if you didn’t like fnaf movie fuck you. you don’t see the vision. did you even catch the midnight motorist tshirt. that’s what i thought you freak

guys… i don’t think he’s doing this for all of us

Guys whatever you do never make a shitpost about trans discourse in reference to an actual interaction you had and making it vague enough where people who don’t know you can’t tell it’s about an actual interaction you had with someone. It will get popular and people who spend to much time online can and will make up weird interpretations about what you said and you as a person.

farleigh start and racism; oh boy.

(some people are going to find this post really annoying. some people are like felix catton.)

read this.

just some thoughts from the perspective of a person of color who is slightly too obsessed with this character. this movie leaves the viewer a lot of wiggle room to interpret how dynamics such as race and privilege come into play. there are certain parallels between this movie and the real world, and how unnoticeable white privilege tends to be for white people.

lemme lay some groundwork. from what i understand, the most prevalent form of racism and white privilege within upper- and middle-class circles is implicit bias. this is racist conceptualization that subconsciously interacts with one's perception of society and people. implicit bias is often externalized through microaggressions, differences in treatment and language towards a marginalized person, misplaced guilt or pity, and persistent denial of any existing privilege or marginalization. most of these biases are also founded on stereotypes. some racial stereotypes are heightening (e.g. asians are all smart) and some are lowering (e.g. black people are all lazy). all stereotypes are harmful. i'm going to discuss some of the stereotypes that could theoretically interact within the saltburn canon, as well as some things i've noticed within viewers. can of worms, to be honest. boutta get INTO IT.

to use one of my externalization examples, let's discuss (or, more accurately, let me discuss) the denial of existing privilege or marginalization. this is a subconscious way to uphold a sense of morality, effectively avoiding "white guilt," so to speak. as is clearly presented to us, the cattons are very attached to their methods of upholding their own self-righteousness. saviorism is a common theme within both elspeth and felix. in oliver's conversation with elspeth about poor dear pamela, you can see that oliver recognizes elspeth's need to justify her actions in an attempt to preserve her sense of decency. one can only assume that this applies to how they view farleigh's relationship with them. there's more to talk about there, but i'd like to start with the only overt mention of race in this movie.

in felix's confrontation with farleigh, farleigh makes the bold and brave decision to mention his blackness. i call this brave because it's genuinely a terrifying thing to do, and the end of this conversation is proof. "oh, that is... that is low, farleigh. seriously, that's where you want to take this? make it a race thing? i never know our footman's names; the turnover for a footman is notoriously high!" we have felix's intentional or unintentional shaming of farleigh. we have felix's appalled denial of any involvement of race or racial bias. we have felix's diversion away from farleigh specifically and onto his own inability to know his staff's names. felix made no further attempt to recenter farleigh, aside from telling him that the cattons have "done what they can." (which is SO absurd on its own. they are clearly and obviously able to do more. they are disgustingly rich). farleigh does feel ashamed after felix's response; you can see it on his face, and archie says it directly. here is a relevant and prevalent stereotype for all marginalized people: that the discussion of marginalization is exclusively weaponized to gain something or manipulate a situation. this is how felix chooses to see farleigh's implication of existing white privilege. this conversation results in nothing, does nothing, as felix chooses not to confront what he's probably thinking as he repeats the words "begging bowl" to venetia.

now. saviorism, guilt, and pity. felix specifically tells oliver that sir james made an effort to support farleigh out of guilt. i'd like to order some things in a way that i perceive them. frederica start runs from england, which is explained in a condescending way by felix. frederica start marries a so-referred-to "lunatic" who dug through fred and jame's money, although it's farleigh who only mentions fred's financial irresponsibility. out of guilt, james offers to pay for farleigh's education. the specificity of education is compelling to me. perhaps james is simply a patriotic man who strongly believes that english education is better. or this is a mobilized racial stereotype! who can truly know. i digress. james' offer to pay for farleigh's foreign education puts the cattons in an odd position; if farleigh is to attend english schools, he will need to stay with the cattons. if farleigh is staying with the cattons, he will need to be treated as equal to felix and venetia. this is all one long chain of obligations. none of these acts from one family member to another should be considered "charitable," because family should intrinsically create a trustworthy and supportive dynamic.

i believe that the cattons do consider their fostering of farleigh as obligatory. moral obligation, as they recognize that families are intended to have a sympathetic and loving relationship. they cannot, however, escape the truth that they're just guilty. the "begging bowl" and "biting the hand" are more symbolic of a starving dog and its charitable adopter than a cousin/nephew who's staying with his absurdly rich family. see, the cattons are fully and entirely capable of affording another child, of supporting frederica financially, etc. the only way i can rationalize their reluctance to do so is by assuming that they don't feel like farleigh deserves it. is this a crazy assumption? i genuinely don't see why else. of course, i don't think this mentality is explicit or conscious. it's more-so the reality that when farleigh walks in a room, he's not the same as anybody else. aside from background characters at oxbridge, the only on-screen black people are liam, joshua, and james' godson's wife (who gets degraded on-screen). this is the reality of being different in an environment such as the english aristocracy. the cattons choose to see themselves as the hand that feeds the less fortunate, more entertaining, and least inconvenient. the cattons' inclusion of farleigh is not only reliant on how well farleigh performs, but also on their own pity and guilt.

