is there a particular way i'm supposed to source this or

anonymous asked:

I'm sorry.. No i'm not, but how stupid can one be to think transgender/gay is allowed in Islam? Unless your source is directly from the Quran or an authentic hadith, your argument is invalid. have you not heard of the story of Lut from the Quran? You can be gay and not act on it. thats fine. But to say that a muslim can be transgender and have gay relationships no, that's not. Hello Zinna! Not allowed. Unless you were a non muslim before then fair enough. Quran is our handbook to life.

The fact that you’re insulting me before even making a point make me think I’m probably not going to change your mind (even in the face of multiple sources and a sound argument) BUT for the sake of anybody else reading this who is genuinely interested or could benefit from the information, I’m going to answer.

—   There are multiple verifiable sources and ahadith which corroborate this particular truth:
- that gender variant people (whom we may today interpret as “transgender”) existed during the time of the Prophet (saw), AND
- that they were accepted as functioning members of society (and by & large
respected in their lived/chosen gender role)

—   In a modern context, several authentic, well respected institutions have ruled in favor of transgender people’s prerogative to transition and allow trans people to seek medical intervention and live as their preferred gender. These are not esoteric, left-wing or activist type rulings. These are not specific to any particular sect. These are rulings from places like Al-Azhar, the oldest Islamic university in the world (by a fatwa from Sunni Grand Imam Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi in 1992) and the Islamic Republic Of Iran, not exactly know for it’s lenient position on deviant lifestyles (from revolutionary-era Shi’a authority Ayatollah Khomeni in 1987).


What are your sources? Aside from an emotional knee-jerk reaction to something you don’t understand? You mention Lut - are you aware of any of the countless other interpretations of that passage, other than the one so often blindly wielded to justify hatred? Can you tell me what that passage is supposed to say about transgender people at all? Are you a scholar? Can you back up your claims, with solid logical and legal support? 

You call me stupid. I’m largely self-educated and of course my own knowledge is limited, but I have studied, for years, to better understand how my family and people like me can live more wholly and well under Islam. If I had any doubt, for even a moment, that this faith condemns me and people like me simply for existing; I wouldn’t be here in the first place. I’m blessed with the knowledge that Islam is much greater than the narrow, clueless bigotry that so often shouts over the rest. If I knew nothing else about this subject, knowing Allah would still be enough for me.

Do you believe in an infinitely merciful, all knowing, loving God? Why would you limit that to condemn something you don’t understand? To up and turn people away from the greatest truth there is in the universe? How cruel can you be? How does that in any way reflect submission to that same loving, merciful and omnipotent undying force?

I’m gonna keep living, and I’m going to keep supporting family like me. You do you. Allah knows best.

cheayalie  asked:

Sorry to bother, but I'm an artist struggling with style, and I absolutely love yours. I was wondering, where do you get your inspiration? And what what would you suggest to an artist trying to find their own style?

Hi! I’m sorry to hear you’re struggling with your style, that can be a great source of frustration. Know that many artists have or have had to deal with the same problem, so you’re not alone. <3

A lot of artists who are more intelligent and experienced than me have said that the ‘Ideal&Perfect&Smart™’ Way to find a unique style is to first dedicate your time to studying the fundamentals of art (meaning perspective, anatomy, composition, lighting, color, all that jazz). After all, the way I see it, a “style” is a design, a manipulated, usually simplified version of realism (which is a ‘style’ in itself… urgh I’m starting to overthink this). If you have a basic understanding of how to create realistic artworks, and then figure out how to manipulate them, basically you’ll be able to create as many art styles as you please.

That being said, the ‘Time-Consuming Copycat™’ Way, a.k.a. the ‘Bang Your Head Against a Brick Wall Until You Get Through’ Way, has been the road I’ve traveled. I believe this technique is common for artists who have been drawing ever since they were children. If you look at an image drawn by a 8-14 y/o kid, changes are you’ll notice that their style is likely inspired by cartoons and comics and such (ofc there are children who prefer life drawing over copying other people’s styles, but as far as I know they’re more uncommon than ‘copycats’). The drawing might have sort of a super hero comic or anime or Disney vibe to it. This “copycat” phase can last for years (for me it lasted over a decade), but those kids who just keep on drawing year after year get influenced by tons of different art styles and eventually end up with a mix of so many styles that nobody can really tell what it was inspired by in the first place. This is how I believe I ended up with my current style.

As I recall, my first two biggest inspirations style-wise were Disney’s Oliver & Company and an anime called Ginga Nagareboshi Gin. That was 16 years and about 200 sketchbooks worth of scribbles ago. I have always been a lousy student and so far I’ve survived with minimal amount of actual art studies, I’m planning on changing that but my point is, your style will get unique if you just keep drawing. That’s it. Just draw. It’ll take time but you can’t fail if you just keep it up and don’t copy just one particular, already-existing style on purpose. Just please do yourself a favor and rather than copying other people’s stuff only, practice the fundamentals and life drawing. You’ll get better faster and avoid many mistakes I’ve done in the past (though don’t study so hard that you lose your passion and interest in art). 

For further info, check these out:

- Understanding Your Style Part 1 / Part 2 (DeviantArt)
- FIND YOUR ART STYLE (And How I Found Mine) by LavenderTowne (YouTube)

There are many interesting opinions on how to find/create your style, and many seem to passionately hate the Copycat™ way of learning (for good reasons I suppose), but these are my honest thoughts and my experiences. Everyone pls feel free to disagree and/or share your own point of view on this if you’d like!

Extreme Tourism

A continuation of the Swapped Luggage AU?

“And how is your current date going, Law?”

Swatting at the latest mosquito to try making a meal out of him, Trafalgar D. Water Law, stumbles through the rainforest, wondering why he’d even bothered booking a fortnight off work for this madness.

Keep reading

There is a very, very long literary criticism post sitting on my dash right now about the failings? shortcomings? of The Force Awakens as a part of the Star Wars universe because it lacks the mythic quality of the originals. I realize this is an extremely superficial rendering of the post’s actual, lengthy analysis and argumentation, but that’s not what I’m here for.

What I am here for is to take up two bits from that very interesting post AS THEY RELATE TO ME, A FAN OF COLOR, PERSONALLY. 

The first is the assertion that:

“While The Force Awakens has its merits, they are few indeed, and the only one that deserves listing is the diverse casting.”

The second:  

Rogue One, on the other hand, does not fall victim to this. It does not claim to be a part of the Saga. It exists without intentionally altering facts crucial to the plot of the myth. It exists as a supportive side note only. The writers of R1 did not fall victim to the same hubris that haunts Abrams and Disney. R1 knows exactly what it is. It’s C-canon. Continuity to be utilized or ignored at whim, or as needed.”

To be perfectly honest, I spend a *lot* of time thinking about representation in the media; I don’t write about it very often because other people have done it already, and in far more eloquent ways than I can. But it’s an incredibly important part of how I think about my work as both a fan and a (temporary) academic. And it’s something that means a LOT more to me as a fan of color than just one line in a very, very, very long piece about why some people disliked TFA

Like the post’s original author, I too consumed a significant quantity of Star Wars material after watching the movies. From where I sit on my living room floor I can see my collection of EU novels–it’s not sizeable, but they are well-worn and loved. I played KOTOR and KOTOR II and cried over both. But unlike George Lucas, I never differentiated between the levels of canon; yes, I did take up particular aspects to be my own headcanons and resisted incorporating others, but for me, the most important thing about the EU novels and the games was being able to continue engaging with the Star Wars universe. 

Not the mythology that closed me out.

I love the originals. I have no idea how many times I’ve seen them, because aside from having them on VHS, I watched them every time they were on SPIKE TV in the early 2000s. I still plan to cosplay Cloud City Leia when I have time to make things again. They are a hugely important part of my identity (oh god why did I decide to go into an education phd when I should’ve done media studies, fml). 

But–

I have never cried harder at a movie than during either TFA or Rogue One. (It was worse during Rogue One.) 

So many better authors than I, again, have spoken/written about how amazing it was for them to see themselves onscreen in a Star Wars movie for the first time. For Rey to be the central heroine of the new saga. So much of the press around Rogue One in particular is about the diversity of the cast. The cast members themselves shared anecdotes about being a part of something that reflects how global the stories of Star Wars really are (Diego Luna’s accent, for the most prominent example). 

For me, the diversity of TFA’s cast (and, obviously, Rogue One) is not just one line of praise. It is not, as Riz says, “an added extra.” It is everything. It’s about saying THERE ARE PILOTS AND MECHANICS AND GUNNERS WHO LOOK LIKE ME. THERE ARE PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO MATTER IN THIS HUGE AMAZING STORY THAT LOTS AND LOTS OF PEOPLE LOVE. It is about opening up the whole GFFA in which the mythic Skywalker saga exists. The universe–the world-building, I’m not entirely sure what to call it here–is so much more to me than the central story of Luke, and Anakin. And that, too, is something the actors themselves have spoken about, that you really feel like you’re part of a lived-in world. 

(Shit, I’m getting off-track; there’s a whole other post about context that I dont’ have time to think about rn, I’m actually supposed to be getting ready for class. Suffice to say that the Saga doesn’t exist in a vacuum, nor do I think it should!)

Relegating Rogue One to “C-Canon,” to me, denies the significance of opening up the GFFA’s universe to be more inclusive. (Again, other authors have done quite a lot with the notion that the most diverse Star Wars film to date also…kills them all off, canonically supporting the white leads’ efforts.) It says that yes, you can come play in this universe so long as you don’t think you’re an important part of it. 

Rogue One made a billion dollars. I don’t think most people saw it–and its story of sacrifice and hope–as something to be ignored. 

So. TL;DR: I don’t take up Star Wars as just the central myth of Luke and Anakin, because it’s part of a much larger universe, a universe which is finally opening up to include more of the people who love it. The diversity and inclusion of the new movies is incredibly important to me, perhaps even moreso than the originals (which, again, I love). I mean–okay, sorry, this is getting into TL;DR territory in and of itself–I have loved Star Wars since I was twelve years old, I’ve always loved Luke in particular, and it’s only now, with these two new movies, that I’ve fallen this fucking hard headfirst into the fandom and show absolutely no signs of being able to climb out again. 

