the thing is they don't want that topic for totally different reasons than most people think

anonymous asked:

First of you've the most wonderful Kalafina's site. I visit multiple times a day. Thanks for all the wonderful things you updated related to the three wonderful ladies. Now my question is about Keiko - why you do or many other fans think she is gay? Would love your long essay on this or anyone else thought on it. Since I also shared your love of Keiko and WaKei - anything involving them would be most welcome. One cannot get enough of Kalafina so don't stop the spam. Thanks for your hard work

I HAVE NO EXCUSES WHATSOEVER!!! I FEEL SO ASHAMED! PLEASE FORGIVE ME! THIS TOOK A MILLION YEARS! I originally wanted to finish some translations before getting to this ask and then real life crept up on me and kept me pretty busy. For whatever reason, this post got lost in my drafts and I only rediscovered it a couple of days ago. I AM SO VERY SORRY!!!

I have so many unfinished posts in my draft section, it’s crazy, it’s downright embarrassing, I really need to get my shit together. Anyways, let’s finally get to your ask!!!

Here we go =>
Thank you so much!!! This message made me incredibly happy! You have no idea!

VERY TRUE, there can never be enough Kalafina in this world ^_^ I honestly see it as my personal mission to spread the Kalafina love!! If I ever stop spamming you, I’ll either be dead or abducted by aliens.

Also, what an interesting question! While I (and a bunch of other fans) have addressed this topic a couple of times in the past (lookie here! I’ll link to it again later on), I’ve never actually dedicated an entire post to it so thank you so much for asking this! It gives me the opportunity to go all out on the subject and by now all of my followers should know that I have a penchant for writing long ass essays related to Kalafina XD

Before I start, I’d like to mention that our lovely fellow Kalafan @iakrus (who hasn’t been active on tumblr in a VERY long time unfortunately) has already covered this topic quite extensively (to a point where I don’t think my own post will do it justice >_<). She has obviously put a lot of effort into her research and she has found a ton of great sources that provide evidence for her arguments so be sure to check out her thoughts here and here. She has done an incredibly thorough job discussing the matter (addressing each and every important issue) so I might occasionally refer to her in my post (she also discusses the possibility of Yuki Kajiura being gay but that’s not the topic of this ask). All right, now that that is out of the way, let’s get started, shall we? ^_^

Why do I/other fans think Keiko is gay?

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

I've noticed you talking a lot about cockles and, while I totally ship it, I feel like we leave their wives and children out of the convo. what're your thoughts were on that? Do you think their wives know and don't care? Are their marriages fake?

Hahaha– oh Nonny.

I am assuming you’re new to my blog, because if you weren’t, you’d know … where many people do leave the wives out of the conversation– I do not.

If I’m known for anything on this crazy, little website, it’s for being a Cockles shipper who is 100%, totally, no argument, no question– with the wives completely.

I even wrote a 78k word fic based on that premise

But– even with all that, I will break it down for you now. Get comfortable, this’ll be long.

Let me start by saying: no, their marriages aren’t fake.

Considering Misha met his future wife during their English class in high school, many many years before he would even know that Jensen Ackles existed, his marriage is nothing but real through and through.

And Jensen met Danneel, and was friends with her long before he met Misha. They were dating when Misha joined the show– and although I think Jensen and Misha didn’t take very long to hit it off, they certainly weren’t like:

“Hi, I’m Jensen.”

“Hello, I’m Misha.”

“So … you want to get naked and fuck?”

“Well, we do have a twenty minute break, so sure.”

It probably took them a while to get to know one another, start feeling that attraction, work through their thoughts and emotions, figure out if those feelings were being reciprocated– and so on, and so on. It wasn’t instant. Hell, It probably wasn’t even quick.

But, that spark most likely was something that the two did notice not long after they met.

Now, for Misha– someone who has felt feelings outside of his marriage before, probably wasn’t too affected when he started to feel them for Jensen . Misha and Vicki have been very, very open about the girlfriend that they shared several years back. She was Vicki’s best friend– and when Vicki realized that she was falling for her, she told her husband, and Misha said that he was falling for the woman too. They soon found themselves in a serious, polyamorous relationship. They traveled together, exchanged rings– they were involved in every way, and if that woman’s family didn’t give her such a hard time about her “non-traditional” relationship, those three might still be together. Who knows. The point is, Misha is no stranger to these kinds of things, so if he approached his wife and told her: “I think I’m falling for Jensen.” She would probably support him 100%.

As for Jensen and Danneel– it may not have gone over that easily, but I don’t think it was a very difficult transition for them either … and there’s various reasons I think that.

