I usually don't post this stuff but I thought this was really important to understand

anonymous asked:

I think I hurt a rib. I don't know what to do. I'm not out yet and I've been using ace bandages. I'm incredibly stupid. I'm sorry. Please if you help me I'll throw them all out and find a way to come out. Please? I'm so sorry. I live in usa.

Ren says:

Hi dear! You’re not stupid - we understand the draw of ace bandages, but it’s really, really, really important that you don’t ever use them again. Okay, my friend?

This is now an official Ribcage Troubleshooting Post!

This post isn’t a replacement for a doctor, but it can help you figure out whether you need to see a doctor, or what you should do until you can!

Look at this cool picture of some bones. That’s your ribcage, pretty nice eh? We’re gonna use this to figure out what’s up.

To give you a general idea of what’s going on, let me explain what’s up. That big bone in the middle, connecting the sides of your ribcage, is your sternum. It’s super important, since it helps protect some Serious Stuff, and anything that affects your ribs likely affects it!

Connected to your sternum on both sides are your collarbones (clavicles). You can usually see and feel your collarbones, since they’re very close to your skin.

To give you a sense of which rib is which, ribs 4, 5, or 6 are usually the ones that are just underneath breast tissue. (Some people have more than 10 ribs, but the last one is the last one!)

The blue parts of this diagram are made of costal cartilage, connecting the ribs and the sternum. Where the costal cartilage meets your ribs is called a costochondral joint. Where the costal cartilage meets your sternum, on the other hand, is called a sternocostal joint.

Over top of all this bone and cartilage is intercostal muscle. They go in between your ribs, filling the spaces, allowing you to breathe in and out.

So just how many ways can you injure all of this by binding unsafely?

  • fractured bone
  • bruised bone
  • bruised muscle
  • bruised cartilage
  • torn muscle
  • torn cartilage
  • inflamed muscle (costochondritis)
  • not to mention all the stuff that’s deep down underneath - you can seriously harm your lungs, for instance

Here comes the actual troubleshooting part.

  1. Which area of your ribcage hurts, and what is the pain like? (Tender? Shooting? Burning? Throbbing? Like something’s tearing? An ache, a sting?)
  2. Can you make physical contact with the area? Does any physical contact make the pain worse, or do you have to press gently to worsen it?
  3. Is the skin hot around the painful area, visibly red or bruised, or visibly swollen?
  4. When you press at the very top of your sternum (in between your collarbones) does it worsen the pain at your rib?
  5. Does it hurt to breathe, or is it difficult to breathe?
  6. Are you coughing, or coughing blood or mucus?
  7. Are you experiencing fatigue (like you’re really really sleepy), or are you dizzy?
  8. Check your pulse. Open up a timer with seconds on it, find your pulse, and count for one whole minute. Here’s an ask about healthy pulses (although YMMV if you are chronically ill).

If you cannot make physical contact with the area, are experiencing significant pain and/or difficulty breathing, are coughing blood, or answered yes to #4, go to the hospital. You may have broken or fractured a rib, or something worse. You need immediate medical attention.

If you can make physical contact with the area but it seriously hurts to do so, and are experiencing any of the above symptoms, go to the hospital.

If you can make physical contact with the area and it only hurts a little, are experiencing some pain but mostly when you press the painful area, are able to breathe normally, and are not coughing up any discharge, follow these instructions.

  • Stop binding. No arguments. Do not bind until your symptoms are gone.
  • Take an NSAID. These are over-the-counter painkillers like ibuprofen and naproxen. Acetaminophen/paracetamol will not help with inflammation, but will help with pain.
  • Ice the area for 20 minutes (don’t make direct contact with the skin - ice in a ziploc wrapped in a towel!). Rest it for 20 minutes. Heat for 20 minutes (heating pads or warm showers help) and rest again. Continue to alternate this.
  • Rest. Keep your chest relatively elevated - do not lay down flat or lower than your heart.
  • Keep pressure off your chest.
  • If you develop any more symptoms or the pain does not go away in 24 hours, go to the hospital.
  • And the golden rule: when in doubt, get it checked out.

I’m not joking around here, friend. Your body is important and you gotta be kind to it! If that means you need medical care, so be it. As long as you’re safe.

I really advise that you throw out every single ace bandage you have, no matter what. The temptation is too great, and it is never, ever, ever safe to bind with ace bandages.

Let us know if you’re okay, anon. I’m sending good thoughts and hopes for good health in your direction. <3


Lee says:

Here’s some excuses to give your parents if you need to see a doctor and you’re closeted! It’s okay to lie to them if you need to go see a doctor. You’re doing what’s best for your health and that’s really important!

For the future, when you’re healed (don’t ever bind while you’re injured!!) you could try one of the following methods to bind without ace bandages.

How do I buy a binder if I’m not out?

How do I ask my parents for a binder?

I can’t get a binder. How can I make my own?

