i just dont really understand why theyd target les mis? and like. its interrupting the work of actors and crew and house staff who dont have anything to do with fossil fuel corps. people who just paid to see the show who dont have anything to do with it.

i understand les mis is a show about rebellion and humanity but to me it doesnt make any sense.

( i say this as someone whos probably very unaware and very slow to realize the deeper meaning of things so i apologize if it comes off snobby i am just confused !! /genuine )

I'm very sorry if this comes off as rude but like.... "I don't understand why people would use Les Mis as the symbolic centerpiece of an act of protest/rebellion against the government" is just a very strange thing to say, and I'm genuinely not quite sure how to begin to respond XD. Like....it's literally Les Mis. It is Do You Hear the People Sing. The original novel was written to be a political rallying cry, it was written to bind together activists, and it has been used that way thousands of times since its publication in 1862. It's Les Mis, I don't know what else to tell you XD. Also I know this next comparison isn't perfect, but:

“I don’t understand why Les Amis interrupted Lamarque’s funeral.  Obviously I agree with Les Amis’s goals, but was this really the right way to protest? Obviously the government is doing something bad— but was this symbolic event really the right place to talk about it? Why even choose to interrupt this event, and the lives of the workers leading it and everyday people attending it? It wasn’t responsible for what was happening! 

Okay, yeah, I get the funeral is ‘symbolically significant.’  I get that Lamarque has become, in popular culture, a symbol of rebellion and resistance against a government’s unfair policies.  I get Lamarque’s funeral is a pretty big public event that has a lot of symbolic significance ties to ideas of rebellion against the state.

I get that Lamarque’s words are often seen as a rebellious call to action, so illegally interrupting his funeral could be a statement about resisting tyranny. It could be a call to action playing off the popularity and symbolic role that Lamarque has in the public consciousness.

 But at the same time— shouldn’t Les Amis have just gone to the palace and attacked the king directly? Why disrupt this symbolic event instead? They’re not really going after the people responsible! 

After all, there were so many people there who just wanted a normal day. They weren’t responsible for what the government was doing and had nothing to do with it.  They wanted to see the procession, to hear Lafayette’s speech and grieve a political figure they cared for. They wanted to hear people praise ‘resistance’ in the abstract, without actually doing it.

 Weren’t Les Amis disrupting that?  

Aren’t Les Amis bad activists? Isn’t disrupting people’s everyday lives for the sake of 'activism' always inherently a bad thing? I’m not against activism, but isn’t doing that kind of disruptive activism rude? Isn’t disrupting the lives of ordinary people just doing their jobs or going out for a special event evil— no matter why you’re doing it, or what your goals are, or whether the government actually is doing something vile that we should start to stage great events rallying against?

Even if this Lamarque's funeral has special significance because of its symbolic pop cultural ties to rebellion against tyranny—shouldn’t they have just avoided rudely interrupting some regular people’s everyday lives? 

Protests shouldn’t disrupt things. they should be big parades that don’t make anyone uncomfortable, don’t interrupt anything, and don’t disrupt any aspects of ‘normal people’s daily life.’ No one should ever target symbolic events— like a funeral for a political figure or a musical about revolution—  to make a political statement. Protests should be little quiet festivals that cause absolutely no interruption in everyday life so that we can all just safely ignore them, until the climate catastrophe they’re warning us about arrives.”  

oh. ohhhh. so buggy is like that because of extreme daddy issues, got it

I have now realised that Soap looks like one hot friend of mine.

I been thinking why Joker goes out of his way to help Maruki and even save his life. Objectively Maruki is an awful person who abused his power and hurt teenagers in really terrible ways, but Joker wants to help him somehow. Even as a Maruki fan I don’t get it, which I hc him as Joker both liking Maruki and seeing himself in him. It the only thing that makes sense to me and I don’t like to headcanon my way into solving character motivations.

joker is a traumatized teenager who has both been horribly mistreated by adults and seen everyone he loves be horribly mistreated by adults. even sojiro is, while not nearly as bad as any of the villains, frankly kind of awful to joker when he first meets him. maruki is pretty unfailingly kind to him from the moment they meet, respects his intelligence and opinions and maturity and treats him like an adult friend he can equally depend on rather than a problem child (and treating joker like an adult peer is actually a huge issue with maruki—and several other adult confidants—and a generally inappropriate way for an adult authority figure to interact with teenagers, but having been a lonely sixteen year old who thought i was super mature for my age, is something that can feel really cool when you're the kid rather than the adult who now knows better.) maruki's ideals, that joker has been learning about in depth through their confidant, are also incredibly close to the phantom thieves' own, if ultimately way more extreme, but they don't seem that extreme before third semester actually happens. there's a point in maruki's confidant where joker has two dialog options that are both praising maruki's ideals and plans in different words—one of the immutable facts of joker's personality, as can be gleaned from the things he can say, is that he really does think maruki is a good person and that his ideas about how to treat trauma and psychological pain are admirable.

