makes no ... difference

we really need new skam content because everything in season 3 is being overanalyzed and we’re really getting on some Levels right now it’s time to stop before someone starts explaining how the thickness of jonas’ eyebrows symbolizes the love even and isak feel for each other 

time lapses/jumps v continuity errors

it’s come to my attention that some of y’all tend to confuse one for the other,,, which saddens me bc skam is literally all about time lapses/jumps; it’s one of the things that makes it!!! so special!!

the time jumps in skam are meant to show you exactly that – a time jump from one cut to another. it’s a very, very small cut that could mask as a continuity error, but taken in the context it’s actually presented to us (a time jump) it has a huge impact on the scene if you keep an eye out for one

thank you @stardefiant for being a bae and helping catch some of these

anyway ahem

an example of an actual continuity error:

even’s arm in this shot is obviously around emma

but when the shot pans out, even’s arm is back at his side:

we know this is a continuity error because this scene is dialogue-heavy and meant to transition smoothly. no time has actually lapsed between even’s greeting and emma’s excited greeting in return, so there is no reason why his arm shouldn’t have stayed around emma. silly skam editors. 

now, here’s a (very obvious) example of a time jump:

Keep reading

i know there’s nothing wrong with being almost 20 and never been kissed or on a date, i know that, but god it feels awful.

even an awkward kiss or date in high school would make me feel better. hell even just having someone tell me they like me in that way. because no matter how much i tell myself it isn’t true, at the end of the day when I haven’t had ANYONE even show romantic interest in me, all i can feel is ugly and unwanted.

Mallory Pugh

Whenever the team goes to Starbucks, Mallory Pugh convinces every one of her team moms to buy her something different, since they’re all wrapped around her finger. The baristas can’t help but remark on how young she is, but she can’t hear them over all her success.


On Monday I won a fish, and today an older gentleman stopped by my office to talk about public lands and our local recovering wolf packs. When he mentioned he works with state game wardens to rescue and find sanctuary space for illegally owned wolf/wolf hybrids, I said “Oh! I’d love to see them! Stop by the next time you bring them into town!”

He went straight home and came back with Maggie (fluffy, wolf/malamute, 120 lbs) and Malachi (chill, wolf/husky, 140 lbs), to show them off like any proud caretaker.

It’s been an interesting week.

Okay guys, for writing/general reference, a bit about what a ‘blacksmith’ is and isn’t:

A blacksmith is a generalist, a person who uses tools and fire to work iron.  Some blacksmiths work more specifically, so you get, say, an architectural blacksmith, who focuses more or less exclusively on things like gates, rails, fences, or an artist blacksmith, who makes wacky sculptures or what have you.  These days, though, that’s a pretty blurry line.  ‘Blacksmith’ is a pretty damn broad term, but it’s nowhere near broad enough to cover everything encompassed in ‘metalworker’, which is how I often see it used.  There are a LOT of different skills for working metal, and no one knows them all.  Some other terms:

A farrier shoes horses.  They may make the shoes, or they may buy them and then size them, but they actually do the shoeing.  Unless the blacksmith is also a farrier, they don’t know shit about horses’ hooves and are not qualified to deal with them and probably don’t want to.

A blacksmith works IRON (or steel), usually almost exclusively.  They might work with bronze or do a bit of brazing, but those are really separate skillsets.  If you work, say, tin and/or pewter, you are in fact a whitesmith.  You could also be a silversmith or a coppersmith, and so on.

Knifemakers and swordsmiths have their own highly specialized and fairly complex specialties, and usually a blacksmith wouldn’t mess with that unless they want to pick up a new skillset or if they’re really the only game going for a long way around.  By the same token, a swordsmith might never have learned the more general blacksmithing skills.  They’re not the same thing is what I’m trying to say here.  Likewise armorers.  There’s overlap but it’s not the same thing.

If you make metal items via molds and casting, you work at a foundry and are a foundryman.

Look, when metalworkers and individual shops and masters were the height of industry, this shit got REALLY specific.  There were people who spent their whole lives making pins.  Just pins.  Foundries specialized and made only bells, only cannon, only cauldrons, etc.  This is scratching the surface, I just wanted to make the point that ‘blacksmith’ is not the same thing as ‘magical muscly person who knows how to do everything related to metal’.

shout out to all those shippers who respect people who don’t ship their otp and make it comfortable for everyone to ship what they want on this site, thank you for existing, you make the world a better place

It astounds me how often we fail at being able to comprehend two complex concepts at the same time.

I’ve been seeing this post going around in two forms, about how Rogue One (which I have yet to see, so please NO SPOILERS) has an extreme lack of women (including background characters). That’s a really good, important point to discuss. And then there’s a post bashing that same article, pointing to the fact that the film highlights many non-white men and dismissing the article as white feminism.


Both of these may be correct.

The ability of a film to have great representation for men of different races, creeds, abilities and backgrounds does not for a moment contradict the inability of the film to have adequate representation for women of any race, creed, ability or background.

This is why I hate the “trash fire” all-or-nothing mentality. It cannot cope with the notion that something can be good and bad at the same time, in different corners and contexts. For example: something can be great for racial representation and terrible for LGBTQ+ representation. The former does not automatically make the thing great; the latter does not automatically make the thing terrible. (Key word: automatically.)

Not only that, things can have different meanings to different people based on their different experiences. For someone mixed race Asian-white, a main character like Chloe Bennet’s on Agents of SHIELD may be hugely important. For someone black, the show’s troubling history of killing off most of its black characters may be deeply problematic. Neither is wrong. 

Personal experiences shape our interpretations of things. Experiences are not universal. The world is not comprised of absolutes. The stunning lack of women in film (at every layer) intersects, of course, with the stunning lack of non-white people in film (at every layer), but neither is more or less important than the other. (Especially since the doubly stunning lack of non-white women in film is something we should talk about more.) It is not “white feminism” to point out that a film with ten character posters had only one devoted to a (white) woman (even if she is the lead), just because the remaining men are non-white. Nor is it misogynistic to appreciate the film’s focus on (male) non-white heroes.

Complex concepts can coexist.