  • Ren made some sweet info on binding with sports bras (x, x) and we also have a post about binding with camisoles. If you’re binding with a sports bra, you want this type.
  • Please do not try to make a DIY binder. Chances are, it will not be safe and you could hurt yourself.
  • Binding without a binder

anonymous asked:

Hi! I'm on anon bc I mainly worry about that sort of thing, heh. Besides this, I'm asking about, specifically, Sterek - in the sense that I don't really ship it myself, and I wanted to say that regardless of this, and that you do - your blog is brilliant. In general, your posts on the TW fandom and the various ships within are perfect and I agree 100%. Mainly, I'm asking about the sterek, or more specifically Stiles/Derek from actual canon tw, because I could never see anything other than (1/?)

Derek being physically aggressive towards the younger and weaker (in the sense of physical strength) human - a person in a position of power over another abusing that power. In a sense. Since, whenever I watch the show I can’t help but see that, I was hoping you could either explain in that great way you usually do that makes things make sense, or at least point me in the direction of posts that have already done so, how exactly their friendship developed(because, yes, I don’t think I could(2/?)

ever ship it romantically). Mainly I’d just like to see another’s less biased point of view/take on their dynamic, so as not to alienate a serious amount of my fanfic readers despite the fact that it’s probably gonna end up as Stalia(oh the horror, that gets like 0 reads ever)I don’t want to sideline any characters that are important, such as Derek, and when I watch the show I can never get his character and his dynamic with Stiles down in my head because it’s screaming at me not to like him 3/?

And I hate that, because I never like to despise a character without good reason to; I don’t want to misrepresent the dynamic, I have to repeat, when I get to later seasons. It’ll also help me understand him more, I think, and I hope you don’t mind this ridiculously long anon ask, oops. I’m on anon mainly bc of a worry of this being received negatively, as I’ve seen this sort of query being done in the past for related topics. Ehrm, that’s it, thanks for reading this even if you don’t answer.4/4

Derek is pretty violent with everyone, including Stiles, in the first two seasons. Fandom has taken this violence and projected sexual tension onto it to justify the ship, but if we’re going to count every instance of violence as belligerent sexual tension, then everyone on this show has foe-yay with everyone else.

The thing is, Derek was trying to do the right thing - he just didn’t really consider things like collateral damage or value of life in the process. When Scott was Bitten, Derek did try to help Scott learn to control his wolf…it’s just that he also lied to Scott about a potential cure for lycanthropy in order to manipulate Scott into helping him. Neither of these somehow negate or undermine the other.

Similarly, in Season 2, Derek felt responsible for the kanima, and thus wanted to kill it before it could kill anyone else. The problem is that he wasn’t considering the life of the human who was the kanima without knowing, and he was jumping to conclusions and nearly killed the wrong person (Lydia) because she might be the kanima. Derek wanted to build a pack, and ended up dragging three new teenagers into the mess, two of whom would still be alive if he hadn’t. But, they were also extremely isolated before they were in a pack, and never seemed to resent Derek for turning them, even when (in the case of Boyd, at least) it got them killed.

Derek tries all the time, and tries really damn hard. He also fails all the time, and fails really damn hard. Most of that failure all traces back to tunnel vision - he gets so focused on one problem or factor, he never really thought about anything else. Isaac called him out on this in Season 3A - Derek was wallowing about Cora’s life and Jennifer’s betrayal, which meant he was forgetting about all the other stuff going on that needed to be dealt with.

Derek also tended to presume to know best in the first two seasons and diving head first into problems. A lot of his development in Seasons 3 and 4 was taking a step back to think through the circumstances, and/or taking guidance from those around him. Whether he was the alpha and taking guidance from his betas (i.e. following Boyd’s plan against the alpha pack, listening to Isaac calling him out, etc.), or when he was a beta again but following others’ leads (following Scott as an alpha, taking proverbial marching orders from Allison in 3B, following the Sheriff’s lead and Braeden’s lead in Season 4, etc.), Derek always did better working with someone else instead of trying to lead on his own.

To put it another way: Derek really sucks at being King Arthur, but he makes for a fantastic Merlin.

Derek was a wonderfully supportive and empathic individual. Because he struggled with being an alpha, he was a confidante for Scott when he struggled to be a (true) alpha. Derek went from tunnel vision, brooding, and wallowing in the first few seasons, to learning how to use “human” self-defense mechanisms in Season 4 when he realized he wasn’t healing and seemed to be losing his lycanthropy (and his strength and senses with it). IIRC, he never just sat down and listened to someone pour their heart out on him in the first two seasons, yet Season 3 opens with him doing exactly that, and this is something he continues to do throughout the rest of his time on the show.

I’ve said before that “quiet” =/= shy or introverted. Derek is never the kind to talk a lot in the show. In the first two seasons, this manifested as him doing things without really telling anyone or talking to anyone about it. Later, this manifested as him listening to people. He didn’t have to change this part of who he is, he just learned to be more empathetic and productive about it.