I don’t really have any evidence other than my own sneaking suspicion, but I think that Jensen has had experience with men before Misha. His personality is just– so unique. He grew up in Texas just like Jared, but the two act so differently when it comes to certain things. Although Jared is far more open minded now, you can see every now and then, his old, conservative side peeking out (that’s not to say he’s racist or bigoted, so don’t get angry. I’m just saying, Texas is a whole other world and to be raised down there … it makes you a different person. I’m from Oklahoma, so I know how it is) but Jensen just doesn’t seem to have that coded conformity. He seems much more open and laid back when it comes to liberal things (and yes, I know– he hasn’t always been open to the Destiel topic, but I honestly think he is/was against it because he sees it flowing against the plot of the show. He’s very much about what’s good for the Supernatural and Dean Winchester specifically, I don’t believe he’s against the idea of Destiel though … but I digress). So, I do think that at some point, he has been with a man before, because he is perfectly comfortable touching, being affectionate, being close, and fawning over men– in ways that completely straight guys tend to avoid. Jared touches, but it’s always in a joking, goofy way. Jensen lingers– he touches subconsciously. There’s a big difference there.

So– when Misha came along with those bright, blue eyes and sharp jaw that could cut a Thanksgiving turkey, Jensen probably wasn’t too shaken by his attraction. Now, did he share those thoughts and feelings with Danneel right away? Maybe … maybe not. They hadn’t known each other as long as Misha and Vicki had, so Jensen might not have been sure how Danneel would react to her boyfriend finding another man hot. But the more he got to know her, the closer they became, the more he realized, she wouldn’t mind. Danneel has said before in interviews, that she understands and feels that people can share romantic and intimate relationships with their close friends and not have it be a big deal. She is also a very sexual, expressive, and adventurous person, so if her boyfriend/ soon-to-be husband told her about these feelings towards his friend, I’m sure she would be supportive. Hell, she might have even been rooting for it to happen. I can’t be sure, but I sincerely doubt that the woman would be heartbroken or feel betrayed. It just doesn’t fit with her personality.

Fast forward to today– with the head boops and the long, deep conversations while driving from set to set, and the personal phone calls to ask for the other’s advice, and the slips of the tongue, and the almost-kisses, and the lingering touches, and the heart-eyes, and the unicorn laughs … they are just too happy together and in general to be struggling with tense marriages on the side.
Danneel is pregnant– so obviously her and Jensen are still intimate (and my god, why wouldn’t they be? They are both too beautiful …) And Misha said that Vicki thought that she might be pregnant again, so– same thing. They are also obviously still intimate. So, with the boys and their wives all still very much in love, still physically involved with one another, and still bringing new life into this world– and with Jensen and Misha still acting just as obsessed with one another as always, I have to think that they are all very aware of everyone’s feelings and everyone’s attractions– and they are all cool with it.

Actors or not– people are still people and it’s hard to hide personal things if they are unpleasant. People’s demeanor changes when they’re having troubles at home. Friendships fail, work suffers, smiles diminish– none of that is happening with Jensen and Misha.

They are in good spirits, both together and apart.

But especially together.

Their wives can see that, and they probably love seeing their husbands so happy.

If anything– Jensen and Misha’s relationship brought them all closer … and nothing warms the cockles of my heart more than that.

<3

anonymous asked:

hello :) apologies if you've talked about this before, but in HLV, when john says "is everyone i've ever met a psychopath?" why do you think sherlock says yes? is he just being sarcastic? because sherlock says multiple times that he's a "high functioning sociopath," which i don't think is true either, and i dunno, i guess that part kind of bugged me for some reason

So I was going to answer this with a quick, tossed off response, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized how rich and interesting a topic it is.

Is Sherlock a sociopath?  Is Sherlock a psychopath?  Does Sherlock think he is either one?  Is the audience meant to?  All good questions, but before we can look at them, we need to answer something else:

What is a psychopath?  What is a sociopath?  What is the difference? 

I’m no expert, so let’s do our research (ie, indulge in a little copypasta from wikipedia):

Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/), also known as—though sometimes distinguished from—sociopathy (/soʊsiˈɒpəθi/), is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior…. The definition of psychopathy has varied significantly throughout the history of the concept; different definitions continue to be used that are only partly overlapping and sometimes appear contradictory….

Although no psychiatric or psychological organization has sanctioned a diagnosis titled “psychopathy”, assessments of psychopathic characteristics are widely used in criminal justice settings in some nations, and may have important consequences for individuals. The term is also used by the general public, in popular press, and in fictional portrayals.

Did that clear things up?  

