which was impartiality

Boastful Drunks

Description:  A drunken argument between a boastful Jimin and Jungkook leads to a competition in which you are the impartial judge.  The question up for debate: Who is better in bed?

Pairing: Jimin x Reader x Jungkook

Genre: Smut

Word Count: 9413

Warning: Dom!Jungkook, Dom!Jimin, spanking, breath play, slight daddy kink, punishment, drunken sex

A/N: Thanks to anon for the inspiration.  Sorry it took so long but I hope it is everything you wanted.

 @avveh SURPRISE!  I can’t believe I kept it hidden from you.  

Keep reading

F A N T A S Y . Z O D I A C
libra; the cerberus // 23 sep - 22 oct

“Cerberus, Guardian of the Underworld. He judges the souls of the deceased and decides who may enter Hell, and who should not. He is depicted to have three heads, to signify the many sides and facts that must be considered to arrive to a conclusion.”

“Libras have good critical faculty and are able to stand back and look impartially at matters which call for an impartial judgment to be made on them. Their characters are on the whole balanced, diplomatic and even tempered.”

[ aesthetic ] catchingoceans [ quote ] marjorie celona [ zodiac ] here


under different circumstances, i think you and i could’ve really had some fun.

I think it’s interesting that Diana is shown in the new JL trailer standing on the statue of Lady Justice that sits atop the Old Bailey courthouse in London. I see a lot of people commenting that the statue isn’t blindfolded but I looked it up and apparently Lady Justice/Justitia wasn’t depicted with a blindfold until the 16th century. 

Instead of using the Janus approach, many sculptures simply leave out the blindfold altogether. For example, atop the Old Bailey courthouse in London, a statue of Lady Justice stands without a blindfold; the courthouse brochures explain that this is because Lady Justice was originally not blindfolded, and because her “maidenly form” is supposed to guarantee her impartiality which renders the blindfold redundant. (from Wikipedia)

I just think it’s cool and that it’s meant to show Diana as a symbol of femininity, justice, and impartiality. 

Influence of Other Languages on Brazilian Portuguese

Brazil is a super diverse country in every aspect, but I guess I’m nudging the historically ethnic (and thus linguistic) diversity of Brazil in this post. 

A lot of indigenous tribes were/are located in the Amazon of Brazil and other South American countries. When Portugal began colonization of Brazil, both Portuguese and Tupi were the languages used in the colonies. Portuguese later became the “official” language of the colony, but words from the Tupi language family had already made its way into the Brazilian Portuguese language. 

Many of the words from indigenous languages are used for plants and animals, as well as place names. Many state names of Brazil are taken from Tupi-Guarani, but there are cities that take names from this family as well. 

Brazil has a history of African slave trade. Most of these words on the list come from the languages of Yoruba (of Nigeria) and Kimbundu (of Angola). 

A lot of these terms (cuisine, religion) are used in the North and Northeast of Brazil, namely in the state of Bahia. If you’re interested in Afro-Brazilian culture, the Northeast is the place to visit–you can definitely see the influence, especially in Salvador (capital of Bahia, first capital of Brazil) and the cities surrounding it.  

These two languages definitely have had a huge impact on Brazilian Portuguese, but I also want to highlight some words of other origin that have seeped into Brasileiro. 

The Portuguese word for “persimmon” is “caqui” which is of Japanese origin, “柿.” Funny anecdote, when I was at the market in Brazil, someone pointed to a persimmon and said “Caqui?” as if to ask if I wanted to buy it and my eyes few wide because I knew exactly what the Japanese equivalent of it was. Craziness. 
I’ve also seen on soy sauce packets “shoyu” in Brazil, which is how you say it in Japanese as well. 

Recently, I’ve seen Brazilian political things on my Facebook feed (to which I am impartial). In English, we call it “impeachment.” If you wanted to get technical, I guess the more formal word in Portuguese might be “impugnação.” However, I have seen the word “impeachment” used by Brazilians. English language influence? Maybe. I just thought it was interesting. 

“Keep themselves to themselves mostly, but they’re good enough about turnin’ up if ever I want a word. They’re deep, mind, centaurs… they know things… jus’ don. let on much.

Hagrid was on to something during his excursion into the forest, with centaurs and their secrets. They seem to be greatly underestimated in the wizarding world. Or perhaps it’s more to do with the fact that human avoid them as much as possible. Either way, whenever they are seen or spoken to they make allusions to things that are coming. Starting with Philosopher’s Stone, chapter 15, The Forbidden Forest:

Ronan sighed. He flung back his head and stared at the sky. ‘Mars is bright tonight.’ …. “Always the innocent are the first victims,: he said. “So it has been for ages past, so it is now.”

This is one of the first things that we hear from the centaurs. And while it comes off as mythical ramblings (especially to Hagrid) there is far more at play here. 

Mars is astrologically speaking one of the brightest entities in the sky, and in antiquity Mars (as well as its Greek counterpart Ares) were synonymous with war or battle. The centaurs viewing Mars as “burning bright” could be taken as an omen. They mention that the previous times this has happened many people died, which is a reference to Voldemort’s first rise to power. However, it also has me wondering whether during Grindewald’s era of war the same astrological occurrences were happening. 

Keep reading

Well @catandsomething you think I’m a ‘nan’ so I might as well answer your questions, even though your’re not actually interested in why people make coments about the haters/swamp.

