subjective view

hey does anyone else remember 2009 fanfiction culture where every fic was based off a taylor swift song 

Sign Splicers

When your sun unites with your moon, ascendant, and/or dominant element, you get a Sign Splicer. Here are the zodiac’s hybrid breeds…which one are you?

Fire + Fire: The Big Bang. You roar with passion, and your enthusiasm reverberates through the entire universe; it’s impossible to ignore your thundering presence (usually because you are very loud!). You have tremendous visions, and believe anything is possible if you want it bad enough. Never waiting or slowing down, you dream of an action-packed life full of glory and excitement that allows room for your showy self to shine. The amount of faith and hope you have makes you very childlike, and you are convinced that you are destined to be a hero. You rebel against reality of any kind, detest details, and can be quite self-involved.  

Earth + Earth: THE MEAT. You are in control of your senses, and the only thing real to you is your physical body. In fact, you draw your impressive strength from your rock solid core of stability. Nothing has the power to uproot you, as you are firmly fixed to reality. The material realm sustains you, impracticality confuses you, and chaos scares the crap out of you, because you don’t like being out of control. You are the base upon which all others stand, and your dependable, loyal nature makes weaker types rely on you. You can be overly skeptical of the things that supersede your senses, so it is important for you to be open to change.

Air + AirTHE THINKER. A fan favorite, you are civilized and cultured, and always have a bright comment or idea to add to a conversation. Independent in both action and word, you do as you like in order to reach total objectivity, but focusing solely on the intelligence causes you to lose touch with the reality of your humanity (emotions and body). Your observational skills always have you questioning and examining the various things that blow into your life, which makes communication a necessity. Friendly, open-minded, and completely cerebral, you shun any and everything that strikes you as illogical.

Water + Water: THE RAIN. The entire world washes over you, and sometimes drowns you, as you swim in the feelings and moods of everyone; this makes discernment extremely difficult. Highly sensitive with a tender heart and soul, you feel vulnerable 24/7. Instincts and imagination overpower your intellect, causing some irrationality, and this is worsened when you dwell on your emotions. You are a sentimentalist, and have a deep connection to your past, and nostalgia often consumes you. Because you frequently underestimate your own strength, you long for deep relationships that provide you with the stability and safe closeness you crave. 

Fire + Earth: The Bull-Dozer. The epitome of spirit and sense, you’ve got drive and determination to push through life as strongly and as quickly as possible. Your feet are glued to the ground as you strive to bring your wildest dreams to fruition; you see and seize the future with certitude. A commanding ego compels you to take charge, and you never shy away from authority, because you are all muscle, with the stamina to see things through the long haul. You need both freedom and stability, and can be massively creative. You are passionate and powerful, but this can make you a stubborn brute.

Fire + Air: The Rave. A discotheque personality with confidence, wonder and bright ideas help you communicate with ease and enthusiasm, you are charismatic and expressive. Dancing through life, you refuse to limit your potential, and you are always in pursuit of the newest and coolest things to help you grow. You’re always going at the speed of light in search of wide horizons, and you absolutely hate to be bored. Social interactions of all kinds ignite your idealism and imagination, and you always aim to be the center of attention. You need large amounts of freedom and space in your life, and you may be emotionally immature and somewhat superficial. 

Fire + Water: The Fusion. The ultimate blending of male and female, you are aggressive and sensitive, with fluctuating moods and temper flares. Wistful, imaginative, and spirited, you long for independence and flee from any form of containment, yet you yearn for emotional attachment. With an exposed heart, you radiate warmth, and flourish in strong relationships because they allow you to pour out your romanticism without abandon. You are emotionally intense and passionate. Self-control and objectivity are foreign to you, as you prefer to filter things through you directly, without rationality getting in the way. 

Air + Earth: THE MAMMAL. With your head in the clouds and your feet on the ground, you grip reality firmly, and organize and build your abstract ideas into something useful. You are a rational, practical person with a scientific mind that is chock full of innovation, and you desire to improve life on earth. You are a master of the soil, efficient and steady, with enough objectivity and forethought to bring your ideals into fruition. Intellectual, social and supportive, always in tune with your senses, you tend to ignore the mysterious realm of the emotions.  

Air + WaterTHE VAPOR.  Intellect and imagery, you communicate through your creativity, but your rich imagination floats in the sky, as you find bringing your ideas to form to be too strenuous. Both romantic and scientific, your heart and your mind take turns in decision making, and you get inspired by close connections with friends, but feel both a desire for intimacy, and a need for change. You can be incredibly insightful and deeply philosophical, but your detachment is tinted with your subjective view, which makes you a little biased. You yearn for more, and adapt to fit into the world, sometimes intellectualizing your feelings.

Earth + WaterTHE FERTILITY. Your lush imagination lends itself to your creative capabilities to produce lovely fruit. Your emotions and reality-awareness make you a wise and centered problem-solver, and thus, very resourceful. A domestic classicist who is very concerned with creating a nurturing net of safety and security, you make home life a priority. You are caring and quiet, highly romantic and artistic, and apply your sensitivity with determination. But you may be possessive of loved ones, and lack the objectivity that allows you to grow fully.

