#now i don't agree with all of them. especially since a lot are reformers. but i think it is important to hear their perspectives | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

askbloatedbellyblog · 1 year

Note

Ohh I don't think I have seen anyone ranking Scaramouche so high in a burping tier list before, though I actually agree, can you tell us more about your reasoning for it?

I will preface this by saying, I'm still behind and haven't finished the interlude with him becoming the Wanderer (though I know more or less the result) His boss music is also some of what I have a bunch of theories about that I might get to if people still want it.

Despite his turn for the better (sort of), Scaramouche still retains a lot of his personality and he's now slightly less of a brat but he's still a brat. He's a tsun with a capital T but as the saying goes, Scaramouche is still full of "piss and vinegar." He's less full of murderous intent but hasn't lost much of his spite.

So how does this translate to Scaramouche as a burper? Well a few things! I think he would have been a big burper before he nearly became a God and got his anemo vision, but after the fact he's only gotten worse since he now controls the power of wind.

I will say, I don't think that size predetermines if someone is a big eater or burper. Scaramouche has been around for hundreds of years, many of them in the Fatui. He's competitive in general and then being in the Fatui and one of the Harbingers for years? That's only going to make things worse. He's definitely going to have to prove his strength over and over through the years and that includes any belching. So he would have been a top class burper and prior to his reformation, be careful if you challenge him because he's just as likely to murder you as much as blast you with a burp that would blow your hair back. At this point, be careful since he would still have his electro power and it's just as likely his burps are going to have a bit of a static charge to them.

Since Scaramouche also has an artificial body, much of his limits are removed. So he could eat or drink you under the table and burp as much as he wanted, it's just a function that he can control. He's going to be just as crass as anyone else in the Fatui and beat out those that are 4x his size. He would enjoy suddenly letting one rip when someone calls him out or he's just present and silence all of them and then leave, firm in his superiority and that humans just can't possibly burp like him, just like everything else.

Much of this remains after his change, he still doesn't like to be looked down on. So he's more likely to let you live but he's also more likely to burp and blow you over. Scaramouche/Wanderer, is definitely going to use his godlike powers and anemo to make burps with power. It also means he can draw out his burps for a very long time.

He's a little more friendly even if he tries to put up a front, so if he knows that someone likes burps or can playfully do it with someone then he definitely will. I do imagine Nahida or Raiden running into him and trying to lecture him on proper behavior and he just would burp even more to mess with them.

But with his anemo powers (especially with them being very precise almost analytical and artificial like he is), Scaramouche can burp on command with control and just generally be as gassy as he wants. Its just going to be rude. If you're into it, he'll burp; if you hate it, he'll burp just to gauge reactions. The only way he does it less, is to show indifference.

One thing I think that Scaramouche could do with his powers is that he could "store" his burps. So say he could burp and spin it into a wind ball like he does or use it as part of his ult stomping on people. He could gather up his belches and he's going to punch or pummel you with powerful (and potentially smelly burps) that will come straight at you. Burp and blow you a kiss? Expect that. Burp and have it hit you with such a blast it is like a punch to the gut? Expect that even more. Have a swirl reaction? Expect that to smell of his lunch. Just hope it doesn't swirl with fire and he had something spicy.

#burp canon #burp kink #belching #anemo burps are strong yo #Scaramouche #The Wanderer #Genshin Impact #I like tsuns and brats #He really just needs a hug #He might benefit from a hug and burp to calm down honestly #Scara is the type that would burp and let it waft and let it sink in what happened #“Guess what I had for dinner.”#“If you guess right I won't punch you in the face”