Here’s your text:

, I am gonna ask all the worshippers of this “English Rose” a precise question: why does she need to get her name associated to a famous man’s name in order to create buzz and articles about herself? Why are the Nannies up in arm against the Big Bad skeptics if we are completely wrong? I saw his face in the worst moment of this showmance and I’ll never ever get convinced of her special charm of making him happy. You are enabling a behaviour of someone who brutally abused the man you claim to adore.

Let’s start with the first: I’m not a ‘worshipper of this English Rose’ - For starters Hunter isn’t an English Rose and I don’t know why a particular skeptic always uses this. You clearly don’t know what it means. Anyway, I’m a person who objects to the lies which have been spread by the skeptics not only about BC and SH but more specifically about ordinary people doing their jobs or simply being members of the wider public such as registrars, vicars, journalists, anyone who has ever met BC and SH, etc. The sheer persecution these people have endured is stunning - I personally know one newspaper which receives hate mail for not covering this story every single week. And a journalist working for the same source has told me about the vicar and the emails she and her bishop received.

Secondly: Hunter has never capitalised on BC’s name and fame in the way we have all seen others do. She has had a few articles in fashion mags and newspapers which would have happened to absolutely anyone BC, who is after all very well known in the UK, chose to marry. Even Anna James who he dated for a brief period, probably just weeks, had more coverage - she featured in more design mags than enough while she was going out with him and also very specifically used his name.  Hunter has done nothing which suggests to an impartial observer that she is interested in fame or capitalising on BC’s fame. She has appeared on red carpets and been pictured there, so would any wife/partner of a well known actor, she went to a few events (it seemed to be those that interested her) which dozens of members of his and her social group attend regularly. In fact she went to far fewer events and got her name in the press far less than a. I would expect for BC’s wife and b. than most minor UK cellbs/siblings of celebs/people who want to be celebs. Just as a test go thgrough one of those events and see who attended, I bet you don’t even know most of those people. Yes, because it’s her job, she had two moderately well reviewed productions. But I’d be surprised if anyone who wasn’t a fan of BC would have connected her with him at either of them. She has no blog, no website, no products, no book deal, no theatre company no upcoming productions - in fact she’s not traded on his name to create anything at all.

I’ve followed his career since he was doing outdoor theatre and personally I’ve seen happy, sad, manic, and disturbed BC. I’m not someone who judges him from a few red carpet pics taken when Sherlock debuted and compares then with selected stills taken later. In any case many long term fans worried about him coping with his sudden fame because of Sherlock - the ‘skeptics’ then were people who thought he had either a drink or drugs problem. 

So, yes, I read some of the skeptic blogs and I post factual refutations about how the birth registration could not have been inserted later etc. because I’m tired of lies going by without someone countering them.


Teodoro Andal Agoncillo (1912-1985), one of the great historians of the Philippines, had undoubtedly made significant pioneering advances on the narrative history of the country. His works, like The History of the Filipino People, The Revolt of the Masses: The Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan (a book on the Philippine Revolution, similarly titled from the book of the Spanish philosopher, José Ortega y Gasset), Malolos: Crisis of the Republic, Burden of Proof, The Fateful Years: Japan’s Adventure in the Philippines–all of these had cemented a view of Philippine history that is rigorous in primary sources, impartial (and as such, polarizing), Filipino-centric (that is, taking on the perspective of Filipinos themselves as actors in history), and does the liberty of using “historical imagination,” making the narrative not only factual but artististically compelling in its form of storytelling. This Filipino perspective pursued by Agoncillo, at the time, were largely misconstrued and misinterpreted. Even up to now, many academics dismiss Agoncillo’s work as leftist-leaning—an unfortunate and baseless accusation from a time when the Cold War was still on and the world was seen as either pro-American or pro-Communist.

Thanks to time and distance, we as students of history can now have more clarity in viewing his works. I remember one of my professors saying that while Agoncillo was a pioneer in his own right, his study had had its time and has already become outdated. As such, our task is to build on and revise the historiographical tradition he started and to endeavor to make our historiogaphy more impartial, more representative of our peoples, and bring it closer to the primary sources that have surfaced in recent years. I think Agoncillo would heartily agree.

In commemoration of Agoncillo’s 103rd birthday, I’m sharing these short notes of mine, with heavy quotations from Ambeth Ocampo’s book “Talking History: Conversations with Teodoro A. Agoncillo,” a book which contain the transcript of his interview with the man. I do encourage history researchers to buy the book, published by UST Publishing House, as it is most helpful in having a scholarly insight on the field of historiography. Hopefully other historians or history enthusiasts in the country would find this useful. There was one question posed to me on this blog that asks how does one become a historian. Teodoro Agoncillo perfectly answers such a question here.

How to be a Filipino Historian:

1. Be impartial. There is no objective history.

AGONCILLO: What history is not biased? …Show me a historian, a real historian, who is not biased! …show me! … You have to interpret, of course. In history, pag sinabing objective ka, you are nothing! You are nothing, absolutely nothing! [laughs] Humanap ka ng kalendaryo, makikita mo na hindi lahat ay nakalagay sa kalendaryo. [laughs]… the very fact that the student of history chooses what to include and what not to include in his work, is proof that history is never objective…. The moment the student of history gives what is called the value judgment, and in history you always do that, wala na! Saan nandoon ang objectivity mo? It is important in history to be impartial! Which is different.

