Io sono fatta così.
Sono stronza, acida, arrogante, ma allo stesso tempo timida, dolce, furba e divertente.
Tendo ad apparire acida davanti alle persone, ed essere stronza con i ragazzi che mi interessano particolarmente. Mi sciolgo subito, però, quando qualcuno mi fa un piccolo gesto: abbracciarmi, cercare di farmi ridere, chiacchierare e rendermi partecipe  ad altre conversazioni. Piccole gesti.
Non sono una ragazza esibizionista, che vuole essere sempre al centro dell'attenzione, ochetta. Non sono una di quelle che va in giro in vestito e tacchi di sera, con addosso un chilo di trucco. Preferisco le felpe, magliette larghe e pantaloni. Poco trucco e scarpe basse.
Arrossisco spesso quando qualcuno mi fissa per tanto tempo.
Mi intenerisco spesso quando qualcuno mi fa capire che tiene a me più di ogni altra cosa al mondo.

Amo un sacco restare a casa di sera: coperta, film e cioccolata calda.
Non sono una tipa che va ogni week end in discoteca (mi piace, ma non da impazzire).
Sono una di quelle che qualche volta beve un bicchiere di troppo per dimenticare il passato.
Odio la gelosia ed odio i ragazzi particolarmente gelosi. Odio le persone che vietano ad altre di fare determinate cose: ognuno è libero di fare ciò che vuole, se non ti sta bene allora vattene a fanculo.
Sono una di quelle che stuzzica le altre persone, per vedere se queste reagiscono.
Rido sempre, amo ridere. Amo far ridere la gente.
Amo anche sfogarmi, però. Amo parlare, molto, di cose interessanti (non solo cretinate).

Odio gli amici falsi: se hai qualcosa contro di me basta che me lo dici in faccia; se non lo fai è perché sei codardo/a e non hai le palle di affrontare le cose faccia a faccia. Sarò anche stronza, ma almeno non ho “peli sulla lingua”.

Sono una ragazza abbastanza testarda e tendo sempre a dire che ho sempre ragione io (anche quando non lo è).
Sono però determinata: se voglio qualcosa faccio di tutto per ottenerla.

Ecco, io sono così… e non cambierò.
Se mi vuoi per come sono, bene. Altrimenti la porta è li e… ciao ciao.

—  Mia

talking about love and being about love are two vastly different levels of understanding and embodiment, for the simple fact that love can never be adequately contained in or expressed by language – love is contained in action, in loving-action, and to attempt to capture love in language only is to immobilize it, to freeze it, to stunt it; to talk and talk and talk about love without practicing it is to not know anything about love at all – to not love at all

a week or two ago, one of my favourite professors briefly told us about a Zen Buddhist kōan* about “a finger pointing at the moon” – i.e., when I point toward the moon, U aren’t meant to look at my finger! U are meant to look toward the moon! n matter how long U stare at the finger, U will never see the moon, n U will never understand anything about it

and this is what talk about love should be – it should direct us toward love; it is not love in and of itself, and we should never mistake it as such, we should never stop at it, and we should never be satisfied by our ability to talk about it – we must turn toward the moon; toward love itself

*(thank U, Anonymous)


Look forward to translations/summaries!
Some trivia:
-RPG game for smartphones, very similar to Granblue Fantasy, but with mmo aspects.
-You get to fully customize your avatar.
-Take missions to advance the plot and get items.
-Equipment and weapons are obtained as drops or through gacha.
-There’s a job system. You start as a knight.
-That’s not Tiz and Agnès, but rather Ace and Liz. They are siblings.
-I’m still not so sure why Yew is there. He’s an AI that supports you in battle.

anonymous asked:

which paladin is ticklish?

K e i t h.

Now hear me out, hear me out.

I also believe that Pidge and Lance are ticklish (Pidge far more violently so than Lance), but can you just… imagine…

Keith’s the most ticklish in a weird sense, that it’s hard to find his tickle spots. He’d never tell a soul, and cut the man who threatened to tell. (They’re under his knee caps, on his back dimples, and his toes, in case you were wondering.) But if you really catch him and start to tickle him, he’s 100% gone. Goodbye, Mr. Laser Focus.

He’s going to be pissed, I wish the best of luck to anyone who dares.

Once Maggie and Alex start dating, Maggie starts to look up biology pick up lines to use on Alex, who pretends to not be amused but secretly loves it.
“Hey alex I wish I was helicase so I could unzip you genes”
“Oh oh alex if I were a nucleotide I’d be A so I could pair with you”
“Oh my god Maggie A also binds with T, that’s not even completely accurate”

anonymous asked:

Re: that nothing about us is innate - do you believe then that even an uprooted identity can never belong wholly to one's self? Trying to reconcile all of this myself too... your posts are very enlightening i appreciate you so much

thank U so much!

I think that this depends on what U mean by one’s self/identity “belong[ing] wholly to oneself” – do U mean purely produced by oneself? purely following only from oneself, one’s intentions, one’s will? free of influence and outside intervention?

to that, I would say: ppl are porous and dynamic by nature – the “self” is not so much a thing-in-itself as it is a set of ever-changing, ever-evolving relationships to the world, to space, to time, to objects, to people – of relationships-to in general, most of which are unintentionally formed – the self does not come into existence alone or in isolation and cannot exist in isolation, but rather with/against/for/by relationships-to, particularly to people – the self necessarily denotes some relationship between us and something/someone else, which is also always saying that we are something other than the thing we are relating to – the self is a distinction

in that sense, it is impossible for one’s identity to belong wholly to oneself, since identity can be said in this sense to be a mere means of distinguishing one self-determining bundle of relationships-to from another and from the world and from things in general

however… if by “belong wholly to oneself” U mean “know oneself wholly”, that’s different – if that is the case, then yes, I believe it is possible to belong wholly to oneself – and that is exactly what I was trying to get at in the post

when we take who we are for granted, when we assume that who we are is essential and naturally a product of our consciousness and intentionality, we lose the ability to see who we are; we lose the ability to decide for ourselves who we would like to be – the constant and eternal calling of the origins of one’s self into question that I described in that post is a way of laying claim to oneself, is a way of belonging to oneself

it isn’t merely about knowing “oneself” as a self/identity, however – because, like I said, the self is a nebulous mass of relationships-to; rather, it is about understanding one’s situation within those relations; understanding one’s place in the world, in time, in space, and with others

in this sense, the self is a meeting place, rather than a distinction