Look. I don’t mean this as a repudiation of the original post and its opinions; this is kind of the definition of YMMV, I think. But those two parts, and my own experiences with fandom and inclusion–this all kind of had to come rushing out. 

anonymous asked:

okay so I believe Freddie is fake but why do you think management would do this?

it’s not management who’s doing this. it’s simon cowell and syco (the label). modest is essentially irrelevant and has been for a while. that’s not to say they were innocent (they’ve done vile things too) but they’ve been fairly powerless throughout babygate.

i’m not sure how familiar you are with my blog/with larrie blogs’ thoughts (in general - i am in no way saying we all think this there’s a huge variety of opinions out there) but overall many of us think that babygate was never supposed to go on this long and was initially supposed to boost louis’ name recognition prior to a coming out and then end in a denial shortly thereafter. how messy it’s gotten and the length of time it’s dragged on instead is a direct manifestation of the behind the scenes war between simon cowell/syco and the boys/their new team.

i’m going to link you to a bunch of posts explaining what i summarized above in far more detail but long story short: louis and harry are a couple and have been since the x-factor in 2010. they’ve been forcibly by closeted by simon cowell, syco and modest for years and want to come out. due largely to the mistreatment and poor management they received from their old team (and this is much bigger than just the closet - the hours those boys worked and the way they’ve been treated/mismanaged is appalling) they’ve chosen to continue on as a band but with an entirely new team. simon is very much not happy about this as they’re his biggest source of revenue/his biggest act and it’s a wound to his pride because they were *his* act and he fucked things up with them so much they’re refusing to resign with him.

babygate is only one facet of the ongoing war between the boys and simon. the smear campaign against the band and the boys as individuals has been going on for months, and prior to babygate louis had already been portrayed as a homophobe who blamed fans for ruining his friendship with harry (the original bullshit tweet, bullshit 2.0, pretty much any print interview with ‘louis’). 

harry was depicted as an aggressive womanizer who would sleep with any female who so much as looked in his direction. at one point they were claiming he slept with 410 women in a year (mind you there are only 365 days a year soooooo…)

both images are heartbreakingly false (and while not as extreme, the other boys have had to deal with shitty images and tabloid narratives over the years too - liam’s attitude magazine interview is the perfect example of that). 

if you want to know more about louis and harry’s relationship start with @theharrylouistreatise

here are two posts that outline the smear campaign 1 2

here are two posts on simon’s own closet and how babygate is essentially a redux of the contrived baby scandal with his own son 1 2 3

more on simon cowell and why he’s punishing louis with babygate (some of these posts in particular are speculation based on observation) 1 2 3 4

here’s a post on contracts (aka why louis is being forced to go along with babygate and how it’s not as simple as ‘but that’s illegal!’). louis and harry are not the first nor will they be the last musicians forced into the closet by their own team.

and just for good measure - here’s an amazing masterpost about how louis does not actually want to be in the closet.

this situation is far too complex to be accurately summarized in one post but i would suggest you poke around in my ‘this is war’ tag, my ‘this is sabotage’ tag, and my ‘smear campaign’ tag if you’re interested in more. 

also check out this page on my blog if you’re curious about the tmz connection and how rainbow bondage bear fits into this (i’m aware of how strange that sentence sounds.)

It looks like I wasn’t quite right. Death-T is on hold for another episode. Although this one /is/ part of the buildup. It’s basically an adaptation of that one time Jounouchi got into a knife fight. Or, well, the time we saw him get into a knife fight on panel.

Anyhow, Seto and Mokuba deliver a really corny announcement by interrupting the feed on the arcade screens for this racing game.

AND THEY HAVE GRANDPA!!

Yuugi is scared. But Jounouchi is here to make light of his problems.

Yuugi says that defeating Kaiba in a game won’t be easy though. And, more importantly-

Kaiba has promised a punishment game on Sugoroku if Yuugi loses.

I should say that although this kind of lack of confidence is pretty typical for Yuugi regardless of the canon, it makes extra sense here. I think in the manga the only person Yuugi loses a game to before Atem steps in is Imori. Seazon Zero has made a trend of that, though. Yuugi often loses at Duel Monsters and other games, to then have Atem challenge them to a rematch. Hmm, as much as I think Yuugi (and Atem) not infallible in any version of canon, and there are problems with the narrative treating them as such in a practical sense, I think this canon kind of implies a divide in their skill that kind of misses the mark - especially when you start considering where the story goes once Yuugi and Atem truly team up, hmmm. In any case, Yuugi’s not exactly worried for nothing. But, uh, someone disagrees with me-

“I understand what you’re saying Yuugi. But, also, fuck what you’re saying Yuugi.” Heh, no but- Jounouchi is pretty pushy here, but I do like how he calms down for a second and tries to be softer with Yuugi. He’s sympathetic, if not very good at being empathetic.

Yuugi lays down some hard truths, lol.

Anzu steps in to save him from the fallout though. She’s kind of fearless, getting in the way of Jou roughing someone up, lol.

She then proceeds to explain that Yuugi is upset. Don’t you realise he’s upset, Jounouchi? Did you know he’s upset? After finding out his grandfather was taken hostage and will be hurt if he doesn’t win a game.

…He is upset, right?

And Jounouchi’s like, yeah, duh, he’s fucking upset. I would have punched him if he wasn’t upset.

Okay, I’m exaggerating but-

(And also ignoring Jounouchi’s willingness to use casual violence on his friends as a persuasive tactic-)

Honestly, I know she does it to herself, but feel kind of bad that Anzu always gets stuck in the role of trying to play the emotionally supportive one because she’s honestly not very good at reading people. And I don’t think Jounouchi helps with the way he uses obfuscation to his advantage. Jounouchi wants to prove himself, and for Yuugi to trust in his abilities and rely on him. Yuugi doesn’t want endanger others. This is a conflict of interests - not a misunderstanding.

Anyhow, so Jounouchi and Anzu go off to buy drinks, give Yuugi some space, and talk past each other.

It’s actually a pretty great conversation.

And, bonus, one of the many things Jounouchi has carried over from his mobster days. If you’re not willing to get your ass kicked for the sake of the group, you ain’t part of the group.

Yuugi, in the meantime, has gotten his ass kicked and his puzzle stolen by the villain of the week. A guy who’s obsessed with hokey kung fu movies.

Jounouchi’s like ‘imma get the puzzle back!’

Yuugi’s like, ‘no, you fucking won’t!’

And then Jounouchi’s like ‘shut up’

And so he goes and gets the puzzle back. And endangers his life in the process but WHATEVER.

This is kind of good stuff that you also see carried through to Duellist Kingdom. Mmm, it’s maybe a little unbelievable that Yuugi’s that worried about Jounouchi getting decked in a fist fight. But Yuugi’s kind of subtle disbelief in Jounouchi’s abilities, at gaming in particular, kind of becomes the centre of Atem stepping in to stop Yuugi from interfering with Jounouchi’s duels during DK, as well as the source for a few passive aggressive quips.

Anyhow, Jounouchi gives Yuugi the puzzle back, and reiterates that he’s coming along for Death-T. And this makes Yuugi happy. And then he says that he’s going to find a way to get better at games.

And this makes Yuugi SUPER MEGA ULTRA HAPPY.

Jounouchi-kun, you’re finally going to make something of yourself and your sorry little life and GIT GUD AT GAMING!!

Yuugi has his priorities in order.

Jounouchi goes home and studies the art of becoming a better nerd.

And then the next day he and the rest of their friends meet up to go to Death-T together. There’s a sequence where they all appear one by one walking through this fog.

Humiliating Kaiba is up there with saving Grandpa on the list of goals for today.

Jounouchi also has his priorities in order.

appeasing the fashion police is not one of them. Suspenders, Jou? I can only assume Japan looks at these things differently, because my immediate reaction was ‘you’re supposed to be a gangster, Jou. not a suspenders and pocket protector nerdy twit.’ But, whatever, let’s leave the bad 80s school life movies stereotypes for another time, and continue with Death-T shortly.

A Treatise on Jean + Jeankasa

I read a Tumblr post awhile back about Jean’s feelings for Mikasa, and how, from one fan’s perspective, these feelings are not an organic aspect of his character, but rather a contrivance designed, essentially, to give Jean something to do.

At first glance, I thought the argument had some veracity considering:

a) Despite being one-sided, Jeankasa is probably the most canonically represented romance in the series. Yumikuri is far and away the most developed, but seemed to blossom and climax in a relatively short period of time. Both Ymir and Krista had a lot of other plot relevance as individual characters, and their romance was somewhat superfluous to the plot. (And before anyone even takes umbrage, as much as I enjoy it, Eremika romance is not canon #sorrynotsorry). Without his feelings for Mikasa, Jean would suffer not only a reduction in screen time, but his overall motivations would be less consequential and his rivalry with Eren would be considerably less acute.

b) Jean’s primary goal, initially, was to join the Military Police to live a comfortable life in the interior. However, after the battle in Trost, he finds himself on a path of self-discovery and self-actualization. However, without much of a backstory to speak of, a full arc of self-discovery is considerably more difficult to pull off, narratively speaking. When we meet Jean, he was already a fully-formed character–an arrogant, cynical, insecure, envious little shit (whom I love)–and, heretofore, we’ve seen next to nothing that might explain what contributed to his maladjustment and the proliferation of so many character flaws in a 15-year-old kid. Compared to the other self-actualization arcs taking place in the story (Eren, Krista, Mikasa), all of which having rich, detailed backstories, without the underpinings of desperation attached to his feelings for Mikasa, Jean’s arc would be far less compelling.

All of the above considered, the argument could be made that without Jean’s unrequited feelings for Mikasa, his story might lack some of its lustre and fail to stand out, particularly because the major source of vulnerability for his character, beyond his grief over Marco’s death, has been his agony over Mikasa.

So, the essential question is: are his feelings for Mikasa an organic part of his character?

