markedly

vegan-pearl replied to your post:#especially after reformed thats what im sayin…

for fuckin real tho

yeah honestly look at this off-hand list of shit that was displayed in reformed alone

  • Chaos in relationships
  • Markedly disturbed sense of identity
  • Intense or uncontrollable emotional triggers
  • Unstable interpersonal relationships and self-esteem
  • Concerns about abandonment
  • Self-damaging behavior
  • Impulsivity
  • Frequently accompanied by depression, anxiety, anger, substance abuse or rage

being slightly drunk makes me a LOT better at necrodancer, like, markedly so. like at this point it’s a strategy I employ, to great effect. I have to see if it helps with other games, risk of rain, tf2, stuff like that.

anonymous asked:

Ive seen you believe in R + L = J so my question is, do you think Jon is a bastard again or a legal child (since Targaryens practiced polygamy etc) ?

Targaryens didn’t practice polygamy at the time of Jon’s birth/conception though. Jon’s going to be considered a bastard by most regardless.

Polygamy stopped being accepted for Targaryens by the people after the dragons died out. Rhaegar was already married to Elia, whether or not he also attempted to marry Lyanna would not stop people from declaring Jon illegitimate as second wives weren’t acknowledged at the time.

GRRM: Maegor the Cruel has multiple wives, from lines outside his own, so there was and is precedent. However, the extent to which the Targaryen kings could defy convention, the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords decreased markedly after they no longer had dragons. If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want, and people are less likely to object [source]

Polygamy was never actually accepted by the Faith and Westerosi lords really. Early on, when dragons were still alive, no one could really do anything about it. Doesn’t mean it was accepted, just that people didn’t have a say. At Rhaegar’s time (about 127 years after the dragons died out,) he couldn’t have had a second wife. It wouldn’t have been accepted- the slight to Elia, it’s anti-Westerosi culture and customs, ect. Of course, Rhaegar made some incredibly poor political choices at this time in his life and didn’t do anything to mitigate the slights to Elia that he caused anyway.

Regardless, whether or not Rhaegar “married” Lyanna doesn’t really matter since people who would be opposed to Jon as a Targaryen have no reason to accept that marriage as valid. In the eyes of Westerosi culture, Rhaegar and Lyanna couldn’t have gotten married as he was already married to Elia. So really it’s mostly irrelevant. 

Jon will be considered a bastard by everyone who wants to see him that way. Just like how if Stannis had legitimized Jon, anyone who didn’t want Jon to be seen as legitimate would say it didn’t matter because Stannis wasn’t actually a king and didn’t have the power to do so. Same thing could be said about Robb legitimizing Jon in his will as there are a lot of people who reject the idea of being a king. 

And then isn’t that like Robb declaring himself king? Many opposed it, many followed him. Some viewed him as a king while others considered him an usurper. Legality in Westeros can easily become whoever has the power to make people accept what they want.

anonymous asked:

How did you learn to draw people???? I can't do mine right just yet. I love your style I want to steal it

um i actually just started from anime like most people haha..,. my art only markedly improved since 2013 when i got into homestuck ; v ; the styles of the fanarts in this fandom are amazing and they greatly inspired me to move out of my comfort zone and tried drawing people differently. My advice is just to experiment a lot! Do face studies, live drawings to learn gestures, try drawing differently structured faces and body types, find what you love about other artists’ works and see if it can work in your own style! And of course, the most repeated but still very important advice, practice! ; r ;

When I work on a film, I am drawn very intensely to the world of images and sounds. On a basic level, such a state of creative availability and of active receptivity is in itself a “project.” But the making of a film also opens up many doors to other means of creativity. It sharpens the edge between, let’s say, writing for a book and writing for a film—a difference one constantly faces when words are part of the film fabric. Not only does the use of language differ markedly from one medium to another, but working with storytelling, poetry and everyday speech in cinema also makes me aware of music in ways I never thought of before. If a poem is an invisible painting, as Chinese artists put it, then a film can be all at once visible poetry, musical painting and pictorial music. The spaces between image, sound and text remain spaces of generative multiplicity, in which the function of each is not to serve nor to rule over the other, but to expose, in their tight interactions, each other’s limit. What I cannot avoid experiencing at certain moments of the process is both the different strengths and limits of these tools of creativity. So it is in working constantly with these limits and with the circumstances that define them that I advance, quite blindly, actually. Even though in discussions, it does seem as if all my projects are very lucidly thought out, this comes in the making process, not before it. Most of the time I jump into a project blindly, and this is how boundaries are also displaced. 

-Trinh T. Minh-ha

[When The Eye Frames Red]

theamakeup asked:

Hi, I am writing a story that has flashback scenes. One of the flashbacks for a main character is 1960's Germany living with a family who are still Nazi sympathizers. Do you know where I can find accurate information about that time period?

