#which is a bad source

[yourbabies-thenmine]

Cringe song I hate

Heaven by Kane Brown

“Everybody’s talking about heaven like they just can’t wait to go”

Yep Christianity is a death cult

[leafuxxtea]

are there still any p:eg fans out there 🥺

(⚠️ spoilers for p:eg chapter 1 btw!!!)

I swear this was funnier in my head

[mlobsters]

jared padalecki and jensen ackles minneapolis con 2025 - main panel

supernatural in 150 words or less

+bonus

[aroaceleovaldez]

not to complain about the show again but genuinely I think people should be WAY more pissed off that s2 cast an abled actor as a character with Down syndrome - particularly a character whose entire arc and narrative presence is focused on the fact that he has Down syndrome and how Percy has internalized ableism and how Percy unravels that (and also chewing out Annabeth for her ableism).

Like. Tyson has down syndrome. This is a very core part of his character, because like I've said before: the entirety of the first series is centered around and hinges on disabled stories and themes. If you are having an abled actor cast as Tyson you have already failed step one. Cause either you are actively erasing Tyson having Down syndrome or you are having an abled actor try to portray Down syndrome and neither of those things are okay.

[youvebeengalindafied]

And know I’ll be here holding you…

(This version of the art by me, but full credit to my friend’s posebook creator for like 50% of the placement of these lines. I wish I knew who you were so I could credit you 🥺)

[elodieunderglass]

Your jockeyposting has enthralled me (certified non-horse girl) and made me curious—how much familiarity do jockeys have with the horses they’re riding? Is it normal for a given horse to have a Long Term Jockey or are the jockeys like. Called up a week before and asked to race a horse they’ve never met? (& interested to hear any Killy lore related to this)

Thank you so much! (In reference to Killie the jockey OC and random posting about horse racing more generally.)

In general, racehorses never have a long-term or even a repeat jockey, and vice-versa! Jockeys usually aren’t familiar with the horses at all.

There are three main situations where they might be, though; if they’re retained, if they’re nepo babies generational and have a trainer in the family, or if they’re amateurs having fun. So with apologies for making a really long post, I’ve structured this as a writing reference.

Retained Jockeys

Killie’s a retained jockey for a stable (very unusual - not many jockeys are good enough, and not many stables have the resource to employ one) and he and Thunder share an especially eccentric owner who likes to watch them paired up.

And hey, if we were unbelievably ultra-rich people with no moral compass, “putting Killie and Thunder in a jar and shaking them together, briskly, to see what happens” would be a fairly legitimate hobby.

I’m not an expert or personally involved in the industry, so if you were thinking of doing some writing in the setting yourself, a starting point for a retained jockey’s life is this “day in the life” video, of champion flat jockey William Buick, TW for discussion of weight.

Generational

Jockeys may handle horses as family businesses. In real life, “racing dynasties” are influential. A very lucky jockey, retiring in middle age with piles of winnings, often wishes to become a trainer; especially prosperous ones buy a stable operation, move in their family, use their reputation and connections to get owners to send them horses, and start chucking their own children on the horses as a source of labour. The children grow up, stick around home, and naturally keep getting chucked on horses for their day job. Next thing you know, you have a lot of grandkids and horses around the place, so you might as well keep going with it. Everyone pretty much lives at Grandad’s stable together, and then you get cousins scuffling on the day job like this:

That’s how Killie grew up, as the result of several generations of jockeys becoming trainers producing jockeys. but moving to a retained post was both a) the only logical move if it’s offered, and b) an escape from his parents, who are astonishingly awful. and if you are that kind of nepo baby, like Killie, it makes so much sense to flee the country (move to the uk and constantly pretend you’ve just dropped your phone in a horse’s water bucket, glubglubglub, BYE MA.)

Press “keep reading” for the amateurs and then what everyone else is doing.

Generational steeplechase jockey Jonjo O’Neill Jr does a day in his life here. he knows the horses and is doing admin, management and stable work … at his family’s massive operation.

Amateurs

Finally, in the UK, you can ride as an amateur jockey - usually in types of lowkey local steeplechases, like “point to point” - and basically anyone can do this. horse racing is fun, but you need a license to do it with other people, and the license remains incompatible with owning a registered racehorse. So technically your best friend could share a horse with you, in all but paperwork, and they could be the trainer and you could be the amateur jockey, and you could wrangle your way into actual races with a horse that you knew. It wouldn’t work very well as a day job (the horse would only race like 2x a month, netting you like £300 a month out of your friend’s pocket, plus the absurd costs of transporting/entering everyone) but if you were writing a crazy story in which some good friends and their pet racehorse decide to make it rich, that’s how you could do it.