However, before we can even begin to address that, we have to address the antecedent questions of whether or not there can be such a thing as inorganic character development/traits, and what may qualify as an inorganic character development/traits, which I will happily do below:

  • Inorganic character development is absolutely possible when characters are the hands of multiple writers.
  • It’s possible, but far less likely, to experience inorganic character development when a character has been written end-to-end by one author.
  • The opportunity for inorganic character development is far more likely than the existence of inorganic character traits because character development happens over time while character traits are there from the beginning at the time the character is conceived.
  • Everything that is on the page was intended to be there by the person who wrote it. There are no accidents in writing–only in interpretations of writing. Therefore, making an argument for inorganic character traits is extremely difficult. It ultimately suggests that the character was ill-conceived from the start–which is really just another way of saying that the writing itself stinks.

Considering that, to my knowledge, Jean is a character that has been written start-to-finish by Isayama, and who displayed particular concern about Mikasa in Chapter motherfucking 3 of the manga (see below), an argument for inorganic character development is simply out of the question. From day one, that shit was there.

So, is Jean an ill-conceived character? Was Isayama so in love with his creation that he felt the need use a contrived unrequited romance with one of the main characters to help anchor Jean to the forefront of this large ensemble cast?

No.

Not only is Jean a unique and well-rounded character, his feelings for Mikasa are an absolutely fundamental part of his construction and his continued character development. So let’s unpack that.

Jean is a romantic idealist wearing the mask of a cynical pragmatist.

  • He ridicules Eren for his idealistic opinions, calling him on the carpet as a naive fool with a hero complex. Despite this, Jean allows Eren’s speeches (and the shame he feels at Eren’s disdain for his perceived cowardice) to influence him in his decision to join the Scout Regiment.
  • He reiterates time and again that there is simply no way for humans to win against Titans, yet he is the third member of the 104th to choose to join the Scouts (after Eren and Armin) with the intention of assisting in humanity’s plight. He does so even as his peers express incredulity at his decision.
  • Despite hating Eren, he consistently goes out of his way to assist him and even act as Eren’s voice of reason, and basically becomes the 4th member of the Shiganshina trio as a result.

Jean’s feelings for Mikasa (and how horribly they seem to catch him off-guard) epitomize his hidden quixotic nature, and allows us to peer behind the mask of cynicism that he clings to for survival. As a love interested, Mikasa is the least practical for him, and yet that makes her the perfect choice.

  • Despite his vociferousness and brashness, she pays him the least mind of anyone else in the cast.
  • She’s hopelessly attached to his rival.
  • She’s emotionally unavailable. It’ll take someone truly deft and tactful to break through to her, and Jean has the emotional refinement of a carnival barker (largely due to his oversensitivity).

All of these things are good for Jean. He needs the presence of someone who doesn’t rise to his bullshit. He needs someone who will force him to become more emotionally mature and respectful. He needs someone he has a high enough opinion of to learn to be deferential to. Mikasa is a Jenga block of much-needed humility for our recalcitrant little prince.

But Mikasa is not just an object. Yes, he thinks she’s beautiful. Yes, her exoticness appeals to the classist snob in him. But he also respects her. Her calls her on he bullshit, but he’s also her #1 fan. He doesn’t demand her attention or resent her for not returning his feelings. He respects her agency, and just enjoys her.

His feelings for Mikasa may not have been the impetus for him joining the Scouts, but meeting her put him on the path. She reminded him of his more idealistic self that he had clearly buried and lost contact with. It was her speech on the rooftops in Trost that roused him to action, and it was his leadership in that battle that led Marco to convey his thoughts about Jean’s abilities as a leader to him, which ultimately was part of his decision to turn away from the Military Police and join the Scout Regiment.

Mikasa has always been the pin in the grenade. Without her, Jean would almost assuredly have joined the Military Police and gone on with his silly little fantasy life in the interior, and would not be the dynamic, wonderful character his is today. There’s no need for Jean to have a backstory. We’re getting his backstory right now, here in the present, and that lovely, awkward moment of being astounded by Mikasa’s very presence is where his story really began.

#micdrop

anonymous asked:

I think it's fascinating how Galad joins one of the most extremist organizations in the world and yet this has zero effects on his personality while Gawyn remains in the city that was supposed to embody stability and order and he is spiraling completely out of control. I don't exactly like Galad(it's hard to like him) but I am kinda envious of just how comfortable he is with himself and his decisions

This is a really interesting observation! 

I wonder if some of it is perhaps due to where their sense of duty/self/purpose originates–externally versus internally. 

Gawyn’s role, and much of what goes with it, was given to him from an external source, and then internalised throughout his life of being raised to become First Prince of the Sword. He was told his duties as soon as he was old enough (or perhaps a little earlier) to understand them, and they subsequently became a core part of his identity. But they didn’t originate with him. So he’s always trying to fill a role that is ‘externally’ defined, measuring himself against a set of standards and often finding himself wanting. He’s striving to meet a bar he didn’t set for himself.

Galad’s role, and duties–and identity–on the other hand, seem to be much more internally defined (or self-defined). After Morgase took the throne, and Gawyn and Elayne were born, as far as I can tell Galad wouldn’t have had a specific role he was expected to fill. (I suppose he could have decided to put in a claim for the throne of Cairhien, but he didn’t). Yes, he would still have been raised in the royal family, and taught a particular set of values and skills, etc, but his actual identity and place were left more to him to define for himself, I think. For some characters that could have been disastrous, but it ended up working for Galad. So he does what is ‘right’ above all else–regardless of the consequences–but he does that because that is how he has chosen to define himself. It isn’t demanded of him, or taught to him as part of a role he is given, but rather forms part of a role he has decided to take on.

So there is an element of choice to it, it would seem. This sort of goes back to something I was looking at with Rand and Egwene, the idea of ‘hero by choice’ versus ‘hero by calling’. Neither one is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ on its own, but they do make for different stories, or different perspectives and therefore reactions to things.

ensom-heks-deactivated20170316  asked:

Dear Fjorn, I don't know if you have some information about witchcraft but do you have a prayer to the Gods for cleansing a room? if so I'm thrilled to hear about that. Sincerely, Ensome heks

Velkominn (eða velkomin), vinur,
(Welcome, friend,)

I see that you are a wanderer like me, perhaps, because you are a newcomer in a complex world with much to explore. I am by no means familiar with Wiccan ways, so I am not a preferable source to ask when it comes to spiritual concerns. Though, I never turn away a guest, and so I will at least bring you into my hall and offer you a gift of knowledge.

I want to begin with mentioning that I am far better as an academic than as a spiritual guide. That being said, I hope to not mislead you with any of the information I provide below. Others will surly chime in if I have said something terribly misleading, though, since plenty of people knowledgable in this subject tend to at least track the tags that I have used. Still, I believe you should always do what you personally find suitable and comfortable. History provides a basis to work from, but don’t let it bind you down. 


I do not have an exact prayer, unfortunately. Though, I don’t see why you couldn’t be a bit creative on making one yourself, perhaps. From my knowledge on the subject, or at least the advice that I can offer from my perspective (Norse), I would recommend speaking to spirits rather than to gods. Although there are a few gods that could help you with certain aspects of a ritual I know of, such as (but not limited to) Óðinn or Freyja, spirits tend to be the ones that more directly govern regional or local matters. Below is a list of relevant terms and mythological figures that could be of use to you:

  • Vættur (Nature Spirit):
    • This includes a wide variety of spirit types, such as the álfar (elves) and landvættir (land nature spirits). The latter, for example, were very important, and the people of the country depended on them for welfare and support (Hreisson, 413).
  • Dísir (Disir):
    • These are high-ranking females guardian spirits that “watched over farms, families, and occasionally individuals” (Hreinsson, 407). They are like minor, local deities. A sacrifice is made to them every year during Veturnætur (mid-October).
  • Fylgja (Fetch):
    • These are similar to the Dísir, but are personal spirits “which were closely attached to families and individuals, and often symbolized the fate that people were born with” (Hreisson, 408). Once they appear to an individual, it usually means certain doom. They also can often appear in various forms, such as animals.
  • Draugar, Afturgöngur, Haugbúar (Ghosts/Spirits):
    • Although ghostly, these were considered corporeal, meaning they had physical bodies and could thus integrate physically with the world. This is what fueled the traditions of equipping a dead body with grave goods, for the body would live again and need those items. Various measures were taken to make sure these spirits were kept happy so that they would not do any harm to the living (Hreinsson, 409).
  • Seiður (Magic Rite):
    • The exact nature of this is obscure, but we know that it had two main purposes: to influence people or the elements, or to find out about the future. It was also mostly practiced by women, though men, including Óðinn, did as well (but it would have been considered ‘effeminate’) (Hreinsson, 412).
  • Seiðmaður (Magician):
    • Literally means “a man who practices seiður” (Hreinsson, 413). Of course, the word maður does not only apply to men.
  • Völva (Seeress):
    • These were essentially the female equivalents of seiðmaður, although it should be the other way around, since seiður (the activity) was originally a female one. These women typically gained knowledge of the future and could gather information from sitting outside through the night on graves, crossroads, or other powerful natural sites (Hreisson, 415).

You can find a bit more information from the following post, but it is not nearly as cohesive as it needs to be. Still, I shall be updating that post over time, so keep your eye out.

Víkingabók Database Project: A Short Jól-and-Related Reading List.


Now that you know what all of that is, I want to bring up an example of a seiður that I know of, which is from chapter 4 of Eiríks saga rauða (Erik the Red’s Saga). Although we do not know much about this particular practice, this should give you a basis to work off of, because I do not see any reason to restrict your personal, spiritual practices to some historical code or standard (because this is but a sliver of a complex reality that we hardly have any resources for). (Any […] just means I skipped a few sentences):

In the district there lived a woman name Thorbjorg, a völva who was called the “little prophetess.” She was one of ten sisters, all of whom had the gift of prophecy, and was the only one pf them still alive.

[…]

When she arrived one evening, along with the man who had been sent to fetch her, she was wearing a black mantle with a strap, which was adorned with precious stones right down to the hem. About her neck she wore a string of glass beads and on her head a hood of black lambskin lined with white catkin. She bore a staff with a knob at the top, adorned with brass set with stones on top. About her she had a linked charm belt with a large purse. In it she kept the chairs which she needed for he predictions. She wore calfskin boots lined with fur with long, sturdy laces and large pewter knobs on the ends. On her hands she wore gloves of catkin, white and line with fur.

When she entered, everyone was supposed to offer her respectful greetings, and she responded according to how the person appealed to her.