27 notes · View notes

zalrb · 2 years

Note

I love your blog and am hoping we can still send you our random UOs without fear of mockery?! Some of mine are 1. Naley are a healthy ship and have some adorable moments but I just don't really care about either of them as individual characters. Haley has no personality - they tried to make her a nerdy dork who just happens to become bffs with the popular cheerleaders and jocks back in season 1, and then beginning s2 she was just generic and not even nerdy at all. And Nathan quickly reforms from the bad boy and is then just there too and for me just not a smart, deep or interesting character imo. Also their relationship is way too idyllic at times. 2. I don't much like any of the characters involved but in my unpopular opinion Rory had a much better, happier relationship with Logan than she did with Jess. 3. I just don't relate to or especially like any of the three Friends women. And I really wanted to! Rachel and Monica are both super materialistic and care way more about status, pleasing other people, being liked and admired etc and Phoebe becomes so bitchy and manipulative for literally no reason. 4. I see why people find Leslie Knope inspiring but the actress and writing combine to make her one of the most annoying characters ever on TV for me and I can't even watch that show anymore since Ben and Donna are literally the only characters I like! Thank you for reading!

Thanks, anon!

1. Naley are a healthy ship and have some adorable moments but I just don't really care about either of them as individual characters. Haley has no personality - they tried to make her a nerdy dork who just happens to become bffs with the popular cheerleaders and jocks back in season 1, and then beginning s2 she was just generic and not even nerdy at all. And Nathan quickly reforms from the bad boy and is then just there too and for me just not a smart, deep or interesting character imo. Also their relationship is way too idyllic at times.

Haha I do agree with this, I didn't particularly care for Haley and Nathan as individuals but now and then I was like, you have your moments.

I think I found season 2 Nathan to be the most interesting because he was grappling with Haley being gone, although I mean, we never talk about how he tried to unalive himself like ... ever again? It's kind of just like, damn, Haley really messed him up and then we move on?

2. I don't much like any of the characters involved but in my unpopular opinion Rory had a much better, happier relationship with Logan than she did with Jess.

I have a few posts about this, ranking Rory's boyfriends, a breakdown of Rogan and a breakdown of Dean/Rory but yeah.

Honestly, she was happier in her relationships with both Logan and Dean (not season 4) than she was in her relationship with Jess and I've always had UOs about Dean/Rory and Dean and Jess/Rory but honestly, the best of Jess and Rory was their build-up, in their relationship they had some sweet moments of course, but the whole thing was plagued with trust issues and communication issues and insecurity and she flat out says that she doesn't like the way she feels when she's with him. When she had that breakdown about Logan (ugh), that wasn't when they were in a monogamous relationship, that was when she tried to date around and realized she couldn't.

3. I just don't relate to or especially like any of the three Friends women. And I really wanted to! Rachel and Monica are both super materialistic and care way more about status, pleasing other people, being liked and admired etc and Phoebe becomes so bitchy and manipulative for literally no reason.

I mean, I've spoken about how basically all of the Friends characters are horrible people a lot so, I don't disagree with not relating to any of the characters, though my reasons are probably different and I do have to say that while I never related to Monica, in early, early seasons of Friends, like the first couple of seasons I found her the most relatable.

4. I see why people find Leslie Knope inspiring but the actress and writing combine to make her one of the most annoying characters ever on TV for me and I can't even watch that show anymore since Ben and Donna are literally the only characters I like! Thank you for reading!

Oh, I've spoken about how as much as I like Parks and Rec with every rewatch the characters annoy me more and more especially Leslie

1 note · View note

baekk-hhyun · 2 years

Note

what makes you feel uncomfortable about leftist ideologies such as socialism and communism?

Okay this is great question and I have a lot to say even though right now my mind is a bit scattered due to personal reasons but I will try my best to explain. This is gonna be long. I study finance and international commerce and all of this I've learned from my professors, reading on my own and history. First we must define what communism is:

It's hard to agree with most ideologies out there, since it's normal to find things that don't align with our way of thinking, but there are problems with socialism and communism. First, I am a big believer in having a free market. Corporations are definitely evil however we cannot deny the wealth of a country is due thanks to them. A free market is healthy and it follows the basic economic principles which show what happens in an economy. A market functions with the consumers and companies and the prices are determined by these two agents. But in a socialist and communist government, it's the government who dictates this. That's not normal.