all of this is somehow, painfully mirrored by some takes i've seen on farleigh. maybe this entire post is presumptuous, but you know what isn't presumptuous? saying that certain people hold farleigh to an incredibly odd standard. while the cattons never canonically said anything along the lines of "farleigh doesn't deserve our love and support," mfs on the internet have. the number of times people have referred to this character as greedy, lazy, petty, and malignant is so odd to me. i'm insane, i know. i just don't understand how people can hold farleigh to the backdrop of an english aristocratic family and so passionately say that he, of all characters, is the most detestable. or that he, of all characters, has no reason to behave in the way he does.

is farleigh greedy? greed is defined as a desire for more. farleigh has no desire to climb ranks, no desire to replace or surpass felix, no desire to hold any power over any family member. he is maintaining, upholding a standard that has been set for him throughout his life. is it kind or selfless of him to meddle in other people's affairs with the cattons? no. does he have a reason to be upset that non-relatives of the cattons are a threat to his inclusion in the first place? yes. is farleigh lazy? i don't even need to explain this one. no. if you don't consider oliver lazy, then i really don't want to hear anything. is farleigh petty? pettiness is defined as "an undue concern for trivial matters, especially in a small-minded or spiteful way." farleigh's meticulous attention to trivial matters isn't undue in any sense. a person of color and their meticulous attention to trivial matters is almost never undue. elspeth is a good example of petty. is farleigh malignant? there are a lot of definitions of malignant and i've seen people apply all of them, in some way, to farleigh. that's just wrong. archie madekwe once said, "i was interested in humanizing what, on paper, seemed like a mean character, a villain, or a bully. i don't think he's any of that. he's very self-serving, but i think he's really a heartbreaking character." case closed, this was for my own piece of mind. had to write this section because good lord.

in conclusion to this post that has gone tragically off the rails, i think the in-canon and viewer perspective of farleigh is, perhaps, a little racially motivated. sue me. they are all very centered on this idea that farleigh doesn't deserve inherent respect, support, and love. to remove farleigh's rational position within the cattons family would be akin to removing his right to familial love. genuinely, that's how i see it. the transaction nature of farleigh's actions is responsive. he sees felix as a social shield at oxbridge, he sees elspeth and james as the beholders of his perceived security, and he sees saltburn as a way to escape from his lack of privilege and his lack of stability in america. boom. bam. pow.

Minegishi and Matsuo with cheesecake?

matsuo-minegishi-shimazaki triple feature

little brother

He Who Was

[reshade 5.9.1; otis_inf camera tools]

[my hi-res bg3 shots]

o.one chance,,. please..,,..,,.,.

"there's just smth abt trying to keep a professional business relationship and he's just trying to bone down" you get it

I’m just being very normal about the idea of him coked up and horny while you're trying to discuss serious matters. The city could be in any number of perils and he's too busy groping you over your shirt and nosing at the curve of your jaw to care.

Mutually Assured Destruction

You know what, for a community that’s supposed to be about “loving” each other and being a community we sure do jack shit. We’ll be like “everyone’s welcome 😊” then “erm except you, you arent queer enough, you havent suffered enough” is that all we are? Are we only fucking valuable to you if we fucking suffer? Is that the only reason im queer? Because i have been hurt? If thats all this fucking community is then i dont want to be queer. If this community decides its going to be hellbent on picking and choosing who or what belongs then fuck you all. If this community only focuses on the pain and suffering people have felt then ignore that of others then fuck you all. Grow the hell up.

my sushi gang pull up wyd?

pinkie pie (my little pony) fashion kit with scene clothing and kandi in pink!!!

fingerless gloves // knee-high socks

skulls and bones t-shirt

studded leather belt

custom kandi bracelet!!

mlp kandi bracelets

pom pom hair clips

skirt w/ belt and chain

double sided pinkie pie keychain!! *my personal fav out of this whole kit*

larian doesnt know him like i do

oc-tober day 27 - monster!

Feeling a bit conflicted on this so as a Jewish person going to share my thoughts

The Star of David is a Jewish symbol.

It is NOT original to Israel. People who use the Star of David aren’t inherently affiliated with Israel in the slightest and for people to harass uninvolved Jews or accuse them of being zionists bc they have the Star of David on their person/on their profile are antisemitic. Plain and simple. The Star of David is not a hate symbol and to equate being Jewish with automatically being a zionist is antisemitic as fuck

That being said, there’s no doubt it’s being used a hate symbol and many Palestinians see it as such. Pro-Palestinian posters and messages are being vandalized with the Star of David, flags with the star are being flown over destroyed Palestinian towns- towns that have been bombed into dust by people wearing the same symbol-, Israeli soldiers even BRAND innocent Palestinians with it- permanently marking it into their skin as a sadistic act of unneeded cruelty and humiliation. Yes, while it’s not intentionally used as a hate symbol zionists are using it as such and consequently we’re not going to blame Palestinians for seeing it as so !!!

“The Star of David is an important Jewish symbol and not indicative of Zionism in the slightest” and “The Star of David is unfortunately seen as a symbol of oppression by many of those suffering from Israel’s brutal ethnic cleansing” are statements that can and need to co-exist.

While yes, it’s antisemitic as hell to point fingers to anyone who has the Star of David on them and call them a zionist, do not fucking harass the Palestinians who had no fucking choice but to associate that symbol with hate and violence and death