Derek’s story also plays into one of the central themes of the show. The werewolf symbol of revenge is the spiral, but here’s the thing about spirals: if they aren’t stopped, then they’ll go on forever. Derek could’ve kept pursuing vengeance for his family, but chose not to, and came out better for it. This is highlighted by the nogitsune in 3B, when Derek is infected by one of the flies. Yes, Kate was already dead, but Kate was one person and his family was way more than that. He could’ve kept going, he could’ve murdered Allison and Chris just because they were Kate’s family (the same way his family died just for being werewolves/in a werewolf pack), and the nogitsune nearly pushed him to do that. But instead, Derek ended the spiral of vengeance, recognizing that Allison and Chris had nothing to do with Kate’s murder, and how different they were from Kate (regretting their own participation in Hunter psychosis, trying to change the family motto and M.O., etc.)

Derek’s story is very much one of someone grieving tremendously and suffering from horrific trauma. But, it’s also one that shows that one’s own trauma can end up hurting those around them (the fact that Derek was traumatized and suffering for the first two seasons doesn’t change the fact he engaged in a lot of manipulative and abusive behavior at the time). And, Derek’s story is the process of recovering from grief and trauma, and learning to let go of anger in pursuit of one’s own well-being.

How this relates to Sterek in particular, I’ve written about here and here, and feel free to ask if you have any more questions on it. :)

And here are some fics which capture Derek’s character really well:

See You on the Other Side - Derek doesn’t swoop in and save the day - but he does help Stiles, and he learns to share with Stiles and take help from others.

The Nightmare of My Choice - Long-distance relationship FTW.

Starts with “F”, Ends With “U” - Fantastic way of Derek using his own experiences to help Stiles with his current abuse, and a great exploration of Derek’s trauma that doesn’t tokenize it or reduce his abuse to stereoptyes of what abuse actually entails.

iscribblesometimes  asked:

The last post you made is really good, I think that sort of attitude is really important in Christianity. But how do I keep that attitude, and understand that the bible has been interpreted in many ways, while not becoming doubtful of the bible and it's truth? How do I keep an open mind and still remember that God is unchanging? (I'm not sure if you take asks so don't feel pressured to answer, just thought I would say what I've been thinking for a while that your post reminded me of.)

Hey dear friend, I believe you’re referring to this post: http://jspark3000.tumblr.com/post/160231013138/because-the-bible-says-so

For reference, I wrote this: 

“Because the Bible says so.” Okay, but whose interpretation? Yours? Mine? From the era of the Crusades? When they were burning people at the stake? When it was used to support slavery? What if we have different conclusions? What if we’re both wrong? 

So first off: I got quite a lot of backlash on that post, and I had to take a break from my inbox and from looking at comments and reblogs. I don’t say that out of self-pity (there’s a lot more important stuff happening across the world), but rather to point out that I must’ve hit a nerve somewhere. Someone commented something like, “I thought he was one of the good guys.” I mean, I laughed, but I was also a little bummed out by the judgmental assumptions on the whole thing. Like, can we not ask these questions at all?

I wrote the post originally because a few people confronted me saying things like, “I unfollowed you because I don’t agree with you theologically” (which is fine, everyone has a right to unfollow) or “Your interpretation is off” or “You’re becoming a liberal” (as if liberal is a bad word). 

So I asked the questions out of sincere curiosity. How exactly do we meet in a place where we can intellectually discuss our disagreements if one party already presumes the higher ground? Really, when someone says “I disagree with your theology,” what they’re saying is, I disagree with your interpretation of theology based on my interpretation of theology. So where did that interpretation come from? Trace it back and it’s always from someone else. A person. With a tiny brain like yours and mine. Augustine or Calvin or Nietzsche or Osteen. Some church leader a thousand years ago, or some book written last year, or some preacher guessing at the Bible the best he or she knows how.

I’m not entirely sure how to discover which interpretation is the right one. Each of us have so much self-interest that we can use the Bible (and other stuff) to justify any position we want, even under the guise of “the common good” or “your benefit.” 

But I have two starting points. 1) I assume that my precious beliefs are always open to challenge, and 2) I must live by the beliefs I hold true, as honestly and as passionately as I can, by the grace of God, and God will sort that out. 

If my opinion and my interpretation of the Bible are always matching up, then it’s possible I’m just making God into my own image and forcing Him to conform to what I want. I’m basically just colluding with myself as my own accomplice into the crimes I want to commit. Then I wouldn’t be in dialogue with God, but rather manipulating a robot-idol I designed to do my bidding and to turn off at my convenience. If the Bible is timeless truth, then I’d expect that such truth would press against what I hold to be personally and culturally true. And we are all chronologically landlocked by ideas that don’t make sense and must be challenged and changed. I believe the Bible, read correctly, will usurp what is destructive and affirm what is constructive. And still, I assume that these ideas can be confronted and rebuked.

Once I land on a conviction, I assume God will sort out the outcome. History (at least hopefully and generally) will prove whether I was aligned with God’s purpose, or not. I know there are a ton of caveats and exceptions with this idea, but the natural world does usually unroll either benefits or consequences from our actions, or a mix of both, and in our limited three lb. brains, I think we can grasp an inkling of what God must want out of all we do.

