but for some reason these are fine in colour


cc testers wanted

if anybody has the time to pop these into ts4 and play for a bit (in-game and not just CAS), i would appreciate it! if you can, then to report: just send me an ask/chat or reblog this post to say whether the scarves are working fine in your game or not. (if there aren’t any problems, i’ll make a proper upload post, and finish a few more recolours.) 

male + female version of a new low-poly scarf mesh (polycount like a maxis necklace), in hogwarts house colours + some plain ones. category = necklace, has a custom thumbnail with “confetti” written on it. 

the reason i want testing is that i’ve never done all the stuff i had to do to get them to adapt to CAS sliders before, so i don’t know if i accidentally did anything all wrong. (so far in my own testing they’re fine.) 

they are not perfect and clip with many clothes, especially jackets with thicker collars. so, please don’t report minor clipping to me, i just want to know if they cause problems, or if they seem to clip with *all* clothes or animations for you, etc. 

DL: male version, female version (they should be basegame compatible, please report to me if they don’t work in yours.)


Male Complexions, Humanoid and Qunari // Available on Nexus

About this mod:

  • Brows are painted on, and will layer under Tattoos, Vallaslin, and Vitaar
  • Brows tend to look different on different presets. Use Brow Size sliders in Head and Ears tab while in the CC to adjust to your taste. 
  • I made these to accent blonde hairstyles originally, but they look fine with all hair colours. 

About Humanoid Complexion 

  • Complexion A and Illias Complexion take up the same slot, don’t install at the same time.   
  • Takes up Slot 4 and all corresponding complexions. 
  • Human and Dwarves have three complexions with brows, Elves only have two. 

About Qunari Complexion 

  • Deshine and Qunari Complexion take up the same slot, do not install at the same time. 
  • Takes up slots 11, 12, 13. 
  • I do not recommend adding lip shine. For some reason the complexion doesn’t take to it well. I’ve tried to fix it and failed. 

Other Mods Used: 

Invisible Starting Armor by GrimmPrince 
Skyhold Pyjama Retexture and Qunari Pj Mod by zwierzodudle
Human Male Skyhold Outfit Retextures by horography
EYES by Ramccoid
Minimalist Vallaslin by bees-bees-fear
Lush Lashes by Shosholada

Both hair mods by myself and can be found under the my mods tab on my tumblr page. 

Explaining the Rainbow

Summary: based on the above prompt from phanfic.  I added a bunch of Phil explaining colours to Dan and other fun stuff as well.

Word Count: 2k

Warnings: None

Genre: Fluff

Dan always joked about how much he wore the colour black.  He made sarcastic comments about how everything he owned seemed to be black and white.  Though that was a bit of an exaggeration, he did have some colorful things, he just had a reason for it all.  

Dan was colourblind. In the truest sense of the word as he couldn’t see any colour at all.  The world was an array of black, white, and grey.  A grey scale with only variations.

Keep reading

You are allowed to like or dislike an idol for whatever shallow reasons you want. You decided to stan an idol because they changed their hair colour? Go for it! You’re not interested anymore because your not a fan of their haircut or stage outfit? That’s fine. There are honestly some drama queens out there who will rage at you for stanning someone for their looks- in an industry made up of people who could all be models, it’s not a crime. Don’t pay attention to those people, they need to chill.

I am a customer service manager, meaning we pretty much take care of the front end checkouts if anything goes bad. I was asked to do a price check on one of those water dispenser things cause the lady said it was a different price and she wanted the scanning code of practice (10 off ticket price if over $10, free if under) so I went to go check the price and low and behold the scanning price was right for the colour of dispenser (white was cheaper for some reason) the husband came over and I explained since this is the right price that I couldn’t do anything about it. He was pretty much fine with it, was going to see if his wife wanted the white one instead. We head back to the till and I tell the lady and she blows up on me. “Well it wasn’t in the right spot! I should get this with the scanning code! Lowes would’ve given it to me. I’m going to Canadian tire then, I don’t want it.” Then she hit a nerve. “I want to speak to a duty manager, your one aren’t you?” “No ma'am I’m a customer service manager” “well where the hell is the customer service?!” “Well I can call a duty manager over but they will tell you the same thing” “well call one over” and as I was about to call one over, one walks by. I tell her this customer wanted to talk to her and explained that the dispenser was the correct price so we couldn’t give her the scanning code. Then she tells the customer that “she was going to give it to her for the sales price (which was 30$ off) plus the $10 scanning code.” Lady was happy. Duty manager then pulled me aside and bitched at me for not doing my job correctly.