Governments can try and help intervene sometimes when there are failures in the market, which I agree with. however, we need capitalism. A big misconception is that there is only one type of capitalism. Capitalism comes in different shapes and sizes and varies depending on the country. Last semester I had a reading about capitalism which was really eye opening, since there could be a better way of organizing the economical part of a country but it's hard to achieve. It's by Harvard Business and it talks about to create shared value for everyone, employees and the environment. A lot of people value democracy and liberty, and so do I, but democracy isn't working as it should. We're supposed to be equal under it but we're not all truly equal in any country. This doesn't mean democracy is bad, just that it needs to be better. The same goes for capitalism. It's not working as it should. but the doesn't mean the idea of it is bad.

Another problem with socialism and communism is that historically it has led to dictatorships. And communism and socialism have made it seem as if capitalism is all to blame for everything. During this pandemic my government tried to pass a tax reform to help the people but communist leaders paid low income people to cause violence and make the president seem bad. Now our new socialist president wants a tax reform that's even bigger and there are no violent protests as before. Economic crisis and inflation and poverty have happened due to war and other factors. Countries with free or affordable healthcare are also capitalist, including my country which was primarily capitalist for decades until today with our new president. We have free/affordable healthcare. And one of our new president's elected official has tweeted recently how they want to get rid of free healthcare, which is scary. Our problem is corruption. And this corruption doesn't stem from private companies but rather the government. For history corrupt politicians have stolen public funds and made a lot of money from contracts. Especially here in Colombia.

We can see European countries with a high quality of life and good economies that function as capitalistic. There are experts that explain the dangers of communism and socialism much better so I will link this article here. There is also a brilliant Argentinean economist that explains it in a Ted talk (it's in Spanish but the auto-translate seems accurate imo). Communism is scary because there is no economic growth since there is no competition which is key for a health economy so people can get jobs and buy things. It's what happened to Venezuela. They were the most successful for a long time in Latin America but were ruined. So many companies closed and the government took people's properties and they were left with nothing.

In a socialist and communist economy, the power goes to the government and the people end up in losing freedom and free speech. Looking at what happened to Venezuela is incredibly sad, and how in China people are disappeared when they speak up. There was a celebrity who was r*ped by someone in the Communist Party and shortly was disappeared. Cuba also had a communist president that turned into a dictator made the country starve. And Americans go to Cuba and glamorize it but they are privileged because their currency is worth way more and also they are able to get jobs and have a better economy.

In my country, we were in conflict for more than fifty years due to communist guerrillas who did terrible things to the people and invaded their farms where they fed their family and grew crops. Under our own capitalist economy we have built a better free/affordable healthcare for people and made a lot of progress. I can't deny that the government has ignored many poor parts of the country, but that's exactly my point. We can't allow the power to be centered in few hands. It's dangerous for democracy.

In conclusion, a communist economy just doesn't work. It would be great but it's not possible and it's scary looking at history. It's done more damage than good.

#asks #ask #capitalism #communism #socialism #thoughts #writing

1 note · View note

smolstarthief · 3 years

Text

Persona 5/Persona 5 Strikers: Pro-Police or Anti-Police?

Hoo boy... So this honestly has been a LONG time coming on my end because I have seen so much of that debate on social media (Twitter namely) and I can see the points of BOTH sides but there have been moments where it just got out of hand... Especially whenever people tried to put in a more grey/nuanced take only to be slammed and taken out of context. Even repeatedly mentioning the interrogation at the beginning of P5 which, I will admit has gotten tiresome. At least for me, I do still feel for Joker and I wished the game acknowledged his trauma more but there's a thing called, "beating a dead horse" and this is one along with "Haru says ACAB" in Strikers (which was done THREE TIMES in the same arc and it got annoying fast, like shut up already! We get it!). So, let's dive in a little bit:

MAJOR SPOILERS UNDER THE CUT!!!

