trust and consequence

tips for new uni / college students

i’m just finishing up my first year this summer and i know lots of people are graduating and going into post secondary this semester, so here are my tips on your first year! (im in canada but these should probably be relevant for other countries? i think!) feel free to add your own! (spaces are for accessibility – sorry for the long ass post) 

  • you don’t need to ask to go to the bathroom, or to leave at all. if you’re anxious, or if you need a coffee, just quietly leave without disturbing the other students and come back when you’re ready. try not to leave in an important part of the lecture—you should preferably be doing everything you need to before/after class to avoid leaving and missing information, but this isn’t high school anymore and you can come and go as you wish. (note: if youre working in a lab make sure you follow your prof’s safety procedures around leaving to avoid bringing contaminants out of the lab with you, and do NOT leave in the middle of a test unless given explicit permission by the prof.)
  • i bought a binder for my first year and never used it. i took all my notes in a coil notebook, which is easier to keep track of, and put all handouts in the inside pocket/in a folder which was more than sufficient, since at my school most of the handouts are online anyways. if you’re more comfortable using a binder, definitely use one, but you’re probably better off using a notebook. 
  • you can bring your laptop/tablet to class to write your notes in 99% of classes. if you find typing easier than writing on paper with pen/pencil, then bring it with you - just make sure you have your charger/your laptop is charged, especially if it’s a long class. but try not to get distracted — you’re probably better off sticking to a notebook if you know you’re going to open facebook/tumblr instead of actually taking notes.
  • most professors i’ve taken still don’t appreciate texting in class. some of them don’t care, some will call you out on it. they understand if you have to quickly reply to your mom or something (or take a phone call outside of class) but if every time they look up you’re blatantly staring at your phone (or your crotch lol we all know the trying to hide ur phone under ur desk phone) they’ll probably be less inclined to help you later when you ask questions because you were too busy not paying attention 
  • write your name, phone number and school e-mail in the front of your notebook / on a label on your laptop. losing an entire semester’s worth of notes would be a NIGHTMARE and you want to make it as easy as possible for anyone who finds your stuff to return it to you. 
  • before you buy your textbook from your bookstore, check facebook to see if your school has a book exchange page and try to find someone you can buy it from second hand. it will be cheaper. 
  • if you can, buy your books used from the bookstore. renting is cheaper than buying — the buy back price at the end of the semester will be drastically reduced from what your purchased it at.
  • get familiar with the services at your school. check out the pride center and women’s center if you have one, join a club, and find a community. you’ll have a lot more fun at university if you find your niche and people who share your interests. they don’t have to be your lifetime best friends, but it’s nice to have a place to go and chat with an acquaintance during long breaks between classes.
  • use google docs or a similar cloud-based service. not having to haul your essays around on a USB is so much more convenient, and with your work stored in the cloud you won’t have any risk of it not saving or being corrupted. 
  • plagiarism is such a big no. your profs will remind you, but if you think you can get away with it, you can. plagiarism gives you what is essentially an academic criminal record and NO ONE in your faculty wants to deal with it, so just do your work okay?? trust me the consequences are way worse than just sitting down and writing the paper, no matter how awful it is
  • on the first day, if you HATE a class or the prof, drop it. add/drop deadlines are serious business 
  • if you have a few different choices for which prof to pick, check ratemyprofessor before choosing (but remember to take things with a grain of salt – they are reviews written by real people)

post-secondary is an amazing opportunity and as much as student loans and the emotional stress are hard, it can also be an incredible and fascinating experience. don’t worry too much about “finding your purpose” and take advantage of the wealth of knowledge your professors and teachers will present to you. good luck to all of you and i hope you have a wonderful time!! 

anonymous asked:

Ben Solo (Or Kylo Ren)/Rey as a ship?

ah yes the dreaded reylo

still love those assholes, hope rey beats the everloving shit out of him and he gets off on it and they’re prickly and awful and miserable and uncomfortably understand one another despite everything 

anonymous asked:

I have to say, I understand that myopia is a large part of faith, but it is astounding to me that you all claim your imaginary friend is the only "real" one. You'll decry other religions as false, or say that Greek, and Roman--or even modern Japanese and Indian religions--are just stories, myths, fairy tales. Your religion even has the classic 'virgin impregnated by a deity' shtick, but yours definitely happened, none of those other did. How pompous can you be? Recognize the hypocrisy or shush.

Faith (noun); complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Now, I don’t know about you, but if I’m going to put my complete trust in something, let alone stake my life on it, you had better believe I want to be certain, beyond any reasonable doubt, that what I’m putting my trust in is trustworthy.