Another incident happened like 2 months before this. This guy started screaming at one of my cashiers about buying bags for his groceries (5cents a bag up to ten bags, we had just implemented it) Well apparently the guys lady friend said she didn’t want any bags, and he did but there was no way in hell he was going to pay for them. My co-csm, an older lady, walked over and told the man to stop yelling and to please leave the store. Guy literally grabs her and nearly punched her in the face before storming out followed by security and management. Still screaming outside, guy gets arrested and insta-banned from all our stores in the lower half of the province. And to top it off? Co-csm charged him with assault and now he’s in jail lol.

Anti-Lexa Arguments are...Invalid. What?! :o

Hey! Hi :)

So I’m new to tumblr, and while I’d love to do introductions or whatever, the fact remains that I was finally prompted to make an account because I’d been browsing around the 100 and lo and behold, I tumbled upon some negativity, some feuds that I was like “what?” to…*cough Bellarke*Clexa

Originally posted by funnynhilariousgif

Originally posted by elittlejoia

Sorry, something in my throat. Anyway. And that’s fine, it happens – people have differing opinions, and can react very emotionally when those opinions are challenged or threatened. That’s life. But then I see all this sudden Lexa hate, or dislike, and yeah that’s fine too: it’s opinionated. But THEN I see their reasons why and I’m like…. what? that is ridiculous. Where does that idea come from? Colour me unimpressed and exasperated. Seriously, calm down.

Originally posted by nestofsouls

 So now here I am finally with a tumblr account, because I was so done with these anti-lexa arguments, with this as my first post that will probably-maybe-hopefully-not cause a stir, but that will definitely be FILLED WITH GIFS because… they emphasize points nicely. Could be better, could be worse.

Originally posted by heckyeahreactiongifs

 So, back to the headline: Anti-Lexa arguments are invalid.

First, let it be stated this is not a ship war argument I’m going to be presenting. This is for those Anti-Lexa arguments. Also, this IS going to be LONG. It is, after all, a process. Which is often the case when getting to the bottom of things. It’s also going to be a bit formal, so… be prepared, I guess.

Originally posted by livinginthelandofdreams

 For something, that’s what!

Now, before I state this case, we must understand and clearly outline some things. This is an examination of arguments. Arguments must come from a place of logic if it is to be sound, to be valid. For logic, and the subsequent conclusion to be sound, it must follow the premise with correct reasoning. Premises, mind you, can be wrong to start with – so while the logic and conclusion can be sound, it can be incorrect. Even if a conclusion is valid on a correct premise, that does not always make it true, and conclusions, despite the sound of logic, can thus still be wrong.  The actual terms are Deductive and Inductive Logic.

 In any case, it is important to have the facts straight – which isn’t always easy.  Why? Well, a particular issue is human prejudice; we have prior beliefs about an issue, that may or may not arise from a different belief, and thus often we want to believe something because it supports our preconceptions. 

An example of this is fans in season 1 of the 100 may decide to ship Bellamy and Clarke, however Lexa enters the picture, and thus Lexa becomes an obstacle to those who want Bellamy and Clarke together. Hence, fans may be inclined to dislike Lexa – despite everything else – simply because of her relationship with Clarke, whom supporters of Bellarke believe should be with Bellamy. This seems to be the case for many Anti-Lexa shippers. Not all, certainly not all – that would make my statement falsifiable ;) but they use their arguments to reinforce their dislike of Lexa, to justify their belief, and their consequent belief that Bellamy is better. Similar cases are for any ships where a third party gets in the way. However, I digress, this isn’t about the ships. This is about Anti-Lexa, which evidence seems to suggest comes from many Bellarke shippers – so that isn’t to guarantee they won’t be mentioned, and consequently Clexa as well, because the arguments are to do with Clarke. But again, I’m not here to start a war though that is a probable outcome :( please, people – no hate guys. Disagree or whatever but no attacking people.