Persona 5/Persona 5 Royal

Now let me just say I know! Police in Japan are just as bad if not worse than the West and I STILL hate the idea of Makoto wanting to become a cop for such naive reasons (especially with what happened to Sae, her own sister!)... But there are at least some of form of nuances sometimes and by that I mean, I can see what they were trying to do? I do agree that P5/P5S backpedaled SEVERELY by deciding to sweep issues under the rug after addressing them and not continuing from such. In fact I feel like it could have been a hell of a lot better. But P5 did something different compared to previous games and addresses the issues DIRECTLY right at the beginning of said game! It was tense and horrifying, but needed. Of course... They then sweep it under the rug and act like nothing traumatic happened to our protag which is NOT a good look at all and I'm still pissed off about it. In the main game's case, it's portrayed as more black and white with only a SMALL amount of nuance like that cop that was trying to help Futaba when she went out by herself and got lost (which people ignore entirely by the way). So I CAN see where people got the "anti-police" message from... But that's only the tip of the iceberg as it's ACTUALLY more about Systematic Corruption, not exactly or JUST police corruption. Namely in politics with Shido and the Conspiracy (which is apparently still somewhat around in Strikers until Owada's downfall) controlling everything all the way to law enforcement. The force had been basically under his payroll (including the corrupt SIU Director before his death) whether by force or not (mostly not in this case though). Now honestly, the police depicted there are undoubtedly rotten to the core save for a VERY SMALL handful (the cop that was trying to help Futaba which, again, gets ignored by several). Look at the interrogators who ruthlessly beat and drug a minor without any second thought or remorse for example. But again, the black and white narrative the game kept unwittingly doing ended up being to its detriment in a way. I'm not defending those assholes AT ALL! They deserved every punishment given to them! But for a game that goes on about grey morality... It doesn't quite deliver on that. Still though, it does emphasize that it's more of the fault of the whole corrupt system, not just one part of it. There needs to be change and reform which is what our MCs were trying to do in a way (more like inspiring change but still). In the end, it's all about the following:

Corruption and abuse of power.

Again the police depicted in this game were incompetent at best, corrupt at worse with very few silver linings. But it's not just them but rather the one person responsible for the whole mess. Who had them under his payroll? Who controlled them and by extension all of Tokyo? Who was willing to dispose of anyone who "outlives their usefulness" or is perceived as a threat to what he wants (including his own family)?

SHIDO AND BY EXTENSION THE CONSPIRACY

Bottom line: They are definitely a problem but it's not just them.

"But, Joker and his trauma?"

I definitely understand that and still do. I fully believe he has and still has trauma with the police. Easy! But... I do feel like people go too far with it sometimes. It's hard to explain but there have been moments where people either use it as a justification/argument against someone trying to provide a more nuanced view of things or... Dare I say, depict him like a "uwu soft traumatized boi." Like I said, it's hard to explain on my end so feel free to ignore it. Everyone deals with trauma differently so there is STRONG chance that I'm overanalyzing it. I just remember moments where I just feel a little, I guess annoyed? I'm not sure exactly but final thing: I understand what he went through and I can't imagine how long it would take to recover but I hope he DOES overcome it.

"Sae? Akechi?"

Yep, even though their jobs are different, they are by and large members of law enforcement no matter how you spin it. Both were broken in a way. Akechi is pretty easy to explain with how Shido negatively impacted his life but not much about Sae, who dealt with sexism/misogyny at her workplace along with the trauma of her father's (also a cop) death. She no doubt had some idealism only to be hit with the fact that she's gonna have to use underhanded/downright illegal tactics to get by and even rise up the ranks. She, therefore ended up (well, nearly) corrupted herself before coming to her senses. That's honestly one of the BIGGEST REASONS why I felt like Makoto joining the force to become a police commissioner isn't a good, even a downright naïve, idea. I honestly would have been somewhat fine with it if it weren't for that fact among other things. Regardless of her willpower, it will go south fast.