Consequently, you bring up an excellent question. How do we know Jesus is the One True God? Let me counter with this. Out of any of the hundred upon thousands of other religions and gods, which…

  • Have a book written by over 40 different inspired authors, from all walks of life, from kings to shepherds, and yet it all fits together perfectly?
  • Have a book written over a span of over 1500 years and yet it all fits together perfectly?
  • Have a book that was written in multiple languages, in different countries, on different continents, in different cultures and yet fits together perfectly
  • Boast the most historically accurate and authenticated ancient text of all time, by an insane margin?
  • Turns enemies into friends, as was the the case of Paul and the early Church he set out to kill; or in recent times, Corrie Ten Boom and the Nazis
  • All of the other religions are work-based, Christianity stands alone in saying that humanity is incapable of good apart from God and there is absolutely nothing we can do to redeem ourselves.

If you can name just one other god who has done all that the God of the Bible has, I promise I will take it all back because you will have obliterated the foundation of my faith. Yet, the Bible stands firm, far exceeding its every challenger, because no one else can do what God has.

“My soul shall make its boast in the Lord;
The humble shall hear of it and be glad.
Oh, magnify the Lord with me,
And let us exalt His name together.”
– Psalm 34:2-3

phoebeophelia  asked:

First, thank you so much for this blog. Even if you don’t get to my ask, you’ve already helped me so much! So. The healing magic in my world is largely limited to imaging. They have sanitation and herbal medicine, but their materials are low-tech. Glass and resin but no plastic and only very small amounts of metal. Character (a large, healthy adult) receives rabbit punch to base of skull. He is confused at first, then unconscious in minutes. (1 of 2)

The healers immobilize him and take him to their clinic. Swelling gradually makes his symptoms worse over the course of about three hours. Eventually he would be unable to breathe on his own. Does this sound about right for a spinal cord injury? Would there be anything the healers could do for him at this low tech, or is everyone just waiting for him to recover or die on his own? Thanks again! (2 of 2)

Hey there! Thanks for the ask. (It feels good to work on fresh asks again!!) 

No, this does not sound like a spinal cord injury. If this was a spinal cord injury, he would stop breathing immediately, because the base of the brain is high up enough that a spinal cord injury will cut off innervation of the muscles that keep the character breathing. SCIs tend to have instant effects, especially when it comes to paralysis. 

(As for the location of the injury, the “base of the skull” is C1-C2. The rule is “C5 stays alive”; C5 is one of the lowest neck vertebrae. SCIs above C5 are fatal without a ventilator, and even then, they’re often fatal anyway.) 

What it does sound similar to, however, is a subarachnoid hemorrhage. This is when the character blacks out, wakes up, then rapidly returns to unconsciousness as the bleeding in the skull puts pressure on the brain. 

With no way to vent the pressure short of crude brain surgery (with an almost 100% chance of infection), no, your healers cannot fix this. However, just because he gets incredibly sick, doesn’t mean he’ll die from it. He may just have brain damage and ongoing issues with seizures. 

What I would really hate would be if your character was just unconscious and recovered back to their full self. It betrays realism and your reader’s trust: that things have consequences. I know that you know this, but this character needs some form of change because of what happened to them. Otherwise, what’s the point? 

Medically speaking, I would suggest starting with the #coma tag, the #tbi tag and the #head injury tag and going from there. (You’ll see this post on those lists; scroll past.) 

Best of luck!! 

xoxo, Aunt Scripty


Patreon: where the ask box never closes and you can see the freaking future. Want in?

NEW AND UPDATED: Free eBook: 10 BS “Medical” Tropes that Need to Die TODAY!  

He helps you with your insecurities about your acne / 5SOS Preferences

Requested: by hopelesslydevotedtomgc

words: 2869

Luke: Every day you forced yourself through the same procedure, you’d get up, take a shower, put on clothes and do your makeup. The makeup part was the most crucial procedure for you. Ever since you were a teenager you’d have problems with acne, the other kids in school would make fun of you. You’ve heard everything anyone could come up with and the words had burned into your mind. ‘Ugly’ and 'disgusting’ were yet the most harmless things you had endured. Kids could be cruel and not only did you have scars on your face but carried some in your soul as well.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

How do you interpret Snape's Occlumency? Do you think it was trained and honed with a teacher, or was it unconscious and something he was born with, like Queenie's legilimency? Or was it Occlumency at all? I've seen interpretations that the real way he blocks Voldemort out is by doing what Harry did at the end of OOTP, which is focusing on his grief and love (for Lily) and that's why he didn't allow himself to move on. Voldemort cannot penetrate this since he doesn't understand love.

I’ve got a few Occlumency asks in at the moment; my lack of response to them is not lack of interest - it’s perhaps the opposite…too much interest to nail my thoughts down.  So, I will try in this post - but it’s all going to be rather loose and embryonic.

