#unfair to the rest of us

[adamshallperish]

alice in chains are all my girlfriends

[uncanny-tranny]

I think it would really benefit people to internalize that mental illnesses are often chronic and not acute. Some of us will never be able to jump the hurdle of managing illness, much less sustaining a sense of normalcy. Many of us will never "recover," will never manage symptoms, will never even come close to appearing normal - and this is for any condition, even the ones labeled as "simple" disorders or "easy-to-manage" disorders.

It isn't a failure if you cannot manage your symptoms. It isn't a moral failure, and you aren't an awful person. You are human. There's only so much you can do before recognizing that you cannot lift the world. Give yourself the space to be ill because, functionally, you are.

[minhosblr]

Lee Know ☆ Intro: ATE

[stuckinapril]

Just a girl who wants to be her mother’s daughter in the ways that matter

[maliciousalice]

[rad-roche]

i have a pureref file of all the stuff i like and am inspired by, and you might have heard me throw around darwyn cooke's parker comics a couple of times, but that's because every panel is the single rawest fucking thing a human being has ever drawn

[0vergrowngraveyard]

sitting in my little corner of “as much as i love love love prime bros, i also love the idea of nine being a character to fought so hard to get something, anything, and in the end, he got nothing”

i love me a tragic character who fought so hard to get his happy ending but never did because life just wasn’t fair to him

the cards weren’t in his favor and he lost

[theeerealpunkin]

He's so majestic

Found the translation of his name on @/thedwarrowscholar

[ssardothien]

Just came here to say that obx ending like that is just pure bullshit and I'm going to pretend that JJ just left for his surf trip and is having the time of his life, thank you bye

[pedropascallme]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5SD3RBr2it/?igsh=NmViYTZiaGZmaGUy in case you still haven't seen :D

Thank you!! I hadn’t seen the full thing this is wonderful <3 posting this so everybody else who might’ve missed it can see!

(Also leaving my personal opinions in the tags just to clarify where I stand because I’m so tired of everybody being weird about Damien specifically throughout this whole thing)

[linddzz]

@alienfuckeronmain

Been getting my jugular slowly torn out by this read today. When the horror writing is so good it turns into instant writing-inspo 🤌🏻🤌🏻🤌🏻 If you're the sort of edgelord queer who loves you some viscerally described horror themed on hunger, consumption, and aching loneliness, then this is for you

[iirulancorrino]