You read correctly.  Sometimes psychopath and sociopath are used to mean the same thing.  Sometimes people act like they mean different things, but…  there’s no strict definition for either one.  And they are not widely used by the medical establishment, despite being popularly applied to fictional characters.

And while we’re doing definitions, let’s also talk about “high functioning.”  In the real world, this phrase is most commonly applied to certain people with autism, and is often used interchangeably with Asperger’s syndrome.  As far as I can tell from google, no one before Moffat ever applied this modifier to sociopathy.  To do so is arguably redundant, since sociopaths in the popular consciousness are hardly ever viewed as “low-functioning”.  

Indeed!  Like… if these terms are vague, possibly interchangeable, and have disputed definitions, why does Sherlock use them at all?  Why does he have a strong preference for the word sociopath?  And why does he, in that one instance in HLV, accept the word psychopath?

One possibility is that Sherlock is simply in error – the character has an insufficient understanding of these terms and how they should or shouldn’t be used.  While this explanation makes sense for Anderson or Mary’s ex-boyfriend, I think we can dismiss it for Sherlock. As a character, this is *precisely* the sort of thing Sherlock is supposed to know.  If there was any doubt, we only have to look at a selection of the books on his shelves:

Basic Writings in the History of Psychology by Robert I. Watson [SHSL]
Forensic Neuropsychology: A Scientific Approach by Glenn J. Larrabee [SHSL]
Introduction to Neuropsychology by J. Graham Beaumont [TV] [TBB] [TRF]
New Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry by Michael Gelder, Nancy Andreasen, Juan Lopez-Ibor and John Geddes [TBB]
The Provision of Mental Health Services in Britain: The Way Ahead by Hugh Freeman [Sherlocked]
Psychiatry Today by David Stafford-Clark (Penguin) [SHSL]
Social Cognition and Developmental Psychopathology by Carla Sharp and Peter Fonagy

We can’t necessarily assume that Sherlock is meant to have read each of these books cover to cover, but even if he just bought them and shelved them, the kind of person with so much interest in the subject of psychopathology couldn’t possibly be so ill-informed about these terms.  

We also have to consider the possibility of author-error.  Sherlock Holmes may be an expert in forensic psychology, but Steven Moffat is just a TV writer.  He’s an educated man, but it’s to be expected that there will be holes in his knowledge.  In the common parlance, people often act like psychopathy and sociopathy are accepted and differentiated medical diagnoses – it’s definitely possible that Moffat was relying on his own casual sense of these words, and cobbling together terms that sounded *sort of* medical, without looking too deeply into the actual definitions.  (Note: that doesn’t make him a bad writer!  Some writers do tons of research, other writers just try to make it sound good – that’s totally allowed, in fiction.)

Moffat has said in interviews that he didn’t mean for Sherlock’s self-diagnosis to be taken seriously by the viewer: 

“He wants to think he’s a high-functioning sociopath,” says Moffat. “He’s not a sociopath, nor is he high-functioning. He’d really like to be a sociopath. But he’s so fucking not.”

But that’s not *quite* the same as saying he recognizes these aren’t really meaningful terms.  So it remains possible that this is Moffat’s error.  (If you’re curious where Moffat might have gotten his interpretation of what “sociopath”, it might have come from a pop-psychology book like this, which came out in 2005 and was very popular for a while with talk show hosts.)

It’s also possible that these terms are being used to humor the audience – that is to say, it might not be Sherlock’s mistake or Moffat’s mistake, but a deliberate compensation for ours.  If Moffat thinks his audience believes there’s a difference between sociopath and psychopath, he can make use of that.  More precise terminology might have gone over the average viewer’s head.

But rather than attributing this usage to character, author, or audience error, I find it more interesting to interpret it as an aspect of Sherlock’s character.  If we assume he knows better, why would Sherlock Holmes make such a point of correcting people between two essentially meaningless diagnoses?  It’s especially ironic that Sherlock says, “do your research”, when any research would reveal these terms are quasi-interchangeable.  

Building off of Moffat’s interview comments, I do think this is part of an image Sherlock wishes to project.  Since I refuse to accept this as an error *Sherlock* has made (because he wouldn’t make this kind of error), I can only assume that he is taking on this identity deliberately to broadcast an impression of himself to people who don’t know any better.  But what is this image?

In order to figure out what the words might mean within the context of the show, it helps to see all the usages so far.  So for reference, here’s a list of every time either word comes up in all nine episodes:

From A Study in Pink:
JOHN: Why would he do that?
DONOVAN: Because he’s a psychopath. And psychopaths get bored.