[…]

Late the following day she was provided with the things she required to carry out her seiður. She asked for a woman who knew the chants required for carrying out seiður, which are called varðlokkur (ward songs). But such women were not to be found. Then the people of the household were asked if there was anyone with such knowledge.

Gudrid answered, “I have neither magical powers nor the gift of prophecy, but in Iceland my foster-mother Halides taught me chants she called varðlokkur.”

[…]

Thorkel then urged Gudrid, who said she would do as he wished. The women formed a warding ring around the platform raised for sorcery, with Thorbjorg perched atop it. Gudrid spoke the chant so well and so beautifully that people there said they had never heard anyone recite in a fairer voice.

The völva thanked her for her chant. She said many spirits had been attracted who thought the chant fair to hear – “though earlier they wished to turn their backs on us and refused to do our bidding. Many things are now clear to me which were earlier concealed from both me and others.” (2.)


I have given you the information that I know, which, I am sad to say, is not very much in this case. I have merely provided you some raw material, but it is up to you, and perhaps to those who see this and reach out to you, to bring it all together in a way that is appropriate for your needs. Once more, I dod not think you need to bind yourself too this information, rather you can choose to use it as a base for construction your own rituals. I do hope that I have done a fair job at passing on some advice, and I truly hope that I have not presented any material that would mislead you (or worse, misrepresent any of the things mentioned above).

Anyway, I wish you the best of luck on the rest of your wandering, my friend. I am sure that you will find your way to a hall you may call home eventually, perhaps after a few more stops and with the advice of a few more gracious hosts.

Vera vitur og reika langt.
(Be wise and wander far.)


FOOTNOTES:

1. Viðar Hreinsson, Robert Cook, Terry Gunnell, Keneva Kunz, and Bernard Scudder ed., The Complete Sagas of Icelanders, vol. 5. (Reykjavík: Leifur Eiríksson Publishing, 1997), 407-417.

2. Keneva Kunz trans., Eiríks saga rauða, in The Complete Sagas of Icelanders, vol. 1., Viðar Hreinsson, Robert Cook, Terry Gunnell, Keneva Kunz, and Bernard Scudder ed. (Reykjavík: Leifur Eiríksson Publishing, 1997), 5-6. You can also read this saga for free on the Icelandic Saga Database.

anonymous asked:

I'm the anon that messaged you about the meta, and to answer your question, no, I didn't send you any ask before that. I found your blog through the meta and I'm not following you. I am also NOT sending hate (if either of my two asks showed any kind of hate, please feel free to tell me. I was merely disagreeing and stating how I felt when I read your tags.)

“You’re just trying to make me shut up. Because how dare I engage critically with media I love?” I did not say that, please don’t put words into my mouth? I didn’t even imply it. I sent the message because I found the particular tag disrespectful towards those who don’t view the same thing. So about this tag: #bryke changed their mind bc money and self insert hero has to get the girl Do you have a source? That they changed their mind and they were supposed to fall in love.

(3/3) The cave and the color scheme of the lovers or whatever were a coincidence, and if you can get parallels from that for your OTP, great. But also insisting that the creators changed their mind and claiming that they were supposed to fall in love, AND even going, #like#what show did you watch?

Previous ask here, the meta in question here.

“I’m the anon that messaged you about the meta, and to answer your question, no, I didn’t send you any ask before that. I found your blog through the meta and I’m not following you.”

That wasn’t my question, but I don’t care, it makes zero difference either way.

“I am also NOT sending hate (if either of my two asks showed any kind of hate, please feel free to tell me.”

Never accused you of it. Sending hate is when you attack someone personally, not their opinions. You didn’t do that, not in this conversation.

“I was merely disagreeing and stating how I felt when I read your tags.)
“You’re just trying to make me shut up. Because how dare I engage critically with media I love?” I did not say that, please don’t put words into my mouth? I didn’t even imply it. I sent the message because I found the particular tag disrespectful towards those who don’t view the same thing.”

Well, that’s nice buddy but how am I supposed to glean that out of, what amounts to, an one-sided conversation? It’s not on me to read your mind and guess that you are actually reacting out of hurt feelings and not being a passive-aggressive asshole.

I wasn’t even being disrespectful or anything, what is this bullshit?

“So about this tag: #bryke changed their mind bc money and self insert hero has to get the girl Do you have a source? That they changed their mind and they were supposed to fall in love.”

As I said:

“The creators are liars. They have repeatedly backtracked, flip-flopped and contradicted themselves. This is all available information, some of which I already talked about, but I’m not willing to go out of my way to convince you.”

I will say that I have an anti bryke tag (though that one‘s mostly me calling them petty), and feel free to search my blog for /ehasz or /aaron-ehasz, I’ve definitely reblogged firsthand accounts from people who’ve talked to him about Avatar. You could also bother to click on that link that I already included in my previous answer to you. Again, I won’t do your research for you.

“The cave and the color scheme of the lovers or whatever were a coincidence, and if you can get parallels from that for your OTP, great. But also insisting that the creators changed their mind and claiming that they were supposed to fall in love, AND even going, #like#what show did you watch?”

Okay, I had this whole snarky response thought out for this one, but then I realized that you might actually, really, genuinely think that. And not know why you are completely and utterly wrong.

Here’s the thing: I’m a professional in the field of visual communication. I’ve spent years studying color. Calling those color choices a coincidence would be like if they had Aang run around for a full episode with red arrows. With no explanation. Just, have his arrows be red, and have no one comment on it. Just have them be like that, for a full episode. That’s the order of magnitude of coincidence/accident we’re talking about here.

Color consistency is a foundation of visual communication.

That’s why, no matter where in the world you go, “stop/forbidden” signs are red, “warning/caution” signs are yellow, and “go/allowed” signs are green.

That’s also why even when companies, especially big ones, change their logos, they keep the color scheme (See: Windows, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Nickelodeon, etc.)

It’s also why brands like Barbie, Tiffany, T-Mobile, etc. trademarked their colors. Because people don’t really need to see anything beyond Barbie Pink to know it’s Barbie.

Again, color consistency is a foundation of visual communication.

I know this very well. The people who made Avatar know this better.

In the Avatar-verse we have distinct color schemes for each of the Four Nations: Blue-Water, Green-Earth, Red-Fire, Yellow/Orange-Air.

By making Oma and Shu red and blue, they have irrefutably linked them to someone who we’ve already seen have that color scheme. Because, again, color consistency is a foundation of visual communication.

Now, had we only been given red-blue, it could’ve been anyone who fits: anyone Water Tribe and anyone Fire Nation.

But it was Zuko and Katara who had a moment in a cave of glowing green crystals.

And this again goes back to consistency: The Catacombs could’ve looked like anything. Anything at all. But they chose to have them resemble The Cave of Two Lovers.

Someone wrote that. Then someone sketched it out. Then someone did a color key for it. Then someone drew it in full. Then someone, or rather a whole team of someones, animated it.

To say any of this was a coincidence is to basically call the production team of one of the most lauded animated shows ever a bunch of amateurs.

They’re not. For all I complain about Bryke, and the decline in writing quality in Book Three, I have almost nothing but praise for the visual development of this show.

And here you are, trying to convince me that it was a coincidence?

No, my friend. Things like that don’t happen without intent.

(This last part is available on it’s own here, since I believe it to be significant enough to stand without me answering a three-part ask above it.)

anonymous asked:

Ok I'm still reeling from the fact theheadlesshashasheen deleted. WTF? What is happening to tumblr? There are some people, knowledgeable people, who seem like they are a constant in that they provide a sense of balance amid the chaos on here. He was one of them. It's a shame he's gone.

Yeah, it is. However, he felt that his public profile was leading to folks either digging through his early work and trumpeting his pieces and research as flawed, despite the fact that it was written *years* before he got better sources - or as people treating what he said as gospel - not just on tumblr, but elsewhere too.

I can understand that feeling, in all honesty.

So, he took down his tumblr and his blog, and drastically reduced his public profile. Which is fine, but a bit of a pain if you hadn’t saved stuff I suppose. I’m sure he’ll be flattered to know he’s missed.

Quite honestly, every time you have a blog or a tumblr that’s publicly readable, there’s a risk people will take what you write and treat it in ways that you never thought of.

You become an extremely minor public persona. In the magical/polytheist crossover subculture, being recognised as ‘knowledgeable’ or forthright with your ideas can lead to stuff like say, being a topic on pagansuncensored, which frankly  can be described in unflattering terms. It can get a bit cliquey, and in some cases people suffer from scenesterism, like you get in many ‘alternative’ subcultures.

theheadlesshashasheen decided to concentrate on his own work, away from public eyes and I can only imagine that he feels better for the choice, but I promise you that he’s still doing the things that made him, do make him, special.

If there’s a particular subject of his work you enjoyed, take it as inspiration and follow your own path. Research it. Work it. Perhaps acknowledge his inspiration, if it brings you good things.

Both he and I dislike being put on pedestals. We’re human, we mess up sometimes. That should be a given. He and I never got into magic and things to be public. It just so happened that we didn’t mind sharing the fruits of that work, because, hey, why not.

And now he’s gone quiet. Who knows what may happen in the future.

anonymous asked:

Looking back at past seasons, it seems Dwight the person Demelza feels most comfortable joking about her class with (I'm thinking particularly of when he's nervous about Caroline and says 'She is an heiress, and I am...' Demelza: 'as lowley as a kitchen maid?' It seems that phrase in particular is usually used against her, and that's the only time she's said it in jest. Even with Ross if she brings it up it's usually in anger. What do you think?

That’s really interesting , anon, and not something I’ve particularly thought about. But you’re right; she’s quite matter-of-fact with Dwight about her origins, in a way she isn’t with anyone else. She can be defensive about it, or angry when it’s used against her as a perjorative, and certainly is filled with doubts about what she is now (’betwixt and between, neither one thing nor the other’). But I can’t think of any other occasion when she says it so…matter-of-factly, as something that can be dealt with lightly and even joked about. As you say, whenever the subject comes up with Ross, Demelza responds with anger or hurt (often because she supposes him to be using it as a reason for some failure or the lack of something on her part, especially in s2). But with Dwight? Not so much.