First, regardless of their political ideology, doing some research, either online in in your library would be a good place to start for 1960s Germany. Remember, it was divided into East and West at the time, so take that into consideration. Life in the Allied West and Soviet East were markedly different.

Second, about the Nazi bit. If they still were Nazi sympathizers, they’d keep it very quiet. You might want to look into Denazification, also. As an FYI- there are graphic images of mass graves on that page.

Gerald / an inspector calls

In terms of his description at the beginning, it is revealed that Gerald is a product oh his upbringing - he is “well bred”. He, Eric and Sheila are of the same young generation but differ markedly in terms of the values and attitudes of their characters. Gerald adopts a far more traditional attitude and this is shown throughout, and in some places he undermines Sheila in terms of her naïveté, regardless of her understanding of the situation. His physical description presents him to be attractive, mirroring that of Sheila’s, and we understand that he has power within society, and as he ages this power and authority will also extend, giving him more status. Mr Birling seems to value Gerald like a son, and he understands that Gerald probably could have ‘done better’ than his own daughter. This reinforces the typical capitalist nature of society at this time - marriages often superficial, and also foreshadows what Gerald himself will be like in the future (Sheila states “id hate for you to know all about port like one of those purple faced old men”, which implies her own father). Later it is learned that Gerald had an affair with eva smith (daisy Renton), during the time when “[he] hardly came near [sheila] because [he was] too busy”. He initially denies any involvement until he learns of her other name, and gives himself away through body language gestures. He still denies involvement in her suicide, but does admit to the affair (“i hadnt set eyes on the girl for at least 6 months, i dont come into this suicide business). He used eva as his mistress in return for protection/a place to stay, and there are themes of genuine care / affection for eva. He is also willing to forget all responsibility once he learns there is no 'real’ inspector goole on the police force. He appears to be a product of his capitalist socialisation and upbringing, regarding his own interests in higher status and importance than the life of the working classes (mirroring the values of mr Birling) he finds it easy to forget the whole situation as he never took it seriously in the first place - he shows a complete disregard for the severity of the situation - "so Sheila, how about this ring?” This could be seen as emotional cover up, presenting a sense of strength, and thus also ignorance, in order to hide his weaknesses that have just come to light (he must keep up this façade of “man about town”) he may also be so willing to accept the idea that the inspector was not real, or that he showed photos of different girls, as this may give him hope that the daisy Renton he know may still be alive - he genuinely cared for her. Alternatively, he may just be too ignorant to acknowledge the true moral of the inspectors existence - he has been raised in, and praised by different aspects of capitalist society for too long. He relates to traditional values of the bourgeoisie more so than the socialist values that Eric and Sheila adopt, because those are the values that benefit him, and this is what he desires the most (socialism/a fairer society does not benefit Gerald, eg in terms of distribution of wealth, as he is one of the wealthy ones)

For Philadelphia the movement against police brutality has come full circle. The 30th anniversary observation of the 1985 MOVE bombing was markedly different from earlier events. It united an historic struggle against police brutality led by MOVE with the emerging and youthful Black Lives Matter movement.

Participants included three generations of MOVE members marching side by side with anti-police brutality activists from Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York, Boston and North Carolina. Many carried banners naming victims of police brutality, including Freddie Grey, Rekia Boyd, Brandon-Tate Brown, Frank McQueen, Michael Brown and Eric Garner, as well as the MOVE 9.

Naked, Wet Battle Royale|| Sirius & Regulus

Regulus snuck out of school earlier than perhaps necessary, eager to leave the increasingly oppressive walls of the castle. He was tired of Hogwarts, relearning things he already knew when there was so much else going on in the world. At least leaving early afforded him enough time to apparate to somewhere he knew rather than hoping for an alley to be conveniently located by the cafe Sirius had directed him to. And so he landed in London with a pop that could barely be heard over the noise of the cars in the road, and set out on foot in the direction of Collingwood Road, and hopefully his brother. 

It wasn’t hard to locate, but Reg had found himself walking quickly when searching for the road, feet speeding up even though he was still markedly early. Sirius probably wouldn’t even be there, he’d likely end up loitering around until his brother showed up anyway. 

Regulus forcibly slowed his stride once he finally turned the corner onto Collingwood. He walked slowly, eyes flicking up and down rows of shops as he walked, looking for either his brother or the swanky new cafe- he hoped to not find more than one- that he was supposed to find. 

uh so i found some old notes from nearly eight months back when I was brainstorming an art/fic combination project I put on hold because i decided my art skills weren’t ready to handle such an ambitious thing and… well i had some notes on Locus and… here, i omitted the plot shit but here is what i ended up noting down:

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

What do you think Armenian question and Turkey?