Here, Donovan appears to be working from the idea that psychopaths are violent criminals who commit murder as a form of diversion or entertainment.  They might seem normal enough, but certain “freakish” personality traits will give them away.  And while they can control themselves in the short run, eventually a need to prove their cleverness will lead them to kill.

This actually sounds not unlike the definition of sociopath from The Sociopath Next Door, oddly enough.

ANDERSON: According to someone, the murderer has the case, and we found it in the hands of our favourite psychopath.
SHERLOCK (looking at him disparagingly): I’m not a psychopath, Anderson. I’m a high-functioning sociopath. Do your research.

Here Sherlock introduces the idea that there is a distinction between the terms.  The implication is that Anderson is speaking colloquially, and Sherlock is being pedantic.  

ANDERSON: Why would she think of her daughter in her last moments?(!) Yup – sociopath; I’m seeing it now.

Anderson suggests that sociopaths don’t understand normal emotions.

The Empty Hearse:
SHERLOCK: I hope you’ll be very happy, Molly Hooper. You deserve it. After all, not all the men you fall for can turn out to be sociopaths(!)

This bit strongly suggests that Sherlock considers Moriarty to be a sociopath, like himself.  

The Sign of Three:
DAVID (a little wide-eyed): They’re right about you. You’re a bloody psychopath.
SHERLOCK: High-functioning sociopath … with your number.

Again, Sherlock corrects someone about the terms – in this case, he’s clearly trying to scare David, and perhaps intimidate him too.

SHERLOCK: … Tom?
MOLLY: Not a sociopath.
SHERLOCK: Still? Good.

This suggests that sociopathy is something people would be able to hide for a while, though not forever.

His Last Vow:
SHERLOCK: Those floating flat faces, those dead eyes … That’s what he is. I’ve dealt with murderers, psychopaths, terrorists, serial killers. None of them can turn my stomach like Charles Augustus Magnussen.

Here we see that Sherlock does acknowledge “psychopath” as a valid term, though it’s impossible to know how he’s defining it here.  I guess we can say he doesn’t think Magnussen is one.

JOHN: Is everyone I’ve ever met a psychopath?
(At the door, Sherlock’s eyes lift upwards as if he’s thinking.)
SHERLOCK (after a moment): Yes.

As Anon pointed out, Sherlock here flat out includes himself in a grouping of psychopaths, despite arguing with this description twice before.

SHERLOCK: Your best friend is a sociopath who solves crimes as an alternative to getting high.

But then like one minute later, he is back to describing himself as a sociopath.

MAGNUSSEN: You will be exonerated, and restored to your smelly little apartment to solve crimes with Mr and Mrs Psychopath.

Magnussen thinks John and Mary are both psychopaths.  No one bothers to correct him.

SHERLOCK: I’m not a hero …
(Magnussen turns to look at him.)
SHERLOCK: … I’m a high-functioning sociopath.

Sherlock returns to his old stand-by self-definition.

So what did we learn?

Sometimes Sherlock makes a strong distinction between the terms – as with Anderson and David.  With John however, he uses the two terms either interchangeably, or as if sociopath is a subset of psychopath.  

Sherlock is also basically the only one who uses the word “sociopath” on the show.  Molly and Anderson do as well, but only in response to Sherlock using it first.  

My best guess is, in this world, “psychopath” is meant to be a word people use casually and colloquially, without worrying about precise meanings.  "Sociopath", on the other hand is meant to be a more precise, “proper” term – Sherlock maintains people would use this term if they “did their research.”  

This suggests that Sherlock uses the word “sociopath”, at least with Anderson, David, and Magnussen, as a form of physical and intellectual intimidation.  Not only is he calling himself crazy, unpredictable, and potentially dangerous, he’s also suggesting he is better educated than they are.

However Sherlock *does* sometimes use the word “psychopath” (and/or allows it to go unchallenged), which may suggest that when his enemies are not in the room, Sherlock can acknowledge that there isn’t any useful difference between the terms.  

So…  this is the headcanon I am going with:

Sherlock invented this term, “high-functioning sociopath” for the purposes of drama and intimidation.  It has a nice ring to it, and it *sounds* sciencey without actually having any specific meaning.  It can be used to frighten or impress people like Anderson, David, and Magnussen, but without digging uncomfortably close to any of Sherlock’s actual neuroses.

I think what Sherlock likes about this phrase is that it seems to imply he has the *potential* to be deadly dangerous, but the self-control to keep himself in check.  

It’s all part of a persona, and I think that moment with John in HLV can be read to suggest that Sherlock himself does not actually believe these terms have precise, stable meanings.  When he isn’t trying to frighten or intimidate, he is willing to use whichever term is handy at the moment.  

