and thats proof that we would be great to a little brother

The New World

|| Part One || Two

Summary: Hoseok is the son of one of the richest family’s of the first modern era.  He’s wealthy, young, beautiful, and just doing what every young person is doing at this time. Gambling, drinking, running around with girls, and delving into a life of crime to do just one thing: tarnish the family name.

“What is the point? Everyone does it. Everyone is selfish. But few are selfish like this.”  Hoseok tossed the letter from his family into the trash can next to his desk. If there ever was a place to find him in his most angered state it would be in his bedroom.  Either a place for solace, or a place for animosity.  Today it wasn’t a book in his hand while he leaned against his bed frame, but a letter, and he was pacing across the floor, chewing on the inside of his cheek.  He had read every word that was meaningful to him out loud, scowling in the process.

Keep reading

Something that deeply bothers me about most mainstream social movements is their lack of inclusion for Hispanics and Latinx. The bigger part of the feminist movement and the racial injustice movements literally do nothing for undocumented immigrants, who face the same problems they do but on a much bigger scale. No, this is not a competition of who suffers more, but it is deeply alarming that a group who suffers so much is given such little attention. Also not to say that ALL activists from these groups ignore the following, because truly there are some amazing activists out there. But here’s a few things I’ve noticed: Hispanic & Latina women (and gender fluid people, non-binary, others who identify as women, etc) make the lowest amount of money for every white man’s dollar, yet I rarely see that mentioned. Undocumented immigrant women (same as the last parenthesis, and for any time I mention the extremely simplified word: “women”) are raped in massive numbers and at much higher rates than other women, yet I rarely see that mentioned. Undocumented immigrants are one of the groups that fall under modern slavery, and yet I rarely see that mentioned. And those are only some problems they face in America, don’t get me started on the atrocities they are faced with in their home countries which force them to flee here to somehow look for something better (while they’re met with this bullshit).

Recently a group of activists with Black Lives Matter interrupted a talk about immigration reform with presidential candidates, Sanders and O'Malley. I’ve always deeply respected Black Lives Matter, but that day they lost a good amount of my support (not the entire current civil rights movement, of course, but that specific group of activists within BLM). The injustices that immigrants face are massive, and an injustice allowed against one group of minorities makes it easier to oppress all. I’ve always stood by BLM but some of their members seemingly decided not to stand by their Hispanic & Latinx brothers and sisters and steer attention from their issues. Thats not right. Immigration reform needs to be talked about. Police brutality needs to be talked about. Neither at the expense of the other.

Now, I understand that any conversation about big issues such as immigration with presidential candidates probably won’t be very honest or candid. But then that’s exactly what we should be protesting at that time and place. Just like the heckler who stopped Julian Castro at the civil rights summit in Austin, Texas pleading for him to speak of DREAMer issues while he spoke of immigration. That was the time and place to request better, more honest answers for that particular marginalized community. It would not have been the time to completely stray from their hardships and steer it to another group.

Essentially what I want to get at in this post is that we really need to be paying attention to ALL injustices proportionally. Black lives DO matter, their struggles are asinine and could not be more clearly unjust, AND Hispanics and Latinx need more comprehensive immigration reform and better treatment in this country. Neither are mutually exclusive, and neither should be overshadowed by the other. They don’t have to be. We can join together and fight both, and attempt bring justice to ALL without ignoring a huge group of oppressed people. So please, if you’re part of an activist movement, PLEASE don’t forget your Hispanic and Latinx brother and sisters. We haven’t forgotten you, and we do our best to educate those who have. Please do the same.

*Also I just want to say that the group who I’ve seen include Hispanics and Latinx the most in their fight are the Black Panthers and I’m hugely thankful to them for that. A cause so often demonized truly does so much for the good of most (I don’t want to use absolute terms like “all”) oppressed people, and they deserve a lot more great recognition than they get.