TRC ask game
  • Gansey: Do you have a fav historical figure?
  • Blue: Favorite constellation?
  • Ronan: Favorite animal?
  • Adam: Your proudest achievement to date?
  • Noah: Do you believe in ghosts?
  • Henry: Do you prefer writing, speaking, or some other form of communication?
  • Orla: Do you paint your nails? What's your fav color?
  • Declan Lynch: What's your dream job?
  • Aurora Lynch: What do you look for in a romantic partner?
  • Niall Lynch: Do you have any recurring dreams?
  • Ashley: Do you have knowledge about any topics people wouldn't expect you to?
  • Neeve: Would you ever want to be famous?
  • Matthew Lynch: What's your favorite season?
  • Helen Gansey: Do you have any siblings?
  • Aglionby Academy: What's your favorite subject in school?
  • Mountain View: What's your attitude toward school?
  • Nino's Pizza: What's your fav pizza order?
  • Litchfield House: Do you prefer having lots of friends or only a small few?
  • 300 Fox Way: What's the most magical place you've ever been?
  • Monmouth Manufacturing: Is your room messy or neat? Do you make your bed regularly?
  • Cabeswater: What's your dream vacation destination?
  • Henrietta: Describe your hometown.
  • St. Agnes: When's the last time you saw your whole family?
  • The Barns: Describe a memory of yours from childhood.
  • The Grey Man: Describe your ideal date.
  • Maura Sargent: If you were lost somewhere, who would you want to find you?
  • Persephone Poldma: Have you had any important mentors or teachers?
  • Calla Johnson: What's your favorite thing to drink?
  • Mallory: Coffee or Tea?
  • Colin Greenmantle: What languages do you speak?
  • Piper Greenmantle: Chapstick, Lipstick, or Lipgloss?
  • Jesse Dittley: What's your favorite flower?
  • Whelk: What's your biggest regret?
  • Kavinsky: Are you easily distracted?
  • Opal Lynch: Describe your best friend.
  • The Pig: What's your dream car?
  • The BMW: Do you consider yourself a good driver?
  • White Mitsubishi: What's the most dangerous thing you've ever done?
  • The Hondayota: Do you have any goals you are working towards?
  • The Dream Pig: If you were going a road trip, what would be your top 3 must-see destinations?
  • Gwenllian: What's your fav song/album/artist to listen to right now?
  • Glendower: What time period in the past would you want to live in?
  • Chainsaw: Do you have any pets?
  • Boat shoes: What quirks do you have that make you unique?
Okay... so this have been in my head for days...

I honestly don’t like to talk about those things, but I’ve been fighting it for days. I’ll most likely ignore any notes and comments that you guys have because it’s honestly just something I want to get rid off.

This is a clear subjective point of view, so if you don’t agree, I don’t really care, it’s just how I see it.

Keep reading


Lord help the lost ship that wanders into these waters unaware – for suddenly, compasses spin awry and radios fill with static. Then the Phantom Lighthouse looms suddenly in the mist.

The Lighthouse: The building itself is a navigational tower standing on a small rocky island located at approximately 63° N, 32° W in the middle of
the Atlantic Ocean. The Lighthouse actually conceals the only access to
the underwater city of Rapture without a submarine, harboring a single bathysphere linked to the Welcome Center Metro Station, and so
represents the only landmark to the city’s position.

Track: Beyond the Sea

See Also: ATLAS,  Andrew Ryan, Subject Delta, Big Daddies, Little Sisters, Big SistersMedical Pavilion

mossy-cat  asked:

okay so, actual question this time. how much of the post credit snapchats do you consider canon? (im sorry if you have this answered somewhere im on mobile and it keeps fucking me over)

I consider any part of Homestuck not done by Hussie to be semi-canon. 

Guest artists are going to have their own biases and preferences reflected by their art which I feel is a product of but also goes against Homestuck’s ideology that all the characters are essentially blank slates that the readers can interpret in any way they like. 

Instances of Guest Artists using personal interpretations of characters (in these cases Karkat) can be seen in Collide and Game Over. In Collide when we see Karkat dual-wield sickles, but that’s the only time we ever see him dual-wield. Or in Game Over how Karkat is animated having short sleeves when we have always seen his outfit having long sleeves.

Like Steven Universe, Homestuck allows its art team a full range of creative control with how they draw characters, and there’s nothing wrong with that, it just lets certain content get into the comic that wasn’t laid out by the Huss-man himself.

So to answer your question on how much of the credits/snapchat content I view as canon; All of it, in varying degrees. 

anonymous asked:

do you any tips for extremely new witches who have no idea where to start?

I do!

  • Don’t feel like you need a witchy label, you don’t
  • Don’t feel like you need to worship a god or goddess to be a witch, you don’t
  • practise what feels natural, if something doesn’t click then don’t force it
  • spend time outside, talk to the wind, feel the energy in the trees, let the moon fill you with magic
  • your mind is your best tool; you don’t need every herb or crystal under the sky to practise
  • meditation will help you find yourself
  • make friends, join witchy chat groups but keep in mind that no one views one subject the same and there is a good chance they might be doing something either incorrect or harmful depending on what you end up believing in
  • Wicca is not the same thing as witchcraft, though many authors and blogs use the terms interchangeably when they mean different things
  • Keeping that in mind, Wicca books are still amazing reads for witches because of the use of witchcraft in Wicca
  • If anyone tells you that Wicca is an old religion they have no idea what they are talking about
  • Stay away from silver ravenwolf books, don’t practise ‘smudging’, don’t use a dreamcatcher (they won’t actually work unless you buy from a native which some people say is ok and some people say is wrong, but explaining why will take too long and this is a touchy subject in the community)
  • don’t take practises from cultures that don’t want to share them
  • have fun
  • make spells up as you go along
  • don’t worry when they fail
  • age does not equal knowledge; there are many older witches who aren’t as well informed as they seem
  • Stay away from the drama, it’s not worth it and will only make you mad

witchy masterposts are your best friend. Here is a masterpost of masterposts. This is a lot of information to take in so I suggest just going super slow with it, maybe focusing on one subject per week. I’m just dumping all this info here so you can keep coming back to it for reference, don’t look at it all at once!

I could go on forever but you get the point. DON’T FORGET TO HAVE FUN!!!! <3

fridahidle  asked:

What is some of the mistakes people do becouse of there functions?


Ne: failing to choose one idea and strengthen it, or refusing to consider the dark side of someone else.

Se: failing to consider the consequences of momentary passions, pleasures, and pursuits, or to be careful with their precious life.

Te: failing to consider that not everything can be dealt with or explained by facts and underestimating the emotional elements involved.

Fe: failing to establish an identity of self, instead of mirroring other people, or shaming others who do not agree with you.

Ni: failing to realize your perception of truth or reality is not true to reality, and a tendency to seek a single over-encompassing belief to cover society’s many problems (everything will be fixed if only people cared more about…)

Si: failing to realize that your subjective perception of what happened isn’t what actually happened, and allowing resistance to change to make you miss new possibilities, ideas, and experiences.

Ti: failing to see that your perception of logic is not always objectively logical, with a tendency to dismiss other people’s emotions because you see them as a “faulty” system.

Fi: failing to find compassion for those whose behaviors you despise, and the inability to relate to others without sharing their direct experiences.