Yet in the end, figuring out what God wants is not some mysterious, complicated puzzle. The more I have to justify and rationalize something, the more I can be sure it’s not from God. The Bible has made a lot of things pretty clear. Jesus said plainly: I must love people. There’s no equivocation or wavering there. How it happens might differ, but that it happens at all must not. 

J.S.

anonymous asked:

First of you've the most wonderful Kalafina's site. I visit multiple times a day. Thanks for all the wonderful things you updated related to the three wonderful ladies. Now my question is about Keiko - why you do or many other fans think she is gay? Would love your long essay on this or anyone else thought on it. Since I also shared your love of Keiko and WaKei - anything involving them would be most welcome. One cannot get enough of Kalafina so don't stop the spam. Thanks for your hard work

I HAVE NO EXCUSES WHATSOEVER!!! I FEEL SO ASHAMED! PLEASE FORGIVE ME! THIS TOOK A MILLION YEARS! I originally wanted to finish some translations before getting to this ask and then real life crept up on me and kept me pretty busy. For whatever reason, this post got lost in my drafts and I only rediscovered it a couple of days ago. I AM SO VERY SORRY!!!

I have so many unfinished posts in my draft section, it’s crazy, it’s downright embarrassing, I really need to get my shit together. Anyways, let’s finally get to your ask!!!

Here we go =>
Thank you so much!!! This message made me incredibly happy! You have no idea!

VERY TRUE, there can never be enough Kalafina in this world ^_^ I honestly see it as my personal mission to spread the Kalafina love!! If I ever stop spamming you, I’ll either be dead or abducted by aliens.

Also, what an interesting question! While I (and a bunch of other fans) have addressed this topic a couple of times in the past (lookie here! I’ll link to it again later on), I’ve never actually dedicated an entire post to it so thank you so much for asking this! It gives me the opportunity to go all out on the subject and by now all of my followers should know that I have a penchant for writing long ass essays related to Kalafina XD

Before I start, I’d like to mention that our lovely fellow Kalafan @iakrus (who hasn’t been active on tumblr in a VERY long time unfortunately) has already covered this topic quite extensively (to a point where I don’t think my own post will do it justice >_<). She has obviously put a lot of effort into her research and she has found a ton of great sources that provide evidence for her arguments so be sure to check out her thoughts here and here. She has done an incredibly thorough job discussing the matter (addressing each and every important issue) so I might occasionally refer to her in my post (she also discusses the possibility of Yuki Kajiura being gay but that’s not the topic of this ask). All right, now that that is out of the way, let’s get started, shall we? ^_^

Why do I/other fans think Keiko is gay?

Keep reading

The Signs as Parents
  • Aries: no inside voice. very passionate and supportive of everything you enjoy. the little league dad. the parent that forces you to befriend the neighbors.
  • Taurus: very calm and patient but assertive if you're being a dick. accepting and loving. always asking about what you ate, if you're hungry, etc. the grill master dad.
  • Gemini: DAD JOKES ALL DAY, EVERY DAY. pretty kooky. usually open-minded, teaches you to be the same. gives you adorable and unique nicknames.
  • Cancer: the sweetest of the parents by far. very loving and cute. the parent you feel comfortable talking about your problems with. always asks how your day went.
  • Leo: will sass you right back when you sass them, so don't even. very fun and silly. the macho and intimidating dad that's actually really sensitive and sweet when it comes to his kiddos. the 'can I speak to your manager?' mom.
  • Virgo: takes 3,000,000 pictures of you and posts the bad ones on social media. gets mad when you complain about how bad you look in them. can always make you feel better when you're down. highly sentimental. the scrapbook mom.
  • Libra: very fair, actually listens to what you have to say and doesn't just disregard your feelings because they're older than you. wine mom. keeps every single thing you make for or give them.
  • Scorpio: P R O T E C T I V E. mama bear, that dad that brings a shotgun to meet your significant other. even worse case of dad jokes than gemini. sweet and thoughtful. will not hesitate to discipline ya ass.
  • Sagittarius: the parent that your friends call 'mom' or 'dad' too. outgoing and adventurous. makes you get out there and be social when you just wanna lay in bed on tumblr. probably has spontaneously brought in a stray animal at some point.
  • Capricorn: lowkey (or maybe highkey) has planned your entire life out. prioritizes your success over everything. uses parental controls and lives by the phrase "no one is good enough for my baby" regarding the people you date.
  • Aquarius: amazing at giving advice because they've had quite a few experiences in their life. good at teaching you important stuff, like how to tie your shoelaces and how to be well-mannered. dad jokes af but they're actually funny ones.
  • Pisces: the kooky parent that knows how to have a good time. empathetic so they easily relate to and understand you. the "cool" mom that did a ton of crazy shit in college. lets you skip school some days if you really aren't feeling up to it.

anonymous asked:

Hey dude I've been following your blog for a while and you got some really cool animations. I myself am trying to learn how to animate but I don't know where to start. So my question to you is where do I start to learn how to animate? Like are there any books I should read or tutorials you would recommend. Thanks for your time man I really apreciate it.