Now... Onto Strikers!

Persona 5 Strikers

Since the game came out and I started playing it, I still feel like the system is still beyond saving, especially when attempting to do it from the inside. But I don't mind the added nuances that P5 didn't do much of. It's still continuing the critiques, just shows more of what does happen within said system and even has an ACTUAL officer (Zenkichi) say, "Yeah, my job sucks, everyone's corrupt, there are much better ways to do things and make a change but not this. I'm only staying because I have a daughter to take care of and it's all I know. I'm no different from them." Was it all handled well? I wouldn't say "yes" (Joker's trauma is BARELY addressed at all of course) but a little better than what P5's narrative did which only addressed the issues but not exactly follow up on them. Now to be fair... In the system, regardless of where you live, any one within it who remotely tries to do something or speak against it either lose their jobs or even go "missing" irl. Those have happened and it's more proof that yeah, it's rotten to the core. There's no denying it but regardless, that's NOT what the game is about at all. At least that's what I feel about it as it's only PART of the narrative. I think Zenkichi puts it best here:

Speaking of Zenkichi... Oh boy... Now I definitely understand some of the criticisms with him but honestly, he was the best written (PT) character I've ever encountered! He was honestly the perfect representation of those that genuinely want to help and do good, only to be held back by an extremely harsh reality. It was already hinted at with Sae but here? It 100 percent confirms just how harsh and even cutthroat it can be if it could break someone's idealism so badly. Even Kaburagi of all people thinks the same thing Zenkichi said:

Then there's his past and it's a tragic one! But let's look more at the decisions he ended up making:

While it was no doubt done to protect his daughter, he ended making a selfish decision along with a selfless one (which was brilliant!) with not only allowing the cover up of his wife's death and denying justice for her, but also ruining an innocent person and their family's lives.

It's horrible, but also... There's a grey area/nuance as with the rest of his character. It was both understandable, but also wrong as he, as Akane's Shadow puts it:

He sacrificed his values, his morals, all for the sake of having a peace of mind. Speaking of Akane, she's also an interesting case in a way that she more or less perfectly represents the more "black and white" views on justice in general. Namely the more toxic/biased kind. Her reasons are also understandable but she was also acting selfishly by only focusing on how SHE was effected by Aoi's death and not even considering those that were also grieving her death and/or that people grieve/handle grief differently than her. But back on topic.

Her own views and beliefs that law enforcement basically SHOULD be dismantled (mostly out of said childish bias and black & white views) and it's framed as WRONG and it's very much correct on that. Chaos and order are two sides of the same coin, one can't exist without the other. When I say ACAB, I'm calling for reform, defund, have the corrupt held accountable for EVERYTHING and even face jail time for their crimes! Defund the police, have the ones that arrest, harm, and even murder out of bias (race, gender, etc.), lose their badges/jobs and locked up, make improvements! It's saying that there IS still corruption out there and there's no denying it. But fully eliminating the law in general will just lead to more problems. Now granted, she's young and clearly doesn't fully understand why those views are ultimately wrong but still... It was a very interesting subject to tackle and I feel like they handled it well.

Now back to Zenkichi, he was at first in denial about his decisions ultimately being the wrong ones too and even tries to justify it. Of course, his Shadow said otherwise and that was when he finally admitted that he really did act no different from the criminals he despised. But it also doesn't mean he can't redeem himself and that's what ultimately leads to his new resolve:

That right there along with everything else! There's the nuance! And ultimately despite some hiccups, Strikers handled the grey morality and nuance beautifully! Especially regarding law enforcement! Dare I say, even better than the base game! It continues the critiques with no problem but also showing different sides and areas of it! There is good and evil, but what about in-between? What about the more greyer area? It still says that there IS corruption, sometimes even beyond saving but... Sometimes a small silver lining is hidden somewhere.

