this better not be misleading

I leave before being left not because I don’t want to be with you, but because I have the natural reaction of self defense. I will sacrifice any momentary happiness you give me, to protect myself in the long run. I will not let the love you show for the day fool me into thinking it will continue to be there for me. I know better than that. I know that feelings can be extremely temporary and misleading, and I refuse to put myself through another heartache just because you “didn’t know what you were getting yourself into”. I don’t care how many times you swear to be different, or swear to care. I have learned to believe nothing that comes from the mouth of someone like you. You can call me overly sensitive, overly dramatic, or anything else in the book. Because at the end of the day, I’d rather be all of those things combined, than to ever be heartbroken again. 

anonymous asked:

i've sent in a couple of qs before and a lot of them didn't get found, im thinking maybe its they way im asking you the question? am i being too vage with the description???? do you have any tips from answering a lot of asks on how to ask for a fic?

This is a great question! It really is super useful to add a lot of details, because if the admins aren’t familiar with the story, a general outline won’t do.Try to think about:

  • Is it an au? Set in the past/ future?
  • Are there any key words to the story? Are they like vamipres or something? Add it.
  • Is any other yotuber in it? (this is super helpful)
  • What weirdly specific details do you remember? Where they eating watermelons at any point? Add it. (if you’re not sure better not  include these cause they can be misleading
  • Was it on tumblr, wattpad, ao3 or other?

.Mey

Peridot and Lapis’ Farm Children

During the sneak peek of Gem Harvest (I watched the NYCC extended clip), we see that Peridot and Lapis have been getting busy farming a whole lot of crops around the barn.

However, they are disappointed to discover that the food they have grown isn’t sentient.

But how did they come to this conclusion in the first place? 

Why did they assume that, like gems, everything grown in the ground would come alive?

Is it just because they’re gems and simply don’t know better yet?

Or has Lapis been mislead about how food actually works in this world?

I’d assume if one was on an alien planet, they probably wouldn’t question the logic much since everything would seems foreign and absurd. An island of living watermelons? It’s just an Earth thing… right? 

But thanks to Steven, they got their pumpkin baby/puppy. I’m happy for them. 

On Ashley (Stick with me, This might get interesting)

(yooooo. I’m already seeing a bunch of Ashley hate in the tags on the director commentary post. I feel like my summary may have been misleading so I figured I’d better post the verbatim transcript of the whole ashley/chris conversation before I unintentionally fuel a war with shoddy info.)

Why does ashley tell you to shoot her but then locks you out anyway? Did she panic or was that just a mistake in development that got overlooked? 

Tom: Definitely not a mistake in development, it was very deliberate… definitely planned. Ashley had been through a lot that night, had a gun pointed at her, and fired at her, seen a friend murdered,she’s in a very stressful state. she had a very hard time, and she is unpredictable, its gotta be said..

I’m confused, so did Ashley mean it or did she not?

Jez: or did the player mean it? 

Tom: Well I don’t know if the player meant it. I think ashley.. that was quite deliberate by Ashley, not letting Chris in. yes I think thats definitely the case. 

Jez: Because of what had gone on before. 

Tom: Very upset. Maybe an over reaction? I don’t know. its difficult to judge isnt it, I mean whos been in that situation? I know I havent

Basically the developers confirmed that Ash deliberately killed Chris, but they’re clearly sympathetic to her as well- which we should acknowledge too. The take away shouldn’t be that Ash is a heartless bitch, more like hey, look at what traumatic stress can do to the human psyche. That specific death scene is one of the most obvious examples of inaction causing a character’s death, but this is actually an omnipresent theme in the game. Almost all the characters do it- Matt can choose not to help Em and let her fall to her (presumed) death, Sam complains but doesn’t actually do anything to stop the prank, She can also choose not to save Mike, No one but Beth went running out after Hannah, christ, even Chris does it in the scene immediately after Ash could have done it to him. He sits back and does nothing when Mike shoots Em. Different scenarios, different motives, but does that make any of those deaths more acceptable? Are we in any position to pass that judgement? Josh’s subconscious addresses this theme specifically:

“I don’t know which is worse, actively triggering events that lead to someone’s death, or passively allowing tragedy to occur.”

Man, think about that, not from the perspective of the characters, but as players. We forgive and ignore these other characters’ examples of inaction leading to death because they aren’t as obvious, or we like the character, or we find a way to justify it, but we look at Ashley’s choices and see no redemption? We demonize her for playing god while we are simultaneously playing god ourselves. This is so fucking meta and cool to think about guys. Yes, it’s confirmed that Ash deliberately kills Chris if he chose to kill her earlier, but to only take that info and use it to dismiss the door opening scene with a “Fuck Ashley” is to really miss out on what makes her character, and all these characters interesting and human. The idea that no one is innocent, including the player, and how that doesn’t mean they aren’t still worth saving… it’s really cool.

We’re the players though- We are omnipresent. We have the potential to know and control things the characters can’t, and we do it all from the comfort of our homes. We have the tools to make better choices than these characters ever could in these scenarios. How can we know we wouldn’t react the same way in that situation? I mean, do you really know what you would do? Isn’t it sort of scary to think about? Sorry, I’m getting super off track. Ashley isn’t even my fav or anything, I just think we (myself definitely included) are a bunch of pots callin the kettle black about some of this stuff sometimes. We can take for granted the perspective we have as players, you know? 

I don’t know. its difficult to judge isnt it, I mean whos been in that situation? I know I havent.” (Tom Heaton, Design Director for Until Dawn)

Dear everybodyontheinternet,

You do not, in fact, represent everybody on the Internet. You do not represent those of us who know what happens when the government interferes in what should be a free and open system. You do not represent those of us who know that the private sector is better than the government at, well, everything.

Your posts are misleading and manipulative. You use blatant peer pressure (“join everybody on the internet”) to push something that nobody would like if they knew what it really was.

Stop calling yourself “everybody” on the Internet. You aren’t. Doing so is an outright lie.

Sincerely,

Katie, who is not part of your “everybody” and can think for herself.

What Descartes Should Have Said

“All can be doubted by consciousness except consciousness.“

The actual phrase that Descartes is remembered for, Cogito ergo sum* (/ˈkoʊɡɨtoʊ ˈɜrɡoʊ ˈsʊm/, also /ˈkɒɡɨtoʊ/, /ˈsʌm/; Classical Latin: [ˈkoːɡitoː ˈɛrɡoː ˈsʊm], “I think, therefore I am”, or better “I am thinking, therefore I exist”) can be misleading if taken too literally. As our understanding of psychology has developed, we have learned that even the sense of “I” can be doubted, in light of exotic states of consciousness. Rewriting it to exclude the personal reference yields a more scientifically accurate and serviceable proposition which allows us to build a rational cosmology around the constancy of consciousness rather than the landscape of human-specific or animal-specific psychology.

*originally “je pense, donc je suis