~Rant semi-over. I would love to RESPECTFULLY talk to anyone who agrees or disagrees with me, or who finds anything problematic with this that I could learn from. I didn’t proof read this, so I’m sure I let things slip that are problematic even though I tried while I wrote, haha~

anonymous asked:

Your theories are an interesting read but at the end of the day that's all what they are, theories. The original author Kishimoto has never officially stated that the two main male characters are gay but rather friends/brothers with a deep bond and I, like many others, are fine with that and rather take the word of the author over anything else. Obviously you want them to be gay but since that’s not the case in this Shounen manga, I think you will find more enjoyment in the Yaoi manga's/anime's.

Thanks, but I have to correct you. 

Once again.

Your first argument: “Your theories are theories.”

a) Begging the question.
→ Begging the question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true. You basically think XY is true because the evidence for this claim is that XY is true. Assuming the conclusion is true does not constitute evidence for that conclusion.

b)  You are generalising.
→ What do you mean by theories? What are theories for you? You didn’t define that. Of course it is easy for you to shut me up if you generalise like that. I have to enlighten you about the definition: A theory is a system of statements; it serves to describe parts of the reality or explain them and provide prognoses for the future. The same would apply to Sakura’s motherhood. Is that also a theory for you, hm? Define. Explain. Free your mind.

Your second argument: “Kishimoto has never officially stated that Naruto and Sasuke are gay, but rather friends/brothers who share a deep bond.”

a) Straw man.
→ You are implying that Naruto and Sasuke are straight. This is, by the by, incorrect. Kishimoto never stated anything about their sexuality. Thus, your conclusion is false. Furthermore, I never said they are gay; therefore, your argument is a straw man. A constructed argument to make it easier to attack my position.

b) Appeal to ignorance.
→ You assume something has to be true because it hasn’t been proven false.

c) There is nothing wrong with stating their bond is romantic.
→ Like I explained in my post [link], Naruto and Sasuke scrapped the notion through unreliable narration. In the beginning, Naruto says that their bond is similar to a brotherhood. Later on, he corrects this, and says that their bond is similar to a friendship. Especially Sasuke wants to know why Naruto is so determined to help him when they finally find the time to talk after all these years. Towards the end, Sasuke asks him the same question and wants to know what Naruto meant when he said they are friends. Suddenly, Naruto isn’t sure anymore how to answer his question because the feelings he has for Sasuke are too great and deep. We, as the readers, can notice subtle changes. Are they brothers? Friends? Lovers? They aren’t brothers, Naruto denied this. And it can’t be a normal friendship, Sasuke questioned this; id est, there is nothing wrong with assuming that their bond is romantic. 

d) Argumentum ad nauseam.
→ An argument made repeatedly until nobody cares to discuss it anymore. This may sometimes, but not always, be a form of proof by assertion.

Your third argument: “I, like many others, believe Kishimoto.”

a) Argumentum ad populum.
→ A fallacy that concludes that something is true because many or most people believe it. Oh, how many people believe that Trump is going to make America great again? 

b) Authorial intent is not important and lost its original sense. 
→ Roland Barthes, French philosopher, author, and literary critic, published an essay called La mort de l’auteur (English for “The Death of the Author”). He postulates that the author has to be treated as dead from a literary point of view.
→ Intentional fallacy. The problem inherent in trying to judge a work of art by assuming the intent or purpose of the author who created it.
→ Weak intentionalism. Mark Bevir sees meanings as necessarily intentional, but he suggests that the relevant intentions can be those of readers as well as those of the authors. Weak intentionalists emphasise that texts do not have meanings in themselves. They believe that meanings are always meanings for people—albeit the relevant people, whether authors or readers.