2. Keep writing to develop your style.

AGONCILLO: You must continue to write and write and write to develop your style…. That’s the way to develop, because writing, like any other profession needs constant practice. Parang doctor, pag hindi ka nag-practice nang matagal, wala na. Boxing ganiyan din. Athletics.

3. Be brave to challenge your own bias.

AGONCILLO: Ang historian, kahit na ikaw Catholic, kung talagang mali ang Catholic you have to state that…. Hindi ka matatakot. Iyon ang impartiality na sinasabi ko, you see. Which is different from objectivity. You cannot obtain objectivity in history. You cannot, because you are a human being. As a matter of fact, if you study the great written histories, you’ll find that these authors, historians, were involved. Hindi maaari eh. You always find yourself involved because you are human. Halimbawa ako, you are discussing two sides of a question and your sympathy lies with one. Sabi ko, makikita mo ang bias is towards the other, pero sa akin it’s alright. Ang masama, ang hindi mo ibigay yung floor to the other side. In other words, instead of saying objectivity, impartiality ang sabihin because impartiality means that you give the other fellow a chance to be heard, hindi iyong hindi mo siya pinagbigyan.

4. See the big picture. This requires analytical and imaginative abilities.

AGONCILLO: Talagang sinabi kong openly iyan, pinakamagaling sa pinakamagaling, [maraming] alam. Maraming nalalaman iyan, sabi ko, pero hindi maiakma para makita iyong [kabuuan], to see it whole. Steadily and see it whole… Kaya nga magkaroon ka ng imagination eh. It requires analytical and imaginative ability. You see, you must have both para makita mong ganiyan… Doon makikilala ang galing ng historian.

5. Historical research is hard work. Prepare to lose time and money.

AGONCILLO: Mahirap ang research. Kaya ang great majority diyan hindi maaaring mag-research. Because it requires dedication, physical and mental energy plus expenses.

6. Keep an open mind, but make a stand (based on primary sources) and stand by it.

AGONCILLO: …the conclusions in history are never final. Tentative lahat iyan… Not only that. History is rewritten by every generation. Every generation writes his own history using the same sources. The interpretations vary according to time. That is why it is incorrect to say that the interpretation is wrong. Interpretations are never wrong or correct. They are either perceptive or with insight, but never right or wrong. Because what may be right today may be wrong tomorrow and vice-versa. That is why historical conclusions and interpretations can never be called correct or wrong. No such thing. … You’ve got to take a stand, whether your stand may not be the stand of the generation of tomorrow, at least you made a stand.

7. Stay with the facts. Don’t answer “what if” questions because historians don’t predict the future.

AGONCILLO: Historians don’t [predict, but] political scientists might. Historians deal with the past, not the future. We use history to avoid the mistakes of the past, not to re-create the very same events. You cannot… There is a great difference between historical and literary imagination. Historical imagination is more difficult because you are limited by the facts. You cannot go beyond that. Literary imagination, you can go anywhere and nobody can question you. Fairy tales, for example, maganda pagkakasultat. Nobody questions the reality of it. But in history, hindi maaari. The question in history is did it happen? In literature, the question is, can it happen? … In history, your imagination is limited to the facts. You use imagination only in interpretation.

8.       Be confident in your own voice.

AGONCILLO: You should see my personality on every page of my book, because I am the author. The book reflects the personality of the author. Do you expect my work to reflect the personality of another?

Photos above:

(1) Banner courtesy of the Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning Office (PCDSPO).

(2) Photo of Teodoro Agoncillo on his birthday, in 1950.

ericjolras  asked:

Would you be able to do a ENTP functional analysis please? They're really really good :)

^ The ENTP in a nutshell.

But if you want a more complicated explanation, keep reading.

One common misconception is that ENTPs have a never-ending stream of ideas running through their heads at all times; actually, because Ne is their dominant function, and thus they use it most unconsciously and have a lot of experience with maturing it, ENTPs have great control over it and use it in far more powerful ways than the other types (excluding ENFPs). Random connections, references, and bursts of thought might go on in their head, but they aren’t always inclined to share their ideas, so the 10th/11th Doctor stereotypes are ENTPs taken to extremes.

Dominant Ne is about making connections between things, discerning the punch line, plot twist, or villain before the big reveal (frequently, ENTPs solve the crimes before Sherlock does, because their Ne is quicker than Moffat’s reveals), and having lots of ideas over a span of time. They tend to write novels somewhat haphazardly and their ideas and plans for the ending change and evolve as better ideas come to them. Primarily, their focus is on building a worldview through constant connections; every piece of information the ENTP encounters is processed and added to a greater picture of humanity, the world, the people in their life, etc., at large.

They crave new ideas and experiences because it enables them to continue building their knowledge database; it excites them to encounter new thoughts, philosophies, and ideas. Their minds are swift, constantly scanning for potential ways to see things in a new light. They never let up on their search for mental stimulation (which means they are easily bored) but are able to process things quickly. Plus, because they are seeing the big picture and its variables all at once, it’s common for them to entertain different interpretations of one thing as being possibly true (what is the meaning of this film? there are five different things going on under the surface, and the director/writer might have intended them all, or none of them, but all the different perspectives have merit). Ne works so fast that one thought might be gone before they have time to share it — and they no longer remember what it was! Ne also means they “cherry pick” the philosophies they like most, and hold onto them; so their search for truth and ultimate conclusions may come from a much wider array of sources than other types.