Everyone else

Everyone else (including generational jockeys whose grandfathers didn’t have the foresight to establish a proper dynasty) just scrabbles around.

Most races aren’t high-stakes! There are a lot of basic boring races every day. (though, if you ask jockeys, there is apparently never quite enough work.)

horses might live at the stable of their owner but more commonly their trainer (some owners are both).

Jockeys cannot own racehorses themselves.

In the UK racecourses are randomly scattered around the country, usually hours away from each other. They all usually have several races every day.

Jockeys in the UK are paid £157.90 for Flat jockeys and £214.63 for jumps riders per race. They get this flat rate for everyone, whether they’re experienced or not! Their expenses are fairly high, and as freelancers they have to cover them all. The real attraction pay-wise is that they get a “cut of the purse” (percentage of prize money) if they win first, second or third place in a race. It’s a small percentage that they have to share with their agent, but there are sometimes some super-big stakes, where you can earn your year’s wages all at once.

Of course, you need to be piloting a pretty good horse in a high-stakes race to have a shot at that.

jockeys are a rare professional athlete that work every day, and they want (but are never guaranteed to get) a few rides every day. This usually means travelling across the UK constantly every day.

Racehorses usually only race once a week or less. They definitely don’t “work” as often! Their schedules rarely match up to jockeys. Driving them around the place is also a huge pain.

Jockeys live all over, and most of them are known to spend several times more hours driving between jobs than they ever spend sitting on horses. They get up very early each day, often “riding out” (doing early morning horse exercise) for trainers before hitting the road, often driving for several hours between races. This has been flagged in many sports medicine papers as one of their many wellbeing risks.

At any rate, with hundreds of jockeys travelling randomly around the country, getting injured and suspended and with stats fluctuating constantly, trainers work through agents to book jockeys - often not getting the one they want.

There are also considerations like trainer suddenly deciding they want to get a different (better) rider instead, leading to the one they booked getting “jocked off”.

All of everyone’s stats, from horses to jockeys, are publicly available, and everyone can study them obsessively. Trainers will request jockeys who have attractive stats - that’s not just “winning” stats, but weight/strategy/experience that might match the horse (+ terrain + conditions, etc). In their turn, jockeys with better options may turn down an offer of a horse with terrible form (I.e. a big loser, or a dangerous animal, or one that looks incredibly dodgy in race videos.)

Often trainers try to get the same jockey for their horse, but in all this chaos it’s not always possible, and everyone has to constantly pursue their own best interests.

Particularly winning jockeys and particularly influential trainers may gradually come together in working relationships, and as a horse gradually emerges as a favourite and the stakes rise, you’ll start to see it working more often with the same people. For example, in the Grand National, the jockeys will probably know the horses.

In conclusion, it’s common for the first time the jockey touches the horse to be when they’re thrown on top of it, prior to the race.

They get around this by studying form (race statistics), watching videos of the horse, and of course speaking to the trainer about their desires/instructions/strategy.

OKAY that is the MOST information that I could possibly have given!! I don’t know why I know all this!!! Thanks!!

[jasonsthunderthighs]

Dick: Where's Tim?

Damian: I didn't kill him. Todd?

Jason: No, I've been busy.

[hezenkoss]

the thing with good omens is that ultimately it doesn’t even matter to me if it’s kinda bad sometimes. these are my good friends aziraphale and crowley and i WOULD watch them do silly pointless nonsense for hours

[disastergenius]

My bold take is that R.F. Kuang and Suzanne Collins are actually doing very similar things with their books/writing and both are doing it very well (but notably only one is getting criticized for it, for which there are many reasons, some fair and most not).

They are both making very specific and strategic points about the way that class, class consciousness and allyship, exploitative systems, propaganda, and rebellions work, just to name a few themes. And it’s far more interesting to examine their respective fictional worlds, both of which are heavily influenced by real-world events and history and hold it as a parallel to our own.

[It is also far more interesting to not boil their work down to shipping, “capitalism is the bad guy,” and oppression olympics for fictional characters with far too much projection into the real world.]