Your third argument: “You want them to be gay.”

a) Appeal to motive.
→ You are calling my motives into question, and are implying it played a role in forming my argument and its conclusion. I never said they are gay.

b) A little homophobic, don’t you think?
→ By assuming Naruto and Sasuke are heterosexual, you imply straight and gay people follow a certain behavioural pattern. According to you, unconventional characteristics belong per se to other sexualities. That is, don’t pardon my French, bullshit since there aren’t any guidelines for that, and also, there aren’t any evidences or hints in the series about their sexuality. A marriage proves nothing. If you still don’t believe me, I would suggest you to watch Brokeback Mountain. It’s about two men—apparently happily married—that constantly meet each other secretly and have sex. Newsflash, somebody can be in a heterosexual relationship, but that doesn’t conclude the person is heterosexual.

c) Don’t be so brazen.
→ Didn’t you read [link] my [link] answers? Also, did you ever hear of bisexuality? Pansexuality? Polysexuality? Trisexuality? Bicuriousity? Skoliosexuality? And more???

Your fourth argument: “Naruto is a shounen, not a yaoi.”

a) Sigh.
→ I would advise you first and foremost to learn the difference between yaoi and shounen ai. Yaoi stands for on-screen sex between two guys and maybe on-screen or off-screen romance. Shounen ai stands for on-screen romance between two guys and maybe off-screen sex. With that said, you need to replace yaoi with shounen ai. 

Well, but you are still wrong and talk utter and complete nonsense. Following this logic, I could state the same about your ships. After all, Naruto isn’t a hentai, right? Naruto isn’t an ecchi, right? Naruto isn’t a shoujo, right?

Yet, you see no problems with heterosexual ships; however, you see a problem when it comes to homosexual ships. Why is that so? Why? Since, obviously, you aren’t afraid of love. Does this mean you are afraid of two guys loving each other? Does this mean you hate gays? Does this mean homosexuality isn’t normal and therefore, it is necessary to label certain pieces of work with some sort of warning, so that you and your homophobic little friends know that it contains homosexuality? So that you can distance yourself from such things? Because, you know, that’s what your statement implies.

anonymous asked:

1/2 (i.e. the great GA debate) I agree completely. I used to think that the GA was a barrier to destiel, and how in the world can they make it any clearer without actually going textual, but then it would seem shocking/out of the blue. Then it dawned on me that that's not the case at all. The GA is not a barrier, not in the way i was thinking. The story is a slow burn one, GA or not. You have ppl like your husband, who would need it spelled out but would be ok once it was.

2/2 But ppl like him aren’t a barrier b/c there’s not much spn can do about those who need it to go canon and be spelled out before they see it. But they’ll be fine once it is so no barrier there. And as far as the homophobic viewers? I assume spn doesn’t care much about losing them, as they are such a small factor and i can’t imagine SPN even considers what they want in terms of dean’s sexuality and destiel. Plus i think those who would leave prob did so after Chuck’s reveal, so.

Yep. There’s been queer subtext in this show since day 1, but there’s always been the option of reading it as a “joke,” or the show making fun of itself. Look at 5.09 for proof that the show itself knows this.

Originally posted by the-fallen-angel-has-the-tardis

But recently, and especially in s11, something has changed. The subtext is still there, stronger than ever, but how it’s being presented is very different. There’s no obvious “joke” reading to the queer representation being presented. Canon gay couples are not being presented as comedic.

In Dean’s speech to the Stynes in 10.22, he used the line, “for the ladies, or the fellas. I don’t judge.” And he really meant it.

In 11.02 Jenna casually tells Dean that her first kiss (and it’s implied her first sexual experience, discussed in the same sentence) were with a girl, and Dean doesn’t even blink at this admission. He continues to relate to her in the exact same way. It’s normalized, rather than presented for shock value or a laugh.

In 11.04, the entire conversation with Sam about wanting to have something more with someone, not marriage, but something with someone who understands the life, and all that, was a very deliberately gender-neutral conversation. Not once did either of them use a feminine noun or adjective in that whole conversation. Almost as if the gender of the person Sam was implying Dean might consider settling down with was entirely irrelevant. Again, normalizing the idea for the general audience.

