@klanceweek Day 5: Partners in Crime

Content Warning: Violence

“Have I told you,” Lance says, tone conversational and pleasant as if talking about the weather, “that you look very nice today?”  He shoots a projection in the head and continues.  “I mean, you look very nice every day, but I wanted to comment anyways.”

“Noted.”  Keith drags Lance with him towards a wall they can use as cover, cursing viciously as they narrowly avoid bullets.  “I appreciate it.”

By the time they stop running, Lance is already holding a sniper rifle; it’s almost unfair how quickly the man can create objects in dreams.  “Did you do something with your hair?”  He looks down the scope and pulls the trigger.  Something explodes in the distance.  There’s a lot of screaming. “I bet it’s the hair.”

It is the hair, but Keith will be damned before he admits it.  “Nope.”  A projection is trying to sneak towards them from behind.  Keith throws a knife at them.  “Guess again, Casanova.”

Lance scoffs.  “Liar.  It’s the hair.”

“Uh, no it’s not?”

“You’re lying,” Lance says, singsong voice completely incongruous with the violent chaos surrounding them.  “Your face is doing the thing you do when you’re lying.”

There are perks to being good friends with a Forger, but this is not one of them.  Keith splutters. “You’re not even looking at me!”

“I don’t have to.  I know you too well.”  Lance shoves his rifle towards Keith, raising his eyebrows expectantly.  “Hold my flower.”

Keith sighs, but replies with, “Kick their ass, baby.  I got yo flower.”  It’s worth it when Lance offers him a sunny smile before throwing a grenade at the angry mob approaching them.  

You sure know how to pick them, an imaginary Shiro says with fond exasperation.

I really do, Keith thinks.

Quick drawing and fic-thing from my Inception AU.  Probably won’t be part of the main fic I’m working on, but it was fun to write anyways haha.  Used a reference for the drawing because I am Bad at Poses.

The fact of the matter is that sometimes staying closeted for your own safety isn’t just about fear of physical violence. Sometimes it’s because you don’t think that you could handle the rejection, judgement, and/or emotional abuse that could come with coming out. Sometimes it’s because you don’t know what coming out would entail and you’re scared to find out. Staying closeted (with everyone or with some people) is your choice. Put your wellbeing above all else. I love you, stay safe.

People say all the time, ‘Well, I don’t understand how people could have tolerated slavery?’ 'How could they have made peace with that?’ 'How could people have gone to a lynching and participated in that?’ 'That’s so crazy, if I was living in that time I would never have tolerated anything like that.’ And the truth is we are living in this time, and we are tolerating it.
—  Bryan Stevenson, 13th on Netflix

Oh related to the discussion yesterday my absolutely least favorite leftist meme is ‘communists stopped fascists last time’. I’ve written about this before, but my middle school math teacher was a survivor of the Soviet regime who escaped with her family when she was nine or so, and she talked a lot about how painful it was that Stalin and the USSR - their symbols and colors and flag, their actions, their version of history - were so enthusiastically embraced by Americans as cool and radical. 

Stalin committed genocide. By ‘communists stopped fascists last time’ what you mean is ‘two genocidal regimes went to war, and one of them was on the winning side of the war’. Stalin was a monster temporarily instrumental (among many others) in the downfall of another monster; the USSR was a genocidal totalitarian state that certainly rivaled fascists for its body count. The lesson of that is not that anything at all about Stalin or his regime should be emulated.

Communists should be deeply horrified that the USSR’s atrocities were committed in the service of their cause, and at a bare minimum they can avoid insulting the survivors with facile glorification of the regime that slaughtered their families. 

6

Compromise where you can. But where you can’t, don’t. Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right. Even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye and say “no… you move”.

anonymous asked:

Also....I have one more. What about assassin andrew being sent to kill neil but falls in love instead au ❤❤❤

Mostly, Andrew Minyard slits his marks’ throats. One clean slice on the side, a severed carotid artery, blood flow to the brain cut off. A quick death. Not out of mercy, but out of necessity—cutting major veins is too messy, and severing a windpipe is too slow.

So Andrew Minyard goes for the carotid arteries. Mostly.

Neil turns to the next page in the folder. Some of Minyard’s earlier victims were strangled to death. A few have been shot, though likely as a last resort—police reports mention signs of a struggle, bullets in the back of the head like they were trying to get away.

Well, “victims” is a subjective term. Implies faultlessness. Innocence. Andrew Minyard’s victims are never faultless or innocent. Before the Moriyamas hired him, Andrew Minyard operated like a vicious Robin Hood, or a Batman-for-pay, taking relatively small fees to rid real victims of their abusers.

And now he’s after Neil.

Keep reading

I didn’t think the violent riots again Milo were defensible or acceptable, but I find the violence against Charles Murray really scary. Charles Murray seems like pretty much the classic example of someone who has very objectionable views which he arrived at through research, published carefully and in good faith so that people could point out flaws in his approach or method, and does not use as an excuse to bully or harass people. People like that should absolutely be speaking at colleges and universities. 

While I think the Berkeley College Republicans were being disrespectful of the mission of their educational institution by giving a troll a microphone to bully their classmates with, I think Middlebury was absolutely acting within its educational mission to host a talk by Murray. And it’s terrifying that this, too, gets a violent response. 