[bigfatbreak]

Since Fu and his methods have been kinda debated on in this fandom, I've just making sure. Is Marinette over-positiving her memories with Fu since she blames herself for him getting mind-wiped or would he be really scold her on recklessness and taking care of herself?

former. grieving his memory wipe is making any kindness he did seem to gleam like precious stars in her memory, which is making it hit that much harder. she's definitely spiraling around losing him right now, and not seeing the reality that he chose child soldiers to fight a supervillain. he really might've scolded her for being reckless, but nowhere near as lovingly as she's imagining he would - she's putting positive words in his phantom mouth because his loss hurts her more than she's willing to communicate, and its become the cornerstone of her isolation.

[why-bless-your-heart]

"And are these fanfics better than published novels in the room with us right now?"

[iwanttobepersephone]

Emergency!!!!!! I need some cute Halt O'Dad thoughts!!!!!!! Now!!!!!!

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Historians having takes on frev women that make me go 😐 compilation

Sexually frustrated in her marriage to a pompous civil servant much older than herself, [Madame Roland] may have found Danton’s celebrated masculinity rather uncomfortable. Danton (1978) by Norman Hampson, page 77.

The Robespierres sent their sister to Arras because that was their hometown, the family home, where they had relatives, uncles, aunts and friends, like Buissart who they didn’t cease to remain in correspondence with, even in the middle of the Terror. There, among them, Charlotte would not be alone; she would find advice, rest, the peace necessary to heal her nervousness and animosity. Away from Mme Ricard, who she hated, away from Mme Duplay, who she detested, she would enjoy auspicious calmness. It is Le Bon that the Robespierres will charge with escorting their sister to this neccessary and soothing exile. […] If there is a damning piece in Charlotte Robespierre's case, it is this one (her interrogation, held July 31 1794). She seems to be caught in the act of accusing this Maximilien whom she rehabilitates in her Memoirs. She is therefore indeed a hypocrite, unworthy of the great name she bears, and which she dishonors the very day after the holocaust of 10 Thermidor. Charlotte Robespierre et Guffroy (1910) in Annales Révolutionnaires, volume 3 (1910) page 322, and Charlotte Robespierre et ses mémoires (1909) page 93-94, both by Hector Fleishmann.

Elisabeth, as she was popularly called, was barely past her twelfth birthday, younger even by three years than Barere’s own mother when she was given in marriage. On the following day the guests assembled again in the little church of Saint-Martin at midnight to attend the wedding ceremony of the handsome charmer and the bewildered child. Dressed in white, clasping in her arms a yellow, satin-clad  doll that Bertrand had given her — so runs the tradition — she marched timidly to the altar, looking more like a maiden making her first communion than a woman celebrating a binding sacrament. Perhaps the  doll, if doll there was, filled her eye, but certainly she could not fail to note how handsome her husband was. Bertrand Barere; a reluctant terrorist (1962) by Leo Gershoy, page 32.

The young nun who bore the name of Hébert did not hide her fate. She did not wish to prolong a life stifled from her childhood in the cloister, branded in the world by the name she bore, fighting between horror and love for the memory of her husband, unhappy everywhere. Histoire des Girondins (1848) by Alphonse de Lamartine, volume 8, page 60.

Lucile in prison showed more calmness than Camille. Before the tribunal, she seemed to possess neither fear nor hope, she denied having taken an active role in the prison conspiracy. What did it matter to her the answer they were trying to extract from her? They said they wanted her guilty? Very well! She would be condemned and join Camille. This was what she said again when she was told that she would suffer the same fate as her husband: ”Oh, what joy, in a few hours I’m going to see Camille again!” Camille et Lucile Desmoulins: un couple dans la tourmente (1986) by Jean Paul Bertaud, page 293.

What did it matter to Lucile whether she was accused or defended? She had no longer any pretext for living in this world. She was one of those heroines of conjugal love who are more wife than mother. Besides, Horace lived, and Camille was dead. It was of the absent only that she thought. As for the child, would not Madame Duplessis act a mother's part to him? The grandmother would watch over the orphan. If Lucile had lived, she could have done nothing but weep over the cradle, thinking of Camille. Camille Desmoulins and his wife; passages from the history of the Dantonists founded upon new and hitherto unpublished documents (1876) by Jules Claretie.

