but i don't disagree either

Killian Jones, the person who knows and understands Emma Swan better than ANYBODY ELSE, knew she would react the exact way that she did. He understands what his ‘leaving’ would do to her. How it would hit her and what she would do (remember how he asked her not to put her armor back on when she was leaving him in the Underworld? He KNOWS her).

Killian Jones isn’t thinking less of Emma, and I don’t think it’s fair for anybody else to do so either.

When I was in 3rd grade, my mother carefully went over every single part of the Pledge of Allegiance until I understood exactly what it meant. She then let me decide if I was going to stand with my hand over my heart, and pledge my allegiance to a version of God I didn’t believe in, and words I didn’t feel were a completely accurate description of my country.

I chose not to stand.

And over the years I was hated and punished for it by teachers and students alike.

But I never stood for the Pledge of Allegiance again, and that was my right.

I firmly believe in standing up, or sitting down for you and your people’s rights and beliefs, even in the face of patriotism. If your country has done wrong, you do not have to pledge your love and trust to it until your country reflects the words of the anthem for everyone equally.

Patriotism is supposed to honor your right to speak, to protest, to be safe, and to believe if what you believe in to begin with. That is kind of the point of our anthem and our pledge.

anonymous asked:

Your blog sucks and your worthless and i am certain a deep disappointment to your family and those who tolerate your putrid existence.

I’m sorry that you feel that way. This is the internet though, so if you really feel that way you don’t want to see this blog, you can just do other things. There’s no need to be mean and ruin someone’s day.

anonymous asked:

i thought it was agreed that Hannibal actually didn't want to kill Will...otherwise, you know, he'd have done it

I don’t know what other people have agreed to, but my opinion on this has been consistent since the episode aired. 

Hannibal didn’t want to kill any of them—as in, he didn’t relish the thought or look toward it with enthusiasm. Nevertheless, he chose to kill all of them. 

Why Will (at least) survived is because Hannibal still loved him. This was foreshadowed earlier in the season when Hannibal told Margot, “You failed to murder your brother because you still love him. In love you take leave of you senses, but in hatred, you must be present to calculate your actions.” Hannibal didn’t see the act of killing Will through because he still loved him. He abandoned the acts of killing Jack and Alana with no clear idea the extent of either of their injuries and only delivered Abigail an injury that she had, twice before, survived. That any of them will die comes more down to statistics than it does to Hannibal’s being fully present to calculate his actions at the time of killing them. He took leave of his senses.

Even so, his purpose was not to simply injure them. His purpose was to kill them. 

As far as the realism thing goes, it’s irrelevant. Will’s intention was not to kill Hannibal, and that’s what they were discussing: Will’s intentions.

You should absolutely be interpreting the “You can make it all go away” line in light of their conversation about their memory palaces. That’s exactly the context it was introduced in.

I have always suggested that they showed Hannibal’s “baptism” in the rain as a deliberate evocation of this idea—that he was trying very hard to make what had just happened to him, and what he’d just done, go away. To my knowledge, I was the first person on Tumblr to publish a gifset of that

In addition, they also repeated the moment by showing Hannibal tip his head back and close his eyes on the airplane at the end: this is a direct draw from the airplane scene in the novel, Hannibal, from whence the lines all came. 

Dr. Lecter could overcome his surroundings. He could make it all go away. The beeping of the computer game, the snores and farts, were nothing compared to the hellish screaming he’d known in the violent wards. The seat was no tighter than restraints. As he had done in his cell so many times, Dr. Lecter put his head back, closed his eyes and retired for relief into the quiet of his memory palace….

As these lines highlight, if Will’s plan had succeeded, Hannibal would have been using his memory palace to escape the violent wards, so there is a sense of “turn about is fair play” in that he directed these words to Will. However, that didn’t prevent Hannibal from needing the technique himself, here on the airplane and outside in the rain, and we should see that in those two scenes.

However the stream is Will’s memory palace, not Hannibal’s, so it’s also about Will and Hannibal’s intentions toward Will when he spoke the lines. The invitation still includes the most literal interpretation: that Hannibal was suggesting that Will give himself relief from the pain, both physical and emotional, that he was enduring. But within the context of the show, they’ve also equated that line—“make it all go away”—with the murder of a loved one, through Garrett Jacob Hobbs’s act toward Abigail. 

“I’m sorry, Abigail. Please just hold still. I’m going to make it all go away.”

Hobbs asked Abigail to surrender herself to death. In “Mizumono,” they deliberately and overtly brought back Hobbs and Abigail and reenacted the crimes in the Hobbs’s kitchen from “Aperitif,” so that shade of meaning becomes applicable here. Thus, “You can make it all go away,” is Hannibal’s invitation for Will to surrender himself to death. 

we’ve been seeing “the other side of the story” for all of our fucking lives

we’ve been thinking about the feelings of our oppressor for too fucking long

and they have have the nerve, the fucking nerve, to cry about it when we ask them to see our point of view, when we ask them to try to understand it

we silently watched them devalue and dehumanize us without a second thought for the longest, and the moment we decide to get smart and return the favor

we’re evil, we don’t respect opinions, we are not nice enough, we are wrong

wow.

Okay y’all, we all should know by now that Tyler Seguin is a freakin’ “problematic fave” to have.  Seriously, the dude is a snapback-wearing moron at best.  But I also think we need to all go to the recent ESPN article that has a lot of people upset right now and understand that this is actually a case of pretty shitty journalism at play, more than anything else.  Because, here’s the deal, Crosby and Phaneuf are actually likely responding to a completely different question than Suter is and Suter seems to be responding to a completely different question than Seguin is.  And not all of those questions actually deal with off-ice behavior and the seriously disturbing incidents that have happened over the summer.

Crosby and Phaneuf are responding to a question about off-ice behavior, and they responded accordingly.  Leading up to Crosby’s answer, the author dropped in this, which shows the reader that whatever comes after this will deal specifically with players’ conduct off the ice:

Suter, on the other hand, was posed a question about social media and its impact on how players conduct themselves off the ice.  In setting the stage for his answer, ESPN’s writer started with this, which pretty clearly demonstrates to the reader that there’s a shift in the storyline and we’re now going to discuss how players interact with social media and its potential effects:

Seguin, on the other hand, was likely asked a question about a particular event that occurred on social media.  This event involved an Ex-CEO of the Leafs basically calling Seguin out for his alleged behavior over the summer.  The lead-up to Seguin’s response to ESPN specifically mentions the comments made by Peddie:

This was then immediately followed by the writer stating that Seguin had responded specifically to those comments when speaking with the magazine:

And what followed is what is currently going around on social media websites, like Tumblr:

Taken all together, Seguin’s segment of this article looks like this:

Nowhere is off-ice behavior mentioned in the Seguin segment.  Nowhere is Kane brought up, by either ESPN or Seguin himself.  It seems pretty clear that ESPN asked him about social media and directed him to respond to the tweet blasted out by Peddie earlier in September.  That’s apparent by the author’s own cues, pointing out to the consumer that we’re now narrowing the topic down to a specific social media event and taking the player’s response to it.  And that’s why this is a pretty nasty article, because ESPN went around from one player to another, asked them a series of very different questions, shoved them all into one article, and slapped a title on it that doesn’t accurately apply to some of the answers contained in the article itself.  And that’s just really deceptive journalism.

Keep reading