Moving on…

Despite our beliefs or wants, the facts do exist, and if we want to think intelligently and truthfully, and understand the matter at hand, then we need to try and see things as they are. 

Now to finally begin. So, from what I’ve discovered (and I could be missing arguments) the two claims against Lexa as a character are as follows:

1.       Lexa manipulated Clarke. People base this on Finn’s Death, Raven’s Torture, TonDc and her abandoning Clarke Mount Weather – that Lexa is the reason for all of the above, forcing Clarke to do things she otherwise wouldn’t.

2.       Lexa’s and Clarke’s relationship is unhealthy. People base this statement as the result from the first, that Lexa manipulated Clarke – thus is unhealthy.

So, let’s tackle No. 1. I’m excited for this! Anyway: Lexa manipulated Clarke.

First, we need to understand where this argument comes from; we need to understand what we mean by manipulation.

It is wrong to use people as a means to an end. Using people. We generally don’t like this idea. But the idea is vague. In actuality we use people as a means to an end all the time, in everyday life. For example your boss is using you as a means to an end for whatever you are employed to do. But the difference is you have chosen to work there, and your boss is likely paying you for it. You like your work, or whatever. I’m using my university and their resources, be it sources or professors, as a means to an end for my education. The point is, it’s a two way street. In this respect, a lot of the characters of the 100 use people as means to an end. Lexa included, but let’s not forget Clarke and the others. In fact, there is evidence to suggest Clarke uses people the most. This isn’t bad; in fact it’s quite necessary within these circumstances, and quite good. Combining forces, “using each other” as it will, to help one another in rescuing their people and surviving isn’t wrong. It’s smart, and more importantly, it’s consensual. “Using people” in the wrong sense is typically when their autonomy is violated, perhaps through manipulation. But what is that exactly? I may pretend to be your friend, but really just want your answers to class work; or I may lie to you about not having money so you would pay for my beverage; or I may convince you to go shopping or to the movies or anywhere with me, that it will be fun, when I really, at the basic level, I want you to give me a ride. In these casesI am getting something for myself; I am being selfish and manipulating you. In each case it may or may not be against your will or wish, but it is manipulation because there is deceit or trickery involved; an ulterior motive, and thus autonomy is violated. It is always violated when there is an aspect of being forced to do something against your will, when choice is taken away. And the concept of choice is very important, and also reason.

So, we have an idea of what manipulation is. The Anti-Lexa argument No. 1 is Lexa manipulated Clarke. But did she? If so, to what degree? Or perhaps… was it Clarke that did the manipulating? And again, we ask, to what degree? And finally, the more important question – is the manipulation bad? Let’s think back.

Firstly, both characters are capable of manipulation. If you haven’t seen evidence of this, we are clearly not watching the same show. Lexa’s first appearance is her being manipulative, to a mild degree: she is acting as a slave girl, innocent and in the background, to understand the true nature and intentions of her sky people captives.  

Originally posted by butimacommander

Is this bad? Perhaps on the simple level that lying was involved. But people lie all the time. Many characters of the 100 have lied, so if we are to condemn Lexa for this, to dislike her – we too have to dislike everyone else, Clarke included, Octavia included, Bellamy included, Raven included… well, the list goes on. And this is also important to remember: no one is above judgement. If one character is to be judged of a wrong doing, so too is everyone else. But more importantly, she did not do this with the intention of being harmful to any affected. In fact, the other options of gaining information would have likely been violent – however that isn’t factual. In any case, it showed she was smart, and was a badass introduction really. But that is irrelevant to the argument. Is she manipulative? Well, she can be. Did she manipulate Clarke? Or, vice-versa? Time for character interaction analysis!!

Originally posted by xxivmmxiiim

So, first meeting. We know how it went. Was Lexa deceitful? Did she trick Clarke, having an ulterior motive? I think not. Lexa had already presented Clarke the simple matter: you and your people leave, or die by morning. Why? They were trespassing, had attacked innocents. Their meeting was not a negotiation, as she said. And yet, Clarke came prepared, didn’t she? At first I didn’t think much of it, but having looked back it’s easy to see Clarke being a tiny-weenie bit manipulative here. Giving Anya’s hair braid to Lexa, saying she died by Clarke’s side trying to give a message of an alliance, knowing Lexa was Anya’s second and using their relationship, and their custom, to cause gratitude and sentimentality to arise in the oh-great Grounder Commander?