Part of this, I imagine, is because of Dwight’s chosen profession, but in a way that’s very unique to Dwight. She wouldn’t be comfortable with Dr Choake talking about her origins, because Choake is a prejudiced snob who prefers to treat wealthy patients who can pay him. But Dwight is mine surgeon, and Dwight treats the people of Sawle without any expectation of payment - he will treat the lowliest beggar and the richest heiress in the district just the same, regardless of whether he’s paid for his time and knowledge. He’s often paid in kind by the poorer people of Sawle, with eggs, or vegetables, or firewood - whatever people can afford to give him. But he never asks for it, and never ever grudges anyone who can’t afford anything. He rarely passes judgement on anyone.

So he straddles all classes, with ease and comfort. He’s welcomed everywhere and welcomes everyone. For someone like Demelza, who has moved from one class to another and yet is still uncertain about her position, and nervous of the gentrified society she has to meet as Ross’s wife, Dwight must be a breath of fresh air. He doesn’t care where she comes from, he doesn’t care that she’s a miner’s daughter and that she’s more comfortable working in her house than going to house parties. He accepts her for who she is. He has a knack of putting people at ease, when he’s working, and he clearly values Demelza in many ways. I can imagine that, in his own way, Dwight is a source of support for Demelza in that sense. She’s used to being judged as Ross’s former kitchen maid, or judged as a woman, and Dwight does neither. He takes her on her own merits and never implies she’s lacking in any way.

So maybe that makes her more comfortable with making teasing remarks about how social disparity doesn’t make an unsuccessful marriage. She wouldn’t do so with anyone else, I think.

I do love the two of them, their friendship. It’s quite special, really.

Love & Insecurities

Title: Love & Insecurities

Genre: AU, Fluff, Angst

Word Count: 12, 163

Warnings: None!

Description: In which Dan and Phil have been online dating for a while now and are just now meeting for their first date and it’s terrible (according to Phil, that is).

Author’s Note: Oh, what’s the point anymore, honestly? (Please remember that this is fiction.)

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Hi! I'm new to the fandom (lolz) and I'm on the fence on all sorts of things. I've seen proof masterposts for larry and ziam being real that had some super convincing points that can't be argued against, but I've also seen some for elounor (and sophiam but more so elounor) that I felt had irrefutable points too. Clearly they can't all be real and I don't know what to think. This fandom is either insanely smart and perceptive or downright delusional lol maybe i'm just scared of being wrong?

Hello!  It’s crazy to be jumping into the middle of things all at once I’m sure.  I didn’t start investigating Larry until I was a fan for 5+ months and then it took me several months to be sure about that.  I discovered Ziam a few months later, but by then I knew what I needed to be convinced.

There are a few things I always keep in mind.

1) If there were attempts made to hide interactions between 2 members, you have to wonder why.  The whole selling point of the band is their friendship, so there’s no reason to be hiding that. It’s against their business interests and given 1D’s schedule over the last 5 years, it’s clear 1DHQ’s main interest is money.

2) Trust what you see from the boys in person.  If you don’t see and hear it coming from the boys’ mouths, then there’s really no good way to know if they said it.  If I left my computer lying around logged in, anyone could use it to post on my Twitter.  The same is true for the boys’ social media except in their case, it’s deliberate social media management.  

Media articles aren’t any better and can be manipulated quite a lot.  Don’t trust the media blindly.

3) Look for consistency.  If you notice that an article says one thing and the boys act completely differently, that’s a huge warning sign.  Someone is lying to you.  For example, why have the UK press all been trying to tell us that 1D is breaking up and the boys aren’t close when the boys’ actions and words show the complete opposite?  

You have to question who has something to gain from the particular lie being told.  On the other hand, if you know the agenda of 1DHQ and something you see on social media etc. doesn’t fit it, that may be an indicator it’s really the boys doing it.

5) Keep in mind that the point of bearding and closeting is for it to look realistic.  A few smiley or intimate pictures can easily be faked.  Watch one of those romcoms where the characters pretend to be dating and see everything they do to convince people they’re dating for real.  Then remember that 1DHQ has a whole team they can dedicate to doing the same thing if that’s their goal.

Closeting is not new.  Teams lying and doing shady things is not new.

6) To add to that, I don’t like taking gifs or heart eyes pictures for proof for Elounor or Larry for instance.  There’s far too much personal interpretation of what intimacy and emotions are with that.  There’s also missing context and possible angle and distance manipulation with pictures.  I like facts and logic because they’re not as easy to skew.

7) Remember that 1DHQ are not our friends and they’re not the boys’ friends. All you have to know is that Niall was told he needed knee surgery 1.25 years and a full tour with 123 shows before he actually was given enough time off to get it.  He performed on that painful, dislocating knee for that long just for the sake of 1DHQ getting tour profits.  

They then had him show up to the Brits only 1.5 weeks after surgery and put him back on tour after a week less than the bare minimum of time he needed to recover. 1DHQ will do what they think they need to to earn their money and they don’t care about how it hurts the boys. 

If you need to know how the boys feel about 1DHQ, some of it is here.

8) Be careful of assumptions.  A lot of things used to create a false narrative are simply hints that are meant to lead you to assumptions.  For instance, if you see a photo posted, you tend to assume it’s current unless there’s some big indicator it’s not, like an old haircut.  That’s not necessarily true, though, since people can hold on to pictures and post them whenever.  

They may post a picture that’s supposed to make you think Zayn is in LA for instance, but then you find that the picture was stolen off the internet.  Break down all the assumptions being made about evidence and think about whether the assumptions are actually solid.  

9) One is an incident, two is coincidence, three is a pattern, more is ridiculous. That’s the rule in general and with 1D.  The thing is that the same specific things happen over and over and over again in the same ways.  When there are too many coincidences, it’s just not a coincidence anymore


Hopefully those things help a little bit in terms of how to judge what’s important and what’s not.  Of course it’s up to you if you agree, but those are a lot of my guiding principles.

I’m also going to say that if you haven’t read the Harry Louis Treatise or watched the ILYSM videos, they’re amazing sources for Larry and Ziam proof respectively.  If you haven’t done those yet, definitely do.

I also have tags for analysis resources, ziam resources, and larry resources on my blog.

Like I said, it took me some time to come to terms with everything, so if it takes you time, it’s not at all weird.  There’s a huge backlog of information to go through to see the patterns that emerge and the shady things that happened over 5 years.

anonymous asked:

What do you expect from Harry this year? Do you have any thoughts on how his image is going to be handled and what direction he's going to go in in terms of the style of his music? I think he will release solo music but later in the year after Niall and Liam to avoid being in direct competition. I'm really excited to see who he writes with and what his sound is going to be but I find his current image very confusing and I'm curious if and how that is going to change.

Aaah, anon, you touched what is no doubt my biggest source of interest and excitement of the year, Harry’s new public image. 

I agree with you, I think he’s going to wait a bit longer before releasing his own music, he’s probably going to be the last of the boys to drop his album or whatever it is that he’s specifically working on. I have no revolutionary thoughts on what his sound could be like, nothing we haven’t already discussed in the past. What I’m really here for is to witness how they’re going to shape his 2017 persona.

I’m very fascinated by the possibilities here and there’s so much at stake that the way Harry is going to present himself in the upcoming months is, from a strictly professional point of view (which, as you might have noticed has a tendency to be my first and main concern, lol) what I’m personally more focused on. I’m never going to get tired of repeating that what we’ve seen this year from Harry is not normal, absolutely not what you’d expect from an artist in his position, which is a very delicate moment of transition from popular boybander to young rising star in need to gain visibility AND credibility as an individual with a pretty wide range of interests in the entertainment/music scene. Add to this the huge pressure and expectation we’ve seen around him for the whole year, having him lay this low is the last choice his team would have normally made. For a few weeks here and there or even a couple of months straight (à la Niall), sure, he physically and mentally needed it, but for a whole year? Nope, non, no, nein! That’s why his image comes off as a bit confusing, because it’s moslty been on hold for so long; they’ve been keeping his name up in the press with random Dunkirk articles and boring, rare papwalks, a couple of pointless, casual Kendall mentions and a short lived Another Man buzz. No social media activity at all, not even his weird IG posts or cryptic tweets that would still generate some interest, no public statements, no public engagement in whatever kind of project/activity (run a marathon, run a charity, take painting classes, etc), no announcements, no events attended, no red carpets, no tv/radio/press interviews. Nothing.

Now, though, his hiding days are necessarily coming to an end and there’s no way 2017 is going to look like 2016 for Dunkirk actor (and solo artist) Harry Styles. And as he’ll start stepping up, he’ll obviously have to introduce himself to a new, different, wider audience and that’s when we’ll start having subtantial hints, then evidence, about where he’s decided to go with his future. I think it’s going to be pretty clear and it all comes down to three main possibilities (each of them with various options themselves): clean cut with the past- no overexposure, no continuous intereference with private aspects of his life, no attempt at basing his appeal on sexual/romantic availability-, continuity with the past- making the most out of his personal life through public stunts revolving around his attainableness, mostly ignoring his talent-, a middle ground consisting of ambiguity and compromises, simultaneously able to appeal to both sides of his fandom and general audience.

Considering what we know of Harry and in particular what we’ve seen from him in the last year, option 2 is not what I suppose we’re going to get (even though it’d be handled differently than what he’s lived through with 1dhq). My guess would be option 3, at least to test the waters during his first public solo steps, but I wouldn’t be shocked by a strong, firm approach either. I wouldn’t be shocked by anything, actually, I’m quite open to whatever they decide to throw out there. What I’m pretty confident about is that the next few months are going to be very telling about what we can expect from Harry and his future public perception, even though I feel like what he’s shown us so far is quite indicative (and honestly impressive, at least from a personal point of view) per se.

cappara  asked:

Wait, what's an anti blog? I'm sorta confused?? Is it like... anti-shipping? Anti-nsfw?? Please help me Sinmother

This is going to be long, but i suggest all my followers read.

Anti Blogs (or so my understanding of the situation is) are blogs dedicated to eradicating problematic or controversial content. This usually has to do with incest, pedophilia, white-washing, and abusive ships.