Movies that attempt something different, that recognize that less can indeed be more, are thus easily taken to task. “It’s so subjective!” and “It omits a crucial P.O.V.!” are assumed to be substantive criticisms rather than essentially value-neutral statements. We are sometimes told, in matters of art and storytelling, that depiction is not endorsement; we are not reminded nearly as often that omission is not erasure. But because viewers of course cannot be trusted to know any history or muster any empathy on their own — and if anything unites those who criticize “Oppenheimer” on representational grounds, it’s their reflexive assumption of the audience’s stupidity — anything that isn’t explicitly shown onscreen is denigrated as a dodge or an oversight, rather than a carefully considered decision. A film like “Oppenheimer” offers a welcome challenge to these assumptions. Like nearly all Nolan’s movies, from “Memento” to “Dunkirk,” it’s a crafty exercise in radical subjectivity and narrative misdirection, in which the most significant subjects — lost memories, lost time, lost loves — often are invisible and all the more powerful for it. We can certainly imagine a version of “Oppenheimer” that tossed in a few startling but desultory minutes of Japanese destruction footage. Such a version might have flirted with kitsch, but it might well have satisfied the representational completists in the audience. It also would have reduced Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a piddling afterthought; Nolan treats them instead as a profound absence, an indictment by silence. That’s true even in one of the movie’s most powerful and contested sequences. Not long after news of Hiroshima’s destruction arrives, Oppenheimer gives a would-be-triumphant speech to a euphoric Los Alamos crowd, only for his words to turn to dust in his mouth. For a moment, Nolan abandons realism altogether — but not, crucially, Oppenheimer’s perspective — to embrace a hallucinatory horror-movie expressionism. A piercing scream erupts in the crowd; a woman’s face crumples and flutters, like a paper mask about to disintegrate. The crowd is there and then suddenly, with much sonic rumbling, image blurring and an obliterating flash of white light, it is not. For “Oppenheimer’s” detractors, this sequence constitutes its most grievous act of erasure: Even in the movie’s one evocation of nuclear disaster, the true victims have been obscured and whitewashed. The absence of Japanese faces and bodies in these visions is indeed striking. It’s also consistent with Nolan’s strict representational parameters, and it produces a tension, even a contradiction, that the movie wants us to recognize and wrestle with. Is Oppenheimer trying (and failing) to imagine the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians murdered by the weapon he devised? Or is he envisioning some hypothetical doomsday scenario still to come? I think the answer is a blur of both, and also something more: In this moment, one of the movie’s most abstract, Nolan advances a longer view of his protagonist’s history and his future. Oppenheimer’s blindness to Japanese victims and survivors foreshadows his own stubborn inability to confront the consequences of his actions in years to come. He will speak out against nuclear weaponry, but he will never apologize for the atomic bombings of Japan — not even when he visits Tokyo and Osaka in 1960 and is questioned by a reporter about his perspective now. “I do not think coming to Japan changed my sense of anguish about my part in this whole piece of history,” he will respond. “Nor has it fully made me regret my responsibility for the technical success of the enterprise.” Talk about compartmentalization. That episode, by the way, doesn’t find its way into “Oppenheimer,” which knows better than to offer itself up as the last word on anything. To the end, Nolan trusts us to seek out and think about history for ourselves. If we elect not to, that’s on us.

[astraystayyh]

Hi im here to tell you something…

HYUNJIN IS FUCKING PRETTY

Evidence::

LOOK AT HIM AND TELL ME HE IS NOT BEAUTIFUL 🫠🫠🫠

bestie i can't tell u this DO UK WHO U ARE TALKING TO AKSJDJJDDB

[neomuni]

Build Up 다시 사랑한다 말할까 stage — Yeo One

[13eyond13]

One of the main things I dislike about book 2 Lestat vs book 1 Lestat is it just takes away a lot of the interesting mystery about his character in the first book to have him definitively answer everything like: "oh actually I WAS hiding a bunch of secrets of the vampire universe and rules and hierarchy and history from you the entire time, and actually I WAS also filthy rich secretly the entire time due to a treasure left to me by my maker and didn't actually need you for your money at all, and also I wasn't a bit insecure about my lower class upbringing and poorer education and trying to compensate for that by being both showy and secretive about myself I was actually a noble, and also I CAN do a bunch of other vampire things that I never taught you to do or did in front of you even though we lived together in the same house as a family for like 70 years, and yes I DO hate following rules and doing what I'm told and keeping secrets but I did it because Marius said your fragile minds couldn't handle the truth if I DID tell you anything else, and also I DIDN'T want any revenge on Claudia or blame her for attempting to murder me or think I maybe should undo what I did by making her one bit, I was just being forced by the even EVILLER vampire to have her condemned to death, and also almost everything questionable or problematic or cruel that I did within the first book was either a lie told by Louis or secretly actually a kind and heroic thing I did because I cared about someone other than myself, IN FACT I SECRETLY THE ENTIRE TIME HAD A STRICT MORAL CODE I WAS FOLLOWING every time I casually killed an innocent npc in the first book, and whenever you watched on in horror at my cruelty and toying with my victims I was actually only killing scummy evildoers and Louis was just too dumb and romanticizing of humans to ever see it etc..." like FINE WHATEVER, I GUESS hahaha but I actually kind of liked you better when you were a bit meaner and a bit petty and a bit imperfect and a bit lame

[opens-up-4-nobody]

...