First off, thanks for the compliment and thanks for following me!

I don’t really think there’s any one way, but…

As far as books go, I’d say Preston Blair’s Advanced Animation is probably the best place to start. The name’s pretty misleading- It atcually starts form the very basics. It’s where I started when I started getting more serious about animation, and I’d say it has probably been my biggest help. Learning good construction skills has helped me tremendously with my animation and art. You may have a lot of awesome ideas in your mind, but that won’t help much if you can’t translate them to paper (or tablet, or whatever you may use).  Learn about construction, how lines and features wrap around forms, clear and distinct poses, perspective, etc. Don’t trace the examples, but make your own copies of them step by step and compare them to the images given. Your copies don’t have to be perfect- what’s most important is that you’re learning how and why something looks the way it does.

When I first started copying I made the mistake of trying to make my drawings look exactly the same as in the book, causing frequent frustation. I’d spend forever on one drawing, not really absorbing and understanding what the goal was. Now, that doesn’t mean you should be careless about it… You do want them to look close. Just make sure to go step by step, checking your progress along the way. You’ll get better the farther you go.

You might have taken a look at those pages and thought “Well, that’s interesting and all, but I don’t exactly plan on drawing these old ‘40s Disney-style characters any time soon…”

That’s totally understandable and perfect because the next step is to use the tools you learned from copying those drawings and apply them to your own drawings. After all, what’s the point in copying and learning all those principles if you aren’t going to use 'em? I’d also recommend some life drawing every once in a while. Draw people and objects and learn what things actually do look like and not just what you think they look like. Once again, apply these principles to your own drawings.

Like I said before, though, there’s no one way. That’s just the way I happened to learn. Some people can pull off amazing drawings and animation without a bit of construction!

As for learning actual animation… Watch and study the best! Take influence from both classic and modern animation. I love watching old Warner Brothers cartoons- especially those by Bob Clampett, Tex Avery, and Chuck Jones- and seeing how skillfully they move their characters. I also love anime, too. There are TONS of talented Japanese animators with unique styles and techniques. I have so many favorites I can’t even list them all, but SakugaBooru (occasional 18+ content there so beware) has a huge selection of awesome animation gifs and webms from just about everybody. Whenever you get a chance, browse around the site. Watch and analyze different animators’ works and study the underlying principles. Learn to recognize what’s great and what isn’t. Go frame by frame and see how things move, then try it out for yourself. If possible, check out rough animation too. Preston Blair also goes a little bit into animation (walk cycles, squash and stretch, etc.) later on in his book. I’ve also heard a lot of people recommend The Animator’s Survival Kit, but I haven’t really taken a look at it.

So, yeah, this is a big post coming from somebody who hasn’t had any type of formal training. Please don’t take my advice as the end-all be-all (…is that right?) Everything I’ve learned about animation so far has come from the internet, and I’m still just scratching the surface. There are still tons of things that I need learn and get better at (walk cycles still scare the heck out of me), but I’m going for it. Just look around and explore, both here on Tumblr and the rest of the internet. There’s quite a bit of treasure out there.

Some random tips and stuff:

-When animating, start with the basic forms first. Animating something that has a lot of details can be tricky and I find it easy to lose myself. Starting with the simple parts helps a bunch.

-This is probably just me, but I seem to have some sort of issue when it comes to erasing parts of a drawing. I tend to just draw over it, and over time that gets messy. Soo…. er, don’t be afraid to erase.

-If you’re making a project that’s a bit longer or more complicated than the usual gif or something, have a plan. Srsly. Storyboards help. I’ve learned that the hard way.

Miscellaneous recommendations:

-John K Stuff. Say what you will about him, but he gives solid drawing advice. Tons of information here that has also been a huge help in my learning. Also has some great animation lessons. I’d recommend it for those 16+, though.

-Animation Resources. They have the whole Preston Blair book uploaded.

I hope that wasn’t too long. If you or anybody else has any more questions please don’t hesitate to ask!

docholligay replied to your post: “omg please tell me that those of you who also grew up on harry potter…”:

OH MAN THIS IS FUCKING SPICY AND I LOVE IT

I THOUGHT OF YOU IN PARTICULAR DUE TO BOTH THE ARGUMENT AND THE TONE

Harry Potter is a book for people who are very pleased with themselves because they love books and love to read, without any judgements on what’s being read; it was never for children and always for the bored 29-year-old human resources workers they would grow into.