Having been widowed at the age of 23 [sic] years, Élisabeth Duplay remarried a few years later to the adjutant general Le Bas, brother of her first husband, and kept the name which was her glory. She lived with dignity, and all those who have known her, still beautiful under her crown of white hair, have testified to the greatness of her sentiments and austerity of her character. She died at an old age, always loyal to the memory of the great dead she had loved and whose memory she, all the way to her final day, didn’t cease to honor and cherish. As for the lady of Thermidor, Thérézia Cabarrus, ex-marquise of Fontenay, citoyenne Tallien, then princess of Chimay, one knows the story of her three marriages, without counting the interludes. She had, as one knows, three husbands living at the same time. Now compare these two existances, these two women, and tell me which one merits more the respect and the sympathy of good men. Histoire de Robespierre et du coup d’état du 9 thermidor (1865) by Louis Ernest Hamel, volume 3, page 402.

Fel free to comment which one was your favorite! 😀

[trappedinafantasy37]

Let's talk a little bit about Minthara and her oath real quick. Now, a question that I have seen pop-up in a few places between Reddit, Tiktok, and even Tumblr, is how the in the hells Minthara isn't already an oathbreaker. Well, I have 3 potential theories as to why that is.

Because it is merely a game mechanic and Larian did not want your only potential paladin to be an oathbreaker upon recruitment.

Her original oath to Lolth never broke because she never willingly joined the Absolute and her oath to the Absolute was made under false pretenses.

When she joins your group, she makes a new oath in your name instead.

Personally, I think that Minthara's oath is actually a mixture of 2 and 3. Yes, it is possible for a paladin to have multiple oaths at the same time. It just isn't a recommended practice in tabletop DnD because they can sometimes contradict each other, some oaths will straight up break other oaths, or the players just are unable to manage them properly. In this case, I do believe that Minthara has two oaths, one to Lolth and one to you.

I have not been able to find any reference to how paladin oaths work when the paladin is being coerced or mind controlled. But from what I have read in DnD lore, when a paladin makes an oath they have to do so willingly, deliberately, and consciously. None of those things occurred for Minthara when she took up her oath to the Absolute which is why it did not break her oath to Lolth (because it otherwise would have as she would have been sworn to destroy the Absolute for Lolth). And, technically speaking, the god that the oath is sworn to cannot go in and break the oath. Only the paladin can break their own oath. I only think gods can revoke divinity from their clerics. So, even if Lolth was truly pissed at Minthara, Lolth herself cannot just break Minthara's oath. That is something only Minthara can do. Minthara's original oath to Lolth still being intact is not necessarily indicative that she still has Lolth's favor, it just means she hasn't yet broken the terms of that oath. Even a crisis of faith (which Minthara is going through) won't break the paladin's oath either.

Another thing that is important to note is that as of 5e, a paladin actually does not need to make their oaths in the name of a god or before a god as their divinity is powered solely by the oath itself. Paladins are able to just summon divine smites and other holy based powers by sheer force of will and conviction (which is pretty damn sexy if you ask me). I mean, oathbreaker paladins still have access to divinity as well. Of course, paladins can still make an oath in the name of a god and most typically do, it's just that gods are not the source of power behind that oath. An oath is nothing but a vow, a promise that the paladin makes *to* a god, not the other way around. It does not even need that gods approval. So Lolth abandoning Minthara will also not break Minthara's oath either because Lolth is not the one who made an oath to Minthara.

So, it is very much possible that when Minthara joins your group, she does make a new oath in your name as oaths don't need gods. But, Minthara herself does not actually know how to live her life without having some kind of god figure so she just kinda puts you in that spot for the time being. I mean, she literally prayed to multiple gods and you were the one that answered. Which is also one of the many reasons why she does to along with what you want to do (even if she disagrees) because the oath she made to you would keep herself in check and keep her from acting against you. Minthara already is a very loyal person, but if you have any doubts on Minthara's loyalty, just keep in mind that she is quite literally oath bound to do whatever you tell her to do and will not betray you.

Minthara also never goes out of her way to become an oathbreaker, even after you free her from the Absolute. To be precise, you have to command her to break her oath. And of course, she will do so willingly knowing the consequences. Despite her oath being broken, she will still abide by the tenants of that oath. But she does enjoy the freedom that comes with being an oathbreaker and now nothing will hold her back from achieving her goals. However, she also says she does not know if her oath will still stand when all the nonsense with the Absolute is resolved and she even implies that if you do take the Absolute, she will no longer have an Oath of Vengeance, but an Oath of Conquest (which I think fits her better than vengeance if I'm being honest).