 Now in some instances this can be really good! I’ve seen anti-blogs take out other blogs who have been sending hate, re-posting, spamming underage users with porn, or deliberately trying to trigger abuse survivors. Some of the people who run these blogs really do have others’ best interests at heart and do all the can to make sure fandom remains a safe place for everyone it it. These are the blogs I support. 

Now, on the other hand, there a good number of anti blogs who have gone off the deep end. 

These are mostly people who thrive off of so-called “doxing culture” and have nothing better to do than create problems out of nothing. They can find fault in anything and practice a militant brand of social justice that attacks people for the smallest things. They like to condemn bloggers who do not tailor to their specific ideals, to the point where they themselves become a hateful blog. 

One blog in particular has taken root in the ml fandom, creating a number of posts ( x x x x x x) that do little but spew hate. This is just a small number of the many asks (most of which I would assume they sent to themselves seeing as though the typing style is the same) this blog has published bashing a number of ml blogs about what content they decide to put out. they even bashed Thomas Astruc?? like???

I’D LIKE TO MAKE ONE THING CLEAR: I DO NOT IN ANY WAY CONDONE PEDOPHILIA, WHITE-WASHING, OR ABUSIVE SHIPS. 

AT ALL.

But I also think there is a huge difference between pedophilia (sexual conduct between a minor and an adult), and two consenting teenagers exploring their sexuality in a safe way.

Here’s the thing: there is always going to be nsfw content. Always.

As fans of a show with underage characters, the only thing we can do as a fandom to keep tumblr a safe space for everyone is to make sure that content is:

  1. always aged up
  2. not tagged with main fandom tags and always tagged nsfw
  3. heavily warned about so anyone uncomfortable can look away
  4. CONSENSUAL

Everyone should have the right to see what they want on their dash. Some bloggers like nsfw, some dont. It it not my place, or anyone’s place to take that choice away. As a (barely) legal adult, I can’t rid the internet of bad things. I cant make it my personal journey to insure every person under 18 never encounters nsfw content… 

Because newsflash! There are going to be minors who *gasp!* are curious about sex!  

Teenagers have urges, and their curiosity is natural! I was literally in their shoes a few short years ago, trolling ff.net for smut because I was curious about sex but didn’t like porn!

 Censoring the internet is an impossible task, but what I can do is make sure I am showing examples of safe, sane, and consensual sexual relationships. Because 15 year old Bullysquadess- who grew up thinking that a boy kissing a girl to shut her up was romantic, or that your first time was supposed to be a bloody, painful experience- really could have used more exposure to content like that. 

Content that was real and honest. Content that was not sensationalized, not fetishized, but honest-to-God educational.

And when blogs like this arise- blogs that probably never even read my fic before branding it as evil, child corrupting smut- they ruin the fandom experience for those around them. They are taking away a source of learning and exploration for people who may not have many opportunities to explore their budding sexuality in a safe, non-judgemental space. Their holier-than-thou attitude and desire to condemn anything that they dont deem as “good” or “moral” makes sites like tumblr almost unbearable for the other 99% of bloggers who have the common sense to just look the other way when they encounter something they dont particularly enjoy.

As a little review, I am not necessarily against Anti blogs, but I feel a number of them cross the line onto being hateful.  

( Along that same topic, I dont want to see any of my followers sending the blog in question any anon messages, as hate does not put an end to hate. )

anonymous asked:

What's wrong with the LTV then

I agree with the position of Joan Robinson, who was quite sympathetic to Marx’s ideas as a whole. She said that the labor theory of value “appears to be metaphysical” and that “logically it is a mere rigmarole of words.” Thus, it “cannot be wrong and this is the sign that there is nothing to be learned from it.”

To start: the labor theory of value, in it’s simplest possible terms, argues that labor creates value. In other words, when controlling for the costs of natural resources, the use-value of a good (how useful it is) is determined by the total amount of labor hours required to construct it.

There’s a common argument brought against this that Marxists love to receive, because, on its face, it’s easy to combat. The so-called “mudpie argument” asks: if more labor = more value, then how do you explain a mudpie (a pile of mud)? Even if a million workers each spent their entire lives constructing one mudpie, it would still be worthless. Marxists point out that Marx went out his way to clarify that the LTV only applies to not just any labor, but “socially necessary“ labor. 

In Chapter 1, Section 1 of Capital Vol. 1, Marx famously argued:

Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time…

…nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.

Bolding mine. Later, in Chapter 3, Section 2A:

For [a commodity to “be a use-value”,] it is necessary that the labour expended upon it, be of a kind that is socially useful, of a kind that constitutes a branch of the social division of labour.

That seems to make sense. Use-vale is only created by labor “of a kind that constitutes a branch of the social division of labour.” But what exactly is that? As Marx comments in an example he’s giving later in that section, “The labour-time that yesterday was without doubt socially necessary to the production of a yard of linen, ceases to be so to-day…” Thus, the definition of “socially necessary” changes from time to time.

So, then, one has to ask: what qualifies “socially necessary” labor?  Robert Nozick argues that, when Marx tries to define it, he undermines his own argument. The following are passages from pages 258-260 of Anarchy, State, and Utopia:

Even with the ad hoc constraint that the object must be of some use, there remain problems. For, suppose someone works for 563 hours on something of some very slight utility (and there is no way to make it more efficiently.) This satisfies the necessary condition for value that the object have some utility. Is its value now determined by the amount of labor, yielding the consequence that it is incredibly valuable? No… If we interpret Marx as saying, not that utility is a necessary condition and that (once satisfied) the amount of labor determines value, but rather that the degree of utility will determine how much (useful) labor has been expended on the object, then we have a theory very different from a labor theory of value.

Emphasis his. Here, Nozick points out that Marx acknowledges the importance of accounting for the utility of goods produced in determining value. Nozick also argues:

If one has to bring in the fact that it’s of use to people, and actually wanted (suppose it were of use, but no one wanted it), then perhaps by looking only at wants, which have to be brought in anyway, one can get a complete theory of value…

Suppose that useful things are produced as efficiently as they can be, but that too many of them are produced to sell at a certain price. The price that clears the market is lower than the apparent labor values of the objects; a greater number of efficient hours went into producing them than people are willing to pay for (at a certain price per hour). Does this show that the number of average hours devoted to making an object of significant utility doesn’t determine its value? Marx’s reply is that if there is such overproduction so that the market doesn’t clear at a particular price, then the labor was inefficiently used (less of the thing should have been made), even though the labor itself wasn’t inefficient. Hence not all of those labor hours constituted socially necessary labor time. The object does not have a value less than the number of socially necessary labor hours expended upon it, for there were fewer socially necessary labor hours expended upon it than meet the eye.

[[…]]Suppose that every piece of linen in the market contains no more labour-time than is socially necessary. In spite of this, all these pieces taken as a whole, may have had superfluous labour-time spent upon them. If the market cannot stomach the whole quantity at the normal price of 2 shillings a yard, this proves that too great a portion of the total labour of the community has been expended in the form of weaving. The effect is the same as if each individual weaver had expended more labour-time upon his particular product than is socially necessary.

Thus Marx holds that this labor isn’t all socially necessary. What is socially necessary, and how much of it is, will be determined by the market!! There is no longer any labor theory of value; the central notion of socially necessary labor time is itself defined in terms of the processes and exchange ratios of a competitive market!

Bolding mine, italics his.

As Nozick points out, in order for us to synthesize the idea that goods must have utility with this labor theory, it no longer becomes a labor-based theory at all; it becomes some sort of strange synthesis of determining value through the demand for goods, the utility of goods, and the labor hours spent producing goods. But once we take the first two into account, exactly how necessary is the latter? In avoiding the inherent problems of the labor theory of value, Marx subtly transforms it from a theory that postulates labor as the source of value into one in which labor is simply a contributor to it. 

The labor theory of value, when stated in raw form, makes no sense. But, when one attempts to avoid all of the criticisms of it, it could be put as such: “socially necessary labor creates value, as long as 1.) such labor responds to demand and 2.) the product of the labor has utility.” But we don’t need labor at all to draw a nearly identical conclusion: value is created whenever something that is demanded is created, and things are demanded because they have utility. Workers and the necessity of labor are attached to this theory, which is supposedly based around them, only in a loose and metaphysical sense (though, as Robinson mentions, abandoning the labor theory of value does not in any way diminish the importance of labor). tl;dr: Labor is necessary to create an object, but it does not bestow “value” upon it.

anonymous asked:

Okay I'm a bit new so I was wondering why we hate managements so much like I don't really understand but I want to

Oh, anon. Oh, my sweet summer child. I am going to assume that this question is genuine and that you’re not trolling me, if for no other reason than getting this ask made me laugh until I cried, and that alone deserves an honest answer giving you the full benefit of the doubt. Everyone’s been new at some point, and One Direction fandom is a more confusing place than most. So have a seat and I’ll tell you a story. 

So for me, there are two parts to this question. The first is why we hate management so much in most music fandoms. It’s hard to argue that music fandoms, past and present, don’t hate or judge the management of our favorite bands and singers, because we do! This is especially true in fandoms that originate out of reality TV shows like American Idol or The X Factor, because fans tend to have a VESTED INTEREST in the success of our favorite singers and bands, and we don’t want to see them fail, and if fans perceive their careers as not going as well as we think they should, it’s easy to blame their management. They don’t know [artist] like we do!!!! How dare they not choose the singles I want them to!!! If only that music video had been better, it would have charted in the top ten!!! And on and on and on. This is both reasonable (sometimes artists DO have shitty promoters/management support!) and pretty ridiculous (most of the people criticizing the marketing of an artist have no experience in the music industry and very little first hand knowledge of what they’re talking about). But in general, music fandoms tend to not be particularly fond of how their bands are run.

None of this, however, is why (parts of) 1D fandom hate management. In a nutshell, Larry tinhats (people who believe Harry and Louis are in a secret romantic relationship) hate management because they believe that management is controlling their lives and preventing them from coming out together and being in a public relationship. 

You see, in the tinhat corner of 1D fandom that genuinely and truly believes that Harry and Louis are in a secret romantic/sexual relationship and have been for years, management is the Big Bad that has been keeping them apart publicly for all these years. In some ways, 1D’s management could be forgiven for ever dropping the ball on actually promoting this band that has made them millions and millions of dollars over the last five years, since its primary job (according to tinhatters) has been to prevent Louis and Harry from coming out, and to conceal their relationship from everyone. Why would management do this? In the eyes of tinhats, it’s because they’re homophobic and/or afraid that an openly gay relationship would destroy the band’s popularity, and since all management cares about is money, they can’t have this. 

