thinking about smashing their head against the floor until it splits open, blood clouding their vision and burning their eyes; blurry vision the only thing peeking through. head too fuzzy to properly fight back— easily overpowered. pulling their head up by their hair and licking some of the blood off, throwing a little “you taste fucking delicious” at them as their cries only encouraging my brutal thrusts.
135 notes
·
View notes
Danny wakes up, strapped into a rollercoaster train car with a bunch of other civilians, in a dilapidated amusement park, with an insane clown laughing through the speakers.
He can see that the track is entirely broken, and that it will send them straight to the ground.
Danny knows he won't die.
Danny knows the civilians in the train car with him will.
So he slowly freezes the wheels until the car stops, a mere four feet from the edge, allowing the icy tendrils to snake down the support struts and reinforce them. His eyes are letting out a faint blue glow, his hands frosted over, and he isn't so much focusing on keeping the ice stable as he is focusing on getting it into the gears and ensuring that the train car can't be knocked off the track.
Now the civilians are feverishly whispering words of encouragement to him, to keep it up, while the local vigilante family fights the Joker.
Why, oh why, did he think that going on vacation in Gotham was a good idea?
7K notes
·
View notes
I do think there's something special about the way that audio drama creators seem to love including cameos of voice actors from other popular audio dramas. Obviously, part of the reason why actors from one show might pop up in another is because the audio drama creator community is relatively small and interconnected, and also because those actors are very talented.
But there's also often such a sense that creators are having fun with these cameos. Like Greater Boston casting audio drama heavyweights Briggon Snow, Zach Valenti, and Felix Trench as famous film actors Matt Daemon, Ben Affleck, and Mark Wahlberg respectively. Or Faux and Stallion having Tom Crowley (who plays a Victorian detective in Victoriocity) pop up as Dr Watson. Or Unseen casting Beth Eyre and Felix Trench as characters who are twins. Or Arden getting Emma Sherr-Ziarko to play an actor impersonating a character played by her former Wolf 359 costar Michelle Agresti (with Michaela Swee also appearing as an actor impersonating the other main Arden lead).
In these cases, it's not just that there's a cameo, but that the cameo is given particular (often comedic) significance to those who are aware of the featured actor's other work. The vast majority of people wouldn't recognise any of these voices. But by doing these very intentional cameos, these creators show confidence that a fair chunk of their audience will know these actors and enjoy the link. There's an awareness that listeners of one audio drama are fairly likely to listen to (or at least be aware of) other fiction podcasts, even when the shows in question aren't of particularly similar genres. Recognising these cameos feels like being in on a secret. It feels like these shows are giving a little nod to listeners to say that we're part of the same club.
350 notes
·
View notes
!!!! Fandom PSA !!!!
CW: gr//ming, racism, p//dophilia, n//crophilia, proship, n//ncon
I only just found out that this guy has a Tumblr, so I'm making this post now to warn you all to BLOCK & BAN HIM. Don't let him into your circles or servers. Do not interact with him; he feeds off the attention like a leech. This guy is one of the most disgusting people I've had to deal with, and he's been trying to come back ever since TWF4 dropped. He's an awful person with awful beliefs and he doesn't care who he's hurting, whether that be a child or his own partner.
You can find a list of all of his known accounts in the linked drive as well as all of the evidence we have.
The above CW should give you a pretty good idea of everything he's done. Please block & ban him wherever you can; I know he's been interacting with more artists and trying to weasel into more communities. I'd be grateful to anyone willing to spread the drive as well. I don't want to have to add another person's story to this drive.
26 notes
·
View notes
I was looking into my local zoo and they say they're zaa accredited, that's not the same thing as aza, right? I was curious if zaa was reputable and whether an accreditation from them really means anything
I think a better question, unfortunately, is "does any accreditation mean anything?" Followed closely by "how can a member of the public tell what it means?"
AKA you've poked to one of my giant projects of indeterminate length that I might, hopefully, maybe, get enough of a conclusion on to start submitting for peer review and publication this year.
Now if you've been following the blog for a while, you're probably thinking wait! Accreditations require standards! So to know what an accreditation means, we could just go read what standards they hold facilities to, right?
...and the answer is yes, but, that won't give you the whole picture for a lot of reasons. Many standards are performance standards: they say what has to be achieved, but don't specify how it's done. That means whether the standard is met is up to a significant amount of interpretation. Maybe the standards are in flux/being updated, and you can't guarantee that what you can find publicly is what's currently being used. Most accrediting bodies allow facilities to petition for variances, and there's no information available about what facilities have ones, for what, and why. On top of that, there's always questions about enforcement, oversight, consistency, anonymous reporting options, and of course, the risk of nepotism and/or politics impacting how accrediting decisions are made.
Here's the thing that never gets talked about, but is really important to know: accreditation is branding. Accreditation groups are trade organizations - they are responsible for advocating for the success of the businesses that are members. Being part of specific "accreditations" is like being in a fancy club. Members get certain perks, non-members don't get those perks, there's in-groups and out-groups, except it's all playing out with regards to federal and state level regulation, legislation, government funding, etc. That's why it's so political - it isn't only about guaranteeing a facility's quality. It's about guaranteeing that they're good enough to be part of the club, and will function and act the way the people who run the club want.
So honestly, at this point? All I can confidently say at this point in time is that accreditation by any entity in the zoological or sanctuary world means that X facility aligns with the ethos/zeitgeist of the accrediting body such that they're willing to stake their brand to it. You can read up on accrediting body to get a sense of what that means - if you do, make sure you look at things like the website and comments they make to the media, because there's a lot of information about organization culture and ethos in that than in just the published standards.
Give me like, six months (I hope) and I'd be able to answer your question with a lot more specifics, but I'm still in the nitty-gritty of spreadsheets and I don't want to speak before my analysis is finished.
235 notes
·
View notes