Ne: failing to read others’ motivations, developing weird conspiracy theories, and having a pessimistic attitude toward the unseen future.

Se: failing at attempts to act in the moment, miscalculating situations and one’s ability to act within them, and infrequent recklessness.

Te: failing to know whether what you are putting your efforts into will help you reach your goals or finish your project, and the tendency to develop an authoritarian / black and white method of handling problems.

Fe: failing to react properly to others feelings, or handle your own, while sometimes bending your values to obtain others’ praise.

Ni: failing to realize that your subjective view of the future is irrational, developing a “worst case scenario” attitude toward the future (ie, I’m doomed), and being defensive over your singular theories.

Si: failing to realize your personal experiences matter and you should take them into consideration, but that you lack an objective assessment of what actually happened.

Ti: failing to see you are wasting time analyzing things that won’t fix the problem, a tendency to not admit that some of your logic is irrational.

Fi: failing to accept behavior that doesn’t align with your values, a tendency to force your values onto others, and being upset over minor insults.

- ENFP Mod

Director of Photography Breakdown - Roger Deakins

Roger Deakins. A man who has developed the irrefutablereputation of a cinematographer with unmatched consistency. If he works on amovie, it looks good. His style is often referenced for what we have come toexpect in aesthetically pleasing contemporary cinema. In this post I willattempt to break down constant techniques he uses and develop through linesbetween films.


Wide Shot

Deakins is a master of the extreme wide shot.Perfect lens choice and composition allow him to establish space like no other.Often these shots are used at the beginning or end of a scene to lead us intoor ease us out of a moment. I find that when I experience shots like thisviscerally, with the character, it provides a perfect entrance into the headspace of the characters within the scene. The shot from Skyfall (upper middle shot) is not only incredible to look at, but it is used as an opener to establish the emotional turmoil he is experiencing by returning to the harsh and unrelenting landscape of his childhood. In the top shot from True Grit, the shot is used to establish the isolation and privacy Mattie hops to experience when visiting the grave of Rooster.


Establishing Shots

I think these are my personal favourites when it comes to Deakins work. Every establishing shot is on point. Not only are they all composed to perfection, but the slight tweaks in variety keep them interesting. I found 4 examples in which the subjects are never in the same part of the frame. On top of that, he uses leading lines and lens choice to create depth and completely establishes colour palette for every scene with these awesome shots.


Mid Shots

Although there are only two examples here, they are the perfect ones to represent the strength in Deakins’ mid shots. For the first shot, both the vertical and horizontal thirds are filled with interesting material. It creates immediate depth with the shallower depth of field, with the closer out of focus grass, the subject and then finally the fence trees and sky outside the focal plane. In the second shot from Prisoners it demonstrates Deakins’ excellent use of the leading lines in the desk to draw our eye to the subject in the center of the frame. It is also a perfect representation of his use of practical’s to light a subject in low light.

Close Ups

Finally the close ups, the bread and butter of most DP’s. Deakin’s is definitely a fan of unconventional these types of shots. These frames scream unconventional, from a close up with no light on the subject, to the side view of the parked car, they are trying to break the mold of what we expect from an average close up shot. Why follow the textbook when you can create your own.

Anthems for Logan Sanders

Warrnings: Long, long post! (I understand your possible TLDR) Full of Logan Sanders, love to Logan Sanders, memes with Logan Sanders, paean of praise to Logan Sanders and other stuff like that with no objectivity. And probably very bad English with horrible mistakes. (I’m so sorry Logan! Q_Q)

Lately I saw some posts about that Logan is unappreciated. I love all of Sanders Sides but actually I have no idea why Logic would ever be unappreciated because he is almost my fav. I just don’t know HOW? Well, If someone is daring to say that Logan is underrated, I am going to present my point of view. Subjectively!

Everyone of them have their own music theme. The music which play when Sides show up. Cool music theme! (Roman have „The Blue Danube” MY FAV classical song, oh, boy!!!) but I like the most Logic’s theme because this is as well intriguing as funny! Fit to Logan perfectly. Everytime when I hear that, it makes me a happy human!

He is very elegant. Did you notice he has a two shirts? One with lion logo and one with eagle logo. I love his gesticulation nad his facial expression! Because… You know…

He likes to dress-up! Isn’t it cool?!

Look at him. He is so pleased the first question from Q&A went to him. Adorable! And his favourite book is „The Murder of Roger Ackroyd” by Agatha Christie. Awesome choise! Agatha Christie was great and Hercules Poirot is my fav detective ever ❤ Logan have a good taste! At least for me.

Logan love dogs stoo! I’m 100% sure his love to puppies is equal his love to Patton Patton’s love to puppies. Look at that! Love to dogs is logical so Logan love dogs.

And he love poetry.

Yes, poetry. He can choose the most romantic lyric. „Brush up your Shakespeare” gyus! I love him. If you think that was ‘bout Shakespeare you’re right. If you think that was ‘bout Logan you’re right too.

And since I talk about poetry! He did not let himself be defeated in rap battle. He rules! He was great! Nobody will forget it! Totally badass!

Nobody will forget how he won a debate. He used logical reasoning to show positives. Even without help Roman’s role - self confidence and Patton’s role - optimism. And even if someone use wonderful debate tactic like hissing at people!

The only person he can not beat is Morality. This is only one who can be his rival, they always need to compromise. Morality never wins too he is at the same level. And largely this is the reason why I call Patton my fav character from Sanders Sides. Only one who Logan can’t defeat.

Maybe Logan don’t like the dad jokes but he definitely makes a puns. He makes a lot of puns („terrible humor”, „valorous choice”, „ants, aunts”)  and I realized that first time when I was writing polish subtitles to „Making Some Changes” video where translating all the puns and whole the idioms was a torment. I have a theory Logan is angry at Patton when he’s doing a puno r dad joke because Patton is just better in this „game”. Or because he takes everything literally and that confuse him! But…

He appreciates the role of each part of the personality. When Thomas is worried because the audition Logan offer to call Prince for Thomas’ self-confidence or Morality for Thomas’ optimism. Even if he don’t think Anxiety’s is needed, he knows that he is very important.

Some people just noticed that what I want to write now but this is too amazing! Logan in “Accepting Anxiety 2/2” was freaking awesome! He realized what is happening to them first, he knew that so early!