Originally posted by fffreckles

Well played, Clarke. Saw what you did there ;)

However true the words were, and while I have little-to-no-doubt that Clarke did care for this action and that it wasn’t a pure “means to an end”, she did do it with an ulterior motive, an underlining reason – and that was to raise favour with the Commander; to try and save her people.  In this sense it’s no different when trying to impress your boss, or being witty or helpful with your crush to get them to like you better. So, was this a form of manipulation? Yes. Was it bad? Harmful? Negative? To either party? Was it unhealthy? No, it was not.

Did Lexa want to kill the Sky People? Unlikely. Clarke especially; as confirmed, Lexa was intrigued with Clarke beforehand, and began falling for her upon first sight. However, and this is important for other arguments to come, Lexa is the Commander of the Grounders, a whole culture with decades of history, that abide by customs built in place for a reason. Yes, she has power, but she is not above her own cultural morals, their own customs – in fact she may be the most in-trapped by them. Did Lexa want the Sky People to live? Probably. She didn’t want to kill them, not all of them. Could she let them live on her land at this stage? Definitely not – to do so would end in her consequent death. Lincoln confirmed this upon Octavia’s inquiry of mercy. Like logic, customs do not care for your inner feelings or desires. The rules must be followed, after all. 

But, of course then Clarke offered something in return – curing the reapers, conquering the Mountain. A quid pro quo, as you might say. You help me, I’ll help you. There was no trickery or deceit in this offer. However, Clarke was not certain Lincoln would recover when she made the deal, and thus it is arguable she was slightly manipulative then as well. But was it wrong? It was in the best interests of the many, after all. It wasn't selfish, to her alone – it would benefit all involved, and affected. So no, it was not wrong.

 And now leading up to the first example Anti-Lexa supporters argue of her manipulation: Finn’s death. Was there trickery or deceit involved? No, there wasn’t. Lexa said it straight up: you want this alliance, hand over the boy you call Finn. Why? Well, he went a little loco-crazy and shot a bunch of innocent villagers, executed that traitor grounder too. Those are facts. And did she lie about how his death would go? No, he had to pay for his crimes according to their moral laws. If she allowed him to live, she would then die, and the sky people would die anyway.

I’m going to point out the selfishness of the 100 delinquents here in them trying to save Finn, because, yes, life is important, but there is the moral argument that we should save as many as we can. Generally, many are against the idea of killing another human being, but few think it is always wrong to do so; there are exceptions. Self-defence is the common exception, but there are others:

a) When the person is going to die soon anyway for some reason or another.

b) The human has no wish to go on living, perhaps because they have no wishes at all, or, in accordance with a) that they are dying anyway, living on borrowed time.

c) When the killing will save others, who can go on to lead full lives.

So yes, they may want to save Finn, but he was guilty. There was no justifiable reason for his actions. Others were not saved for his massacre, unlike most other instances of the 100 when many died, for example TonDc and the Mountain. In saving him, they would be condemning everyone else to die. The logic, thus, of saving the one for the many, instead of sacrificing one for the many, is stupid, on their part.

But this isn’t what people seem to have issue with. I have seen that some supporters of the statement seem to believe Lexa caused Finn’ death, that she forced Clarke to kill him. It is arguable, however, that Finn caused his own death. How? Well let’s simplify the scenario:

Say you went to a different country; you would have to abide by their laws, correct? You are not immune to them or above them simply because you are from somewhere else. Say then, you killed someone. You hand yourself in, or you get caught. In any case, you’re in the hands of the authorities. The laws state you are to be trialled, and you are found guilty, and are to be punished in accordance with the law. Is it the enforcers or the judges fault of your punishment? Is it the laws fault? Or is it that it is your own fault; that you, knowingly, broke the law, and was caught? In crime shows do we ever blame the justice system when the sentenced is guilty and punished? Do we blame the person who hands the person the gun? The gun itself? No, it’s entirely the individual. A criminal commits an offense, the justice system then reacts accordingly. And the result would be the same regardless of who it was. The fact was a crime was committed, and demanded to be sentenced.  To not act accordingly would suggest anyone could break the law and be away with it.