Ne also enables them to read situations and instinctively know what is happening beyond superficial interactions; since it is paired with Fe, which reads the EMOTIONAL aspect of a room, ENTPs have a remarkable insight into other people — their intuition reads between the lines and their Fe gives their intuition information about the emotions involved. This information is then sent quietly to their Ti, which takes a totally objective, impartial standpoint on all information being processed — even other people. The ENTP can love someone and still see and admit to their flaws. Ti gives them an intense desire to understand… everything. How people work. How systems work. How politics works. It is never enough simply to like something; they want to know why they like it, why they respond the way they do, and even whether or not their own emotional response is logical and/or valid given the situation. It’s not uncommon for them to discuss their own previous emotional responses as if they are talking about someone else.

ENTPs who have matured their Fe are locked in a struggle between detached logic and high emotionality, which invests in whatever is in front of them and mirrors others’ emotions. They can be frustrated at their own emotions, because they feel out of control and unnatural when pressed up against their ability to tear apart even the things they like and point out its flaws.

Inferior Si plays both a positive and irritating role in their life; it fails them when it comes to remembering details that the ENTP considers “boring,” but is great for accessing previous stored images, dialogue, and “references” that pop into their head whenever Ne encounters something similar to something it has seen before (that’s why ENTPs are so great at having “a movie quote for every occasion”; their brain accesses stored information, zips to word referencing, and brings an image, sentiment, or line of dialogue relating to the topic at hand into their mind).

ENTPs are excellent at thinking up creative ways around problems, improvising on the spot, entertaining other people with their rapier wit, coming up with pop culture references at the drop of a hat, and pointing out all the logical errors in just about anything. Their Ne-Fe combination makes them highly entertaining (with a love for amusing other people) and gives them a natural flair for drama, which they can enhance for comedic effect. Despite their brilliance, and even though they can be quite serious when the situation calls for it, they are also hard-wired to see the funny side of life and can point out the humor in just about any situation.

anonymous asked:

So I'm sorry if this sounds dumb and like I should know it already, but I've seen a lot of people freak out about the fact the jaybird has a blindfold and idk why??

Oh no, don’t feel dumb because of it please! 

So you know how JJ stands for “Justice Jay” right? And idk if you know who/what Lady Justice is but she (and I quote Wikipedia) “is an allegorical personification of the moral force in judicial systems”.

See? That’s her. She also wears a blindfold. It symbolizes impartiality. There’s a saying which goes “Justice is blind” which means that justice is impartial and objective. Justice should always ignore someone’s status, wealth power, gender, race, religion etc.

The blindfold is just a cool and meaningful thing Jensen incorporated in his tattoo. It probably has something to do with why they gave JJ the name “Justice”. They probably want her to be like that too, ya know?

I hope I didn’t make this too complicated. If I did, feel free to ask again :)

Making Friends with Sherlock Holmes

In honor of the filming of Season 3 I’ve done a bit of character analysis for A Study in Pink. Character analysis is a favorite hobby you see, and I cannot handle Holmes and Watson. I can not. Admittedly I have watched all 8 episodes of Sherlock way more times than is considered healthy, but I’ve probably watched A Study in Pink more times than all the others combined. This is because I am absolutely fascinated by the way Sherlock and John come together, the way they start their relationship. After all, Sherlock Holmes doesn’t have friends, he just has the one. So how did that one make it through the gate? 

My theory is that the Holmes brothers approach all things scientifically, people included. We know that Mycroft picked John up and intentionally stressed him out just to see how he’d react, so why wouldn’t Sherlock?

Sherlock does specific social experiments to test his hypotheses about other people and I think nearly all of his remarks to John in the first episode are calculated, except for the ones that betray his surprise at John’s unpredictable behavior. The following is a rundown of what I think is happening at the beginning of this relationship. 

Sherlock Holmes needs a flatmate, but more than that, he needs an assistant. He states it explicitly, and my opening argument for this entire episode is that pretty much everything Sherlock does or says in ASIP is a test to see if John can fill the position.

From the minute they meet in the lab, Sherlock instantly knows why Mike has brought John in; John will be a potential flatmate. Okay. So what does that mean? John is someone that Sherlock will have to share his space with, so it’s going to be important that he’s someone Sherlock can be civil to.

We never learn much about Stamford, but I sortof wonder if he doesn’t regularly keep his phone in his coat because, if he does, Sherlock may have asked him if he could borrow it solely to see if John would offer his, especially considering that Sherlock never has problems with phone reception in the lab at any point after this. After all, a person’s attitude toward sharing their stuff is going to be the one of the first concerns for being flatmates. It could just be a coincidence that moves the plot along, but I’m just not sure when you’re dealing with Sherlock. He’s a brilliantly written character and he will often do and say things that turn out to have secondary motivations. It’s what makes the show so much fun to watch over and over. Okay, anyway…

When John meets him at 221B, Sherlock is very polite. He shakes his hand, requests a first name basis, waits for him at the top of the stairs, offers tea, doesn’t get rude or launch into a belittling run-down to prove him wrong when John doubts the claims on his webpage, and tells John to make himself at home. All of these are formalities that Sherlock is infamous for not participating in, and I don’t buy that he’s being nice just because there’s something special about John. I think he just needs a flatmate and knows that everything about his normal behavior drives people away, so instead of doing what comes natural to him he’s acting, putting up a “normal” front. He displays full competence of social etiquette in order to set up a standard, uninvolved, non-antagonistic flatshare relationship, and plans to leave John behind when Lestrade calls him. But then Sherlock hears John yelling about his leg.