And that moment when he was screaming „YERKS-DODSON!” and circling in red a word „HIGH” on the chart. With looking at Anxiety who udnderstood him. Logan found the way how to tell something important to Virgil despite his problems with communication! He was GREAT! He was FREAKING GREAT!!!

I admire him, I love him, I’m amazed.

And very important thing. Logan is a Teacher. And role of teacher is teaching.

- He completes my vocabulary (in my mother language AND English!) just using a long, difficult words. If I want to understand what he is talking I must to check it. This is learning by fun!

- He refers to many interesting books like Roman refers to Disney movies and Patton refers to popular songs.

- He taught me a some psychology in “My negative thinking”.

- Finally he taught me last time about Yerks-Dodson curve – I checked it and I started to read about it. That was cool!

Logan Sanders is great Teacher, awesome Side of personality and SEXY BEAST. Tell him it from me Thomas, please. @thatsthat24

…If you wanted I can do anthems for other three. Would you like?
Part 2

anonymous asked:

I'm sorry but I think the word "imagine" says everything, we know that in real life nothing's the same way that we read here on tumblr, and I know that's your opinion, and you write about what you want, but there is a huge diference btw real life and Harry's imagines, I'm sorry if I sound rude, but that's my point of view

Fact of the matter is, you’re talking about you. You can read something and just have it be a piece of fiction, you know what you read on Tumblr isn’t reality. You are not everyone. You’re not the Harry fan who has been in an abusive relationship, reading about Harry hitting his partner. You’re not the reader currently in an abusive relationship reading about how this character is forgiving their partner for hitting them because they “immediately regret it”. You are not Harry who I can almost guarantee doesn’t want people writing him as abusive, regardless of it being fiction or otherwise. You cannot speak for everyone. Your opinion is your opinion and that’s fine, there are plenty of other writers on here who will write about a topic that has the potential to be as damaging as this one does but I’m not one of them. If you want that content then okay but you won’t get it from me so I suggest you look for it elsewhere.

anonymous asked:

Casting a female Doctor right now is a gimmick though. It should be casting the right person for the role, not giving people a gimmick so the SJWs won't complain. Besides, we've seen females take over male roles before and be very successful. It was done some time ago in the Battlestar Galactica reboot that none of the young kids remember. It'll happen, but when that right woman reads for the role. Forcing it, simply sucks for everyone, and is a gimmick.

but who says it’s forcing it? why not do it exactly as you said - letting a bunch of people audition for the role, then picking the best person - why can’t that person be a woman?
my problem with the “best person for the role” argument is that it’s so obvious. of course everyone wants the best person to be the doctor. the problem is that it’s raised as a counter argument to a female doctor - as if the best doctor can’t possibly be female. damn, there are so many brilliant actresses out there who’d absolutely slay the role.
i say, let the best person be a woman. don’t say “it’ll happen”, as if there isn’t currently a single actress who can be the doctor - say “let’s make it happen”, because it can be, and this is the best time for it to be - after all the buildup, from the doctor mentioning the corsair in “the doctor’s wife”, to missy, to the doctor being a “king or a queen”, to the general’s regeneration in hell bent - after all this, casting a male doctor again would just be a huge missed opportunity, and this entire great big arc - all this effort into making it canonically established that the doctor can regenerate into a woman - would just go to waste.
this isn’t just some radical sjw issue now. a lot of people are calling for a female doctor. about half or more of the bookies’ candidates for the role are female. it started when 12 was cast and it’s much stronger nowadays. killing this spark now would just be a big disappointment and a huge wasted opportunity.

Mr. Roof’s affect is often incongruent. For example, he may smile inappropriately for no apparent reason or when discussing topics that upset him. He also may smile when he is upset with the interviewer. He may smile at times that are very inappropriate to the content of the subject matter being viewed or discussed. When his affect is not inappropriate, it is constricted.

Donna Maddox - General and Forensic Psychiatrist

Jon Snow’s type of women

In my previous meta I wrote about the misconception that Jon has a thing for redheads. I briefly mentioned that Jon has indeed a type which hasn’t anything to do with hair. I didn’t further explained because I meant to write another meta  about Jon’s preferences. So here we are!

When a boy is young his mother represents the whole female gender to him. It’s through her that he learns about womanhood and she is the one who shapes his first views on women. This wasn’t the case for Jon Snow because as we all know that his mother, Lyanna, died while giving birth to him. In his childhood he interacted with only a few women (the only women he recalls from his days at Winterfell are his two sisters, his step-mother and the old Nan) and only one who was actually close to him, his little sister Arya.

Usually, on close sibling relationships of different sex it’s the younger ones that are affected by the older ones on the subject on how they view the different sex (ex: Bran likes girls that resemble his older sister, Arya). However, in Jon’s case he’s definitely influenced by Arya. This is hardly a surprise because as I noted before, she’s the only female close to him so it makes sense to be his ideal of womanhood.

The evidence of this lay on  the fact that he compares Ygritte,his first love, to Arya. First, in terms of physical appearance:

[..] She looked plump as she crouched there, but most of that was layers of fur and wool and leather. Underneath all that she could be as skinny as Arya.

And later on in terms of personality’s traits:

“If you kill a man, and never mean t’, he’s just as dead,” Ygritte said stubbornly. Jon had never met anyone so stubborn, except maybe for his little sister Arya. 

Even aside from the direct comparisons within the text, one can also draw a lot of  parallels between the two girls’ characters.

Ygritte and Arya are not gender confirming girls. Both show interest in fighting, are feisty, stubborn and loud. They aren’t the typical Westeros girls (well, in Ygritte’s case she’s not a Westerosi). However, they do possess traits that can be found on other Northern and Wilding girls,too.

In a way, it makes poetic sense for Jon’s female ideal to be his sister because Arya resembles Lyanna a lot. Ned Stark, the person who knew both of them very well, demonstrates that:

“You remind me of [Lyanna] sometimes. You even look like her.”

“Lyanna was beautiful,” Arya said, startled. Everybody said so.”-

It’s like Jon’s ideal woman isn’t only his little sister but also his mother, despite the fact that he never got to know her.

