#tl;dr for all of this

[starsweepers]

i'm not going to say ruffnut is by any means smart. intelligence comes in all forms. but the default portrayals of her in fanon and by the third movie and much of the show are painful because they cross extremely clear boundaries into making her ( and tuffnut ) exceedingly dumb for the sake of comedy relief or to fix really badly written plots ( cough third movie cough ). ruffnut does and will choose some of the more stupid options. she'll be crass and an idiot... but the first movie, gift of the night fury, the second, and even bits of the show all reveal she was never full on incapable of thinking. much of her "stupidity" moments are usually just fights with her twin if we're honest. and her choice of fun. the things she enjoys may not be something inclined to those with common sense but never was this seemingly intended to be a sign of full on uselessness. in the first and second movie, she shows ability to outwit her brother on occasion, taunts ( or flirts with ) the enemy without becoming a hinderance, and in gift of the night fury she approaches meatlug's irrational behavior with more rationality than the resident nerds of the gang. in the show, she's borderline obnoxious for the sake of dumb kid jokes but even then they still make her witty, outsmarting enemies, and while she and tuff happen to cause problems at times, they also prove useful, supporting, and genuinely working hard to do right by the group in the end. it's not uncommon for her to be perceived at an idiot right off the bat, and much of her actions and desires might evade common sense or sensibilities in general, but her ultimate standard of intelligence is actually decent and apparent. her arguments with her brother are childish and inane, of course, but they're teenagers who know how to get under each other's skin. it's practically their love language because they thrive off of it together. it's delightful and funny and dumb, but it doesn't make them without rational capabilities like so many will often label them. and i will forever resent the third movie for butchering the characterization of pretty much everyone, but making ruffnut so unbearably stupid that she's grimmel's only way of finding everyone was just one of the many reasons i found grimmel to be a useless and boring villain with no strengths other than his appearance was cool i guess.

[olailamajnoon]

Bruce, who has a problem expressing emotions because he was teased for them in school as the "crazy Wayne kid"

Bruce, who used to clutch Alfred at night and wet himself due to his nightmares.

Bruce, who got flashbacks till his mid-twenties everytime he walked down an alley.

Bruce, who would hug a weeping Dick Grayson and stay with him until the night terrors were over, humming a soft lullaby that Bruce's mother sang for him

Bruce, who hardened his mouth and his life to keep the anger in check after Jason, because he knew if he didn't every criminal would pay.

Bruce, who sees Damian chopping up shrubbery and thinks "I was far worse as a child inside, it's a good thing he's letting it out"

Bruce, who can't walk by a homeless child in the street without calling his special Wayne Foundation liaison (who he keeps on speed dial) and asking her to find "one more spot"

Bruce, who sees Selina petting kittens and robbing the rich and thinks "if I could have had a life with her, that would have been nice"

Bruce, who looks at Cass' x-rays and sees her knit bones and swears to god he will break the bones of whoever's responsible for her upbringing

Bruce, who gives Tim projects that he himself can do faster because he sees attention-starved Tim trying to please him

Bruce, who looks at Clark smiling and thinks of what he can buy for his birthday to make him smile just like that.

Bruce to his parents in their graves after not being able to catch a criminal: I'm sorry. I've failed you. I'll try harder.

People who don't know Bruce: why is that man so unfeeling.

Bad DC writers: idk just that way i guess

[hinamie]

in spite of everything, I had fun <3

[arcticclimes]

Something something Fitzjames and Hodgson are two of the most dandy-ish characters in The Terror but they're also two of the most dangerous; they've both been to war, both do the greatest damage to Tuunbaq using the weaponry they were trained in by the navy (Hodgson with the cannon and Fitzjames with the congreves), and Hodgson is also the one to kill the Inuit family, directly connecting the violence of imperialism with the gentlemanly facade it likes to use.

[notkingyet2]

dave k: and jopson is the steward with the prettiest blue eyes and the saddest backstory and he's the only person aboard that crozier doesn't hate and he's secretly really good with a gun and the most loyal and he's so good and trustworthy and smart and brave that he gets to be a lieutenant even tho the navy would never ever approve of promoting a steward like that but crozier loves him so much and all the other officers like him because he is so handsome and clever and nice and THEN he gets very sick so sad but he is so noble and brave about it and his captain comes into his tent to comfort him specifically and personally BUT THEN crozier is kidnapped but jopson doesn't know that because he's too sick :c so when the other men abandon him to die he thinks it's HIS CAPTAIN abandoning him and he crawls out of his tent and gets the most tragic death scene in a show of nonstop tragic death scenes wherein he hallucinates his captain ignoring him even though his captain loves him the MOST because he's the BEST BOY and he DIES and he leaves behind the most perfect beautiful skeleton and an archaelogist finds the skeleton and instinctively knows how strong and brave and handsome and wonderful he was in life and also this archaeologist is me :)

[time-slink]

a bunch of art i’m like mostly sure i haven’t shown before, and some thoughts on it under the cut vvv

recently i’ve been drawing both less (in general) and less (for any audience), and it’s given me a little bit of perspective; i’ve been posting my art online since i was ~10! and i’ve very carefully maintained all throughout my boundary between ‘art i draw for me’ and ‘art i post’, because i knew intellectually that All my art being seen by tens of thousands of people on twitter when i was 13 or so would lead to. complications.