Thank you for the ask, anon!  I hope you’ll forgive the long-winded answer.

And thanks also to callie-ariane and mid0nz for the transcripts and book list, respectively.

anonymous asked:

Do you have any advice? It seems the artwork I put a lot of work into gets less attention than quick silly sketches. I know notes aren't everything..but I feel so disheartened about drawing lately. It seems like a waste of time and idk what to do :/

Oh man, anon. I totally feel you, and we are not alone.

I’m going to preface this response by saying that feelings I express here are no one’s responsibility but my own and people liking and reblogging my art should carry on as normal with no consideration of how I feel about this, okay? This is like the epitome of “it’s me, not you” lmao - you guys carry on doing you <3

Back to the topic at hand, you’re right in that notes aren’t everything, but there’s nothing wrong with wanting recognition/feedback for art that you post online. If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t bother sharing, right? And it stands to reason that if you put a ton of work into something you want it to get more attention than a scrappy thing you threw together in a fraction of the time. 

Unfortunately it doesn’t always work out that way. 

I haven’t been able to find it but there’s a great post on Tumblr that addresses this issue in a much more coherent way than I’m probably able to, but what you have to remember is that most people who enjoy your artwork don’t see it in terms of “complex, fully-coloured illustration that took six years and required the sacrifice of two chickens and your grandma” and “gross scribble that looks like the flailings of a drunk spider”. All they see is “omg TWO pictures by an artist that I really like what a good day this is!”

The full illustration and the sketch? You created both of those things, and people are enjoying them. Sure, they seem to be enjoying one more than the other despite the difference in the amount of effort it took to create them, but you can’t control what catches people’s interest. Perhaps the subject matter of the sketch caught a trend or fandom at the right time, perhaps people related to it more than the illustration. You just gotta keep doing your thing and remember the other reasons you create in the first place, and try to think of the attention for both as a combined pool of appreciation for your art, rather than for competing pieces of content. 

I…don’t know if that’s even remotely helpful. But you aren’t alone in how you feel. Don’t give up and let the frustration win, okay? <3

zootmonkey  asked:

Moved back home after college. Finding that I'm now having to dig myself out of a deep deep pit ( mentally, emotionally & financially) . I don't want this to affect my social life or stunt my growth. I know you were at a similar place once. Advice & wisdom are greatly appreciated here. Namaste . :)

The first two years after college were the consistently worst days of my life. I have been through some difficult shit but the continual uncertainty, insecurity, and anxiety of immediate post-college life was hellish. 

That said, it was one of the most beneficial times of my life which led to tremendous growth and change. And it will for you too. 

Firstly, you are not in a pit. You are on a long, long road. It doesn’t end. Remember when you were in high school and people first started asking what colleges you were going to apply to? That was the big topic everyone would ask you about when they learned your age and your school year. Then it was asking which college you are attending. Then it was asking what your major is going to be. Then it was asking what you plan to do after college. Then after college it becomes “where do you work?” and “where do you see yourself in ten years?” And so on. 

If we don’t have an answer to one of these questions, we feel disjointed, disconnected, and lost. After college when people asked me where I worked, I would always have to give some footnoted explanation on how I was unemployed. 

People will always be asking about the next step, and there will always be a next step until that last step into the grave. Let that sink in. Life is a journey whose destination is death; therefore give the journey your full attention and don’t wait until you reach your destination before allowing yourself to relax. 

There is no better time to integrate peace, happiness, and sanity into your life than today. 

Here are some tips:

1. Set a general routine. This was the most crucial aspect of my time living at home. It’s important for several reasons. Here are the few I recommend:

(a.) Meditate daily. I meditated for an hour a day when I lived at home. This was a fundamental pillar of my transformation. Not only does meditation help to digest the delusional imprints you took on from college but it also puts you in touch with basic peace, sanity, and happiness. 

(b.) Exercise regularly. I attended yoga classes three times a week for about a year. While it kept me decently fit, the real significance was in my energy. Our anxieties, emotions, and whatnot all get retained in the body in various ways. Tensions, blockages in circulation, and targeted muscle weakness can disrupt our sense of self and make us feel like we are something shitty. Exercise, especially yoga, works that out of the system quite well. 

(c.) Explore the future. Like many students, I’m sure you’re struggling with debt. And as such I wouldn’t be surprised if you felt the need to get any paying job and start trying to pay that debt off. Definitely do that. But take some time daily to google, to apply to future careers, or to examine what your next step may be. In time, your direction will reveal itself. There is no “right” direction versus the “wrong” direction. The only thing you want to avoid here is prolonged stasis. 

