my favourite is minna because she's rainbow and doesn't afraid of anything

(Source: fucklinski)

vastderp-placeholder:

rainbowbarnacle:

roachpatrol:

abigcorpseparty:

roachpatrol:

luzerna:

i don’t think they would puff up like that when threatened but it would be cute.
i don’t know what they are grievously offended about because i just like drawing these sorts of faces but my guess is that it’s probably something awful and it probably involves equius

This is the cutest thing I have ever fuckin seen. 

help, seadweller feelings

You know what I’m gonna reblog this again. 

oh god their faces fjkdlsa;fa

Luzerna never disappoints, holy cow those EXPRESSIONS

vastderp-placeholder:

rainbowbarnacle:

roachpatrol:

abigcorpseparty:

roachpatrol:

luzerna:

i don’t think they would puff up like that when threatened but it would be cute.

i don’t know what they are grievously offended about because i just like drawing these sorts of faces but my guess is that it’s probably something awful and it probably involves equius

This is the cutest thing I have ever fuckin seen. 

help, seadweller feelings

You know what I’m gonna reblog this again. 

oh god their faces fjkdlsa;fa

Luzerna never disappoints, holy cow those EXPRESSIONS

emilianadarling:

deanobanion:


"Horsemanning, or fake beheading, was a popular way to pose in a photograph in the 1920’s. Sometimes spelled horsemaning, the horsemanning photo fad derives its name from the Headless Horseman, a character from “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.”

(x)

HUMAN BEING ARE AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN SUCH HUGE FUCKING DORKS OKAY.

emilianadarling:

deanobanion:

"Horsemanning, or fake beheading, was a popular way to pose in a photograph in the 1920’s. Sometimes spelled horsemaning, the horsemanning photo fad derives its name from the Headless Horseman, a character from “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.”

(x)

HUMAN BEING ARE AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN SUCH HUGE FUCKING DORKS OKAY.

(Source: taeologist)

the-real-seebs:

pluckyminna:

the-real-seebs:

tinywhaleshark:

No one in this conversation is telling them that it’s not possible to meet those standards or that it’s not possible for them to make positive changes in their lives or stop abusing people. Just that those changes don’t erase their past acts, and yes! That does apply equally to murderers.

But I don’t see people saying that we can never have stories in which murderers change.

I also am very uncomfortable with redemption arcs for abusers. For obvious reasons, we don’t have a genuine social problem whereby people feel obliged to stay with their murderers. The appearance of remorse is a major tool abusers utilise in keeping someone in an abusive relationship; “honeymoon periods” are all about the appearance of remorse.

I have noticed a great deal of pressure to forgive one’s abuser because of the outsiders’ perception of the abusers’ remorse in cases where the abuse was not the kind of violent that leaves marks -although honestly, sometimes even then. As well as the extent to which victims want to believe its genuine.

If people forgiving murderers who did a good job of faking remorse and subsequently being killed for it was even marginally as common, I would be VERY uncomfortable with murderers getting redemption arcs.

It feels to me like this is conflating two different questions. “Redemption arcs for abusers” is a broad category. You could have thousands of stories with redemption arcs for abusers, you could have them in every single TV show and book, without having even one which suggested that victims should stay with, or feel obliged to ever interact with or tolerate, their abusers. Because that’s a distinct question, really. The issue here isn’t whether or not abusers can have redemption arcs, but whether redemption arcs should always depict the abuser’s remorse as genuine and making it good for everyone to forgive them and everyone to be friends again. And that seems like a question to which the answer is obviously “no”.

The reason representation matters is that people derive a lot of their beliefs about what the world is like from the stories they encounter. It seems to me that if you really want to solve the problem of people expecting victims to forgive their abusers, and continue to interact with them, that banning redemption arcs is a horrible idea. What you should look for is redemption arcs where abusers have permanently burned their bridges, and cannot solve that or make it okay again. Because then people will have that template in mind, and will recognize the possibility of “maybe they’re remorseful, but I still can’t live with them” being a Real Thing. If there’s no redemption arcs at all, then we get two possibilities:

  1. Abusers conclude they can’t change because change is not a thing that ever happens to abusers.
  2. Other people conclude that it is even more important that you forgive someone who appears to have genuinely improved their behavior, because that person is obviously not like the abusers in fiction that people need to stay away from.

If you want to communicate to people the idea that forgiveness is an optional thing that the victim gets to decide on, and that they aren’t required to forgive and forget, or tolerate the abuser’s presence anymore, you must use examples where the abuser really did change to do it. Otherwise, people will assume that “really did change” is an exception. And they’ll believe people really did change because people are gullible.

You can’t solve the problem of bad representation by eliminating all the representation. That’s actually worse.