What’s particularly interesting to me about Occlumency is that Snape’s Occlumency seems to transcend how others use it.  For instance, Draco simply flings up a block when Snape attempts to use Legilimency against him.  Now, that can’t be Snape’s method, because otherwise Voldemort wouldn’t trust him.  

Consequently, I think Snape has to be concealing certain memories whilst giving prominence to other memories.  It’s possible that he’s misdirecting - perhaps bringing memories to the surface that aren’t relevant to create an impression.  For instance, if Dumbledore reacted in a measured and calm way to a situation, perhaps Snape would show Voldemort an unrelated scene where Dumbledore flew off the handle at him, to suggest that was Dumbledore’s response.  It’s perhaps even possible that he constructs narratives by splicing memories.

It is this reading that gives weight to the idea that Snape can’t show any kindness to Harry, because he requires Harry’s responses of hatred and anger to store as memories for later use - for proof for Voldemort.

But I think that ties into your point; is that still Occlumency?  Or is it Occlumency, but it’s Occlumency at a level that few have documented, so nobody imagines it is possible?

And that brings us on to the next point with Occlumency - what came first, the chicken or the egg?  It is paramount for Snape’s spying efforts that he’s an Occlumens, as both Voldemort and Dumbledore are Legilimens.  It’s reasonable to think that Pettigrew didn’t necessarily need the ability during the first war - he was able to fly under the radar, but was the same true of Snape?  Did he have any Occlumency ability during that first war?

Did Dumbledore show an interest in meeting Snape as a Death Eater because he was aware that Snape was a natural Occlumens, so he knew he could use him as a spy if he agreed?  Perhaps Snape inadvertently revealed his ability during the aftermath of the werewolf incident if Dumbledore tried to read his mind?  Or had something happened at Hogwarts and Dumbledore was aware that someone had taught Snape Occlumency (Slughorn or Pomfrey, perhaps)?  Or did Dumbledore teach Snape Occlumency as an adult when he’d signed up to being a spy?  Maybe Snape didn’t require it during the first war because he was relatively low down and wasn’t under scrutiny, but Snape learnt it between wars?

It seems outrageously convenient that the one Death Eater who decides to defect just so happens to be an Occlumens.  …but his Occlumency is so good, I find it hard to believe that he picks it up in his spare time between wars.  

I suppose my current personal reading is that Snape was a natural Occlumens, or was taught Occlumency at a young age - perhaps by his mother, perhaps from a book to block out his parents’ fighting, perhaps even by a teacher as a means of controlling his emotions…because young Severus is a very emotional man.  I see him as having a natural aptitude for the subject, and just as we see him pushing boundaries by creating spells, and by improving potions, he decides to push the boundaries of Occlumency; he doesn’t settle for blocking others out, but attempts to lie to them.

I suppose there is an argument that he only grew the ability to do this between wars, as I think Snape has to have some sort of weakness when he fully defects - else Dumbledore would be left thinking, “Was that one of his creative lies as well?”  …so I think I would lean towards him being naturally gifted, keeps his head down during the first war - and allows Voldemort to see into his thoughts on occasion, so Voldemort doesn’t suspect him as being able to block.

…and then, once he knew he would have to return, he worked on improving his Occlumency to a level that would stand up to scrutiny against Voldemort.

I also headcanon that it’s some form of Occlumency that he regards as being a better way of dealing with a Dementor.  If he thinks that as a youth, at OWL/NEWT level himself, then I think that points to him starting to utilise Occlumency by that age.

Peebee + Vetra discuss food
  • Peebee: Hey, have you tried any angaran cuisine? Fire-roasted spire beetle is the best thing.
  • Vetra: Wouldn't touch that even if I could digest it.
  • Peebee: Well no one from the Milky Way can really digest it, but trust me the consequences are so worth it. Also, the roasting doesn't actually kill the beetle. It just makes it angry enough to spit...literally. A meat that makes its own gravy! It was amazing.
  • Vetra: And somehow I want to eat this less than when you first started talking about it.
Enneagram Type Six - The Loyal Skeptic

Loyal Skeptics believe you must gain certainty and security in a hazardous world that you just can’t trust. Consequently, Loyal Skeptics are intuitive, inquisitive, trustworthy, good friends and problem-solvers, but also can be doubtful, accusatory and fearful.

Focus of attention - What could go wrong, worst-case scenarios and how to deal with them

Life lesson - To reclaim trust in yourself, others and the world, and live comfortably with uncertainty

Speaking style - Thoughtful, questioning, engaging and information-oriented. Others may perceive Sixes as pessimistic, contrary, challenging, doubting or controlling.

What Type Sixes tell us about themselves

  • I am preoccupied with safety and security concerns.
  • I greet everything with a doubting mind and contrary thinking.
  • My vigilance, active imagination and intuition help me anticipate and avoid problems.
  • I question authority and people until they gain my trust.
  • I procrastinate because I fear making the wrong decision.

