#would anyone watch it?

[chloesimaginationthings]

Michael Afton’s happiest day in FNAF

[starbuck]

reading and watching “classic” books and films is such an interesting experience because, before you get into them, when you only know them by name and maybe the vaguest plot outline, they’re intimidating and stuffy and up on a pedestal, but then you finally take the leap and check them out and realize that almost every story that’s achieved such a legendary level of popularity did so because something in its emotional core reached out and grabbed a lot of people by the throat and you are NOT immune.

[noodles-and-tea]

Back at it with my enchanted merthur shenanigans

[darkmuffinstudios]

The bad sanses and (some of) their first times seeing the surface! ^^

(I kind I’d headcanon that not only has Killer (as sans) been to the surface quite a few times, but he’s also been traveling with Nightmare for quite a while haha. Nightmare… well, he always was able to see the sky so yeah haha)

[anistarrose]

to be honest when i see people say that "moral center" characters are boring, i'm like. well, to each their own i guess, you can have your taste and i can have mine. but also: 99% sure that's a straight-up skill issue on behalf of whoever's writing the characters you're thinking of. because when they're written well, characters at the moral heart of their story can also be interesting, complicated, evolving and contradictory, messy, flawed, in possession of Complexes, and most importantly, perpetrators of mistakes so tragic and devastating that they shape the entire narrative. and i know for a fact that all of that is true because of my best friend Lup Adventurezone

[boodhs]

told y'all, sketch is sm better

[syrupbitee]

free my boy from his own show he did nothing wrong

[rochenn]

Dooku being killed by Anakin is super thematically satisfying but I can't stop thinking about a slightly altered timeline where he is publicly executed on Coruscant instead. Can you imagine the SCENE

[lesbiandarvey]

this was a confession of love btw

SUITS → 3x01 “The Arrangement,” dir. Christopher Misiano

[forecast0ctopus]

danbert sketches

[channnel]

Alan offers you his slushie. (Ft. Oc)

[screwpinecaprice]

I was trying to eat noodles neatly and for some reason I got sad midway. So I drew them messy eating a biscuit and a strawberry to combat sad noodle blues.

[taxkha]

Iwa-chan, please

[gothra]

I’ll never forget when I was arguing with a person in favor of total prison abolition and I asked them “what about violent offenders?” And they said “Well, in a world where prisons have been abolished, we’ll have leveled the playing field and everyone will have their basic needs met, and crime won’t be as much of an issue.” And then I was like “okay. But…no. Because rich people also rape and murder, so it isn’t just a poor person thing. So what will we do about that?” And I don’t think they answered me after that. I’m ashamed to say I continued to think that the problem was that I simply didn’t understand prison abolitionists enough and that their point was right in front of me, and it would click once I finally let myself understand it. It took me a long time to realize that if something is going to make sense, it needs to make sense. If you want to turn theory into Praxis (I’m using that word right don’t correct me I’ll vomit) everyone needs to be on board, which mean it all needs to click and it needs to click fast and fucking clear. You need to turn a complex idea into something both digestible and flexible enough to be expanded upon. Every time I ask a prison abolitionist what they actually intend to do about violent crime, I get directed to a summer reading list and a BreadTuber. It’s like a sleight-of-hand trick. Where’s the answer to my question. There it is. No wait, there it is. It’s under this cup. No it isn’t. “There’s theory that can explain this better than I can.” As if most theory isn’t just a collection of essays meant to be absorbed and discussed by academics, not the average skeptic. “Read this book.” And the book won’t even answer the question. The book tells you to go ask someone else. “Oh, watch this so-and-so, she totally explains it better than me.” Why can’t you explain it at all? Why did you even bring it up if you were going to point me to someone else to give me the basics that you should probably already know? Maybe I’m just one of those crazy people who thinks that some people need to be kept away from the public for everyone’s good. Maybe that just makes me insane. Maybe not believing that pervasive systemic misogyny could be solved with a UBI and a prayer circle makes me a bad guy. But it’s not like women’s safety is a priority anyway. It’s not like there is an objective claim to be made that re-releasing violent offenders or simply not locking them up is deadly.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Lan Wangji might be an unstoppable force, but Xie Lian has 800+ years of practice of being an immovable object.

(poll results here for context)

[slavhew]

made them to strike fear into my heart whenever i falter in my studies

no text ver under the cut