2. Don’t take family personally. Living at home with the family can be trying on your sanity. Perhaps they are passively judgemental or maybe they’re outright antagonistic toward you. This has more to do with them and their own imprints than it does with who you are. 

Family is on your side; they want you to do well. But they have their own hangups too. If you don’t do well enough, they may be hard on you because they feel like that’s what would happen to them if they were in your position. Or maybe they feel like you are just being lazy. It really depends on their minds. Whereas if you start doing too well then they may grow jealous and critical. 

Or you may have a totally loving and supportive family! It really is shades of difference for everyone. My mother is extremely supportive of me and has lots of confidence in me but during my years after college I found myself avoiding her because of how strained our relationship had become. 

Don’t burn any bridges. Use any abuse that is directed your way as an opportunity to understand the mind from which others are speaking, rather than as a way to judge yourself. 

3. Don’t stop learning. Just because you are out of school doesn’t mean you are no longer a student. I shudder to think of the people who graduate school and never bother to learn anything new again. 

In this case, learn what is useful. For me, that meant reading lots of spiritual books. This was how I came across The Places That Scare You by Pema Chodron. In that book, I learned many perspectives and techniques to open myself to the pain that was my daily companion. I learned how to digest that pain and transmute it into compassion. 

I recommend you start with Pema’s book and see where you go from there. 

4. Treat yo self. Don’t lose touch with the part of yourself that knows how to have a good time. 

This is different than trying to make yourself feel better. After college, some people get caught up in the cycle of trying to escape back to college. I have friends that still go out drinking most nights of the week. 

Feeling like shit does not always mean we need to drown it out with a different feeling. That is how growth is stunted, by trying to make ourselves feel better instead of meeting the pain of this moment. 

Treating yourself, however, means not locking yourself away from the world like some disillusioned pseudo-monk. Meet up with friends and get silly, go for jaunts in nature, throw paper planes off rooftops, whatever you want, man. 

In the end, college is not life. What comes after college is not life. Life is in your heart, in the moment. The Dalai Lama once said of modern man that “he lives as if he is never going to die and he dies never having really lived.”

Just be honest with yourself; don’t try to conform to the half-baked idea we call “perfection.”

This is life, brother, whatever the fuck that means. The spiritual way is to transcend it even as you delve into it. There are few defined spiritual paths in our western culture, if any. As such it is up to all of us to pioneer, to experiment, and to find what works for the peace, freedom, and happiness of all beings. 

It does not matter how slowly you go, so long as you do not stop. And you are not walking it alone. Don’t hesitate to reach out. 

Namaste my friend. Much love. 

anonymous asked:

Do you think the show-runners realise the treasure they have in 'Olicity'? And do you think they will do this relationship justice? Great though their storytelling has been, their handling of romance in Arrow has not been the best - until now. Given the explosion of superhero shows in movies and television, Arrow needs something to set it apart i.e. - the awesome chemistry between Stephen and Emily. I scared - but I really hope they keep writing Olicity well :). And make them endgame of course!

Hey Anon!  I took a bit to think about your question and how I could best answer it.  It’s hard because I can’t speak for anybody but myself when it comes to what I like about Arrow, Oliver, Felicity, Olicity, and the team that is (for me) the trinity of Oliver/Felicity/Diggle. 

I’m going to apologize right now for totally going OT in this response - not to mention on and on  — but I don’t think I can discuss what you asked without discussing what I did.  :/

Keep reading

rininq  asked:

Did it ever occur to any of you harpies that maybe Peter has emotional trauma and a bad past where he can't stand having his calls ignored for hours on end because it makes him feel alone and dejected? Can we stop pretending that men don't have abandonment issues? Wanting someone to reply to a message they read four fucking hours ago isn't "trying to own them". Maybe that "angel" was just a cunt who ignored him and you took her side just because she's a woman.

did it ever occur to you, specifically you, that the Peter comic is based on a short encounter (by short I mean less than 3 minutes in total) I had with a complete stranger in the middle of a random street? I did not had the chance to study her relationship with Peter, I have not met Peter, I’ve simply made a comic out of what I’ve experienced that day, meeting that woman on the street, hearing what I heard and seeing what I saw. I’ve said this a couple of times already; she was a passerby and I happened to listen to her conversation for a brief period of time.