Management is a particularly good Big Bad character in a boy band fandom, since boy bands have historically been managed by some pretty shady characters who stole from the artists and were generally speaking Not Great People. So it’s not exactly SURPRISING that management became The Force That Kept Larry Apart, once Louis in particular started to actually say “I am straight” and “Larry is not real” and so forth. At that point, it couldn’t just be that Harry and Louis weren’t openly talking about their secret love; they had to be UNABLE to be together publicly, PREVENTED by a larger force. This is part of why you’ll see tons of vague posts about management’s long reach and ability to silence ANYONE who speaks out about Larry, because anything that goes against the narrative of Larry’s True Love can be explained away by this all powerful entity Management. But you’ll see far fewer posts actually SOURCING any of this supposed terribleness done by management, because that’s not how this works. You can’t see management at work by what they DO, only by what they prevent: Harry and Louis being TOGETHER FOREVER. So as long as they’re not a public couple, management BY DEFINITION is still being terrible and awful. 

That’s what’s weird about management: while it’s true that boy band managers have historically been shitty, it’s ALSO true that no boy band has ever been anywhere close to as successful as 1D is, or had the kind of bargaining leverage that 1D did when renegotiating their contracts. So it’s PUZZLING that they would still be able to control them like this, even if we could believe management EVER had that power. It’s also amazing that this all-powerful management, that has managed to stamp out all evidence of a gay relationship between two of the most famous dudes in England, can’t somehow prevent album leaks from happening every fucking year. It’s even MORE amazing that management somehow managed to get Louis and Harry to re-sign a contract that was SO RESTRICTIVE AND TERRIBLE that they have to ACTIVELY LIE about their romantic lives in 2015, and convince EVERYONE IN THEIR PERSONAL LIVES TO LIE AS WELL, and yet another member of the band was somehow able to break or renegotiate this terrible controlling contract in order to LEAVE THE ACTUAL BAND. SO WEIRD. But the great thing about management is that once you really believe in it, management is responsible for EVERYTHING, and every narrative gets supported by the general knowledge that MANAGEMENT IS TERRIBLE. Facts don’t matter; what Harry and Louis say doesn’t matter; all that matters is that there’s always something to blame when canon doesn’t go the way you want it to, and in 1D that’s what management is for.

I don’t hate management, and there’s no reason for you to hate management, either. You haven’t ‘missed’ anything, other than a conspiracy theory that gets more absurd with every passing day. Management doesn’t control One Direction. Management WORKS FOR One Direction. So don’t bother hating them.

anonymous asked:

why don't you like game of thrones?

So so so many reasons. I think the show captures almost none of the things I liked about the books. The characters that I loved so much in the books have been essentially butchered or entirely erased by D&D. And it’s generally poorly written and very lazily plotted. What’s more the showrunners treat their female characters with misogynistic disdain. I hated everything they’ve done with Sansa and it just got astoundingly worse with Shireen.

I few reviewers that I feel have pretty much nailed it:

“It’s not real. That argument covers all manner of sin, doesn’t it? Because while Game of Thrones is not real, what the show and book series are most often commended for is their realism. And by realism, I mean their brutal, unforgiving, bloody, and broken depiction of humanity at its very worst. And it is real. People die in real life. Horribly, mercilessly. There’s no Hero’s Journey in reality. But, wait: isn’t that what fiction is for? Not Game of Thrones, of course, Game of Thrones is different. It’s gritty, it’s real. Historically accurate (except for the dragons). Of course people die. Haven’t you been paying attention? Stop complaining. Next year, they probably won’t cut away from the death and the rape. They have no choice but to go bigger, darker. Maybe they’ll just kill everyone. Season 6 will be 10 hours of a static shot, showing the snow falling and covering Westeros with ice.

When I was 14, my teacher told me: “The cheapest way to end your story is with the sentence, ‘And then they all ran into a brick wall and died.‘” Because The Story, our story, isn’t about the dying. It’s about how we get to that point. And for all their violence, George R.R. Martin’s books never forget that. I’m beginning to worry that the TV show has. When you cut away the journey of A Song of Ice and Fire, all you’re left with is the violence and the death. And in Game of Thrones‘ struggle to keep the show interesting (despite the lack of actual plot development), that’s when the excess of violence and death begins to feel gratuitous and damaging. Besides, everyone dies in the books, right? So stop complaining. That’s the party line. Except… in the books, there are layers. There is silence. There is melancholy, there is subtlety, there is meaning in the very absence of meaning. In the show, there is death. There is sex, there is scandal, there is screaming. There is no subtlety in the burning of a child. The show is nothing like the books. We kill children and call it art.”

Selina Wilken

David Benioff and D.B. Weiss are remarkably bad at their jobs. Last night, they proved once and for all that they don’t know how to keep an audience invested in their show. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Weiss defends the decision to have Shireen killed by saying the comically inappropriate death scene was “entirely justified” by the narrative. “It was set-up by the predicament that Stannis was in. It will be awful to see, but it’s supposed to be awful.” “It’s supposed to be awful.” That’s the sentiment from one of the people running your favorite show. My Sunday night was “supposed to be awful,” and dammit, it sure was. Any growing sympathy I had for Stannis is gone. I would now prefer that everyone involved with the battle for Winterfell take a nosedive into the nearest frozen lake. We also lost one of the best ongoing friendships — the one between Davos the Onion Knight and Shireen. Providing Davos ever returns, I can’t imagine he will take Shireen’s death lightly. But the worst thing of all is how utterly predictable and boring the decision was. The Lord of Light decrees it must be done, and so shall it be done. Stannis is now firmly established as a character who cannot think for himself, and the viewers suffer the consequences. Game of Thrones the TV show was never going to follow A Song of Ice and Fire to a tee, but this season in particular has been irreversibly marred by bad decisions behind the scenes that have nothing to do with the novels.The season began its descent into misery when Sansa was forced to marry the show’s most gruesome villain, Ramsay Bolton (née Snow). The sexual violence perpetrated against her character was gross and unwarranted, failing to provide any meaningful character development for anyone involved. So what have we learned? Benioff and Weiss have some vendetta against the young, female actors on their show? It’s too difficult to corral this many actors week in and week out, so we might as well torture and murder the ones that aren’t actively participating in an important storyline? By the time Drogon came to the rescue last night, igniting the Sons of the Harpy and attempting to wash the brutality of the earlier scene from our mind with even more violence, it was far too late. I was already numb to the tiresome pessimism of the show and its crew.”

- Game of Thrones is intent on sucking all the life out of the most imaginative world on television, Jacob Siegel

Last night, Game of Thrones continued its assault on young girls by burning Shireen Baratheon alive while her parents watched. The HBO hit is notoriously ruthless with its characters, but this season has gone above and beyond when it comes to the violence committed against its young female characters. After the marriage of Sansa Stark and Ramsay Bolton in episode six, “Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken” (subtle!), the future Lord of Winterfell rips open Sansa’s wedding dress and rapes her while Reek—and the audience—stands by.The episode was met with some serious Internet backlash, including from Senator Claire McCaskill, who took to Twitter to publicly denounce the show. “Ok, I’m done Game of Thrones. Water Garden, stupid. Gratuitous rape scene disgusting and unacceptable. It was a rocky ride that just ended.” — Claire McCaskill

“ Jessie Heyman: Did that really happen to Shireen?

Monica Kim: The worst thing I’ve seen on that show, probably.

JH: The thing with this show is that it, famously, will do the unthinkable. Like with Ned. The Red Wedding. And all those other crazy deaths. But I really, really felt this was beyond the pale. What did you think?

MK: My thoughts exactly. Even though it was heavily foreshadowed, part of me didn’t think they’d actually go through with it—especially not the way they did it. The burning of Shireen was insanely disturbing. I think I’d rather sit through five back-to-back showings of Theon torture porn than watch that one scene again (and no, I didn’t enjoy the torture porn).

JH: Time and time again, Game of Thrones disgusts and shocks me to my very core, but this seemed gratuitous. Do you feel like, as a book reader, all this little girl assault is really necessary?

MK: You know, George R. R. Martin recently addressed the criticism of the show’s treatment of women, in which he explained that to not portray sexual violence and violence against women in a war story is fundamentally dishonest. And I agree that to whitewash things and not address the darker sides of human nature in this story would be unsettling. But I think the show, this season in particular, has really taken Martin’s ethos and completely mishandled it. Yes, horrible things happen in the series, to both men and women. And even on the show, the most graphic depictions of violence are generally reserved for men. I really checked out during Theon’s season-long flaying, and Oberyn Martell’s squashed-in head was obviously nauseating.

JH: Not to mention Joffrey’s barf death.

MK: But the treatment of young girls this season has felt gratuitous in a different way than the graphic physical violence the show heaps on the men. It’s a bit more like it’s used for cheap, emotional manipulation, don’t you think?

JH: Yes, 100 percent. In a weird way, I feel like the male death we see in the show is somehow more straightforward (excluding, of course, Theon—I suppose we can call that a death of one person, right?), whereas the violence toward women seems more perverse. Think about the worst death during the Red Wedding? Talisa wasn’t just killed, she was stabbed in her pregnant stomach.

MK: And she was stabbed repeatedly.

JH: Even when Mance Rayder was about to befall a Shireen-like fate, Jon Snow “saved” him—or his dignity, at least.

MK: Yeah, I’d agree that the men, other than Oberyn and a few random side characters, are generally given more dignified deaths.

JH: And this all differs from the books tremendously, right?

MK: Yes. It seems like the further the show gets from the source material, when the writers no longer have the books to guide them, the more clumsy and heavy-handed things get. This season, Gilly suffers a near rape, which doesn’t occur in the books. Why? To show that the Wall is a dangerous place for her, and to bring her closer to Sam. But of all the things they could’ve worked in—it’s cold, food is running out, I don’t know, an army of very fast zombies is coming their way—the writers went right to rape attempt. Meryn Trant is a bad guy that Arya wants to kill, but how do we remind readers, who might have forgotten that he beat up Sansa, that he is bad? Let’s make him a pedophile, in this completely unnecessary brothel scene! Just, why.