I’m sure he already knows that John isn’t prone to random emotional outbursts, so if he’s shouting about his leg it must be because it’s preventing him, currently, from doing something he wants to do. It’s not stopping him from “making himself at home,” leaving, or doing any normal activity, so the only time-relevant factor left is Sherlock’s leaving. He’s not attached to Sherlock at this point, so why would he care if he left? Unless, of course, he wishes he were able to do something equally productive or…join him. 

Okay then. If John is interested in coming along, and as Sherlock had just told Lestrade—he needs an assistant, why not try out John? But if John is going to be of any use at all, he’ll have to know how Sherlock works. He’ll have to explain his techniques to John and remember, Sherlock seemed to be avoiding doing this at the apartment. When John asked him how he knew the stuff that he did, Sherlock just smiled and stayed quiet because he knows how quickly it sucks the civility out of his relationships. But an assistant would be way more valuable than a flatmate and another flatmate will be easy to find, so given a choice between the two, of course he’s going to give it a shot. So from this point forward in the episode I don’t think he really stops testing John, except for when his attention is focused elsewhere.

First test, easiest test; can John endure being analyzed? (Just as a side note, my favorite line is, “The man sitting next to me wouldn’t treat his one luxury item like this,” because somehow, from a once-over glance, Sherlock inferred that John was someone who takes care of things that he values, and I think that’s adorable. Okay, anyway—) Once finished he has a kind of flippant, uncomfortable expression on his face because he’s already predicted that the response will be negative and is preemptively trying to suppress his reaction to the rejection that, obviously, doesn’t come. When he hears “amazing,” his expression quickly shifts to reflect confusion. Apparently no one’s ever passed the first test.

On to phase two then.

After they get out of the cab Sherlock asks, “Did I get anything wrong?” and, if you look closely, he’s fidgeting with his glove and shaking his hand. He’s got a lot of nervous energy. I think after John didn’t have the normal reaction of, “Piss off,” Sherlock wasn’t immediately sure how to proceed. With the notable exceptions of Ms. Hudson and Lestrade, the people Sherlock knows seem to fall into two categories; one type meets him with insecurity and hostility, and the other type meets him with idealization, a blind ‘he’s brilliant’ blanketing, the kind we see with Angelo who chooses to gloss over the fact that Sherlock sent him to jail. I think Sherlock is curious to see if he’s gotten anything wrong, but I think he’s more curious about how John might go about telling him if he was. John obviously hasn’t volunteered any information but, because Sherlock is nervous, he must be anticipating something worse than he gets. Probably one of those two responses. Instead John focuses on the points he was right about and omits the one he missed.

Because of this Sherlock then remarks, “I didn’t expect to be right about everything.” For the first two seasons Sherlock never admits fault to anyone else, and tells John not to admit it (on his blog) either. It’s is an admission of potential weakness. An admission of weakness. That in itself is a test. “If I admit that I don’t know everything, will you still be impressed?”

What he discovers though is that he already was wrong, John just didn’t think it was a big deal and, more importantly, he doesn’t think a mistake negates the brilliance of the rest of his observations. He doesn’t attack him, doesn’t question him, doesn’t lower his opinion of him, or reassess him. He’s just…fine. 

Sherlock takes it in stride, but he’s probably surprised that John didn’t bother telling him that he’d made a mistake. I would expect that he’s used to people leaping at the chance to prove him wrong. It’s normal, polite behavior not to, of course, but no one treats Sherlock like he’s normal until John.

A friend, at least a good one, will usually not point out another friend’s mistakes if they aren’t important. Degrading a friend isn’t something people generally find pleasant, and it has a negative impact on the relationship. So even if they barely know each other, the implication that Sherlock probably gleans from John’s response is that John is interested in forming an amiable relationship, one where power dynamics are not the focus. And that is probably a very rare thing for Sherlock. When people quickly recognize how much power he potentially has over them, they either turn defensive or submissive, so a relationship where his mental strength isn’t the focal point is probably largely foreign to him. 

Once inside Sherlock does his thing and John gets to see how much cooler it is when it’s not happening to you. John shows that he’s okay with not being as bright as Sherlock when he openly admits, “It’s not obvious to me,” so he’s not going to try and compete with him like, for example, Anderson. That’s good. But I think the real gem of this entire scene is the fact that John’s not afraid to praise Sherlock in public.

 I think it would have been very different if John had waited to pull Sherlock aside later and say, “you’re brilliant.” When Sherlock is deducing Jennifer Wilson and John says, “That’s fantastic!” Sherlock asks him, “Do you know you do that out loud?” I think he is happy that John is okay acknowledging his brilliance, but I think he’s far more surprised, and markedly impressed, that John’s willing to do it in front of other people. Because everyone there has already made it crystal clear that the accepted behavior is to hold Sherlock in contempt and ostracize him whenever possible.

 John is blatantly disregarding the social cues of the people around him and is acting on his own opinions. At the same time though, he won’t examine Jennifer Wilson without Lestrade’s permission, even though Sherlock obviously feels fine bullying him. This means that he’s making separate and conscious decisions, and it’s not just as part of a blanket “fuck the rules/other opinions” philosophy, which could be problematic.