I’m not ignoring the fact that men have abandonment issues. 3 of my most cherished friends suffer with it, one of them considers himself ‘ruined forever’ (his words) because he can’t bring himself to trust anyone again. Your point is valid, obviously, yet your reasoning is frail. I can only speak for myself here, but what I saw in the street was a woman speaking up for herself, making her point valid, getting her word on her relationship (may it be abusive, toxic, or not. she was still making her point). what if she had previous relationships that put her in a similar situation? what if she had dated someone in the past who wanted to cage her and tried to own her, and she’s living it again with her current relationship? did you even think about this for like, a split second? my guess is no. I feel like you’re just trying to turn the tables to Peter’s side, yet your arguments are as valids as mine: they’re both speculations. neither of them can be considered the holy truth because neither of us have EVIDENCE.

you seem to be trying to make a good point about emotional trauma and abandonment issues, and that’s nice and relevant, kudos for you. but, quoting you, can you stop pretending you know any more about this story than me of the people who reblogged that comic? because you don’t. you seriously don’t. don’t act like you do because you don’t. yeah maybe he had emotional trauma and the goddess was being an ass to him, but maybe he was a rank A asshole and the goddess was digging her way out of a toxic relationship with her own bare hands, and honestly? that’s fucking great for her, yet it’s all speculation, really. think about it.

I lived the situation and I made that comic based on it. also don’t you dare play the ‘you took her side bc she’s a woman’ card because if things had been different and I had met peter on the street and he was talking to the goddess on the phone, I would still make that damn comic about A MAN TRYING TO VOICE OUT THE ISSUES OF HIS POSSIBLY ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP. no one fucking deserves being stuck on a toxic relationship; no one. to me, the way she talked (this is my own point of view, mind you) gave out that she was defending herself; her voice was calm yet it held a strenght like I’ve never heard before. she was making clear points on the topics that were making her uncomfortable. she was fucking speaking up for herself and that’s fucking amazing.

NOW THAT WE’VE COME THIS FAR, let’s go through your questions one more time just to make sure everything have been answered.

“Did it ever occur to any of you harpies that maybe Peter has emotional trauma and a bad past where he can’t stand having his calls ignored for hours on end because it makes him feel alone and dejected?” already answered. 

“Can we stop pretending that men don’t have abandonment issues?” no one is pretending they don’t. I can’t stress enough about this. there’s people in my life like this. there’s millions in this world like this. don’t assume things.

“Wanting someone to reply to a message they read four fucking hours ago isn’t “trying to own them”.” okay. how do you know they read it four fucking hours ago? how do you know her boyfriend didn’t send her forty fucking messages per minute? 

“Maybe that “angel” was just a cunt who ignored him and you took her side just because she’s a woman.” so what you’re saying is, you took peter’s side just because he’s a man? maybe that “angel” was in fact a strong woman defending herself and getting rid of a fucked up relationship. think about it.

I’m done. I can’t make anyone like that comic, or me, or my opinions for that matter. the door is open.

anonymous asked:

Do you have an opinion on Junko going from being super charismatic to using brainwashing anime instead? Does Junkos overreliance on others make her a weaker villain? For example we went from Junko corrupting Mikan, to Mikan being brainwashed. I just hope they don't do this with the rest of the class. One test subject going crazy i can by but them being brainwashed takes away all of their moral responsibility for being Ultimate Despair which retoactivly kinda ruins DR2.

Anonymous said: Do you think that the animes reliance on brainwashing anime(although junko says her anime lacks brainwashing power) cheapens Junko’s character from the games as a psychological manipulator? Do you think the rest of class 77 will be brainwashed by anime, and how do you think Mikan’s corruption was handled?

Anonymous said: Since you love the Junks and all, what’s your view on the brainwashing? Granted, you weren’t bothered by the Despair Book, but I’d like to here your view.

Anonymous said: When you actually sit down and think about it though, how does watching a mutual killing video make Tsumiki fall to despair and have a sudden change of character exactly? especially since Junko outright says this is the reason she ended up this way

I’ve been chewing over this topic for a few days now, and I think I have my opinions in order now.

Warning: EXTREMELY LONG. I’ll add a tl;dr summation at the end for anyone who doesn’t want to wade through walls of text.

Keep reading

leo-kat  asked:

I think Rose Quartz is, being a diamond, supposed to apathetic. Like, I'm I do think that the each Diamond has there own portfolio, of sorts, but it seems like they are supposed to be more or less logical rulers. I mean, ruling entire planets don't happen by being wishy-washy emotional. So, I think that when Rose got to earth and began to look at the creatures and the plant life, she had sort of a realization of what they were doing wrong. And life is precious, even organic life. (1/?)