—but i’m not sure i ever really though about the why, and it’s kinda hitting me now that it lead to me thinking most of my art just had too much of me in it to show to anybody? all the internet artists i’ve ever looked up to curate what they post too, of course, and i think that lodged itself in my brain as ‘there is something fundamentally messier about you, your creative progress, everything’ somewhere along the way (because i saw some of what other people drew and All of what i drew, it only made sense).

anyways, in the service of transparency, here is some art i drew (sometime in the past few years i’ve had this blog) for myself, or got frustrated with, or deemed too messy to show to people— because there are other artists following me, and maybe it can give you perspective too. with the acknowledgment that this doesnt even scratch the surface, and that i’ve drawn uglier things that you can imagine, not on purpose, and gotten incredibly frustrated with it all, just like i’m sure you all do

(im also posting these because i’ve gotten invested in other things and it feels like a little bit of a waste to not share the things i liked about being here— i’m honestly not sure if i’ll post art on this blog again? i’ve really enjoyed just scribbling and showing it to my dearest friends, a lot more than i think i’ve ever enjoyed posting to a wider but unknown audience)

[lazylittledragon]

hi i'm unw el l

[sabo-torao]

Small disclaimer before you head in: this whole post will be referencing the TCB translation. I know VIZ handled the exchange I'm discussing differently, but I couldn't find anyone who talked about the original version and as a result I don't really know who is closer to the original meaning. In any case, the "analysis" should still stand. Whether Dragon was commenting Sabo's firmness or admiring his resolution, Sabo's still putting on a mask, and that's the point I'm trying to break down. Enjoy!

This very specific interaction between Dragon and Sabo in chapter 1083 has always stuck out to me.

"My, you really are unshakeable."

which is an appropriate response to what Sabo said, of course. What kind of sensitive person reacts that way to the death of an innocent, right?

Even so, I can't help but compare the thing Sabo said to his actual, genuine reaction to King Kobra's death.

He's devastated.

Sabo brokenly screams Kobra's name, and his expression is one of full despair; he never thought about killing Kobra, let alone letting him die. On the contrary, he actively tried to save him.

Kobra told him to just let him go, that he was dead weight and he shouldn't be concerned about him, but Sabo straight up refused. In fact, Kobra's actions read way more as a sacrifice than an inevitable death; the king let himself die, knowing that this way Sabo could flee and reach Vivi and Luffy safely.

On the Lulusian ship, we see Sabo think about Kobra's last words to him and actively trying not to cry (and failing).

That's not an unshakable man. He's suffering, he's grieving. He realizes he failed his very own mission of saving the king and lets the meaning behind Kobra's actions and words sink in.

It really puts his former reaction into perspective.

Sabo's firmness, seriousness and coldness in front of Dragon and Ivankov are nothing but a façade. He acknowledges that what he's about to say might come off as harsh, and that, even if he does feel sorry for Kobra, the tragedy doesn't weigh him down thanks to the results it brought, but it all sounds like he's reassuring himself more than actually showing his indifference.

Hell, he even drinks his glass of wine right after having said that "he doesn't really care". How can anyone take his words seriously?

And we've been knowing Sabo is inclined to do this sort of thing since Dressrosa; he acted all cool and composed in front of Luffy but the second Koala called him on the Den Den Mushi he was weeping, having a hard time believing that his little brother didn't punch him or hate him for being alive all along. He even denied he was crying!

All because Sabo hates being seen as vulnerable, especially in front of the people he thinks he has to be strong for (Luffy, Dragon, etc). It's something I think goes back to how his parents treated him, since they scolded him for, y'know, having emotions and being a normal kid in need of love, but i digress.

I once saw someone describing Sabo as a very cold person in comparison to his brothers, even going as far as to say that Sabo doesn't care if people die if it means achieving the Revolutionary Army's goals (using this very interaction as proof), which couldn't be further away from the truth.

Bonney even says outright that it's weird seeing a "radical revolutionary" act so friendly when Sabo helps her out. Why would he do this if all he ever did was for "The Cause"?

Yes, Sabo is ruthless, rude, violent at times, and his friendly demeanor could be seen as a little more volatile than that of his brothers', but he's not heartless. He's not a "meanings to an end" guy, he proves it time and time and time again, and it's disheartening seeing people label him as such.