Minthara also makes quite a few suggestions to you that would actually break you oath if you are a paladin. Such as making an oath to Gortash, or making certain choices in regards to the vampire spawn. But, Minthara never does any of these things herself and I think that is purposeful. She knows these actions are oathbreaking type of actions. She attempts to orchestrate a fight between Dame Aylin and the wizard knowing fully well that it will break Aylin's oath. And she really wants you to go snitch on the wizard (although I just think it's because of her disdain for wizards rather than her being a little scoundrel to mess with Aylin's oath).

She is very very careful to keep herself in the position that she is because she doesn't want to be an oathbreaker initially. She is also very careful to tell you to do all these things. The language that she uses in regards to her oaths are also very important. Her original oath to Lolth would have her sworn to destroy the Absolute. But, we also know that Minthara very much has other ideas for the Absolute that do not involve destroying it (but oaths only break from oath breaking actions, not oath breaking thoughts). And her oath to you, she very specifically says that she is sworn to destroy all those who serve the Absolute, which is not exactly the same kind of oath she has with Lolth.

But, there is only one instance in this game in which Minthara will willingly become an oathbreaker and you do not have to command her to be one and that is if and only if you claim the brain. Her choosing not to destroy the brain when she had the opportunity to breaks her oath to Lolth. Now, the oath that she makes to you is where it becomes very very tricky. The oath she made to you, she specifically uses the language to "destroy all those who serve the Absolute". Her oath gets broken to you because she has become someone who serves the Absolute. But, there's more than that. If you become the Absolute, you also enthrall all your other companions which would make them servants of the Absolute and she also does not destroy them. Ironically, her choosing to serve you as the Absolute, breaks the oath she made to you because she has gone back on what she said she was going to do in your name. But most importantly, she chose not to get vengeance for herself.

Her oath to you was never to help you become the Absolute. Her oath was specifically to assist you with destroying the Absolute and all those who serve it. Her choosing not to destroy the Absolute and everyone who serves it, breaks both of her oaths. So, the Minthara that greets you at the gallows is now an oathbreaker. But, as I mentioned earlier, Minthara has already expressed the notion of taking up a completely different oath if you were to claim the Absolute. She helped you become the Absolute, knowing it was going to break her oath, and she had the intention of immediately replacing it with an Oath of Conquest, making her the first official paladin of the Absolute.

The fact that she wants you to become Absolute at all and that she prefers being an oathbreaker is why I read her as a canon oathbreaker. But she will never break her oath out of betrayal, but because of loyalty and devotion. She breaks her oath trying to make you as powerful as you can be. I have also discussed previously that her devotion is her fatal flaw and her choosing to remain devoted to you could potentially get her back in the same position you found her (that is if you betray her and choose to use the Absolute to reenthrall her). Her becoming solely devoted to you officially removes any and all ties she has to Lolth. But it causes Minthara to remain stagnant in which she doesn't learn anything, she doesn't change at all, and she doesn't grow.

She will live the rest of her life devoted to someone that isn't herself and act in the name of someone that isn't herself. She will live the rest of her life helping you achieve your goals and ambitions and what she wants is kinda secondary to all that because she has propped you up on a pedestal. She has always lived her life in service of a god and she does not know how not to. Many of the things that she has done in her life are not because she wanted to do them, but because she had the burden of expectations either from Lolth, from her family, or from Menzoberranzan culture and her oath kept her bound to these expectations. And she is falling back into that cycle with you because you failed to show her that there was another way and that she could be devoted to herself. You failed to show her that she does not need a god and she can indeed choose for herself.

[clumsypuppy]

Why are ppl scared to call it what it is and say we’re still going thru covid on top of seasonal illness. Like. That’s pretty important right. I was watching the news and they were like oh yeah we have an unprecedented number of flu cases “as well as other sicknesses” without actually saying Covid. No announcement abt vaccinations or masking or anything. Also if I hear someone joking abt “war flashbacks” for mentioning covid I fucking hate u

[g1deonthefirst]

i mean the tlt fandom is constantly doing the push and pull between "john is an evil mastermind" and "john is just a normal guy with normal flaws" and i think the truth is somewhere in between. john is a fascist who's destroyed countless planets and murdered countless people, but he's a complex three-dimensional fascist because tazmuir writes complex characters and because real-life fascists are complex and three-dimensional human beings. and i do think it's important when analyzing his character not to lose sight of the fact that john is a complex person who isn't at all omniscient, but it's equally important to remember that he did choose to nuke the earth and become the god of a fascist space empire and conquer planets. he didnt just stumble his way into it!