The next woman Jon Snow shows an interest at, is Val. Another Wilding, another fighter, another fierce and brave woman.

Lonely and lovely and lethal, Jon Snow reflected, and I might have had her

They are all convinced she is a princess. Val looked the part and rode as if she had been born on horseback. A warrior princess, he decided, not some willowy creature who sits up in a tower, brushing her hair and waiting for some knight to rescue her

Val’s characteristics could easily apply to Ygritte and Arya, so it strengthens the case that Jon indeed has a certain type.

Since I wrote about what Jon likes in women I think it’s time to address what he doesn’t like. Earlier on, I wrote that Arya is the only female that was close to him to Winterfell. That’s true but there is another woman who has also influenced Jon’s perspective on women. That is his step mother, lady Catelyn Stark.

Lady Stark and Jon Snow didn’t have a good relationship. Some fans say she was merely cold to him, others that she was emotional abusive. No matter where you stand on this matter, it was unavoidable that she would have a major effect on him as she was the most prominent female figure on Winterfell and also the one he had a dysfunctional relationship with.

The way she has influenced him is that he came to dislike everything she stood for. Or to be more correct, everything he thought that she stood for. That’s why Jon doesn’t like the women who adhere the traditional femininity. Sometimes his words towards those women can be even harsh and uncalled for. Here are two examples of what I’m describing:

[…] A warrior princess, he decided, not some willowy creature who sits up in a tower, brushing her hair and waiting for some knight to rescue her

And yes, I will take your women too. I have no need of blushing maidens looking to be protected, but I will take as many spearwives as will come.

This meta would be incomplete if I didn’t include Daenerys, his current love interest on the tv series. While Daenerys has more traditional feminine traits than Ygritte or Arya, she still can be described as a free spirited, proud and more importantly brave woman. She’s even a warrior in her own way. She doesn’t wield a sword, but she participates in battles through flying on Drogon.

[…] I know she is proud. How not? What else was left her but pride? I know she is strong. How not? The Dothraki despise weakness. If Daenerys had been weak, she would have perished with Viserys. I know she is fierce. Astapor, Yunkai, and Meereen are proof enough of that. She has crossed the grasslands and the red waste, survived assassins and conspiracies and fell sorceries, grieved for a brother and a husband and a son, trod the cities of the slavers to dust beneath her dainty sandaled feet. […]

She’s a woman who could impress Jon Snow and I think that’s intentional by the author. After all, those two have many hints that they will meet and probably end up together in the books (because in the tv series Jonerys is already canon).

Bojack Horseman MBTI

Bojack Horseman: ESFP [The Performer]

Bojack is an unhealthy ESFP to no one’s surprise. His dominant Extraverted Sensation (Se) drives him to be in the moment often not thinking of the consequences of his actions. He is after enjoyable experiences, but easily gets bored and is dissatisfied when the buzz of the experience, the initial excitement, quickly fades. He is action-oriented and doesn’t think about the meaning of what he is doing till after he has done it. This comes from his dominant function, but also his inferior Introverted iNtuition (Ni). This inferior function keeps poking at him to ask questions about his lifestyle and overall his general happiness. He keeps trying to answer these questions with more life experiences, looking for something outside of himself to make him happy. 

His Ni constantly haunts him trying to push him to look inward, which he should but needs to use his secondary function Introverted Feeling (Fi) to do so. Instead we see a rude and selfish Bojack with his tertiary function Extraverted Thinking (Te) running amok. He wants everyone around him to view himself and what he is doing at any given moment as their top priority without giving them anything in return. This has left his Fi to go underdeveloped and is the reason he looks for admiration from others from his career and needs people to like him. He wants to be liked for his actions and needs awards, but clearly this form of approval is short-lived for Bojack. This is because he is looking for approval and for the world around him to gain happiness, but until he develops his Fi looking inward at himself and what he can do for himself and others, he will always only have stints of true happiness. 

We do see Bojack develop his Fi in bits when he is true to himself. We see this when he was filming the original Secretariat with Jennings. But again he looked too outside of himself and ran away. He always thinks with his Se, thinking something in his environment is what makes him unhappy or someone else is doing it to him; but he must look inward to find that happiness that he seeks. 

Diane Nguyen: INTP [The Thinker]

Diane’s dominant Introverted Thinking (Ti) makes her skeptical of everything. She has a hard time coming up with her own ideas, but always knows what doesn’t work. This makes life quite hard for Diane. But her Ti is what makes her focused on systems and her secondary function Extraverted iNtuition (Ne) pushes her to focus on more ideas and intentions behind society. This is what makes her such a critic of, well, everything. She lives in the nuances of situations and constantly finds herself trapped in these nuances seeing hypocrisy not only in society, but in herself. Her inferior function of Extraverted Feeling (Fe) directs her Ti-Ne to analyze society, it peaks this interest. But because it is inferior and she is uncomfortable with this function she is only comfortable in her criticisms. She is not comfortable blending into social situations or her personal relationships. 

Her inferior Fe is what makes her struggle with both Bojack and Mr. Peanut Butter. For her, the truth of ideas is often more important than her personal relationships and her obligations to the people in her life. She always puts ideas above the people in her life. We see this in the book she publishes without much regard for Bojack’s feelings. Yes, she does care, but she opts for the truth of the writing possibly over her friendship. We see this with her marriage a lot as well. She loves Mr. Peanut Butter but puts her career first and desires personal freedom from her relationship with him. She struggles with her Ti independence and her responsibility to the people she cares about. She doesn’t want her relationships to define her. She is in constant Ti-Fe conflict. 

She then isolates herself from the people she cares about and who care about her. She uses her tertiary function of Introverted Sensation to uphold her inner world instead of seeing herself objectively. As soon as she feels people aren’t approving of her (Fe) she hides within herself so they have nothing to disapprove of. Her Si just backs her Ti criticisms more and make her more anti-social and critical about the world around her. This is why Bojack always says Diane thinks she is better than everyone else. She doesn’t think she is better than everyone else. She simply becomes critical and puts others and the environment she is in down so she doesn’t have to worry about rejection from these elements. If the elements are inferior then who needs their approval and appreciation. Deep down she wants acceptance just as much as Bojack or Mr. Peanut Butter.