Now, the ultimate question:

Is P5 & P5S (namely the latter) Pro-Police or Anti-Police?

Personally, my answer is this: Neither.

Why? What theme do they both have in common?

JUSTICE

Someone puts it best on Twitter that the games are more pro-justice and I fully agree!

P5/P5S gives the idea about following your OWN justice, your OWN moral code and rules, paving your OWN path and not let others dictate it! That's what the MCs ultimately start to learn in both games. Therefore it's pro-justice. Again, do I agree that the system is beyond saving? Yeah. Do I at least acknowledge and understand what the narratives are trying to say and nuances regardless even if I don't agree with some writing decisions (ex: Makoto wanting to become a commissioner despite everything)? Also yes. But at the same time, don't judge a book by its cover for other people (not just law enforcement and politics mind you). Especially some that genuinely DO want to help at best. That there is nuance and greyness, just have to look closely. Some of the MCs are still TERRIBLY written and executed (even annoying) but the message was still somewhat there.

Final Thoughts

Now I fully understand how you all feel of course! I still believe in ACAB and even I agree that maybe I'm one to talk and have a lot more to learn about the world... This is just my own attempt at putting my own two cents in. If you disagree, that's fine! This is just what I've felt should be at least talked about more often. And I tried to phrase it as best as I can without coming off as insensitive or ignorant and if I did, I sincerely apologize for that! I'm not trying to say, come off as a "bootlicker" or any of the sort. I'm just trying show discuss more of the grey areas and nuances that are, more often than not, constantly overlooked. How one interprets both games is ultimately up to them. You, the player. And this is my own interpretation. Simple as that. I hope you all have a good day/afternoon/evening!

#starchild rambles #analysis #persona 5 #persona 5 royal #persona 5 strikers #p5 #p5r #p5s #p5s spoilers #p5r spoilers #p5 spoilers #long post

30 notes · View notes

bitter-sweet-coffee · 2 years

Note

Since infinite is very much a doggy would others ( shadow ) take advantage of that and make him do stuff like catching balls or fetching sticks ?

oh yeah, absolutely. infinite loves missions and tasks in canon (mercenary, eggman's lackey, like. bruh he's so dog-like) so if he isn't doing something he's restless ig? if reformed or like, somewhat socialized with the cast, everyone would wordlessly agree to keep infinite stimulated.

infinite is wandering around your house, complaining and distracting you? "hey infinite, can you go do my groceries?" BAM. DONE. He'd put them away for you too, and if you stroke is ego you probably won't have to pay him: "Pay me? What am I, your maid? Nice try, you clearly asked me because I'm better than you at picking produce and price checking, as well as organizing and cleaning your pantry. Charity work makes the heart grow fonder I suppose, and your gratitude is all the compensation I need."

If he's an ally, send him on one of your missions so you can stay at home! Say you don't think you can do it, or his skillset would fit better, and you'd be honoured if he took this on since he's just such a good fighter. He will not only do it, but give you an excessively detailed report on everything and anything that happened, because he is proud and wants the validation.

In terms of casual stuff in my personal canons, Shadow definitely does little things to make Infinite feel useful:

"Hold this for me"

"Can you remember this number?"

"Quick, write this down"

"Pass me the remote?"

"Can you put a different playlist on?"

"I gotta send this email, I'll tell you what to type because I'm driving, okay?"

And many, many more little examples of Infinite being useful. I wouldn't be surprised if before his crystal gem boob job, Infinite hung around Eggman's base and workshop areas just to see what he was working on. He'd be more competent than Orbot and Cubot so I bet Eggman had him help out on stuff with the Phantom Ruby, which is why he was considered a viable specimen when he finally agreed to the prototype implant!