I feel that so strongly about HP, I literally Do Not Get adults who are fanatical about it and wonder if they read anything else

AND I ALSO READ IT AS A YOUTH BUT I ALSO READ ANIMORPHS AND NO ONE IS STILL SORTING THEMSELVES BY THAT

This is what makes its staying power so interesting to me in a ‘can’t look away from this flaming multi-car pileup on the highway’ sort of way - nostalgia is so in right now which, sure, is a more immediately gratifying form of capitalist consumption than others, but even the intense affective draw toward something we enjoyed once usually has some limits, usually ones set by the actual lack of quality of the Thing We Liked As Kids. But not for Harry Potter, it seems, because these books are honestly just like a half step above Ayn Rand levels of transparent in their moralizing and Jo Rowling is increasingly obtuse and really there are just much better stories about young heroes and growing up and all that stuff that’s important for young people to read. And yet millennial fans will apparently keep acting as though this series transcends the need for serious criticism and that actually it is all the written sustenance they could ever need. Even people who actually are well-read love these books with an unwavering devotion - the number of middle school and high school English teachers I know who have Harry Potter tattoos and reread the books every year is astounding, though I do wonder if there’s something about spending so much of your reading time focused on texts that have been deemed appropriate and important for 15 year olds that begins to shape your approach to the activity and to literature in really fundamental ways.

the adults arguing in teh comments are so cringworthy

teh best response to adefender: Are you debating this as if Harry Potter were true, because wtf

ALSO YES THAT ABSURD COMMENT GOT THE BEST RESPONSES AND IT WAS VERY SATISFYING IN A WAY THE INTERNET RARELY IS

anonymous asked:

Is it me, or is Ryoma sort of different in Revelations? Like, in Birthright he's a very private and serious man who takes his role very seriously to the point he could come off as emotionless. I don't get that from Revelations. While he's still serious, he's much more emotional as shown by his scene with Scarlet (he's even closer to her in this route than in Birthright), he isn't afraid to admit in the JPN ver. that he cried fighting his father, he admits to his past flaws, etc. Any thoughts?

I agree with you but I think there is a plausible reason for this (though I am loath to give any credit to the writing team); in Birthright and Conquest we never really get things from his perspective, but in Revelation we’re granted quite a lot of scenes that skew from his perspective or …hm, how do I put this? I want to say that they’re shown in a way that is sensitive to Ryoma’s existence. 

For example, Scarlet says that Corrin isn’t as special as Ryoma…

…then she dies protecting Corrin; when Corrin realizes she’s dead his/her first thought isn’t of themselves, but of Ryoma:

Don’t forget, too, that Sakura also appears to be sensitive to Ryoma’s existence in the plot:

Blah blah ship tease blah, but what’s really important about this is that Sakura exists here solely to give the player more information about Ryoma. He’s usually pretty calm and nonplussed about everything, but around Scarlet he’s…kind of not that way. I honestly don’t think this has to be viewed as romantic; after all, Ryoma’s role was probably much the same here as in Birthright: infiltrate the rebels, appraise them and their leader, get their assistance in the war.

I feel like Revelation probably gave Ryoma more time with Scarlet, and the pressure was different, so they probably formed a good relationship with one another before he told her who he was. She doesn’t find out accidentally in this route that, you know, he’s the up-to-bat king of Hoshido. Like this is something he no doubt has sat down and told her about. On his own terms. His own way.

And I feel like that is what allows them to have this really interesting relationship: one where Scarlet feels comfortable telling other people that she’ll “straighten [Ryoma] out.” I don’t know if in the original she attaches any honorifics to his name or not at any point other than in the Birthright route, but she speaks and acts very casually around Ryoma–and more importantly, I think, he doesn’t seem to mind it, though the way she just butts in and ploughs right over him does leave him acting kind of flustered. This is definitely not “his usual self”–the person we were introduced to in Conquest and Birthright, the guy who always had his shit together, kept his head clear, seemed to always know what to say whether it was harsh or tough love or careful. 

I’mma ship it till the day I die, but I don’t think it has to be explicitly shippy; Ryoma was given a shot at being himself without the trappings of the aristocracy that he’s been wearing since birth, and so I feel like part of his “disguise” (which, jokes aside, had to have been pretty convincing or Scarlet would have never been caught off-guard by the truth) is literally just him acting as he would without the constant formality and the cool head. Like he honestly sounds like he has fun with Scarlet, probably because he met her and got to know her a bit as, well, himself–the Ryoma that exists beneath all the walls and masks that even Hinoka tells him he needs to remember to keep firmly in place. His position doesn’t allow him to be himself, not  very often, not to many people (I feel like Hinoka may be the only one he default would confide to about anything). 

Because of this I think it’s a Pretty Big Deal that he lets himself be himself when he’s around Scarlet. And I mean, in case we didn’t understand that Scarlet is Different, Sakura makes sure we know it.

So personally I think it’s a combination of two things: other characters being more aware of/including/invoking Ryoma’s existence in the world/their lives/the plot, and also Ryoma having met, befriended, and revealed the truth to Scarlet all on his own terms, which seems to have opened up the door to a lot of good things for Ryoma’s character development. The way he admits to his jealousy and feelings of guilt (to Yukimura, but in front of Scarlet, no less) is huge. I believe that Ryoma’s never been given the chance to meet someone on equal footing before (except, to an extent, Hinoka, but he doesn’t seem to confide in her overmuch and still comes across as the type to keep largely to himself about things that bother him).

Anyway, Ryoma’s relationship to Scarlet is, of course, entirely up in the air, but he definitely likes her, trusts her with his emotions (!!), and thinks highly of her as, iirc, he does refer to her as his friend. (They also make a good fighting team; like…he was having fun fighting with her as his partner.)