Sorry for the late reply.

That of the Armenians was a genocide that is located within the complex World War I and the rivalry between Turkey and Russia, with approximately 1.2 million deaths. What’s most controversial is that still today Turkey refuses to recognize these indiscriminate killings of Armenian population.
Here’s some background:

“For generations in the Ottoman Empire minority religious communities, like the Christian Armenians, were allowed to maintain their religious, social and legal structures, though they were often subject to extra taxes or other measures. Largely concentrated in eastern Anatolia, many of them merchants and industrialists, Armenians appeared markedly better off in many ways than their Turkish neighbours, most of whom were small peasants or low-paid government functionaries and soldiers.

Armenians marched by Turkish soldiers 1915As was also the case with the Jews, the relative prosperity of the Armenians provoked the envy of their neighbours. The fact that they were of a different religion made them objects of suspicion and resentment. But it was the outbreak of war that turned these elements into an explosive mixture of hate and fear. The defeats of the Turkish army on the Caucasian front threw petrol on the flames of religious and national hatred. Armenians were presented by official propaganda as agents of the Russians and blamed for the military setbacks.

It is true that there were Armenian nationalists who acted as guerrillas and cooperated with the Russians. In fact they briefly seized the city of Van in the spring of 1915. But the great majority of Armenians played no part in such things. They merely wished to be left alone to live their lives in peace. But this was not to be. The Young Turks began a campaign to portray the Armenians as a kind of fifth column, a threat to the state.

The Young Turks, who called themselves the Committee of Unity and Progress, launched a set of measures against the Armenians, including a law authorizing the military and government to deport anyone they “sensed” was a security threat. Another law later allowed the confiscation of “abandoned” Armenian property. April 24, 1915, marks the fatal date when several hundred Armenian intellectuals were rounded up, arrested and later executed. This was the start of the Armenian genocide, a bloody massacre which lasted until 1917.

Armenians were ordered to turn in any weapons that they owned to the authorities. Those in the army were disarmed and transferred into labour battalions where they were either killed or worked to death. Innocent people were executed and thrown into mass graves. Even worse was the fate of those men, women and children who were forced to go on death marches across the baking, waterless Syrian Desert to concentration camps. Many of these poor creatures perished along the way of a combination of exhaustion, exposure and starvation, or else were murdered by Turkish troops and bandits.

There had been other massacres of Armenians in 1894, 1895, 1896, 1909, and this was to be repeated again between 1920 and 1923. But in their scope and ruthlessness nothing can compare with the mass slaughter of 1915-17, which is correctly described as genocide. In his excellent book “A Peace to End All Peace” David Fromkin describes the terrible fate of the expelled Armenians:  “Rape and beating were commonplace. Those who were not killed at once were driven through mountains and deserts without food, drink or shelter. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians eventually succumbed or were killed.”

Thousands of sick and hungry people, men, women and children, were driven to their deaths in this way. Those few pitiful human skeletons who managed to survive the march of death across the mountains into Turkish-occupied Syria did not live to tell the tale. The pretty ones were handed over to the Turkish soldiers for their amusement. The others died of starvation or were murdered.

These terrible atrocities were quite well documented at the time by Western diplomats, missionaries and others, creating widespread wartime outrage against the Turks in the West. Although its ally, Germany, was silent at the time, German diplomats and military officers wrote to Berlin expressing horror at what was going on. Later the Turkish authorities tried to downplay these horrors as merely “abuses” committed by “some officials”. But the American ambassador, Henry Morganthau Sr. wrote in his memoirs: “When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.”

Following the surrender of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, the three Pashas fled to Germany, where they were given protection. But the Armenian underground formed a group called Operation Nemesis to hunt them down. On March 15, 1921, one of the Pashas was shot dead on a street in Berlin in broad daylight in front of witnesses. The gunman pleaded temporary insanity brought on by the mass killings and a jury took only a little over an hour to acquit him.”

source

Further readings:

http://www.signalfire.org/2015/04/22/on-the-100th-anniversary-of-the-armenian-genocide/

http://stefano-santarelli.blogspot.it/2015/04/la-strategia-di-un-massacro-di-claudio.html

becdecorbin replied to your post:do you have any tips for drawing Charr? I can draw…

reasons why I like female charrs, I can just draw a big cat with horns and be done. male charrs make me think of orcs in terms of “LOOK this thing is mean and has a million teeth sprouting from their face and a permanent scowl”

yes this too

while the charr are thankfully not Sexy Cat people when it comes to the ladies, there is still a marked sexualized dimorphism between the male and female models in that the dudes are indeed a lot more monstrous and scary, while the ladies tend to be more elegant and sleek, markedly feline

i noticed this super early on and while its definitely a valid critique imo, i am also glad its not like…so extreme as in other mmos