JH: There’s so much more outrage to be had as a book reader! But to get back to the original point of whether or not the show has gone too far, I mean, is that even a question at this point? The real question is: Why do they keep upping the ante? And more than that, will we actually stop watching?

MK: I think it’s a straw and camel’s back situation. Looking back, the showrunners have included lots of moments of weirdly perverse, gratuitous violence against women that weren’t in the books. Think of Ros being forced by Joffrey to savagely beat another woman, or the rape scene between Cersei and Jaime, or Ros (again) being shot to death with crossbow bolts. Not only was Talisa’s counterpart, Jeyne Westerling, not killed in the books, no female character was ever stabbed repeatedly, almost cartoonishly, in her pregnant stomach. We’ve ostensibly sat through all these unnecessary moments to get to the story itself, but I think it’s getting to the point where those moments have piled up and people are tired of putting up with them.

JH: You know what I was struck by? I was expecting to encounter an incensed Internet post Shireen’s gruesome death—and while there were a few people who were, like, “THAT IS SO MESSED UP”—mostly, they were just talking about the dragons. Was that just me, or did you feel that way too?

MK: Yes! Right after the episode ended, I went straight to Twitter to find some rage solidarity, but all I saw were a bunch of excited tweets with dragon emoji.

- Let’s Talk About That Game of Thrones Scene, Jessie Heyman and Monica Kim

Every once in a while, you watch a sweet, bookish little girl burn to death while screaming for her parents and you think, Oy. More child sexual slavery? More rah-rah decapitations? More massacres? Welp, it’s a very brutal world. I know. I know that Game of Thrones is big on carnage, big on desperation, big on bloodlust, and lust lust, and a bunch of other kinds of lusts. I get it, Game of Thrones. I do. But I just want one happy episode. No killing, no raping, no plotting out killings and rapings, just … a holiday celebration, say, where no one’s fetus gets stabbed out. A concert. A play. Some random serfs having an ordinary afternoon. A sporting event that does not result in anyone’s death. Something!I’m kidding, sort of: Game of Thrones will never give us this, and I’m (reluctantly) resigned to that fact. The show is primarily invested in excavating every depraved moment in its characters’ lives, in bringing out the absolute worst in everyone. And fair enough: People here in the actual world are also overwhelmingly terrible. But we also know that even in the most dire of circumstances, people seek happiness and foster comfort and express their humanity by creating art. They find meaning in small rituals. They cook favorite meals. (Come back to us, Hot Pie!) They form lasting, meaningful bonds. They find light in the darkest of times. GOT has of course portrayed romantic love, but generally to leverage it for sadness that can be caused by death or separation or betrayal. We’ve seen wedding celebrations, but they tend to end badly. The show loves wondering how bad … or how far … or how much … But this constant brutality becomes numbing, and each “surprise” has diminishing returns. The show’s merciless entropy has exhausted me. The point of GOT is not to be cheerful, clearly. But a show that can find this many ways to be unhappy could surely find one even small way to engage with joy that wasn’t immediately poisoned somehow. If you can have a surprisingly easy to foil army of eunuchs, you can have, oh, double Dutch.”

- Game of Thrones’ Relentless Misery, Margaret Lyons

Obviously, the world of Westeros is not a safe place for little girls (or anyone, but especially girls). But as the showrunners push their agenda over the storyline from the book, that element of danger is a crutch that they rely on far too frequently, and in a way that is gratuitous and often feels unearned. This episode took the theme to new and darker places, when we’ve already been in very dark places this season. As viewers, there’s a hope that these bleak depictions will lead to some kind of glorious vengeance, but it’s just not clear if we can trust Benioff and Weiss with that hope. We’ve been burned too many times before. Quite literally this time around.“

- Katie Walsh, The Playlist

“Despite what many of “Game of Thrones’s” legions of devotees like to argue, it is not, in fact, a “medieval story.” It is not received wisdom from another age. Though it has the trappings of an earlier Earth, it is actually a contemporary story and should be considered as one. And as such, I fail to see what the horrific immolation of a teenage girl added to the narrative in any way, shape, or form. What I do understand is what it took away: a pleasant performer in Kerry Ingram, any whiff of empathy or support for Stannis, and “Game of Thrones’s” torrid streak of 13 and a half days without a violence-toward-girls incident. For God’s sake — not you, Lord of Light, you smug asshole — even Iphigenia’s fate remained unclear! Terrible things can and should happen on “Game of Thrones,” just as they should in all adult drama. But the more Benioff and Weiss hammer the same chords, the less they sound like musicians and the more they remind me of Cousin Orson, another one of their inventions who, in retrospect, seems like one more clever, meta way to shrug off criticism.“

- Andy Greenwald, Grantland

“Shall we recap, one last time? Let’s recap what made me decide to switch off, in fact.

Arya’s still walking around selling oysters and trying to kill the Thin Man. She gets sexually harassed by some guys on the street because of course she does. Then, she finally runs into Meryn Trant! It’s about time. She tracks him to the local brothel, and there we learn that Trant is also a paedophile, because of course he is! He enters the bedroom with a terrified-looking girl not much older than Arya, and that’s that. Was any of that necessary? No. We already hate Trant. We already know Arya’s going to kill him. What’s the bloody point of another implied rape of an underage girl? But it gets worse-

This was the big one. I said a few weeks ago, “Fun fact: if a small child gets BURNED TO DEATH on this show, I am probably out for good,” but I genuinely didn’t expect them to go that far, especially not after the Mance affair in the opener. I know child death is far from unheard of on this show - the very first episode featured the attempted murder of a little boy, after all - and I know that it was done with George R R Martin’s approval, and I know that men suffer on this show as well as girls and women. But none of that changes the fact that I really, really didn’t want to hear (thankfully, you don’t see anything. but still) a little girl’s screams as she’s burned to death. The fact that Shireen’s one of the sweetest, kindest characters on the show only makes it worse: I liked her a lot, and her death not only happening but being horrible and at the hands of her own father feels like a swift kick in the teeth.

I know that the show’s mantra for about three seasons now has been, “If you think this has a happy ending, you haven’t been paying attention.” Which, alright, but now that’s turned into “If you think this has a happy ending…we’ll introduce some more sexual violence and child murder into proceedings to thoroughly disavow you of that notion.” That’s no way to run a show, although it’s certainly a way to ruin one. Taken down with Shireen is any sympathy the audience might have had for Stannis, who in one scene went from fairly acceptable parent to one of the biggest, cruelest monsters in the whole big, cruel story. Even Selyse was allowed a moment of redemption when she tried to save her daughter, but nothing of the sort for Stannis: he may have eclipsed even Joffrey in disgusting behaviour. 

The misogyny that’s run rampant through this season hasn’t gone unnoticed (not by me or by anyone else) but I thought that maybe the rape scene in “Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken” was the worst of it. Now I sort of wish I’d quit there. Salon summed up the show’s current mission statement rather nicely:

“Game of Thrones is obsessed with reminding its audience that a woman’s work is never done, that her body is never her own, that her life is never safe, and each time the audience pushes back against the idea that such depictions are a foregone conclusion, they are informed that it is the way of the world they themselves live in and painting the world any other way would be disingenuous.”

So- goodbye, show. It’s been an, um, interesting ride. But I simply can’t stomach it anymore.“

- Three strikes against young girls and you’re out, Sarah Barrett

anonymous asked:

I know this might sound weird but is it possible to explain what's going on in South Korea in simple words?? (I'm sorry I'm just not very smart haahah)

I was supposed to reply to this a few hours earlier, but my computer decided to update itself TAKING THREE WHOLE HOURS TO REBOOT oh gee ._.

it doesn’t sound weird, anon, I’m glad you care! In simple words, huh.. I’ll give it a try:

If you have time, try reading the new york times article about this issue too, they’ve been catching up to date on this and a new article was up just on the 5th. it’s a bit long, but they backed it up with reliable info and the source itself is safe to believe in.. I think. 

In short, the president of South Korea entrusted her ENTIRE presidential affairs to a ordinary civilian ‘friend’ of hers who has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS, AT ALL.

In simpler words, she just let her “friend” be in charge of everything. She let her pick the people who would assist the president, she let her make foundations which received funds directly from the government, and also asked funds to big corps like samsung. And of course, the woman used the money for her own good. The money? it comes from the taxes. Moreover, she also got her way into reading some highly classified documents about North korea, edited important scripts that the president read at international meetings, and picked out what clothes the president should wear. She got herself and her acquaintances be involved in various government projects. 

The interesting thing is that this woman -the so-called friend of our president- is also a daughter of a man who lead a religious cult of some sort, a pseudo-religion actually. News say that the president relied heavily on this man, and became attached to his daughter as well. I’ll just directly copy&paste what the NY times article says about this in this particular article:  “ the American Embassy in Seoul reported rumors that Mr. Choi (<-the religious cult-man) “had complete control over Park’s body and soul during her formative years and that his children accumulated enormous wealth as a result.” 

So the president came up and apologized about this days ago. But her words lacked any sense of responsibility for what she had done. She said she trusted her friend and they betrayed her trust, which she didn’t expect. 

I want to ask her: what was she even expecting????????? what was she thinking??? Why did she even do that???? How could she do that????? She has a lot of qualified officials, who could guide her. Who are there to serve the nation and she just lets a civilian who doesn’t have anything to do with everything to take care of things. I don’t get her logic at all. I just totally don’t get her way of thinking.

wow, I sure am embarrassed something like this is happening where I live. She’s made everyone who’s voted for her feel betrayed (and stupid perhaps) and everyone who’s not voted for her feel.. even more disappointed in her I guess. Again, I was too young to vote when she got elected but I still feel embarrassed about something I couldn’t contribute anything to.

(this is my screencap from the evening news last night )even middle school students are on the streets asking the president to resign

1% or even less people in their 20s and 30s support the president now her name is “박근혜” and 퇴진 means out/resign

and over 200,000 people joined the protest today, it’s a peaceful one- people hold candles in their hands and speak out

I hope this ends well;; this got long, but hope this helps you!