Ryoma’s an interesting guy, but at this point there’s no doubt in my mind that meeting and befriending Scarlet as just a regular guy (“himself”) helped him figure out some stuff about himself–or maybe it just helped him feel more comfortable addressing it.

sfenhry  asked:

Hi! Since you post a lot of stuff about economics, I was wondering if you had any book recommendations for people who know very little about it (besides the basics)? Any branch/field, I don't have anything specific in mind. Thank you! :)

I was fortunate in college to have: 1) majored in economics, so i didn’t have to read to learn the dominant economic ideology; i showed up at lectures 2) i had a couple of professors who taught history of ideas courses so i got to read/ hear some of the dissenting opinions like marx, environmentalists, and feminists (to a lesser extent. There are some people on here who probably know a lot more about economics and feminism than i do).

that said, i think ill try to make a list of some stuff:

so for neoclassical economics (the current dominant ideology among both Democrats and Republicans in the US), I’d recommend listening to some lectures like these or maybe in iTunes U and university podcasts. Also Kahn academy has a couple lectures on finance and capital markets which you need to understand to understand the financial crisis. Just listening to the lectures at kahn academy might be pretty good. if you’re looking for a textbook, the one everyone uses is noted asshole Gregory Mankiw’s; I think its Economic Principles. Also mishkin’s textbook on money & banking is another widely used textbook although mishkin is a fucking asshole. Lately, students have been rebelling against Mankiw and his uncritical views. 

I would not recommend NPR’s planet money or freakonomics probably; they’re just not very good. I really hesitate to suggest popular books on these subjects because they usually aren’t that great and usually derive from scholarly work.

the lectures above will just tell you the ideological system that legitimizes banks etc. for a broader picture of our economic system you could read:

  1. Marx’s Capital: or at the very least read about it. It is still the most important dissenting work. There are some good intros/ books about it like David Harvey’s lecture series Reading Marx’s Capital, Althusser’s Reading Capital, and Ben Fine and Alfredo Saad-Filho’s Marx’s Capital.  
  2. David Harvey’s The Limits to Capital and his history of Neoliberalism are worth checking out. 
  3. Foucault’s lectures on neoliberalism especially The Birth of Biopolitics and Society Must be Defended; Foucault has originated a lot of influential criticisms.
  4. Negri and Hardt’s work i.e. Empire
  5. Piketty’s new book Capital in the 21st Century: It  is an important turning point for liberal economists. ‘His’ graphs about inequality were popularized by Occupy. You can read his book, but I’d probably suggest reading about it in articles etc. David Harvey’s article on it is good. The Nation had an article that tried to situate it in the current intellectual climate. The New Republic also had an article that tried to show the differences between Piketty or Marx. Piketty also argued with Mankiw on wbur which is interesting.
  6. Keeping with liberals, it might be worth reading some of Joseph Stiglitz’s Globalization and its Discontents. I think he talked a lot about the Washington Consensus.
  7. A website called Remapping the Debate wrote a series of articles about how neoclassical economics became so unquestionable, sacrosanct in American universities. I think it’s a VERY important history to understand.
  8. It’s also worth noting that neoclassical economics is not the same as classical economics. If you’re interested in reading about that, there are a couple of readers (i.e. Routledge) for the history of economic thought. When I studied this, my professor always stressed primary source documents, so I don’t really know any good secondary sources in this field at the moment. 
  9. Also, there’s a course on youtube about the History of Economics. I listened to (some?) of it like 5 years ago. I don’t remember how good it is.
  10. Neoclassical economics tends to ignore economic history. I’ve always been very interested in economic history and there are some interesting books about the history of insurance, the atlantic slave trade, upward mobility, the economic consequences of discrimination in the US, agriculture, and education. Fernand Braudel is also a giant in the field of economic history. For me, history is always a key to the question why are people wealthy or poor. Personally, I’m mostly familiar with American economic history so this is not the best list, but the books I linked to are worth reading for 50ish pages except the one by Ira Katznelson which everyone should read all of.
  11. There’s also been a movement since the beginning of the 20th century to recognize ‘housework’ as ‘work.’ Marxists started writing about this at the beginning of the 20th century and it took until Gary Becker and the 60s for the rest of economics to figure this out. On tumblr right now, Silvia Federici is probably one of the most visible writers on this subject. It’s probably worth reading Engels’ thoughts on this subject too. Also, Kathi Weeks The Problem of Work comes to mind here too. I’m not the best source or even a good source for books about feminism and economics.  
  12. I realize reading this that there aren’t any anarchists on here and that’s because I’m not an anarchist; I guess you could read David Graeber’s history of debt. I’ve actaully been meaning to read it but I haven’t.  
  13. After reading this list, it’s very US and theory centered. It might be worth reading some things about Latin America especially ”the Chicago Boys” and Pinochet or Nkrummah’s Neocolonialism or Liberia’s relation with Firestone or Arundhati Roy’s thoughts on India.  
  14. some more history of economics/ economic history books (From how Harvard thinks ‘the history of capitalism’ should be taught so it’s ‘unbiased’ unlike me.) 

anonymous asked:

Hi im a little n00b over here and I don't understand the theory of jin being dead?? Could you explain?