Mr. Peanut Butter: ENFP [The Champion]

Mr. Peanut Butter lives in a world of ideas and possibilities with his dominant Extraverted iNtuition (Ne). He is always looking for a new future, a new idea to get behind. But like all dominant Ne users he struggles to stick to any one idea and follow it through. Combined with his secondary Introverted Feeling (Fi) it almost doesn’t matter at times that the well intended plans never come to fruition. This is due to his Fi focusing him on people, aka people possibilities. He sees potential in people around him and likes to help them reach their goals. He sees this in the underdogs (pun intended). Fi often is more focused on those that society forgets, on individuals. 

This is why he sticks around with those that may not help him personally flourish including Diane, Bojack, and Todd. Just the title for ENFP suggests he is their champion, cheering them on and seeing potential in them that others don’t see in them. Despite Diane’s self doubts he sees a smart woman who does genuinely care about others. Peanut Butter sees the goodness deep down in Bojack that no one else does. He also sees the intelligence and potential to succeed in Todd. 

Mr. Peanut Butter isn’t perfect though. he suffers from the same thing that Bojack does with a secondary Introverted Feeling (Fi). He seeks the approval of others. He needs people to like his ideas and uses Ne to adapt for others making many promises that are too broad, stretching himself too thin. Hence why we see him stretched between his job and Diane a lot of the time. He likes the approval from audiences and productions, but struggles to have Diane approve of his ideas and what he is doing. He needs both Diane and his career peers/audiences to approve of him and what he is doing. His Fi while making him likable is his downfall as he needs everyone to like him and what he is doing, so his plans often don’t work out cause you can never do something that pleases everyone. 

Princess Carolyn: ESTJ [The Executive]

Princess Carolyn doesn’t care for anyone’s feelings in the sense that she sugar coats nothing. This comes from her dominant function of Extraverted Thinking (Te). She deals in a linear logical world. Point A will lead to point B. She thinks everyone should fall into this line of thinking. There are rules in society we all follow: being on time, following a schedule, if you work hard you will succeed, etc. She believes everyone should respect these obligations. Her logic being focused outward makes her great at planning the lives of others and organizing things on their behalf. Combined with Si she loves to handle the logistics and details for others. This is what makes her such a great agent and possibly a great manager. Her Te dominance makes her social, but she doesn’t care to socialize or meet anyone’s approval. She is there to do her job, not be liked.

Her secondary function, Introverted Sensation (Si), makes her a feline of action and resourceful. She deals with what was and is, the future is unpredictable. Her Te helps her prepare for the future, but her Si drives her to make actions on what she knows, on the data that she has. Sometimes this makes her jump the gun on some negotiations that maybe she shouldn’t. For her a bird in the hand in better than two in the bush.  She also wants to be judged on her actions and performance, on her own merit. If people don’t appreciate her hard work, she moves on creating new positions for herself, because she knows her own worth. 

Her focus on others as an agent, organizing the lives of others is a strength, but it leaves little room for herself and her personal life. As a Te dominant with Introverted Feeling (Fi) as her inferior function she has one of the strongest abilities to keep her professional/public life separate from her personal. We see this instantly in the pilot episode when she keeps dating Bojack and being his agent separate in the most bazaar of ways, not having any issue with it. Her journey is struggling with these two selves that we see the most at the end of season 3. She loves her private life but she needs work to thrive and be passionate about. Finding this balance is difficult for her.

Todd Chavez: INFP [The Dreamer]

Todd Chavez has such a subjective view of the world. This is his dominant Introverted Feeling (Fi) guiding him and his perspective. He doesn’t categorize anything but bases everything on if it works or doesn’t, is it good or bad. He doesn’t lead with logic, but what he feels, his gut feelings. Todd is clearly Fi dominant and not extraverted as he doesn’t let the outside world influence his choices or who he is. He doesn’t define himself by his objective place in the world as a homeless guy with no direction. He doesn’t let his environment control him. Instead he always makes sure whatever he does vibes with his inner feelings. 

As an INFP Todd is constantly questing to find his meaning in the world. He moves from idea to idea trying to find the right fit. His inferior function Extraverted Thinking (Te) makes it hard for him to find a fit typical in society, because he doesn’t want to lose himself in his job (Fi).

His secondary function of Extraverted iNtuition (Ne) is what makes him so imaginative. He prefers to play with ideas than what actually is. We see this in his creation of Disneyland and his many other schemes. He isn’t one for practicality. His Ne makes him preoccupied beyond what is, but the intentions behind things. This is what makes him so pure of heart when contrasted with the other characters. He punishes himself for even having a bad intention behind a good deed. It isn’t about the result but the meaning behind an action that is important. He is never mad at Bojack’s direct actions, but mad at the meaning and implications behind it all. This also drives him to hope others will see past the surface and understand him without him making anything about himself explicit. This is part of his constant disappointment with his friendship with Bojack, because Bojack is too in his own self to notice the things Todd thinks Bojack should notice. 

My blog: my user’s at that special age when a fan has only one thing one her mind

Tumblr People™: exclusively healthy relationships that revolve around purity and that are Top Safe™, rejection of anything that we personally feel uncomfortable with without minding the fact that forcing our personal experiences or beliefs on other people because they disagree with us is not only immature, but also creates a toxic enviroment in which we make others feel bad for exploring something that they normally wouldn’t in real life, not caring about the fact that culture and society have a huge impact on the way different subjects are viewed?