Anyways, TLDR: yes, but not as dog-like because if he knew what was going on, Infinite would definitely have a bitch fit (pun intended).

also, he does have a sensitive nose and ears imo, meaning frequent sensory overload and extra skills! he'd also do the lil running and yipping in his sleep too, moves his ears a lot, and wags his tail (the last one is canon you can see him do it even more in speed battle now!)

one more thing because i don't know if i'll ever get the chance to say it: YES, INFINITE'S TAIL IS SUPER IMPORTANT TO HIM, AND HIS BALANCE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY RELIES ON IT.

it might be more common knowledge that cats use their tails for balance, but the same is for dogs (depending on the breed) and just canines in general. yay! i especially noticed this during speed battle, but even in forces, infinite's tail works to aid his balancing and he's constantly swishing it to do so. at one point his tail was gonna be grabby too, but this was scrapped.

even though it's less important than conceptualized at one point, infinite's tail means a lot to him! yes this means cute wagging, but also, if we take his questionable eyesight into consideration, it might be making up for his blindside if he has one.

you might be thinking, "but in your fic he can see!" WELL I ACTUALLY HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR THIS. i definitely believe infinite's right eye to be impaired, but he isn't fully blind. if he's stressed, overworked, overexposed to light, or injured otherwise, he loses his vision, but it can usually sustain itself and no i am not projecting because i am partially blind in my right eye lol what not a kinnie moment

additionally, i think the phantom ruby was able to repair some of the damage supposedly caused by shadow, as it created an illusion of vision for infinite (he can use his right eye via simulation). it feels weird though like seeing yourself in third person, so infinite still isn't fully accustomed to this and relies on the blacked out lens to filter unnecessary light (which is easier on his eye, but obscures depth perception which is why he still favours his left side).

sorry this was literally not what you mentioned, but i had to say it anyways because i've been meaning to for a while!

and as i usually and these, here's a song that reminds me of the doggy:

#infinite the jackal #the dog and the hog #shadow the hedgehog #sonic analysis #sonic forces #sonic forces speed battle #bsc anons

15 notes · View notes

shrivedog · 3 years

Text

Pre's Triangle Our long journey to find a home has brought us to Eugene, Oregon. As though by fate, we landed smack in the middle of "Tracktown USA". As a distance runner who began his involvement in Cross Country, Track & Field, and Road Racing in the mid-1970's, I was familiar with the Bill Hayward, Bill Dellinger, and Bill Bowerman legacies. I also was a fan of the late Steve Prefontaine, sometimes referred to even now as "Eugene's favorite son". While closing the deal on our new home we found ourselves at a hotel directly across from the Willamette River, and just down the mountain from where Steve Prefontaine was killed in a car crash on May 30, 1975. At the time of his death, "Pre", as he was called by all who knew him; and heard shouted by the fans who used to chant his name during his many racing victories at Hayward Field; held every American Record from 2,000 through 10,000 meters. His former Junior National 5,000 meter record of 13:39.6 is still one of the fastest junior marks ever run. Pre was an Olympic finalist at the mere age of 23. He threw every gear he had into a race that he nearly won. Unfortunately, anything less than winning was unacceptable for the young upstart that was Steve Prefontaine. He faded to fourth on the home straight just yards from the finish losing the gold medal to Lasse Viren of Finland by just 1.7 seconds. Viren won both the 5,000 and 10,000 meter golds at both the 1972 Games in Munich and again in Montreal four years later. The Finn also finished fifth in the 1976 Olympic Marathon. The 1972 5,000 meters (same as 5 kilometers = 3.107 miles = 12 1/2 laps on a 400 meter track) was the race in which Prefontaine warded off several challenges before fading in those last steps over what was still a 4:04 final mile. Some have since said that Pre gave up, staggering the final yards and appearing to let up off the pace. I don't agree with that assessment. I believe that Pre made that race happen. Advised by his coach, Bill Bowermann, to not run from the front, as was Pre's want, because of the caliber of competition he was up against, Pre took a pedestrian pace from the first two thirds of the distance to an insanely world-class run. He went for the win and simply ran out of gas. Had Pre run safely for a medal, or waited just a while longer than he did, he likely would have walked away with at least the bronze. Leading into the final curve Pre held off one last charge by Viren before the Finn began to pull away on the home straight. Then Pre was passed for the silver by Mohammed Ghamoudi of Tunisia, and the bronze by a late surging Dave Bedford of Great Britain. Pre's finishing time of 13:27.6 was still less than five seconds off his own American record. The experience affected Pre greatly. He had a hard time coping with the loss, but eventually shook it off. On May 29, 1975 Pre participated in a meet at Hayward Field held to raise funds for the restoration of the ailing stadium. He even had a hand in organizing the meet. That was something Pre did regularly during his tenure at the University of Oregon, and the short time following his graduation. He decisively won the 5,000 in 13:23.5, defeating 72 Olympic Marathon champion Frank Shorter. That night Pre gave Shorter a ride to his place of lodging before returning to meet his girlfriend, Mary Marcyx, back at a post-meet party put on for participants and organizers of the Hayward restoration meet. He never made it to his destination. His death is still shrouded in mystery. The medical examiner's report concluded that Pre's blood alcohol was 0.14, above Oregon's legal limit of 0.10. Both Shorter, and Kenny Moore; another Olympic athlete; visited the scene the next day. Both contend there was no way that Pre was drunk. Both also contended that he knew the roads too well to have done anything reckless. One local witness claims that he heard the crash and, when coming to the scene to help Pre, saw another vehicle speed off. Others questioned local officials