I’M SO SORRY FOR HOW LONG THIS IS I NEVER MEANT FOR IT TO GET LIKE THIS BUT I JUST FEEL SO STRONGLY FOR BANGTAN AND TBH I GOT REALLY SAD WHILE WRITING THIS BECAUSE I DON’T EVEN WANT TO THINK OF JIN BEING DEAD NOPE NOPE NOPE NO THANKS BIGHIT PLEASE TAKE 10 000 STEPS AWAY FROM ME AND LET ME BE HAPPY PLS 

Also, I’m not saying that this is 100% a correct theory. I can see some flaws, and I can also see some supporting for other theories, such as a rumoured ‘Peter Pan’ theory and ‘Alternate Universe’ theory that I really wanna get around to reading because maybe it won’t hurt me as much as this theory does 

Originally posted by the-rap-man

me @ bighit

Keep reading

What I know of the signs based on people and characters I know
  • Aries: Their name probably starts with an A. Loves friendship a lot, even if they accidentally hurt their friends. Stronger than they seem. Kind of superstitious. Free-spirited and wants to somewhat rebel against their childhood. Likes taking amazing selfies. Doesn't care what other people think about them. Sometimes people try to take advantage of them because they seem soft, but they learn not to put up with it. Likes to go to new places.
  • Taurus: Gets along very well with other Tauruses. Really, really, REALLY loves music. Swears a lot, especially when they're angry. Likes fall weather and being cozy. Takes love very seriously. Likes learning about very old cultures and mythology. Soft-spoken and relaxed.
  • Gemini: Super quirky but in the best way possible. Love to learn new things. They like Harry Potter, superheroes, and a lot of other fantasy and sci-fi things. Tends to take charge even though they aren't really the leader type. Gives good advice. Cares more about their friends then themselves. Does things without much hesitation or regret, which is not necessarily a bad thing. You've probably never seen them cry. Has gone through some pretty tough stuff but doesn't let it destroy them.
  • Cancer: Emotional but hides it well. A little clingy with good intentions, but will be distant once in a while. The older sibling. Indecisive. Likes to wear makeup, but keeps it pretty simple. Smart. Likes the color pink and cute patterns. Loves Disney movies. Likes to teach.
  • Leo: Likes feeling powerful. They're thought to have a big ego but they're often very insecure under the surface. They trust people enough to tell those insecurities, but sometimes distances themselves from their friends. Looks to their past a lot but separates themselves from it. Hates being ignored. Holds grudges. Has a warm feeling about them. Cares about their appearance.
  • Virgo: Virgos are basically all or nothing, half of the Virgos I know are nothing like stereotypical ones. Some follow all the rules, others don't care about breaking a few here and there. Either very "A-type" or very not. Family is important to them, but can hold grudges with family members and change the relationship between them. Kind of goes with the flow. Good-hearted. They may not see it, but they look or act a LOT like their parent(s). Likes visually pleasing simplicity.
  • Libra: Generous and outgoing, always wants to make sure that the people around them are happy and understand. Can be very political. Professional in the appropriate situations. Has the best smile. The most interesting at a party. Likes to drink.
  • Scorpio: Super polite. Pretty down to earth but do NOT, I repeat do NOT make them angry. Not afraid to be aggressive. Very, very romantic. Serious but silly. Proud. Probably has dark hair. If they care about someone very much, they try SO hard not to hurt them, physically and emotionally. Very funny. Can be mysterious. Their kindness should not be mistaken for flirting. Willing to listen. Disciplined and likes order.
  • Sagittarius: Really cool hair. Loves to entertain people and teaching them new things. Was probably short as a child but then shot up and now taller than most of their friends. Proud of being a Sagittarius but a lot of people forget this person's birthday. Accepting of people different from themselves. Usually stand out the most in their group of friends. Keeps their love life kind of separate from their friendships.
  • Capricorn: Has a strange way of handling relationships. There's something insecure about them but you can never really tell what it is. Kind of mysterious. Beautiful eyes. Knows what they want. Always doing something, whether that be playing video games or fidgeting with something. Sometimes seems emotionless or unsympathetic, but secretly cares.
  • Aquarius: Likes to succeed and loves the environment. Probably has a lot of siblings. Very good friends, likable, and keeps secrets. Good in professional settings but also tries to have a little fun with it. Likes fairy tales and reading. Religious, or at least spiritual. Not afraid to be touchy and say "I love you" to their friends. Usually has only one best friend at a time.
  • Pisces: Enjoys simple things. Often seen as a kind of "sidekick" but is actually a pretty independent person. Surprisingly dirty minds. Strangers think they are quiet. May seem a little distant, but deeply cares about their friends. Gets excited for their friends' accomplishments and loves to help them when they can. Likes earthy colors, including green. Wants to travel to new places.