 John is someone who does not bow to popular opinion, which implies a rational and impartial ability to look at a situation for what it is, rather than what other people think it is, before drawing conclusions. That in itself is going to be indispensably valuable to someone like Sherlock, who already has all the information and just needs a different view point occasionally.


 Naturally, he then abandons John at the crime scene.

 At this point Sherlock wants to move quickly. He can’t be bothered to oblige John’s unnecessary limp and he’s used to doing things by himself. But this aside, even if John will work as an assistant, he’s going to get left behind a lot. I think this situation doubles nicely as a display of what comes naturally to Sherlock and an opportunity to gauge John’s reaction to being ditched, which will inevitably happen.  After all, when he’s finished finding the case Sherlock calls John back. Yes he ditched him, but he wasn’t done with him.

So the conversation in the taxi was about determining John’s character, and the ones at the crime scene were about how he would work around others. From these interactions, Sherlock has learned that John is someone who can both tolerate him and whose opinions won’t be swayed by the general atmosphere of discord that follows Sherlock. So now it’s time for the third round of tests; will he be able to meet the mental and physical requirements for a good assistant and is he someone who can stand to be around Sherlock (and someone Sherlock can stand to be around) for an extended period of time?

Obviously he started this at the crime scene. While John is looking over Jennifer, Sherlock is watching him very intensely. He’s assessing John’s skill level and he seems to conclude that while he’s not a genius by any stretch, he’s not incompetent. He’s intelligent enough to hold his own and have a legitimate reason for being there (other than to simply stroke Sherlock’s ego, which would probably get tiresome really quick, even for Sherlock). He also voluntarily provided an alternative theory, “Maybe she checked into a hotel and left her case there.” This means that he’s 1) mentally participating even if it’s not terribly helpful, and 2) he’s not so intimidated by Sherlock that he’s afraid to toss out ideas that have probably already been considered, and will be quickly dismissed as wrong.

When John arrives back at 221B, Sherlock’s laying on his couch. He starts out ignoring John and, while Sherlock does get lost in thought and non-responsive, when he does talk he states that he called him for the menial purpose of using his mobile.

He’s intentionally goading John, trying to assess how far he can put him out before he genuinely starts to get pissed off. John offers Sherlock his phone and Sherlock doesn’t take it, he puts out his hand and waits. How much can Doctor Watson stand? That’s what he’s asking there, not “Will you pass me your phone?” Especially considering he doesn’t even want the phone, he hands it right back to him to make him send the text. He just wanted to see if he’d give it to him when he was intentionally being an ass. And the answer was yes. All through this scene he is pushy and rude, all of it testing how far he can push him. Can he insult him outright? Yep. John’s irritation is obvious, but what matters is that he passes the most important test of all;

Will he do what I tell him, if I don’t tell him why?

This is huge for Sherlock because he literally cannot always take the time to explain himself. He has to move fast and he has to do so frequently. Is John someone that he can trust to trust him? He already knows that John is impressed by his skill and is willing to publically acknowledge it. But does he have enough faith in him to assume that he’s doing the right thing? Because that’s going to be a vital trait of a useful assistant for Sherlock. In the casebook, in the post-its concerning the text, Sherlock says, “[it] shows how much I like you, I wouldn’t have let just anyone do it.” It does show how much he liked him. More accurately though, it showed that Sherlock had high expectations of John, and had deemed him reliable enough to give a shot.

When he pulls out the case John stares at him for a moment and he sighs, “I didn’t kill her.” When John says, “I never said you did,” he asks, “Why not?” It’s the logical assumption, it’s what everyone else but possibly Lestrade would assume. John doesn’t actually give him an answer, but Sherlock doesn’t need one. The point is that he didn’t make that assumption, no matter what his reasoning was. Sherlock gets kindof excited at this. He grins and hops up onto the back of his seat. But it’s not so much a celebration of, ‘he trusts me,’ as ‘yes! He didn’t jump at the obvious answer, he’s using his brain! Excellent!’ 

He then gets the follow-up to the ‘will you do what I say without knowing why?’ test; the ‘how will you react when you learn I’ve had you text a murderer?’ test. John’s answer is ‘nervously but still even-tempered.’ There’s no hysterics and he becomes even more impressed when the plan works out.

Sherlock leaps out of his chair. He’s just brimming with excitement. He was right about the murderer calling back, of course he was, but now everything is going his way. He’s excited about his success and he’s excited about John. He wants him to come along now, in-the-field so to speak. Before, when he went looking for her case, he left John behind. Now he wants to see him in action.

When they get into Angelo’s, Billy pulls a reserved sign off the table. Sherlock called ahead. That’s not really analysis I just think it’s hysterical. “Angelo, I need the window seat for a case.” “Anything for you.”

Sherlock notices everything everyone says about everything. When Ms. Hudson asks if they need two rooms, Sherlock has the briefest flash of confusion on his face, but when Angelo assumes John’s his date, he says nothing. He doesn’t even flinch, he just asks if John wants to eat. I think he realizes that this is an assumption that people are going to make about them and, since he’s used to people assuming wrongly, he’s not concerned. John is ruffled but not rude, so Sherlock drops it. But John keeps harping on it. He hasn’t pinned John for being gay, and obviously he thinks he can tell (Jim from IT), and Sherlock looks more annoyed the longer he he keeps pressing it. I don’t think it’s John’s possible come-on that bothers him. He doesn’t want romance, he doesn’t want that kind of messy relationship, but I think his concern isn’t about John’s potentially being attracted to him as much as the implications of the broader conversation topic; “People don’t have your kind of relationships in real life.”