Now, did Lexa cause Finn’s death? Let’s fast forward: Lexa directly killed Gustus, no doubt who was her protector of years for the alliance. Did she cause his death though? No, she resulted in his death, perhaps, and was a motivation for it; but it was Gustus himself that caused and brought about his end, thinking selfishly. It is correct to say Lexa was the cause for Gustus’s death in his crime of poison as Clarke was for Finn’s death in his thwarted mentality of thinking she was captured. Neither Clarke nor Lexa said ‘do this for me’, it was all independent on Gustus’s and Finn’s will and mentality. So did Lexa cause Finn’s death? No, she did not.

Now, those saying Lexa forced Clarke to kill Finn. Honestly, I don’t understand how someone could come to this conclusion. Did Lexa imply, say, or do anything that translated to “Clarke kill Finn, yourself… like, now please. I demand it so.” No. If anyone, other than Clarke herself, forced her to kill Finn – it was arguably Raven. But let’s go back a bit and remember the importance of choice, here. Lexa had no choice – no real choice. Let Finn live? She, and all sky people would die, along with the Coalition: the 12 clans would likely break apart, aka chaos. Let him die? Sky people live, she lives, the coalition stays intact and they all have a chance at saving their people in the mountain. But Clarke? Clarke had a choice. More of a choice than Lexa. Either let Finn die a little slowly, or swiftly. 

She chose the latter, she decided she would kill him herself. Lexa did not know Clarke would do this: after all, the result is that Clarke violates the tradition, and Lexa has to stop the Grounder’s for seeking further justicethen against Clarke. In that she did not know Clarke would do this, it is hard to say she forced Clarke to kill Finn. Even if she did know what Clarke was going to do, knowing is not forcing the issue. In either case, Lexa would prefer traditions to be upheld. Hence, as it is, or appears to be, this example is invalid. There is no manipulation here, from Lexa’s end. It is arguable Clarke was once again a little manipulative, in her deceit of true intentions in ‘saying goodbye’. Was this case harmful? Potentially. Clarke disrespected their custom, in a way, but at the same time showed strength – and Clarke makes up for it in other instances of respect, such as speaking their words at the burning of the pyre.  

Next example: Raven’s Torture. This case is very similar to Finn’s, and consequently Gustus’s. It fall’s back to the fact that we do not blame police officer’s for doing their job, do we? There may be feelings of anger or spite, but the fact remains it isn’t their fault a crime was committed and it is their duty to do something. They have to follow the law, the same as judges and executioners. Again, a crime was committed, and the perceived guilty has to be punished by their law. In fact, worse than Finn’s case, this was perceived to be a direct attack on the Commander herself. Had she done nothing, she would have been overthrown. Worse, if she does not follow their customs, why would any grounder be expected to follow them too? Some might think then they could try and poison the commander with no repercussions. But there was no manipulation here, not from Lexa, or Clarke, or any person other than Gustus. There was no trickery or deceit, or selfishness involved on Lexa’s part.

Originally posted by textsfrommyfandoms

Next example: Sacrificing TonDC. We all know the reasoning behind the sacrifice, and it is sound reasoning. Had they all evacuated, Mount Weather would be aware of an inside man, a spy or mole, and they also couldn’t account that another missile wouldn’t be sent, leaving them with no hope. But did Lexa manipulate Clarke? Not really; not at all. Clarke knew what their course of action was to be before Lexa knew herself. Did Lexa tell Clarke not to tell anyone, warn anyone, on her way to her? No, of course not; Lexa had no clue what was going on until they were in a secluded space. Clarke had ample opportunity to warn everyone, she even could have told Octavia to go back to Camp Jaha in case Bellamy contacted them. But she didn’t. Lexa only confirmed what she already knew: that they needed to let the missile attack happen. That is not manipulation, it is confirmation. And Clarke was no stranger of many deaths for survival, as she made the call to burn 300 of Lexa’s warriors in season one. 