Sabo is kind. He may not be as warm as Ace and Luffy, but he is fundamentally a good person. A generous, kind, caring, sensitive person.

No matter how hard he tries to hide it.

[equalperson]

BTW "destigmatizing mental illness" doesn't just mean being tolerant when someone says they have a psychiatric diagnosis or go to therapy, it also means investigating how your own view of "evil" may overlap with the signs of madness.

this is because the mainstream idea of what a "bad person" looks like is heavily influenced by sanism, thus most people's perception of what makes someone bad is literally just them being mentally disabled.

to support the crazy, you must accept that grandiosity, delusionality, attention-seeking, rage, homicidal ideation, and many similar experiences are not inherently dangerous. likewise, you must also understand that love and empathy are not the ultimate goods that everyone makes them out to be.

madness can easily be an abundance of the former and a lack of the latter, not just the quiet insecurity that most people reference when they talk about "mental health."

ultimately, the world will never be a truly safe place until it's a widely acknowledged fact that there's no such thing as villainous cognition or emotionality; prejudice is the source of all evil, not abnormality.

[markscherz]

A friend of mine sent me a yt video of a guy who was relocating frog eggs (prolly a vernal pool) and showed 1000s of baby frogs coming out of the water in his backyard. she asked me how I felt about it as a ecologist. I felt like it was irresponsible to do, especially to post videos on it, but probably not "ecological terrorism" like people in the comments were saying, because I see baby frogs in nature come out of water in hoards sometimes too. Kind of a mixed bag.

But I wanted to ask you, since you're a herpetologist and waaay more experienced than me: how do you feel about the yt channel "frog army YouTube"?

Many frogs and toads are classical R-strategists. Some toads can lay 20+ THOUSAND eggs in a single clutch. The whole point of that strategy is that not all of the offspring survive. In fact, it would be really rather bad if all of the offspring were to survive, because (1) they wouldn't be feeding the predators and decomposers that live off of their noble sacrifice, and (2) they will require massively more resources than they otherwise would. It can have all kinds of detrimental down-stream effects.

This is the reason we often see swarms of tadpoles darkening some small pools (especially ones where there are no fish!), and later hoards of froglets (that's the technical term) emerging from pools at once. It's an evolutionary strategy, that only few individuals survive to achieve reproductive age.

Point 1: it is *fine* if not all the tadpoles survive to adulthood. That's how the system is supposed to work. You are not doing the system favours if you are changing tadpole survivorship to 100%.

Now, humans really are fucking things up in a lot of environments. Environmental pollutants, like heavy metals, can cause major issues for wildlife, and especially frogs, which (1) are not as vagile as e.g. birds and medium- to large-sized mammals and thus cannot escape the problem zone effectively, and (2) are EXTRA sensitive to the environment because of their permeable skin.

Point 2: we do have some responsibility to do something if we notice that there is a major problem emerging, which could dramatically alter the population dynamics for one or more generations of frogs.

However, *moving* clutches of eggs that are found in polluted pools is not the right move, especially for your average person. There are many reasons that it is not the right move, but chief among them are

(1) A lot of frogs that lay eggs in vernal pools have tadpoles that cannot survive being in larger ponds, and certainly cannot survive in streams or other bodies of flowing water.

(2) A lot of frogs that lay their eggs in vernal pools are already adapted to less than ideal conditions, and have excellent strategies to overcome those conditions, such as incredibly quick metamorphosis (sometimes just a few days!)

(3) By moving clutches of eggs, you could easily be moving the pathogens or pollutants that are causing the problem in the first place.

(4) If there is Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis fungus around, you are spreading chytrid, and that is VERY bad. Chytridiomycosis has already driven several frog species to extinction, and caused massive population collapse in several others.

(5) If you do not know the species, attempts to rescue them might be aiding the advance of an invasive species.

(6) It's often illegal to intervene! Many species are protected by law, and you are not allowed to remove them from the wild. Consult your local laws.

Point 3: the responsibility to do something does not include removing the frogs and raising a frog army.

So what should we do if we find a clutch of eggs in an oily pool? Or in a nearly dried out puddle?

First assess the nature of the problem. Is the pool just about to dry out? Then leave it alone. The tadpoles will probably be fine (and if they're not, they'll provide rich nutrients to predators and decomposers). But are there signs of pollution? Then assess: is the pollution covering a larger area? Or is it localised? If you find dead frogs or other amphibians is a major warning sign, and it needs to be brought to the relevant authorities. Contact your local environmental agency/department, and notify them of the precise location of the problem, and its extent. Document everything with photos and videos.

Point 4: there are organisations and agencies specifically tasked with intervening in cases of environmental damage. It is *your* job to bring it to their attention, but unless instructed by them, you need not take any further action. It is their job to know what to do, and to take appropriate action.