So, I think that when Rose got to earth and began to look at the creatures and the plant life, she had sort of a realization of what they were doing wrong. And life is precious, even organic life. So though she isn’t the all-loving Rose we, or rather, the Crystal Gems make her out to be. But she attempting to improove on herself. Steven is the best thing she could do for herself, and the Cystal Gems, at least in her eyes. Being half-human and half-gem, having both veiw points, (2/3)

and gaining a fascination with life from his mother; he tied the Gems closer to the world in which they were protecting while still loving life unconditionally. I’m sorry if this repeating anything… (By the way, I really love your blog. =^.^=) (3/3)

Not to disregard your point, but I find it very interesting that you say “wishy-washy emotional” as if being emotional automatically broaches bad decision making.

This is a very common idea, and it’s something I really wonder about. I mean, so far Peridot has established herself pretty extensively as a fan of logic and analysis. Peridot is very emotional. 

Having emotions and feeling those emotions is not the downfall of reasoning. As Peridot pointed out to Yellow Diamond, objectivity is still important- you have to be able to be honest with yourself whether you’re making a call because of what you want, or because of what really will be good for anyone. But that doesn’t come by shutting down or denying your emotions.

YD seems to be denying her own emotions. With how incredibly short her fuse is and how much she’s painted as “an objective ruler”, what it seems like is she’s basically shut off from most of her support network or the people she might emotionally unpack to. She makes it obvious she has a lot of feelings on the topic of Earth. And I think her biggest problem is she assumes her decisions are perfectly impartial when it’s really clear they’re not. “I’m questioning your objectivity”, Peridot says, and, at this point, so am I.

There are people who have deadened emotions- and they’re great and valid and their experience should still be respected. But they’re not supercomputers who are incapable of doing wrong and should thus be delegated to the highest positions of authority. Being able to be wrong about something is totally unrelated to your emotions. There’s such a thing as flawed logic or imperfect information. It’s not as if we all have this shining compass of logic that points us towards Rightness and the only thing that leads us away from it is Emotions. 

Not only is that inaccurate in reality, it doesn’t seem to be what the show’s getting at. Respecting people’s individual experience would involve respecting their emotions (or lack thereof). YD’s problem isn’t that she seems to have emotions, it’s the fact that she’s saying “this decision is logically and objectively what has to happen” when it seems a lot more likely at this point she has a distinct bias that’s tinting her attitude towards Earth and leading her to make a call that’s going to potentially hurt her empire a lot more than help it.

Now… getting back to the point you’re making about Rose. I don’t think Rose has necessarily made a drastic change from her Diamond days to how she was during the rebellion. I think she was probably always interested in people, and bringing them together- into larger wholes where they could accomplish more together. At some point she might’ve valued the caste system and Homeworld’s attitudes as something essential for a good empire, and helped build them.

But that changed. And given what we know about Rose, I think what changed was Rose changed the people she was listening to.

We know empathy is not Rose’s cup of tea. This doesn’t make her a bad person but it does mean that she has to ask people what they’re feeling, what they’re thinking, and she has to find people who are willing to tell her. If Rose starts talking to humans and hearing about them- understanding them- it begins to heavily call into question the idea that nothing’s valuable here, that the planet can be razed to the ground and rebuilt for the sake of Gem interests.

If she starts talking to the denizens of her empire and more and more hears about how they feel hurt, trapped, not cared for, it calls into question if the empire is actually achieving its intended purpose and benefiting Gems as a whole. 

Neither of those are necessarily emotional judgment calls. Because another thing about logic is that you will get different outcomes depending on what you find important. I took a college class on morality that was very illuminating in this regard- some people think that what’s important is that people have certain moral duties they are obligated to fulfill to be a good person-deontology- , and some people think that all decisions should be based on what brings the most happiness to the most people- utilitarianism. 

Rose could’ve been operating with a utilitarian mindset from the start. This moral system could in fact justify the seizing of inhabited planets in the name of imperialism- because Rose considered it justified in the name of bringing greater happiness to Gems, in the form of more resources and more expansion. What would happen to change that is not the sudden sprouting of a “conscience” or a new set of morals that values humans, it’s adapting her equation to factor in human happiness, and the happiness of Gems like Pearl and Garnet who were not supported by the system.

It’s Rose’s morals- and moral calculation- that makes her say that Pearl and Garnet and their individual experiences are important and should be respected. 

The thing about logic is… it’s kind of like a flashlight. It can help you see where you want to go, but the best flashlight in the world won’t prevent you from falling in a hole unless you point it in the right direction. Even in the case of YD and her lack of objectivity in this particular situation- the problem is she’s basing her logic off the assumption that she’s made this observation from a totally neutral place when it’s actually pretty dang biased. You can still make pretty good logic about something you’re biased about if you acknowledge to yourself that you’re biased and hedge it based on that. 

I hope this makes sense!