Relating to Sixes

  • Be consistent and trustworthy.
  • Disclose your own personal feelings and thoughts.
  • Appreciate their attention to problems; agree on rules and procedures.
  • Join them in acknowledging what can go wrong before moving ahead.
  • Put your cards on the table as much as possible – don’t be ambiguous.

Sixes use their perception and intellect to understand the world and figure out whether other people are friendly or hostile. They focus on guarding the safety of the group, project or community. Sixes are good at anticipating problems and coming up with solutions. They can oscillate between skepticism and certainty, rebel or true believer. When phobic, Sixes are cautious, tending to hesitate, worry and procrastinate. Counter-phobic Sixes rush into action and brace themselves to overcome their fears. As Sixes learn to trust themselves and others, they become more flexible and develop the courage to act, even in the presence of doubt or ambivalence.

Basic proposition - You can assure life and certainty by avoiding harm (the phobic stance) or facing it (the counter-phobic stance) through vigilance, questioning, and either battling or escaping perceived hazards.

Strengths - Perceptive, sensitive, loyal, warm, witty, courageous and strategic thinking

Challenges - Anxious, hyper-vigilant, pessimistic, contrary, over-active imagination

Defense mechanism
Projection – attributing inner concerns and fears to others and external situations

Sixes use projection to avoid personal rejection and maintain a self-image of being loyal. To assure safety and justify loyalty, they project positive feelings onto a relationship or an external authority figure. To explain internal feelings of fear and distrust, Sixes project negative feelings onto others, and then look for evidence to support these projections.

Awareness practice

Observe your habit of mind or focus of attention with as little judgment as possible. Ask yourself the following questions, while noticing your feelings and how your body responds:

  • How do I get fearful, alarmed or anxious?
  • How do I question and doubt in my internal dialogue?
  • How do I magnify situations in my mind?
  • How do I project my positive or negative feelings onto others?
  • When has fear of making a wrong decision held me back?

Type Six’s journey is more obvious and straightforward than for any other type. The child who experienced the world as threatening and unpredictable, and fell into fear and doubt, needs to regain faith and trust in self, others and the world. Faith is a big stretch for the Loyal Skeptic because faith comes before proof.

Path of Integration

Mental: Doubt > Faith
Emotional: Fear > Courage

The aspect of awareness called the Inner Observer allows us to witness the internal patterns that drive outer behavior. The practice consists of focusing inwardly and becoming aware of the thoughts, sensations and other objects of attention that arise within us. This allows us to be fully present, thus relaxing type patterns and increasing receptivity.

For Sixes, take a moment to reflect on the following principles:

  • Insecurity is part of life.
  • Flight, fight and freezing are all reactions to fear.
  • Courage is not the absence of fear; it is moving ahead in spite of it.
  • When we relax our vigilance and stay in the present moment, we notice that everything is ok.
  • When we cultivate faith rather seeking certainty, we begin to trust in the process of life.

As mental types, Sixes use their keen perception to anticipate problems, find solutions, and establish rules and procedures that create safety and security. Some Sixes are cautious while others jump into action. But all Sixes have a very sensitive neurological alarm system that puts them on high alert when there are signals of danger, even when the danger is imagined or magnified. Cautious or phobic Sixes tend to withdraw, either by physically leaving situations or going into their heads. Counter-phobic Sixes tend to accumulate more muscular tension and rigidity. The diaphragm and throat are control centers, which can result in a halting or stuttering style of breathing and speaking.

If you are a Six…

Your task is to develop a sense of safety within yourself. Start by becoming centered and grounded in your body. Take slow, deep breaths and stretch the actual muscle of your diaphragm, then release the exhalation as much as possible. It’s important to notice when your alarm system is activated for the fight, flight or freeze response. To help restore calm and reduce anxiety, breathe slowly and deeply into your belly, allowing pleasurable sensations to build. If you need more energy to deal with challenges, practice breathing into your chest. And when you find yourself worrying and holding your breath, return to the practice of slow, steady breathing.

    Consequences of Time Travel: Why Greg Weisman is a  Better Writer than Steven Moffat

