on children’s vulnerability

Are children “naturally” vulnerable, or is their vulnerability socially constructed — And most importantly, does it matter?

One of the main objections to the liberation of young people is that freedom is dangerous because children are “vulnerable.” But what are they vulnerable to?

Abuse.

And who is perpetrating this abuse?

The data tells us that it’s parents and guardians.

It appears, then, that parental power and authority don’t protect children; they imperil them. This should be hardly surprising, since total control of another human being is so easy to exploit.

It’s undeniable that children’s position in society is at least partly responsible for children’s vulnerability, which is often claimed is simply natural. But some might argue it couldn’t be otherwise — that the abolition of that authority would make things worse, that child abuse from parents and guardians is the inevitable result of children’s natural dependence (the childish dependency/adult independence binary has begun to be challenged by the concept of interdependence [Cockburn, 1998]), and most importantly that it is rare rather than normalized (when statistics and well, the fact that children are the only people that is legal to hit in the US tell us otherwise). Therefore, the only way to “keep children safe” is to restrict their freedom.

Let us set aside the radical thesis presented by Tal Piterbraut-Merx in a 2020 article that children aren’t vulnerable, but oppressed. Even if it was true that all children were inherently more vulnerable than all adults, does this justify stripping them of their rights?

In these discussions, the adult abuser is made to disappear; they’re all centered on the child. As if child abuse wasn’t an adult problem. As if it is children that have to be punished by loss of freedom because adults mistreat them. The assumption is that to abuse the vulnerable is human nature, and segregation of the vulnerable is the only way to keep them safe. Our adultcentric society is portrayed as the standard and the only way things could and should be.

Jens Qvortrup wrote in 2005 about children and the public space:

Although the reduction in traffic fatalities is of course welcome, is it permissible to suggest that the price for the positive result is by and large paid by children in terms of a decrease in their freedom of independent mobility? The price was certainly not paid by adults in terms of adapting to children’s needs, or in acceding to their legitimate demands to be able to use the city as if it was theirs as well.

He also pointed out how concern over “children’s safety” is used as a mask for misopedia:

The introduction of curfew bills in both the USA and the UK may be interpreted in the same way. Under the pretext of a wish to protect young children from danger, they are not permitted to be outside during specified periods, typically during the hours of darkness. It is however well known that these measures towards children are most welcomed by many adults who see themselves as disturbed by children.

- Studies in Modern Childhood

I would think that if a group of people is unable to exist alongside another group of people that is, as it is argued, naturally more vulnerable physically and mentally, without causing them harm, it is their freedom that should be restricted.

Of course, we cannot reduce this argument simply to adult oppression of children; both Qvortrup’s example and the inability of most parents to relate to children as equals are consequences of capitalism that we can hardly hope to abolish in a capitalist society.

But the fact that not only do adults put no effort to accommodate children’s needs (natural or socially constructed they be) in our current society, they also aggressively deny the oppression of children, remains.

While victim-blaming has become increasingly problematic in relation to adult victims of violence, it’s the norm when it comes to child victims. No one contextualizes child abuse as one of the many expressions of adult supremacy; if anything, it is used to argue why children should be subordinated to adults. Hence why there is this false dilemma between liberation and protection, used to discredit liberationist arguments (or, less often, protectionist ones). Children need both types of rights expanded; perhaps for children of different ages, one or the other should be emphasized more (protection rights for younger children, and liberty rights for older children and teenagers). But just like adult citizens, they need both. You can’t be safe if you’re not free. And of course the reverse is also true; before profound social changes in the ways adults relate to children, equal rights would just give adults new avenues to exploit children.

But there is an important problem with the “rights” approach in general.

As Marx knew, individual rights under a capitalist society lead to inequality. In an adultcentric society, “rights” for children are an empty concept. Not only are they always determined by adults, they are the rights adults think children should be “given” by them. But as pointed out in this blog post, what is needed is not liberty rights, but liberation:

Merely demanding “equal rights” for youth is incomplete. Even if equal rights were achieved, that framing allows those with power to dictate the terms of oppression while justifying the status quo because everyone is now “equal.” That won’t do. It won’t lead to liberation. If youth have “equal rights” but are still stuck within broader oppressive structures, then we have failed.

Our society is structured to privilege the needs of adults over those of children; whether this produces their vulnerability or simply exploits it is not as important as one might think. What is important is that it paints segregating one-third of the population as just because adults cannot be expected not to abuse their (cultural or natural) power.

[alrightbuckaroo]

.

[baura-bear]

These two sweaty twinks better start making out sloppy style

[ge]

geomjon should have stayed alive not for mt hua but so that i could see him age until he had wrinkles under his eyes and smile lines on his cheeks. until his gray hairs were more prominent than his black... gilf NOW!!!😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

IM ALWAYS SAYING THISSS i think biga actually mightve spared us when he decided not to do this cuz imagining geomjon in place of geomhyeop acting exactly the same and going on all the same adventures w the disciples.. i think seeing that adapted into the manhwa would have genuinely killed me..