Me: uh oh


So I finished ‘13 Reasons Why’ last night, and I just want to say at first I regretted recommending it because it was so hard to watch, and I know the backlash has been very critical of the show. Watching it myself, it opened up a lot of old wounds, and I would be completely lying if I said it was “therapeutic” because it wasn’t. It hurt to watch. Through out the show I muted, cried, skipped ahead, walked away, paused or turned it off completely. But honestly, this was the first, the very first representation of the 'teenage’ experience I’ve EVER seen that wasn’t sugar coated, or cute, or *cool*. I’ll be eating my words when '13 Reasons’ merch ends up at Hot Topic, but honestly this was the very first representation I’ve personally viewed that didn’t romanticize the subject. It showed the cold, hard, and irreversible effects suicide has on your community, friends, family, and the scary last moments faced by victims. My entire life I always thought suicide would be my easy, legendary and cool romantic way out. I have never EVER seen it portrayed so horrifyingly. I’m glad I watched this series. I’m not pushing it on anyone, I’m not, but I’m glad it was on Netflix. Uncensored, graphic, and authentically done. I’ve never read the book, honestly, I didn’t even know it was a book, or what I was getting into when I started this series, but I’m glad I pushed myself through it. On my twitter I have reposted a 'trigger warning time stamp’ cheat sheet if you’re interested in watching the show but you’re not sure about viewing certain subjects, though it does contain spoilers. The show also does play a warning before very graphic episodes. What do you guys think though? Now that I’ve finished the series I’m interested in how other people interpreted the show. #13reasonswhy

Made with Instagram

anonymous asked:

*whispers* did you see the parallel in the sneak peak for episode 705 where Varys tells Tyrion he needs to get D@ny to listen and when Tyrion tells Cersei she needs to control Joffrey (in episode 307 I believe) or was that just me?? I love your blog btw and you seem very nice☺️

Oh my god!!! 

Thank you for pointing that out to me. That’s such a good parallel, and honestly, now that you mentioned it, you might be onto something about comparing Joffrey with Danielle. 

Remember this scene in 7x01 between Jon and Sansa? 

“So I can’t question your decisions anymore?” 

“Of course you can.”

“But Joffrey never let anyone question his authority. You think he was a good king?” 

Sansa is telling Jon that a good king is someone who listens to others’ counsels unlike Joffrey, who only did as he pleased and caused death and chaos with his decisions. And the audience knows this. Joffrey may be one of the most hated characters on Game of Thrones. He is undoubtedly a villain. For the audience, there’s no grey area about it. Joffrey was pure spoiled, entitled evil. 

Now, you fast forward to 7x02 where Olenna is talking to Danielle: 

“He’s a clever man, your Hand. I’ve known a great many clever men. I’ve outlived them all. You know why? I ignored them. The lords of Westeros are sheep. Are you a sheep? No. You’re a dragon. Be a dragon.”

She’s urging her to ignore Tyrion’s counsel and act as her ancestors would, who were conquerors and ruled the Seven Kingdoms with an iron fist. If Joffrey was bad, they were worse. Olenna even says so before that: 

“Peace? Do you think that’s what we had under your father? Or his father? Or his? Peace never lasts, my dear.”

Joffrey’s reign as king could be said as the starting point of the war. There was no peace under his rule, just as there was none under the Targaryens. And Olenna is urging Danielle to be exactly like that because she doesn’t care about peace. She knows she’ll die; she wants bloody, fiery revenge. And the smirk Danielle gives at the end of the scene suggests she likes that idea very much. After all, Danielle hates being told what to do and she has a history already of ignoring the counsel of her advisors and doing what she wants. 

This couldn’t be more poignant than 7x04 when she does ignore Tyrion’s counsel entirely and flies her dragons to rain fire and blood on the Lannister army. The destruction she caused was complemented with a swell of tragic music as the Lannister army scream and burn to death. You have Tyrion overlooking the scene, shame and regret on his face, and Jaime looking on with such horror. 

Yes, Tyrion’s counsel has led her to allies being taken, but his point remains the same. If she attacks with a foreign army and dragons, she will only instill fear in the people of Westeros. And if she takes the Iron Throne, she will not be met with the love and worship she has come to know. She is not freeing anyone from slavery, from oppression; to them, she is stealing their lands and their freedom. When the people think Cersei is a better alternative, you know you’ve done fucked up, right? And I think after 7x04, they would rather have Cersei than Danielle on the throne. 

But Danielle doesn’t care. It’s not even revenge because she doesn’t show one bit of remorse for the deaths of Olenna, the Sands and the capture of Elaria and Yara Greyjoy. She cares that she’s lost allies who were supposed to help her win the Iron Throne. She cares only that she’s losing and when she rides her dragons, breathing fire on carts of food and soldiers, she’s not doing it to turn the tides of war. If so, she could’ve just shown up and let the Dothrakis take charge. That gleeful smile on her face, the mania in her eyes? Danielle’s doing it because they’re her enemies, and how dare they try to thwart her plans? How dare they defy her right to rule? 

If Joffrey had dragons, would he not do the same thing? He’d probably do a hell of a lot worse, but that’s not exactly painting Danielle as a hero, is it? 

Again, similar to Joffrey, she feels entitled to her crown. She will not tolerate anyone who disrespects that right, just as he did. You can see/hear the indignation in her in this scene when Jon refuses to bend the knee in 7x03: 

“In the time since he’s met me, he’s refused to call me queen, he’s refused to bow, and now he’s calling me a child.” 

Joffrey is definitely more unstable than Danielle is, more childish and more petty, but the indignation here is similar in his conversation with Tyrion in 2x06: 

“Traitors! I’ll have their heads!”
“You can’t insult me!”

In most of his dialogue, he’s constantly reiterating that he’s king, just as Danielle constantly reiterates that she’s queen and the rightful ruler of the Seven Kingdoms. 

And this speech while powerful, it was only there to cement her rigid, unfaltering belief that she is entitled to the Iron Throne (as Joffrey once believed himself entitled to it):

“Do you know what kept me standing through all those years in exile? Faith. Not in any gods, not in myths and legends. In myself. In Daenerys Targaryen. The world hadn’t seen a dragon in centuries until my children were born. The Dothraki hadn’t crossed the sea, any sea. They did for me. I was born to rule the Seven Kingdoms, and I will.”

In contrast, let’s go back to 7x01 with Jon and Sansa. You have this exchange right after the dialogue I quoted above:

“Do you think I’m Joffrey?” 

“You’re as far from Joffrey as anyone I’ve ever met.”

And we know this. We know Jon is different. That’s like saying the sky is blue and the grass is green, so why have this piece of dialogue at all? On the one hand, shipping goggles on and all, I do believe it’s to set up this comparison between Sansa’s first love interest and her last. Hint hint wink wink and all that, but I’m going to ignore that for now. 