                 Time travel stories are hard to write.  A lot of them have been done at this point, for one thing.  It’s kind of funny that something completely fictional has such well-known tropes. There are at least three different types of time travel in fiction.  Type A is that you can go back in time and make changes, and when you return the world will be different than when you left.  Type B is that history is set in stone, and if you go back in time you will simply fulfill a pre-existing role, also known as a stable time loop.  Type C is that when you go back in time, you create a new universe affected by your actions, but your home universe is unaffected (these are ordered based on the order in which I learned them growing up- once I assign letters or numbers to things, they stick that way in my head for life).  Back to the Future is firmly Type A.  That’s why I think the Chuck Berry scene is commonly misinterpreted.  Marty inspiring Johnny B. Goode is a Type B rule, which isn’t compatible with that universe.  I assume the other end of Marvin’s telephone call was Chuck saying “How the hell did that kid steal my song?”  Type C was used in Dragon Ball Z.  Type B was used in the first Terminator movie, though the sequels were extremely confused about their rules.  They were also used by one of my favorite shows of all time, Gargoyles.  Ninety percent of the time, I hate it when series that aren’t about time travel introduce time travel midway through. Sometimes it’s just an excuse to go different places that have nothing to do with the plot, like in Animorphs. The bigger problem is that time travel is too powerful and can overwhelm the story if it’s not restricted- certainly Harry Potter characters could do something more useful with time turners than help an overachiever take more classes.  Having them all destroyed in book 5 was overly convenient, but it was probably the only way to keep the plot going.

                 Gargoyles is one of the only series I know of that introduced time travel midway through and managed to integrate it well.  Partly this is because most of the trips in time were to places that were related to the characters’ backstories (the only exception was “M.I.A.,” where Goliath visited the Battle of Britain, and it was probably the weakest of the time travel stories).  Another reason is that Greg Weisman mandated very strict Type B rules. No one can go back and undo something that has already happened because it has already happened, and anytime a character goes back in time they simply act out what already happened.  They have agency in their actions, but the time stream already “knows” what choices they will make.  So there’s no going back and saving the dead from dying.  Or is there?  After all, in M.I.A. Griff was supposedly dead, yet Goliath saved him by grabbing him out of time and bringing him to the present.  Who’s to say they couldn’t do that again?

                 This is where Doctor Who comes in.  I’m not an old school DW fan.  I started watching with the Ninth Doctor and went forward. I’ve seen at least one story with each of the first four Doctors and listened to a Sixth Doctor audio drama, but I know more about the new series.  However, I eventually quit watching after Capaldi’s first season because I got sick to death of Steven Moffat’s writing.  One of his biggest flaws as a writer is that there are no permanent consequences for anything.  This is where a comparison to Gargoyles is revealing.  Gargoyles and the rebooted Doctor Who started in a very similar place.  Both the Doctor and the gargoyles were the survivors of a massacre and (apparently) the last of their species.  Both fought a wide variety of villains while trying to find new purpose in life.  And both dealt with survivors’ guilt. Christopher Eccleston put a lot of effort into making his Doctor a character haunted by PTSD and his own failure to save his people (from himself, it eventually was revealed), while Goliath and his clan were adrift and without purpose for a full season.  But they ultimately dealt with the tragedy in totally different ways.

                 The Time War was the brain child of Russell T. Davies, who rebirthed Doctor Who in 2005.  Had he stayed in charge, it’s hard to say where things would have ended up. However, the show was eventually taken over by Steven Moffat.  Moffat had done well writing a number of one-shot episodes, most notably “Blink.” I personally think the two-parter “The Empty Child” and “The Doctor Dances” is better, but it’s hard to deny Blink’s impact.  It introduced the Weeeping Angels, for one, and it also was the first time Moffat wrote a stable time loop, or “Type B rules,” as I designated them above. Doctor Who is not a show with strict rules.  It basically is allowed to do whatever suits the episode.  The danger here is that it can be easy to avoid consequences for one’s actions, and the writers had to come up with reasons why the Doctor can’t save everyone.  Some writers use the rule that the Doctor can’t cross his own timeline.  Others used the idea of “fixed points in time” that cannot be altered no matter what.  Moffat, though, basically says anything goes as long as it seems clever.  This can work in small doses, like the time loop in Blink, but over time it’s been abused to the point where nothing that happens to the Doctor matters, because he can undo it.  People saw him die in season six, but The Doctor dodged that by replacing himself with a robot (I’m probably going to get some details of these examples wrong, forgive me).  The best example of the Doctor’s new omnipotence, though, is “The Day of the Doctor,” a.k.a. the fiftieth anniversary special.