Now, leaving TonDc as they escape? Not manipulation either, there was no deceit or trickery. The idea was consensual on both parts. A little selfish maybe, but only in the mindset that the alliance would break if they both didn’t survive, as Lexa had already proven she wasn’t afraid of dying. No, they live for their people, even if that meant sacrificing some of said people.

  bonus example from this: Lexa ordering Octavia to be killed. This is the first true point of conflict between the two – as in every other case there’s been a lack of real, optional choice. But here there is no matter of grounder customs or a demand in sacrifice for the better of the people to force the matter at hand. It’s more a matter of self preservation. Is there manipulation? Yes, at first. Of Clarke? No, not really. Lexa made the call independent of Clarke; after all, Lexa loves Clarke – why would she do this knowing it would damage her relationship with said person? Simple, it is a political, impersonal move. More importantly, at this point, from Lexa’s perspective, she believes Clarke deems Octavia sacrificial. Clarke was willing to let Octavia die not long ago in the missile attack – as Lexa stated, thus it is not illogical for Lexa to still believe and assume that fact to be true. Once Clarke does voice that is no longer the case, Lexa does back off, respectfully. There is no manipulation by the end of the matter as they communicate and come to an understanding. This is a particular point some use in arguing that Lexa and Clarke’s relationship is unhealthy, however it does the opposite. But this isn’t the point of this long discussion, so, moving on.

The crux: Lexa abandoning Clarke and her people inside Mount Weather. Now, we know Lexa did not plan to make a deal with the Mountain. Why would she ask Clarke of her plans, otherwise? Why invite Clarke to Polis with her? No, there was no deceit or trickery here. She had honest intentions of destroying the mountain with Clarke. Let’s move forward to the deal.

We do not know the exact nature of it. We know the agreed results: Lexa gets her people back, the Mountain stops taking their people. Lexa ends decades of war with the Mountain. Note, Clarke defeats the Mountain, but Lexa does win the war for her people. So, we know the results. Many people liked Lexa until she accepted the deal, and believe she should have rejected it. Rewinding, we do not know the circumstances of the deal. However, deductive reasoning can be applied here. And if anything, this is one the main points I hope people take away.

We know the Mountain Men Guards brought the grounders to the door for the deal. Monty revealed this. Why, pray tell, would the grounders go along with the Mountain Men? The most sensible answer: the guards had guns. Why wouldn’t they? And what, then, could the grounders do? Nothing, the guards have guns and they have nothing and many are in a weakened state. The result? The grounders are taken by the guards to the door. This is a sensible conclusion. 

Now, considering this (that is, the guards are pointing guns to the grounders so they obey), what is the likely conclusion had Lexa rejected the deal? I thought about this for a while, but the conclusion isn’t hard to determine. Emerson had already said the grounders were no use to the Mountain any more. What would it matter if they were released? Or, dead? The latter is what would likely have been the result had Lexa refused. She would have lost the hundred or so grounders inside the mountain, instantly, and would have lost more warriors later, for what? 47 Sky People? And that door? Well, if that door survived the forces of nuclear blasts, I doubt the pulled weight of some dozen men would force it open – but that is less certain. I’m not a physicist, so I wouldn’t know if it was possible. In any case, Lexa had already sacrificed 250 of her people for the alliance, why would she let more of her people die? It’s one of those choices but no real choice situations, between a rock and hard place kind of deal. Yes, in her mind, she would lose Clarke, but she had already lost Anya and Gustus to the alliance and war. Tragically, no doubt Lexa is likely accustomed to losing the people she loves or holds dear for the betterment of the many, regardless of her inner desires.

Originally posted by fiercegifs

But that is irrelevant. What isn’t irrelevant is the deductive reasoning of the situation. On the premise that the grounders inside the mountain were held at gunpoint, had Lexa denied the deal, she would have lost the people she wanted to save, and more. Clarke and her 47? They would have had very few causalities, if any, in comparison. Lexa had a lot to lose. 

But, we must remember the point of this, the argument: did Lexa manipulate Clarke? 

Well, she was, after all, acting against Clarke’s wishes knowingly, and it was wrong towards Clarke, but on the other hand was for the best interests of her people, and was right in that regard. However, she did not use Clarke to achieve this outcome: it wasn’t intended, and thus Clarke, generally, truthfully, was not manipulated, because she was not used. Betrayed, obviously. Blind sighted, yes. But if we are to fault Lexa for this decision… that is, choosing her people other another’s, then we too are to fault Clarke. Clarke had made the same decision, in the end, as she chose her 47 and some, other the 300 or so Mountain people. 