The second reason, which I am now starting to believe is to demonstrate the differences in Jon’s rule with Danielle. So much of Season 7 has been to establish their different methods, viewpoints, morality, goals and the way in which they view their subjects. Danielle sees them as her ‘children’, who she can pass judgement on. Like I said in a previous meta, they worship and fear as if she’s a god. On the other hand, Jon inspires loyalty in the men and women who follow him, but he is also being held accountable to them. If he fails to act in the best interest of the North, they will reject him as their king. 

And I can honestly painstakingly go through each episode to emphasise their differences, but I feel like this one piece of dialogue says it all (from Jon in 7x04): 

“I never thought that dragons would exist again. No one did. The people who follow you know that you made something impossible happen. Maybe that helps them believe that you can make other impossible things happen. Build a world that’s different from the shit one they’ve always known. But if you use them to melt castles and burn cities, you’re not different. You’re just more of the same.”

Jon understands war. He is one of the best military tacticians in Westeros right now, right? At least that’s what the show is painting him as. That’s why he inspires loyalty. He’s saved the brothers and the wildlings and kept them alive. He’s made hard decisions and he is a great swordsman who has been in the battlefield right alongside his men, ready to die for them. Danielle’s speech about ‘what kind of ruler would she be if she doesn’t risk her life?’ is moot when Jon, the very man who has actually died for his men, says that her decision to go fight the Lannister army with her dragons is wrong. It’s not about her risking her life; it’s about her being more, being better than those that went before her, and she spectacularly failed that this episode. 

Why? Because she refuses to listen. Her entitlement, her indignation and her inability to see someone else’s perspectives (people who have a far better grasp of Westerosi politics than her) is eerily similar to Joffrey. 

Now like you said, Anonny, that 7x05 preview? Varys telling Tyrion to find way to get Danielle to listen does seem to be a direct parallel to Tyrion telling Cersei to make Joffrey listen to reason, especially when you consider everything else that’s been shown thus far this season. And it’s no coincidence that Tyrion is at the heart of it all. Perhaps he is beginning to realise that he has become exactly what he hated. Blind to the faults of a dictator, on the wrong side of the war.

Also, thank you!!! I love you for loving my blog ^_^ and double thank you for thinking I’m a nice person. You should tell my brother that. He thinks I have a black soul ;D haha. 

livingmummy  asked:

"Newman’s idea that there was something called “traditional anarchism” based on “the rational, moral essence of the human subject” has been pretty comprehensively demolished from all angles at this point." How has that been demolished? How did, like, Kropotkin not presume an essential rational subject? IMO that was a huge part of his work, and something I know for a fact has been carried over into his readers.

I don’t know about other readers of Kropotkin, he’s been interpreted in many weird and contradictory ways over the years, and the ‘established’ knowledge about him has changed a lot - But I do think it’s pretty clear from his work that the notion of an essential human ‘essence’ or unitary subjectivity is totally at odds with his ideas.

Kropotkin conceptualised the human subject as a fractured multitude of autonomous and interacting biological and psychological processes in a state of constant change and adaptation. He makes this way of thinking explicit in the works where he deals with specifically with the human subject, like in Anarchy, it’s Philosophy and Ideal:

Quite recently the psychologist spoke of man as an entire being, one and indivisible. Remaining faithful to religious tradition, he used to class men as good and bad, intelligent and stupid, egotists and altruists. Even with materialists of the eighteenth century, the idea of a soul, of an indivisible entity, was still upheld.

But what would we think today of a psychologist who would still speak like this! The modern psychologist sees in a man a multitude of separate faculties, autonomous tendencies, equal among themselves, performing their functions independently, balancing, opposing one another continually. Taken as a whole, man is nothing but a resultant, always changeable, of all his divers faculties, of all his autonomous tendencies, of brain cells and nerve centers. All are related so closely to one another that they each react on all the others, they lead their own life without being subordinated to a central organ–the soul.

It should be obvious that this conceptualisation is at odds with the ‘man is essentially good’ position attributed to him by Newman and others. This point has been acknowledged regularly in contemporary anarchist theory, for example by Jesse Cohn in Anarchism and the crisis of Representation:

That Kropotkin holds our enduring nature to be our changeability is intimately tied to his concept of development—an evolutionary notion that places him in the camp of the social constructivists rather than that of the naturalists. Kropotkin’s ethics are thoroughly constructivist; if he links them to his studies of ‘‘mutual aid,’’ it is because social construction appropriates the materials deposited by the evolutionary process, not because there is a ready-formed morality that is sufficient unto itself. A Kropotkinian genealogy of morals might ultimately lead back to certain biologically evolved instincts to preserve the genetic commons of the group, but this would constitute no more than a ‘‘foundation’’ upon which a ‘‘higher sense of justice, or equity’’ must be ‘‘developed.’’ He underlines this point in a comment on Proudhon: ‘‘The tendency to protect the interests of others at the expense of our own cannot be solely an inborn feeling … its rudiments were always present in man, but these rudiments must be developed.’’ None of the ‘‘feelings and practices’’ we admire in tribal peoples (e.g., ‘‘hospitality,’’ ‘‘respect for human life,’’ ‘‘the sense of reciprocal obligation’’) are the result of any closeness to some authentic human nature, he insists; rather, all must be ‘‘developed,’’ for they are ‘‘the consequence of life in common’’ rather than its cause.

Kropotkin’s view was that human subjectivity is fluid and contingent, nothing to do with fixed ‘essences’ as Newman, May and other post-anarchists have argued – and honestly, this is the conclusion reached by all of the recent studies which actually take the time to engage with the source material. Newman’s books tend to cherry pick a couple of individual quotes where the 19th century vernacular has an essentialist twang and extrapolate from there. On the other hand studies like Nathan Jun’s Anarchism and Political Modernity come to the conclusion that:

In sum, the anarchists of the nineteenth century were among the first to suggest that, apart from biological conditions of possibility, humanity lacks an essential nature, that subjectivity is a production of forces—in short, that the individual is constituted, as Proudhon might say, by processes of becoming rather than absolute forms of being.

Ruth Kinna’s latest book on Kropotkin also takes apart the post-anarchist version of his views on subjectivity, but this answer is long enough as it is – I’d just reiterate that Duane Rouselle’s comment about post-anarchism basically having conceded this point is true, Newman, Todd May, Lewis Call et al have not offered any substantial defence of their reductive caricature of ‘classical anarchism’ since they first proposed it.