                 Most people consider this a good episode, and I like it on its own (save for turning Queen Elizabeth into a dopey fangirl for The Doctor).  Like I said, Moffat is best in small doses.  However, when he writes over a long period of time the episodes start to contradict each other and tension tends to build up and then fizzle out.  The whole point of Day of the Doctor was to confront The Doctor’s actions in the Time War, where he’s forced to slaughter his own people to save the universe.  Moffat said he couldn’t imagine writing that scene, so he had The Doctor come up with a solution.  The solution was very silly- make Gallifrey disappear into a pocket dimension just as the daleks are firing on it and they’ll all hit each other.  It sounds like a Looney Tunes gag.  Then the War Doctor gets amnesia just as he’s regenerating, so the Ninth Doctor still thinks he killed everyone and still has to deal with his guilt.  It’s a perfect stable time loop, but it demonstrates how even with Type B rules time travel can be abused.  I had no problem with the idea that the Time Lords were still alive, or at least some of them.  But saying that none of them died means all of the sacrifice we saw before was for nothing. All of the Ninth Doctor’s angst was over a fake memory.  And from then on, nothing that happened, no matter how big, could be trusted to be real. Any consequences could be unwritten, and if there are no consequences for the characters’ actions then there’s no story, just a string of cool moments.  Sure, the Time Lords were still trapped in a pocket dimension, but only because the author said so.  There was nothing stopping him from bringing them all back, because there were no rules.  I would have liked to find some Time Lords who were off planet at the time and were trying to rebuild their society (The Master survived, for one), but saving the whole planet was cheap.  Similarly, the gargoyles did eventually find that other members of their species had survived.  However, there was never any chance of saving their own clan.  If Moffat had been writing, someone would have gone back in time to the morning of the Wyvern Massacre, replaced all of the stone gargoyles with identical statues, and brought them all back to the present. Suddenly Goliath has his family back! Hooray!  Except that would undercut the whole point of the show.

                 Greg Weisman said once that he wanted Gargoyles to be about repercussions, so he made the time travel rules so strict that they could never be used to circumvent repercussions.  The rules of time travel aren’t the point, though. The point is the agenda of the author. Moffat is actually less careless with the rules of time travel than some other writers, but he can still undo anything if it seems cool.  This is even true in his non-time traveling series, Sherlock, where the main character can jump off a tall building to his death in front of everyone and then just pop up alive later with no explanation.  Life is all about cause and effect, and all stories reflect that by being about how characters react to their circumstances.  Steven Moffat doesn’t care about cause and effect, and he doesn’t care about characters changing over time.  He cares about cool visuals and badass moments whether they fit the story or not.  Nothing is real because nothing can be counted on to stay true.  When anything can happen and no one’s actions have any consequences, that’s not even really a story anymore.  It’s just a mess.

    Original Imagine: "Imagine being Stiles’ older sister and meeting Derek when he comes back to Beacon Hills after you get bitten by the alpha. Derek takes you to the Hale house to train you and when you see that he lives in a burnt house, you offer him to stay in your room for the night and you end up having sex.“ 

    Author: Sashka Hale 

    Reader Gender: Female

    Word Count: 2348

    Warnings: A bit of smut, virginity taking, nothing hardcore, marking

    “Derek, I’m serious. I just… I don’t want you staying here, okay? What if it rains, where are you going to drag your little werewolf ass to?” you said, thinking that his ‘little werewolf ass’ was damn fine. “Come on, just one night. At least you’ll get a proper shower instead of – I assume you bathe in the river.” You added.

    “I also eat raw rabbits.” Derek said, still as broody as ever. But something else was there. Derek was grateful. He wasn’t showing it and his expression was stern and emotionless, but he was grateful to you. You were the first person in 5 years who wasn’t scared of him. You were the first person who didn’t push him away, who didn’t allow him to push you away.

    Keep reading

    lithiumlilacs  asked:

    From the darkness, another figure appeared, a sly grin on their face as they watched the cat play on the desk. "Twain, huh? The cat is allowed to misbehave, but we aren't?" she practically purred, teasing the Host as she stopped a few feet from his desk. Giving the cat a smile, she looks at her more human companion. "If you were lonely, you could have just told me."

    “Twain is not allowed to misbehave,” The Host snarked. “They are to behave with the uttermost aloof attitude. However, training is still taking place. Twain is but a kitten, yet to fully understand the Void such far.

    “You, on the other hand, are not to step out of line. I trust you already know the consequences. Tell me, dear lady, why have you come here once again?”

    You know the worst thing about a betrayal? It never comes from an enemy.

    يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَخُونُوا اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ وَتَخُونُوا أَمَانَاتِكُمْ وَأَنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ

    Allah (SWT) says [8:27] “O you who have believed, do not betray Allah and the Messenger or betray your trusts while you know [the consequence].”

    justaddnuocmam  asked:

    hey i really liked your thoughts on hxh and how you focused on the detriment of gon's and killua's relationship is. now that i'm watching hxh2011, i'm starting to wonder is killua separating fr gon a bad thing? before i kept wanting them to be together but now i see that gon is not ok. what do you think? i should reread that but i don't think killua ever realizes that their relationship is actually unhealthy for him. rather he just found out he needs to also care for alluka?

    (Sorry for the wait! I gotta say though, that at 1560 words, my reply is actually a lot shorter than I’d thought it would be. I’m a bit sick of looking at it, so it might not make a lot of sense, gomen. Give me a shout if you get confused.)

    I wholeheartedly approve of their separation at the end of the Elections arc. In fact, I sort of wish it had happened several arcs earlier, because it would’ve spared them both a lot of agony.