In both situations, their hand was arguably forced. Had Clarke not eradicated Mount Weather, her people would have died. Had Lexa rejected the deal, it is reasonable to assume her people too, would have died. What is redeemable is in both these situations the decisions made were not out of direct selfishness, they sacrificed others to save others, not themselves. Lexa “haters” who condemn her for this decision and yet are fans of Bellamy often forget his acts of seasons one, acts that I too had forgotten until I re-watched the series. Bellamy did, after all, indirectly, if not directly, cause the death or unnecessary sacrifices of 320 sky people on the Ark by choosing to destroy the radio in an attempt to save his own self. Yes, they were all volunteers, but they would not have had to volunteer had Bellamy not acted selfishly. These are facts; I personally am a fan of Bellamy. But personal feelings do not negate the facts, or the logical reasoning, of situations.

 So, argument No. 1 Lexa manipulated Clarke. The argument is thus far invalid. Did they use each other? Yes, the same as most people use each other as mentioned at the beginning. But manipulated? Hardly. And in a sense of wrongness? No, they did not.

Now, argument No. 2 Lexa is unhealthy for Clarke/Lexa and Clarke is unhealthy. This comes from the idea that Lexa manipulated Clarke, which has been found to be an unsound argument, and thus the case for argument No. 2 is very weak. There is, however, distrust from Clarke’s end assumedly now, from the fact that Lexa did betray Clarke. Does that translate to an unhealthy relationship though? No, it does not. 

It is true it is hard to form a relationship of any kind without a form of trust, but calling the relationship unhealthy is premature without seeing whether the two do not work out their problems. Yes, their relationship, be it of romantic or platonic nature, is damaged. More than likely. Irreparable? Hardly. If Clarke had not had to make a similar (if not the same) decision, then yes, it would seem to be unlikely to be repaired. But the fact is she did, and that brings a unique understanding between the two that would be hard, if not impossible, to find elsewhere. But this isn’t about in what ways they could work, but rather whether they are unhealthy. From what I understand of the given arguments, they are not unhealthy. Neither does that mean they are healthy either – that’s a different debate.

So I’ve concluded from my reasoning that the two arguments most commonly used against Lexa are then wrong. Dislike her if you must, but these arguments unless reasoned otherwise cannot be used to justify such an opinion. You can feel whatever you want though, but again, that doesn’t mean it’s justified.

 Also, Jason confirmed Lexa didn’t manipulate Clarke. Doesn’t matter on your opinion on him, his word is truth - he runs the show :P but if you still disagree on that, then you would have to disagree on anything he says. Can’t just pick and choose! But do let me know if I missed something in any respect. Anyway. 

Phew. FINALLY, that’s DONE. I hope it’s all made sense, and I do apologize for the length, but this all really need to be said. Thanks if you read all of it! Literally spent the day writing this instead of doing uni work, like catching up on many lectures and doing assignments…

Originally posted by givingawaypizza

^wanted a clarke gif but this showed up and fits as well.

So, if you’ve been following the studyblr community for any length of time you’ll probably have heard of Mildliners. In short, they are highlighters of more normal shades, a far cry from the neon we’re used to more commonly seeing.
I have to admit I was a bit skeptical when I purchased these, if heard lots of good things but I’d been expecting them to be like any other felt tip pen I’d used since primary school. They’re not.
+ Dual tips: both a bold and a fine tip so you can’t change to suit purpose.
+ Range of Colours: a really variety from some muted pastels to more earthy tones, there is a very good selection to choose from, allowing many different colour combinations.
+ Price: a very reasonable £12 for three sets of pens.
+ Ink: the ink doesn’t bleed through when using them normally which is a bonus.
- Price: the initial cost is good but delivery can be quite costly considering they are exported from Japan.
- Delivery Times: it takes a few weeks for your order to come through as a result of them only be exported from Japan. You can speed this up but it costs.

Overall, I am very happy and look forward to using them more in the future. I would recommend this purchase but they are hardly necessary for studying and were more of a treat to myself to celebrate me leaving for university. Enjoy, lovelies!