TL;DR: 'Raising a frog army' is for the likes, not the frogs, and is not environmentally responsible or ethically defensible. Build a home for the frogs, and they will come.

[caligvlasaqvarivm]

I used to despise Eridan and think he was the absolute worst character (barring Cronus ig) but you have shown me the light and completely turned my opinion around and now I think he is such an endearing little freak <3 I read your whole blog already but if you've got any more thoughts on eri or anyone else then I hope you post them bc I'd love to hear more abt it!

i have sooo many controversial opinions about the dancestors you have noooooo idea

[fourswords]

fsa is placed at the end of the four swords subseries timeline and as such ganon canonically never breaks out of the seal of the four sword despite him being able to break out of seals in multiple other games. i like to think that the reason for this is because the four sword just straight up ate him over a long period of time. like from inside the seal

[bookwyrm35]

I noticed something...potentially devistating on my most recent rewatching of Lockwood and Co. and I thought I'd share in the sorrow.

I know we all love Lucy's subtle but iconic black nail polish, but did you notice when she first starts wearing it? We see it most clearly in this shot on the bus, when she's on her way to London, running away after all her friends are taken by that Mill and its ghosts.

Now, we know Lucy is a fan of blue, but after that terrible day don't you think she would have worn black (the traditional color of mourning) for at least a little bit after her friends passed? I mean, I have no delusions that she was allowed at any of their funerals (everyone thinking she left them for dead and all that), but even in her own home she wears, basically, what she always has. (though, to be fair, by this point we've only ever seen her in her uniform and two other outfits so...)

When taken to court against Jacobs, she is seen in a rather dark outfit but do you see that jacket? Notice how it's a bit big on her and how similar in make it looks to the one her mother is wearing?

Conclusion: Lucy Carlyle does not have enough black clothes to mourn for the period she wishes to, so instead paints her nails to be a constant reminder of the friends she's lost. Even though she's removing herself from the people who blame her for their deaths, she's not letting go of the guilt that comes with being the only survivor.

But, while I do think this is why she started painting her nails black, I think the practice will soon be tied to happier memories. Her hand on her rapier, sheithing it after a successful case maybe. Her fingers drumming across the Thinking Cloth perhaps, or snatching up another biscuit... or maybe even her hand in Lockwood's as they walk down the street, his new coat fluttering in the light breeze and the saphire necklace settled secure just above her heart.

[lazylittledragon]

How did you get your tattoo apprenticeship if you don't mind sharing? I've been trying to get one for ages and I want to know if you did anything in particular with your portfolio or anything :)

i'm going to be 100% honest that i just got really lucky, i was still on the mailing list for a studio i'd been tattooed at before and i got an email that they were taking on apprentices so i went for it

i didn't have a LOT of tattoo designs at the time but i sent in what i did have and also some of my graphics/illustration stuff, then i had to make a flash sheet and also do an interview, and at the end of the interview they offered to take me on :3

(important: it wasn't my first application, i reached out to every studio that i could commute to and had just had a failed interview and i'd been slowly building my portfolio on and off for about 3 years so it took a LONG time)

[rin-hanarin]

「Forgiveness for a sinner」

[queensectonia]

i think one of the bigger tells we have in the kirby fandom for whether someone is genuinely trying to share information or is just trying to start slapfights about headcanon is the phrase “kirby is canonically nonbinary in japan”. i’ve almost never seen that phrase used as anything other than code for “your headcanon is wrong” - when it is said earnestly, it’s almost always because the person saying it was just repeating it from elsewhere.

*for those just tuning in: kirby isn’t canonically anything in japan. his gender is strictly unknown and this is a very intentional choice on HAL’s part. japanese is what is known as a “pro-drop language”, which means that pronouns of all classes can be omitted from standard linguistical use. this is particularly true of second- and third-person pronouns; saying “he” or “she” often sounds unnatural in speech. you could give a whole description of someone in japanese without ever inferring their gender, and this is exactly what HAL does with kirby. it’s a completely normal and mundane function of the language - kirby isn’t even the only character who is referred to this way! several major and minor characters never have their gender referred to in any way, including meta knight for example.

the only slightly gendered thing about kirby is his first-person pronoun: he uses “boku” in japanese on the rare occasions that he speaks. boku is a typically masculine pronoun, but it gives off an informal, young boy kind of feel, and is commonly used by all genders in media.

kirby, like a lot of nintendo’s early protagonists, is meant to be something of a blank slate for the player to project what they want on. in external media like comic books, twitter posts, etc., kirby is often shown participating in both girls-only and boys-only events. makiko ohmoto has said that she sees people imagining kirby as a boy or as a girl and that she’s fond of any interpretation.

(for a bit of an added fun fact, this is a large part of why female kirby interpretations are so popular in the japanese fandom - gijinka or otherwise!)