    It’s important to note that despite how cute they are together when everything goes well, Gon and Killua’s friendship is toxic for the both of them. I wouldn’t go as far as say that it’s abusive, but it wouldn’t take too much for it to change in that direction for either of them. It’s easy to see Killua as the only one suffering from their friendship, but that’s a simplistic view on their relationship, which harms Gon just as much, albeit in a different manner.

    Keep reading

    anonymous asked:

    First things first: I love yor show! The existence of Dorothy Castlemore, a proud, self-identified bi woman, is so important to me and really is something that I've never seen in media before. I'm a little bit worried, though - I was so excited (1/?)

    when Dorothy started dating Miller because far too often bi women in relationships with men face prejudice and erasure of their sexuality. I appreciate that you didn’t do this, but having Dorothy’s relationship with a man end as badly as it seems (2/?)

    it will seems uncomfortable to me in that it sort of reinforces the “good bi women end up with women” concept (unintentionally, I’m sure). Please tell me you’re not going to throw Dorothy’s attraction to men under the bus. Sincerely, a bi fan (3/3)

    Hi there, thank you for coming to us with this very important topic. It’s very true that bisexuals have a tough time both in real life and in fictional stories having their identities validated no matter who they’re dating. Even some of the comments we received about Miller (before the narrative started hinting at his suspiciousness), were indicative of the prejudice bi women face in wlw spaces (and the opposite is true in heteronormative spaces). And we don’t want to speak over your feelings as a bi-person watching the show. Whatever our intentions were, it doesn’t negate your reactions.

    We did strive to build a narrative that treated Dorothy’s bisexuality as an indisputable fact of her identity. That presented her feelings for men and women as equally strong and valid and that whether she is dating a guy or a girl, she’s still a bisexual woman. After all, it is because of how hard she falls for Miller, that makes his reveal hurt her so much. When Dorothy loves, she loves hard. And just because her relationship with Miller ended badly doesn’t mean she is no longer attracted to men.

    That being said, we can’t say that Miller is going to turn out to be a good person, or that Dorothy and the group trusting him won’t have consequences. He is definitely a manipulative person and we can see his influence on everyone in his life - Dorothy, Alex, Rochefort, etc. We hope that the show doesn’t shame Dorothy for dating a man or makes it seem that she is redeemed if she dates a woman. Miller brings out some of Dorothy’s more destructive traits because those are the ones they have in common. They can both be vengeful, prone to dramatics, and revel in winning. Even if he weren’t some sort of triple agent wildcard, he would still not be the best match for Dorothy. He is also emotionally abusive - not because he is a man, but because he is Miller. And Dorothy was not wrong for trusting or dating him - but she is still responsible for the actions she did while with him.

    Does that mean that All For One reinforces the “good bi women end up with women” trope? Especially with a limited cast of (particularly male) on-screen characters (no matter how mitigated by the chat)? We don’t have a good answer for that at this moment, and you might only be able to make your own call once you see more episodes (if you decide to keep watching). We appreciate the discourse though, as it’s only through analysis that our media can improve. Any thoughts you have on this topic either now or in the future, please don’t be afraid to share them.

    dhandelion  asked:

    About the Mycah thing : I obviously agree with you that she should have talked, that her silence did more bad than good. But don't you think that in Sansa's mind, she may have thought she was protecting her sister ? After all, they were surrounded by angry Lannister men, and she may have thought that attacking the prince was a crime punishable by death, and that she had to please the royal family in order to protect hers... I don't know, it's just a thought.

    It’s a nice thought, but it goes against everything Sansa was at that moment- it’s suggesting that Sansa was an aware, observant politician and not naive at all. 

    I definitely don’t think she thought that. You’re not giving Sansa enough credit and you’re giving Sansa too much credit.

    Sansa is definitely smart enough to know that affirming a story that has Arya acting in self-defense as opposed to being unprovoked would go better for her sister.

    But to assume that she had this complex opinions of the royal court at this point (the beginning of AGoT) while she’s pale with fear so that she decides to appease the Lannister men by not confirming Arya’s story is beyond a stretch.

    This is the girl who later thinks it’s a good idea to tell Cersei her father’s plans despite his explicit warning not to and then tell the Council and the crown that Arya has “traitor’s blood”.

    “The blood will tell. I have only to remember how your sister set her wolf on my son.”

    “I’m not like Arya,” Sansa blurted. “She has the traitor’s blood, not me. I’m good, ask Septa Mordane, she’ll tell you.” AGoT 

    Sansa point blank declares to the crown that Arya has “traitor’s blood”. If she were fully aware of the severe consequences of such political things like you suggest, then she’s aware enough in this moment to know this would have been her saying that Arya is fit for serious, maybe fatal, punishment. This is not a light matter. And the implications of proclaiming Arya a traitor to the crown are much more obvious than what you suggest. I don’t think that Sansa’s that aware at that point.  She doesn’t get it yet, this is after all the beginning of AGoT.