Immediate addendum: I realised soon after posting that I didn’t clarify what I was responding to as well as I probably should have, which was not the position that there should be redemption arcs for abusers -I was very uncomfortable, but not necessarily categorically against -but the implicit question regarding the difference between murderers getting those stories and abusers getting them, because the reasons I am uncomfortable with redemption arcs for abusers are specific to what abuse looks like, so I don’t feel that it can’t be cross-applied meaningful way, and very much wanted to respond to that question.  It’s also possible you got that already!  I know these sort of late clarifications can come off as patronising so I’d also like to put down that I miscommunicate a lot and am putting on this addendum in deference to my own issues with that.

Onward, responding mostly in order of what you said:

That was definitely a thing, yes.  The model I was working with was a movie model, where characters tend to be a lot more flat because of the amount of time to tell stories in.  As much as it is probably also possible in movies, it would be a lot easier to do it in a positive way in a TV or book context.  I don’t think I realised the extent to which I was assuming a movie model, actually, because I am immediately less leery than I was at the concept ten minutes ago.

I don’t feel like I’ve seen anything that has shown remorse on the part of an abuser that both seemed at all believable from an audience perspective and was also later demonstrated to be false, and that’s actually probably where most of my discomfort stems from -not these theoretical stories in and of themselves, but as contrasted against the ones we already have, not even just about abuse/abusers but in general, because in order to not be an upsetting addition to existing problems they need to work against positions that seem to me to be pretty deeply entrenched as media values.  They’re largely sicknesses of Hollywood specifically, I think, but even so.  

(Referring to ‘forgiveness is divine’ being the one most relevant to what we’re talking about, and also ‘love conquers all’ and 'if they loved you they wouldn't do x'.)

The way the lack of stories play into gullibility isn’t a thing I had considered, and strikes me as both true and relevant, so thank you.  It now occurs to me that it may do less damage to have stories that ended with forgiveness where it still outlined that what happened was abuse and that don’t subsequently present the abuser as not loving their victim than what we have at the moment.

(Source: librariandragon)

the-real-seebs:

tinywhaleshark:

No one in this conversation is telling them that it’s not possible to meet those standards or that it’s not possible for them to make positive changes in their lives or stop abusing people. Just that those changes don’t erase their past acts, and yes! That does apply equally to murderers.

But I don’t see people saying that we can never have stories in which murderers change.

I also am very uncomfortable with redemption arcs for abusers. For obvious reasons, we don’t have a genuine social problem whereby people feel obliged to stay with their murderers. The appearance of remorse is a major tool abusers utilise in keeping someone in an abusive relationship; “honeymoon periods” are all about the appearance of remorse.

I have noticed a great deal of pressure to forgive one’s abuser because of the outsiders’ perception of the abusers’ remorse in cases where the abuse was not the kind of violent that leaves marks -although honestly, sometimes even then. As well as the extent to which victims want to believe its genuine.

If people forgiving murderers who did a good job of faking remorse and subsequently being killed for it was even marginally as common, I would be VERY uncomfortable with murderers getting redemption arcs.

(Source: librariandragon)

dggus:

i talk a lot of shit for someone who can’t choose rude dialogue options in games because i’m scared of hurting a characters feelings

(Source: razzadoops)

gotitforcheap:

if melbourne is sooooo good, how come they’ve never won a single state of origin? marinate on that, you organic coffee drinking FUCKS 

importantbirds:


angriest of all birb

WHOM WAKEN THE SLAMBER

importantbirds:

angriest of all birb

WHOM WAKEN THE SLAMBER

fit-state-of-mind:

tillyouandiseethesun:

this isn’t even a problem

This is how I envision hogwarts homework being done

(Source: youtube.com)

forceguardian:

lpfan9976:

croatoanhero:

Harley is a gift from God.

This is why Harley is like my all time favorite!

Why did they leave out the best part of this scene?;

image

image

image

image

The character development of Harley is probably one of the better things DC has done with their characters.

(Source: breakourbones)

captainarlert:

3k626ekful7ozxujar43keiw236in2h:

sexyboitommo:

3k626ekful7ozxujar43keiw236in2h:

i was labelling stuff today and this lady scoffed at me and i was like hi and she was like writing with ur left hand is immoral. its 2014 and someone actually said that to my face

Writing with ur left hand is fine but having a URL like that is definitely not

i can’t even argue w that tbh

you must never log out

haanigram:

i regret this

youngblackandvegan:

the older i get

the more i realize the value of privacy

of cultivating your circle and only letting certain people in

you can be open, honest, and real while still understanding not everyone deserves a seat at the table of your life

If celery is 90% water, is the ocean 10% celery?

necrosummer:

as a scientist I can confirm that this is definitely how percentages and fractions work, and yes, the ocean is 10% celery, which is why we cannot drink ocean water, for we would choke on the celery

(Source: vvhaleshark)