In 11.15, Sam’s childhood “crush” on Rio is narratively paralleled with Dean’s childhood ????? on Gunner. In fact, Sam’s crush seems positively mild in comparison to Dean’s feelings toward Gunner. It was noted several times that Sam had a poster of her above his bed and Dean teased him about how strongly he’d felt about her as a kid. But as their first meetings played out simultaneously on screen, with Rio commenting on the poster thing while Sam gets a lil blushy over the fact, Dean’s getting all flustered and blushy because he didn’t have a poster of Gunner, he committed a crime once (his first B&E!) in order to be able to watch his childhood crush on television. 

In 11.16, the mother of the victim in the case Sam and Dean are investigating casually mentions that her wife is away on business and is on her way home to care for their hospitalized daughter. Again, Sam and Dean don’t blink at this information. NOTHING changes about how they relate to the victim, the mother, or her wife. It’s not even mentioned again, other than showing a touching scene at the end of the episode when the little girl has been saved and the family is happily reunited while Dean looks on.

11.18 was the culmination of all the research, lost sleep, and frustration Dean’s been feeling since 11.14, but also gave us a very textual answer to the question raised by Mildred’s assertion in 11.11 that Dean was pining for someone. If you’ve been asking yourself, BUT WHO IS DEAN PINING FOR? I HAVEN’T SEEN HIM PINING… but Dean yells out Castiel’s name so often and with such a range of emotions that even LUCIFER picks up on it and mocks him for it.

Originally posted by love-from-221b

11.19 was a queer text in every possible way. Not only did we have the Hunter Husbands, the introduction of their relationship status turned the long-standing joke about the “homoerotic subtext of supernatural” on its head. See this post (and this one) in particular, or just give up like I did and read through the 12 pages of posts in my 11.19 tag. Not only was that entire episode a metaphor for toxic heteronormativity and the monster a metaphor for compulsive heterosexuality, but the metaphor LITERALLY PARALLELED A REAL-LIFE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE PROMO PHOTOS. WHICH IS FASCINATING TO ME ON SO MANY LEVELS.

The promo shots for the episode were released, and MANY meta writers and fans online immediately looked at them and screamed OH MY GOODNESS LOOK AT THE ADORABLE HUNTER HUSBANDS! But then ONE ARTICLE discussed the photos and labeled them “brothers,” for the SOLE REASON that the characters SHARED A LAST NAME ON THE IMDb LISTING FOR THE EPISODE. THAT’S IT.

Fandom reaction to this news, that a “legitimate news source” labeled them “brothers,” was mixed. A lot of people changed their interpretation of the photos to fit that sole opinion, with lots of sighing, eye rolling, and resignation. There was another portion of the fandom laughing because OF COURSE THEY’RE BROTHERS YOU IDIOTS ARE DELUSIONAL AND NOW WE HAVE PROOF BECAUSE HAHAHAHA YOU LOSERS SEE YOUR SHIPS EVERYWHERE HOW GROSS. While others of us just quietly sat on our hands and held our tongues, because dammit we know we’re not wrong IT’S SO OBVIOUS but we’re not gonna say anything yet just hold the line and wait until the episode airs before passing judgment.

And then the episode aired. And of course we were right. They’re husbands.

And that’s just so fucking meta-meta-meta I can hardly stand it. :P


11.21… i think i have tagged several screaming posts with something along the lines of ‘the most destiel destiel to ever destiel.’ Dean and Cas’s profound bond is proven to be stronger than Amara’s noncon bond with Dean. Not to mention Dean and Sam have established a weird, hush-hush code for talking about Cas, and an even weirder “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about Cas while Chuck’s within earshot.