    What you suggest actually goes against all of Sansa’s characterization in the first book. It’s saying that she was not naive at all and, in fact, extremely astute about politics and the dangers of it. If all that is true, then Sansa A) purposely declared her sister a very serious and dangerous thing, B) purposely betrayed Ned to Cersei and the rest. It’s like saying Sansa actually got it to a great extent and meant to have her sister and father punished and captured. It also means that she understood Cersei and co. for the dangers they were, thereby making her loyalty to them over Arya and Ned especially jarring.

    No, Sansa definitely was not that aware of the dangerous politics yet. Saying so puts a very harsh light on her later naive actions because it means that she did things and trusted people that had serious consequences out of purpose and not naiveté.  

    I definitely do not think she was aware of her actions and their consequences at that point. She most certainly was not thinking of how to protect Arya. She probably was thinking A) if I confirm Arya’s story, Joffrey will not love me and we won’t get married and I won’t be queen, B) I don’t want to get in trouble, and C) I am completely unprepared to do this, this is stressing me out, I don’t know what to do, I’ll just say I don’t know.

    In later events, I think Sansa was just repressing to be honest, I talk about that here. Under pressure when things didn’t fit into her life vision or hinder her ability to survive, she revises events to work for her. She does it as Alayne with Lysa’s death and Robert Arryn’s doses of sweetmilk, she does it with the UnKiss, she does it with a bunch of things. This seems to be one of them. She may not have repressed yet at the time of the trial but definitely in the aftermath.

    But in the moment, she was definitely not protecting Arya. 

    anonymous asked:

    I've seen a few people saying that bringing Cal in as Kira's father is a bad move and lazy writing, and I was wondering, what are your thoughts on this?

    Ok, this is a very complicated question. Because when Cal was first revealed to be Kira’s father I was like, wait, hold up one second, that was way too easy

    At first, it felt coincidental and rushed. Like, ok, I wasn’t expecting this but I guess it’s happening now.

    Kira’s father is someone I was always looking forward to meeting, but was also someone I was banking on meeting a little bit later down the line. Especially since Orphan Black is notoriously excellent at dropping perfectly-placed plot breadcrumbs, and there was not a single crumb to indicate that Kira’s father was on Sarah’s mind. Not a whisper. Not a sideways glance. Nothing. Not even from Tomas or Rachel or Leekie. No one seemed the least bit interested in him. 

    However, the more the introduction of Cal as Kira’s father went on to affect our characters, the more I realized that this was definitely not lazy writing and it was for sure not a bad move. In my opinion, the reveal probably could have been set up a little better, sure. But, I think this was probably just a time constraint issue combined with the fact that in episodic television, you can’t go back to Season 1 and insert an unanswered question or a carefully timed close up. 

    So, I learned to live with the sudden appearance of Cal, because his introduction yielded a lot of extremely important and beautifully-crafted story happenings.

    First, the introduction of Cal is extremely important for Sarah’s character. With Cal, Sarah gets a little more vulnerable, a little more self-reflective, a little more grounded by the mistakes of her past. Because Sarah might not know where she came from biologically, but she’s still existed in this world for almost thirty years. That’s a lot of time to leave a trail. The Sarah we know does come from somewhere, and Cal is one of those places. 

    Secondly, it also makes Sarah a bit more responsible and accountable, because having Sarah come to Cal is a lot more rewarding character-wise than having Cal show up at Sarah’s door later down the line. The scene where Sarah talks to Kira about why she wanted her to meet her father really drove this home for me. It takes a lot for Sarah to open up. Even to Kira. And Sarah being stuck in the discovery of her own biological nonsense shouldn’t prevent Kira from knowing where she came from; Sarah knows that better than anybody. That scene will make you cry real tears, sure, but it will also show you that Sarah’s finally learning to be a mother. 

    Lastly, this introduction does wonders for the Sarah/Felix relationship. Wonders. It acts as a catalyst for the emergence of all the complicated layers that we knew were there last season but never got to see. And I could do a whole analysis just on that one scene where Sarah and Felix fight, the ups and downs and roundabouts of it. It’s a great scene. One of the best of the season so far, I think. But, that’s for another time. 

    For now, it places Sarah really, truly in a place where she needs to take a risk trusting someone. Because removing Felix from the equation not only cuts out Sarah’s crutch, but makes Sarah realize that she can’t take advantage of the people she trusts without consequence. So, in the Felix vacuum, Sarah’s forced to trust Cal. A good idea? A bad idea? Only time will tell. But, I know one thing for sure: these kinds of dilemmas are certainly not the result of lazy writing decisions.