In other words, “If you’re not into women, and you’re not into men, are really you into anything? Or are you weird?

He probably doesn’t want John to think he’s weird. He likes John because he doesn’t treat him like he’s weird. John’s probably the best chance he’s had at a friend in a long time (if ever) and suddenly John’s going to throw it all in the gutter because he doesn’t do normal relationships? Sherlock looks annoyed but he also looks a little anxious. Of course, John is just making small talk and trying to figure Sherlock out in the way normal humans do, by asking questions. When John says, “It’s all fine,” Sherlock visibly relaxes.

“Good…” he says. “…thank you.”

John gives him an odd look for the thank you, like maybe he thinks he’s being indirectly insulted, but Sherlock is probably just genuinely grateful that John’s not looking down on him for not “being normal.”

Now, as for the car chase scene, again I think it doubles as work and a test for Sherlock. Can John ditch the ridiculous limp? Yes. Can he keep up? Yes. What about when he’s asking him to do things that make him nervous, like leaping from building to building? Yes? Excellent! He needs some polishing as he doesn’t always listen to orders the first time, but he’s quick to make up for it and, as a bonus, he’s apologizing to everyone that Sherlock shoves out of the way. That’s good. Less angry people with John there to smooth it out. In the end of it he’s even willing to play along as one of the police without Sherlock asking him to. “Any problems just let us know.”

THEN, amazingly, he doesn’t even harp on Sherlock’s mistake. Sherlock makes mistakes sometimes and it’s not a big deal to John. And, best of all, he laughs at Sherlock’s sense of humor. Sherlock looks so nervous when John starts laughing. Maybe he’s afraid that it will be followed up with a nasty remark about Sherlock’s pickpocketing or his mistake, but it’s just that John happened to think Sherlock was funny. Nothing more vicious to it.

In their hallway, away from the police, Sherlock looks so genuinely happy. It’s the first time you see him really happy, really laughing and not just sniggering. He’s just…he’s thrilled that this man has appeared. He’s not afraid of Sherlock, not intimidated or threatened, doesn’t care that he makes mistakes, doesn’t take Sherlock’s irritability and snippiness personally, doesn’t care that he’s not normal, has a similar appreciation for action and adventure, shares his dissatisfaction with everyday tedium, and has a similar sense of humor. There’s just one more thing.

“Ms. Hudson, Doctor Watson will take the room upstairs.” “Says who?” “Says the man at the door.”

When Angelo knocks on the door and John goes to answer it, there’s a shot of Sherlock breathing deeply and looking down at the floor. It’s very brief, but he looks like he’s stealing himself, as if he’s about to be punched in the face. I think this is his final test for John as an ally.

If there’s one thing in the world someone is going to get pissed off about, it’s having their deep-rooted psychological issues being dismissed as being all in their head and, moreover, having that fact handed to them by a total stranger.

Angelo is literally laughing at John. “He said you forgot this.”

If John was going to be touchy about any of his issues, it’s that one. In his early blog entries he repeatedly complains that no one says anything about his limp. John’s identity had become very focused on being a wounded soldier and you’d better believe John could have interpreted this as Sherlock saying, “the fact that you’re still dwelling on your traumatic, life-threatening injury is totally ridiculous.” It was a real possibility that John would’ve taken that badly. He might have easily gotten embarrassed and defensive and have made up some line about how it was just adrenaline and Sherlock does NOT know everything about him and he’s WRONG. I mean…this is a psychological condition to John and what Sherlock is doing is basically equivalent to telling someone with chronic depression that they could have solved everything all along by smiling more. It could have gone very differently.

John smiles though. He doesn’t do any of those things and when he looks back in Sherlock is absolutely beaming. He’s thrilled. If John’s not going to get angry about having that thrown in his face then there’s probably nothing that Sherlock’s unique abilities—the part of him that he knows drives people away—can do that will ruin things. He finally has his shot at a normal friendship. A real one.

Once upstairs things are pretty self-explanatory. John has decided that Sherlock is awesome and readily defends him even though he has no information about his drug use history. I think John feels that the detectives were wrong in their other assessments of him and therefore are probably wrong about all of them. He goes ahead and defends Sherlock even if he doesn’t know if he’s right or not and Sherlock, in turn, bounces ideas off of John and asks specifically for John’s assistance.

 When he realizes he’s said something socially inappropriate he runs it by John in a peculiarly childlike way. “Bit not good?” “Bit not good, yeah.” It’s an odd question really, but it’s interesting that John responds in kind. He uses the exact same language back with him, which reflects a willingness to meet Sherlock on whatever level he’s at.

As for the next part with the taxi driver, this is about the only part of the episode I don’t think was part of his test. I think at this point Sherlock already has a solid opinion of John formed, and he probably isn’t worried about testing him further. I think, instead, that old habits die hard. Even though I’m sure John would have helped him, Sherlock runs off on his own, doesn’t attempt to involve him, and doesn’t spare him another thought once his attention is elsewhere.