and no matter what choices you make, joker will always be tempted by maruki's deal at every point it's offered, even if, when taking it on 2/2, that means both going directly against akechi's wishes in the moment and breaking the phantom thieves' "unanimous decision" rule when they've all agreed to stop him. even if you don't agree, he always at least falters. he can even take the deal if you've romanced sumire and doing this would mean allowing his girlfriend to be brainwashed into believing she's a different person again, when he knows at that point that that was never good for her and she can heal on her own. joker does believe, no matter what, that maruki's intentions were good, and the comparisons between them that are drawn directly in the text are, i believe, meant to show that they really are similar people. taking yaldabaoth's deal in the vanilla ending can even put him in a very similar position to maruki with regards to absolute power over reality, and as much as that bad end kind of gets ignored, that can at least feasibly be something joker could want.

even if joker ultimately proves himself the better person (which i think also largely comes from the fact that he actually has an entire support structure and proof positive that people, including him, can move past their trauma) he's still tempted, he still has doubts—what would it say about him if he tried to treat views he believed in as irredeemably evil, you know? and the PTs don't even kill people they do see as completely evil. he's not going to just let maruki kill himself.

this is someone who he thinks of as a friend, who he feels has been nothing but kind and supportive to him for the greater part of the year. would he even admit to himself how much he was manipulated? maybe not. taking on burdens adults shouldn't be putting on his shoulders isn't something that's exclusive to maruki's confidant. how bad this is is obvious to akechi because he doesn't have any personal connection to maruki to make him want to give him the benefit of the doubt—he's very personally dealt with a would-be tyrant who thinks he was chosen by god and manipulates teenagers for his own gain before, nothing else here means anything to him. joker has a very close (mostly) positive relationship to try and compartmentalize here.

there's a point in the royal guidebook interviews where they say that the point where maruki uses akechi's life as a bargaining chip is the point where he really proves himself an enemy to the phantom thieves, but joker can still agree then and there. i think joker still caring about maruki and seeing him as someone who could start over and do better, and deserves that chance, makes perfect sense from his perspective. (i don't even disagree that he could and probably ultimately does in the true ending, as much as i also think it would be very cathartic to just drop him lmao)

"BLs have mediocre female characters"

I can name like 10 well written female characters in different BLs but not one mediocre male character in a GL

Jessica Clemons w/ her theory on Nebula's Guardians' Christmas Special Gift

I can’t help but melt a bit to see how Tetsunosuke has technically become Hijikata’s caretaker now.

theres a lot of delusion and frankly homophobia needed to hold the belief that dating, loving and having sexual relations with men, as a woman, is something that is socially punished in any capacity. not men of a specific socioeconomic class or racial category or any other social category that could affect the outcome but just, men. lol. you're pathethic if you believe this belief is something "the lgbt community" needs to embrace to stop biphobia (even though many already do)

at this point the good news is still bad news. it was just news you were expecting

just finished the s1 finale of westworld and i have no clue what’s going on but i love the plot twists and the ending scene

the funniest meltdown ive ever had was in college when i got so overstimulated that i could Not speak, including over text. one of my friends was trying to talk me through it but i was solely using emojis because they were easier than trying to come up with words so he started using primarily emojis as well just to make things feel balanced. this was not the Most effective strategy... until. he tried to ask me "you okay?" but the way he chose to do that was by sending "👉🏼👌🏼❓" and i was so shocked by suddenly being asked if i was dtf that i was like WHAT???? WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY TO ME?????????? and thus was verbal again

resurrection is sort of romantic, isnt it

obsessed with Her.

Tubbos 'not alive to begin with'

'Take me to the data'

IS TUBBO A FUCKING MACHINE???

fuck you Freud

i love when words fit right. seize was always supposed to be that word, and so was jester. tuesday isn't quite right but thursday should be thursday, that's a good word for it. daisy has the perfect shape to it, almost like you're laughing when you say it; and tulip is correct most of the time. while keynote is fun to say, it's super wrong - i think they have to change the label for that one. but fox is spot-on.

most words are just, like, good enough, even if what they are describing is lovely. the night sky is a fine term for it but it isn't perfect the way november is the correct term for that month.

it's not just in english because in spanish the phrase eso si que es is correct, it should be that. sometimes other languages are also better than the english words, like how blue is sloped too far downwards but azul is perfect and hangs in the air like glitter. while butterfly is sweet, i think probably papillion is more correct, although for some butterflies féileacán is much better. year is fine but bliain is better. sometimes multiple languages got it right though, like how jueves and Πέμπτη are also the right names for thursday. maybe we as a species are just really good at naming thursdays.

and if we were really bored and had a moment and a picnic to split we could all sit down for a moment and sort out all the words that exist and find all the perfect words in every language. i would show you that while i like the word tree (it makes you smile to say it), i think arbor is correct. you could teach me from your language what words fit the right way, and that would be very exciting (exciting is not correct, it's just fine).

i think probably this is what was happening at the tower of babel, before the languages all got shifted across the world and smudged by the hand of god. by the way, hand isn't quite right, but i do like that the word god is only 3 letters, and that it is shaped like it is reflecting into itself, and that it kind of makes your mouth move into an echoing chapel when you cluck it. but the word god could also fit really well with a coathanger, and i can't explain that. i think donut has (weirdly) the same shape as a toothbrush, but we really got bagel right and i am really grateful for that.

grateful is close, but not like thunder. hopefully one day i am going to figure out how to shape the way i love my friends into a little ceramic (ceramic is very good, almost perfect) pot and when they hold it they can feel the weight of my care for them. they can put a plant in there. maybe a daisy.