A college or university that cannot hold a peaceful talk with Charles Murray is not a free environment, it is not a safe environment, and it is not an environment capable of promoting the exchange of ideas. And I’m scared that many schools in the present environment could not have done any better than Middlebury.

im so tired of villains either

  • being noticeably physically disabled, with their impairment being used to mark them out as different next to the abled heroes and somehow represent them being morally ‘tainted’ by portraying them as not ‘’’whole’’’ or as ‘’’deformed’’’
  • being ambiguously mentally disabled and labelled simply as ‘mad’, ‘crazy’, ‘odd’ etc and used to suggest that people who are mentally disabled have no choice but to be violent
  • having a chronic or terminal illness or impairment which they go to any lengths to cure, ending up hurting people in the process, scarily this often ends up in a ‘master race’ plotline, blaming disabled people for an ideology often used to enact violence against us

im tired and angry, its been done hundreds of times, disabled people are always the fucking villains its harmful and unoriginal, do something else

anonymous asked:

I'm boggling trying and failing to understand how it is that so many people (in this case, the advocates of violent anti-fascism sending you asks) don't have the idea that _political actions should have the consequence you want, not just be on the right side_. It feels like... not getting that trying to affect reality except in the simplest most local one-dimensional way is even a thing. Do you feel like you understand the mindset better?

One of my favorite articles by Bryan Caplan describes the concept of missing moods. 

Modern warfare almost always leads to killing lots of innocents; if governments were held to the same standards as individuals, these killings would be manslaughter, if not murder.  This doesn’t mean that war is never justified.  But the reasonable hawkish mood is sorrow - and constant yearning for a peaceful path.  The kind of emotions that flow out of, “We are in a tragic situation.  After painstaking research on all the available options, we regretfully conclude that we have to kill many thousands of innocent civilians in order to avoid even greater evils.  This is true even after adjusting for the inaccuracy of our past predictions about foreign policy.”  

I have never personally known a hawk who expresses such moods, and know of none in the public eye.  Instead, the standard hawk moods are anger and machismo.  Ted Cruz’s recent quip, “I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out” is typical.  Indeed, the hawks I personally know don’t just ignore civilian deaths.  When I raise the issue, they cavalierly appeal to the collective guilt of their enemies.  Sometimes they laugh.  As a result, I put little weight on what hawks say.  This doesn’t mean their view is false, but it is a strong reason to think it’s false.

2. The immigration restrictionist.  Immigration from the Third World to the First World is almost a fool-proof way to work your way out of poverty.  The mechanism: Labor is more productive in the First World than the Third, so migrants generally create the extra riches they consume.  This doesn’t mean that immigration restrictions are never justified.  But the reasonable restrictionist mood is anguish that a tremendous opportunity to enrich mankind and end poverty must go to waste - and pity for the billions punished for the “crime” of choosing the wrong parents.  The kind of emotions that flow out of, “The economic and humanitarian case for immigration is awesome.  Unfortunately, there are even larger offsetting costs.  These costs are hard to spot with the naked eye, but careful study confirms they are tragically real.  Trapping innocents in poverty because of the long-run costs of immigration seems unfair, but after exhaustive study we’ve found no other remedy.  Once you see this big picture, restriction is the lesser evil.  This is true even after adjusting for the inaccuracy of our past predictions about the long-run dangers of immigration.”

I have met a couple of restrictionists who privately express this mood, and read a few who hold it publicly.  But in percentage terms, they’re almost invisible.  Instead, the standard restrictionist moods are anger and xenophobia.  Mainstream restrictionists hunt for horrific immigrant outliers, then use these outliers to justify harsh treatment of immigrants in general.  

The idea is that, if you’re pushing for some policy that involves doing or ignoring great wrongs in the service of necessity, it should hurt. You should be agonizing over it. You should be desperate for alternatives, and you should be grieved you can’t find any. The point is not ‘your opinion is not valid if your feelings are not valid’, but when that feeling is absent, it’s incredibly hard to trust the opinion.

I think that to antifas and the people who gravitate towards them, the entirety of liberalism has a colossal missing mood. There are Nazis and white supremacists holding rallies and chanting in favor of unthinkable, colossal atrocities. Lots of people sympathize with them. Shouldn’t we be terrified? Shouldn’t we be angry? Shouldn’t we be desperate? Whatever you think of the merits of smashing unarmed Trump supporters in the head with metal bike locks and then running away, the proponents of doing so are vocally and demonstrably angry and terrified and desperate, and if the thing you’re looking for is people who are angry and terrified and desperate then you find them. And if all of the people who seem to grasp the magnitude of the threat are saying sickening street violence is the way to fix it -

- and all of the people observing that that doesn’t fix it, that it makes it worse, that our institutions suffice and have sufficed and that there are better avenues of resistance should they fail, seem to be insufficiently desperate and angry and frightened -

- then people believe the antifas, even though antifas constantly give incoherent or conflicting accounts of how their methods are supposed to help and threaten and alienate their allies and spend a lot of their time threatening to kill gay Jews on the internet because we disagree with them about how to fight fascists.


And to people who are not sympathetic to antifa, it seems obvious that they have a gaping missing mood: compassion, or concern, or awareness of collateral damage. And if you know anything about violent resistance, indifference to or denial about collateral damage is the most chilling blind spot imaginable. 

So both sides perceive missing moods, and it damages trust, and even though we both want to prevent the rise of fascism there’s basically no confidence that the other side actually wants to prevent the rise of fascism, and most efforts I’ve had to bridge that divide have sort of run aground on ‘I don’t think your evidence is very good and you don’t think my evidence is very good’, and so it’s really hard to fix.

This is a roundabout answer to your question: the straightforward answer is that I think they understand actions can have downstream effects and counterproductive effects, but don’t trust us about it and don’t trust anyone proposing alternative courses of action and were also drawn to antifa specifically by the desperate, angry dominant mood and it’s not a dominant mood conducive to realizing that doing nothing at all would be better than what you’re currently doing.

*me, kicking the director in the stomach* i just think he’s so fascinating

*hitting him over the head with a data pad* by far one of the characters i’ve had the most fun studying

*pushing him down the fucking stairs* i mean he’ll probably never not interest me

*shoving him out the second floor window* but he’s a real fucking dick, you know?