In the final scene when Sherlock confronts John, he doesn’t say much about his opinions on the fact that John saved him. I think Sherlock is surprised, not only that John was the one who saved him, but by the fact that, without any formality or a hinted request, John was already acting as his assistant. It was a job that he was going to do naturally. John was perfectly on-the-ball, got there in time, and acted acceptably (for Sherlock) without any instruction at all. He’d persisted where the police had left off, and I don’t think John shooting the cabbie was an act of friendship or loyalty, and I don’t think Sherlock thought this either. John was just acting in accordance with his moral compass, and this is probably what finalized it for Sherlock. John was someone who could be trusted to act intelligently with or without Sherlock’s instructions.

 He’s not going to be Sherlock’s assistant. He’s going to be his (business) partner.

This last conversation is my favorite in the whole series. It’s so easy to see what makes John and Sherlock different, but what makes the friendship so delightful is what they have in common.

When discussing it John says, “He wasn’t a very nice man,” and Sherlock’s micro-expression is a smirk. John killed someone and he didn’t feel bad because the person wasn’t very nice. This is right on the same level with Sherlock’s, “not good,” —a childish but widely understandable description of the situation. Moreover, John follows it up with a joke. John just killed someone and then he makes a joke about it. Let’s just flash back to one of the first things Sherlock said to John. “You stopped her husband being executed?” “Oh no, I ensured it.” He tells John that he ensured a man’s death and as he says it…he smiles. Proudly. This is not something that most people would consider normal or “good,” but, “He wasn’t a very nice man,” is something Sherlock can hear, understand and appreciate. Really, it’s indicative of the fact that they are actually very similar people, despite the numerous and obvious differences. They view life and death and morality from a relatively similar position, and can appreciate that there is an awful lot of grey area that can’t be dealt with by always following rules.

Sherlock then makes a follow up joke and John gets nervous. “We can’t giggle, it’s a crime scene.” Sherlock’s reply? “You’re the one who shot him, don’t blame me.” You’re the one that made it a crime scene, he teases. And that’s Sherlock’s sense of humor. It’s very dark. But John doesn’t care. John’s not judging him for it. It’s all fine. The exchanges of, “You risk your life to prove you’re clever.” “Why would I do that?” “Because you’re an idiot,” and “I never guess,” “Yes you do,” are perfect summaries of the fact that John views Sherlock as an equal. He knows that Sherlock is smarter than he is, but he doesn’t feel devalued because of it, and that’s obviously something very comforting to Sherlock. In a world stuffed full of people who are frightened or intimidated by him, he’s never been able to find someone who would treat him like a perfectly normal bloke. He would never want to be normal, of course, but it’s hard to stand alone in the world forever.

 Anyway, you can always tell a friendship is real when you can tell your friend, “you’re so full of shit,” and have them know that it’s true and it’s okay. It doesn’t change anything.

 At the very end of the episode John asks him, “What are you so happy about?” His answer is, “Moriarty,” and I’m sure that’s true. He’ll be a fun new mystery and an enjoyable new distraction. But Sherlock is not just smiling about Moriarty. He’s smiling because Sherlock Holmes has finally found himself a friend.

Saying Goodbye to Sevik

It’s been a heck of a journey for my little cinnamon roll paladin.

My eldritch knight (international magical policeman) started his journey by being made captain and getting appointed as the new ambassador to Melliore, a country rife with political intrigue and primed to explore and continent previously untouched - Jaoshun. He was unsure of himself, nervous to be promoted so quickly and away from his squad, flustered around ladies, and not great at social or political navigation. He had his journal and his broadsword and the notes of the previous ambassador, and that was it.

This is gonna be a long one, folks. More under the cut.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

your blog is the only tc blog i can look at. every other one ive come across glorifies killers and racists and so im thankful i found your blog which completely impartial! good writing and no shooter jokes or flower crown edits.

Thank you! There certainly are other blogs similar to mine that remain impartial, you just need to look.

The fine rain, the gentle rain, poured equally over the mitred and the bareheaded with an impartiality which suggested that the god of rain, if there was a god, was thinking Let it not be restricted to the very wise, the very great, but let all breathing kind, the munchers and chewers, the ignorant, the unhappy, those who toil in the furnace making innumerable copies of the same pot, those who bore red hot minds through contored letters, and also Mrs Jones in the alley, share my bounty.
—  Virginia Woolf, The Years
BBC staff told to stop inviting cranks on to science programmes - Telegraph

The BBC will be having none of your false balance, climate change haters:

The BBC Trust on Thursday published a progress report into the corporation’s science coverage which was criticised in 2012 for giving too much air-time to critics who oppose non-contentious issues.

The report found that there was still an ‘over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on impartiality’ which sought to give the ‘other side’ of the argument, even if that viewpoint was widely dismissed.

Some 200 staff have already attended seminars and workshops and more will be invited on courses in the coming months to stop them giving ‘undue attention to marginal opinion.’

“The Trust wishes to emphasise the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences,” wrote the report authors.

The impartiality which, in contemplation, is the unalloyed desire for truth, is the very same quality of mind which, in action, is justice, and in emotion is that universal love which can be given to all, and not only to those who are judged useful or admirable. Thus contemplation not only enlarges the objects of our thoughts, but also the objects of our actions and our affections: it makes us citizens of the universe, not only of one walled city at war with the rest. In this citizenship of the universe consists man’s true freedom, and his liberation from the thralldom of narrow hopes and fears.
—  Bertrand Russell