So what’s the takeaway from all of this? Essentially if you’re homophobic, you’re really watching the wrong show.

anonymous asked:

I honestly don't think that stefan and elena cant live without damon. i think that's an illogical idea. they even tried to get rid of him and stefan tried to run away from him to live a life. it is more of damon can't live without stefan and elena--a brother to have so that he can fulfill his promise of misery and his brother's supposed epic love just to have a grip of humanity (if its there). but its really BS. its all centered on damon's. but what about stefan and elena? :/

I don’t understand where that came from, either. For starters, I have never quite understood why Elena fell in love with Damon in the first place. Because he gave her a necklace? First of all, the fact that him giving back the necklace was “the most selfless he’d ever been” means that Elena actually thought that there was a big chance he would have kept it. That doesn’t say much good about Damon, now does it? Because for any other person, giving back the necklace would be the perfectly normal thing to do. Like, if Matt had found that necklace, he would’ve given it back to her without blinking. But because it was Damon, it was selfless? Yeah, no, not really. The fact that he gave it back was proof that he wasn’t as big a douchebag as everyone thought he was. There was nothing more to it. It made him a little less horrible, ‘s all. And second of all, that necklace represented hope for Stefan and Elena. It had nothing to do with Elena falling in love with him (and she said “in that moment, I LOVED him”, not “I fell IN LOVE with him”, so Caroline’s “she fell in love with Damon while she was still with Stefan” was complete bullshit). She grasped on to that necklace to remain hopeful, the necklace was a symbol for the love they shared, the love she clung to in her quest to drag him back to where he belonged (by her side) and the love she asked him to hold on to in that 3x01 phone call.

So I don’t understand why Elena loves him. I don’t understand why it took compulsion to get her to remember that he snapped Jeremy’s neck. I don’t understand why she thinks she’ll never fall in love again. (Child, you’re eighteen years old. You’re life has not stopped. Get a grip.) I don’t understand why she thinks he was her soulmate. I don’t understand why it was so hard for her to let go - harder than letting go of her brother or her parents, for instance. None of it makes sense. It makes DE so tacky, you know? It’s like, they can’t prove that they have this overwhelming, all-conquering love (especially since neither of them could resist compulsion and bloodlust) so they’ll throw around words like ‘forever’ and ‘eternity’ and ‘soulmate’ and ‘inspiring’ and hope that we’ll fall for it. How about no.

When it comes to Stefan, though… I’m a little bit more careful there. I don’t understand why Elena can’t live without him, but for Stefan… Ugh, this is hard for me, because I’m probably the biggest Defan hater the world has ever known, but for some reason, Stefan loves his brother deeply and unconditionally. He has never been able to move past him. Sure, he has tried to ban Damon out of his life and he has made snarky comments about how Damon has ruined Stefan’s life time and time again, but when push came to shove, Stefan was there. He let himself get talked out of killing Damon after Damon killed Lexi. He saved Damon from the fire. He saved Damon from the werewolf bite (making the biggest sacrifice anyone could ever make while doing so: he literally gave up the love of his life to save his brother). He snapped out of the no-emotions-thing to save Damon from Klaus’ hybrids. No matter all the horrible things Damon has ever done to him (and that was A LOT), Stefan has never been able to say “and now I’m fucking done, he crossed the line, this is it, he went too far”. Because through it all, Damon is the big brother Stefan used to look up to and Stefan just wants him to be happy. He will go to great lengths to make sure that Damon gets another chance (for instance, compelling Zach to forget about his murdered, pregnant girlfriend). Damon is Stefan’s brother and Stefan will never be able to stop loving him, even after everything Damon made him go through. It’s sad and it makes me feel sorry for Stefan, but it’s the way it is and brotherly love is a wonderful thing, even though Stefan is taking it WAY too far.

You’re right about Damon, though. Ever since season four, everything was about Damon. I feel like the writers are trying to force us to feel sorry for him, by writing sob story after sob story. Poor poor Damon, his daddy didn’t love him, Katherine never actually wanted to be with him, Stefan didn’t save him from the Augustine doctors, Stefan didn’t wanna go on a road trip with him, let’s all feel sorry for that poor poor innocent puppy. How about you give ‘m some fucking balls, stop making ‘m feel sorry because he can’t control his own homicidal tendencies and focus on a STORY instead. The sun does not orbit around Damon Salvatore’s ass, alright? It’s not all about what HE wants, how about we let Stefan finally have some well-deserved happiness?