motives, including the coroner's report, when a cherry picker was brought out to take photos of the scene. That just wasn't done, especially in the mid 1970's. Were officials trying to use Pre's fame to make an example of him? It is unlikely anyone will ever know what really happened at the site that is now called Pre's Rock, on Skyline Drive just yards from the corner of Skyline and Birch Lane in the wee hours of May 30, 1975. However, 46 years after his death, people still flock to the roadside monument and leave tributes; t-shirts, race bibs, medals, flowers, carvings, decorative stones, and other memorabilia. A local woman removes these gifts each month, discarding those that succumb to the elements, and donating others to museums. Still, more appear. From Skyline Drive, within sight of Pre's Rock, one can look down from the ridge and see the Willamette River, the large arched Interstate-5 Bridge, the Knickerbocker Bicycle Bridge, and Pre's Trail. The new torch on the very recently rebuilt Hayward Field is visible from Birch Lane as one loops just below Pre's Rock and heads North toward the center of town. Pre's trail was the result of his efforts to give the community a pedestrian trail that was much like those he saw while competing in Scandinavian countries. It is a series of woodchip trails that run over a two mile stretch of Alton Baker Park from below "The Pipe", about a half mile south of the I-5 bridge, to Day Island, past Autzen Stadium, to the north. If one were to cover every stretch of the woodchip paths, they would accumulate about 5 miles worth of exercise. It was a monumental effort to install and is well maintained. It is but one of the things that Pre gave back to the community. He did a lot for kids, the University, and to help athletes not be taken advantage of by the governing bodies of sport; giving the athletes more control over their own careers. Pre fought the corruption that was part of the old Amateur Athletic Union, reforming that body to become the Track Athletics Congress. Athletes were then able to establish trust funds to give them control over how prize money they won in competition was spent to help them compete, and still maintain their amateur status. Eventually, the TAC was dissolved and USA Track & Field was formed. Today, the sport still thrives. Even with the ravages of the Covid-19 pandemic, events are in revival, and a new Hayward Field awaits another U.S. Olympic Trials, and, perhaps, a future Olympic Games. I have an area that I have dubbed "Pre's Triangle". I drew a line from Hayward Field to Pre's Rock, then out to the middle of Pre's Trail, and back to Hayward Field. It is an uncanny representation of the heart of Pre's legacy. I have now raced at Alton Baker Park within sight of Pre's Trail, as well as run quite a few training miles on the trail itself. Pre's spirit is still alive and well in Eugene.

Illus. - Yellow dot = Hayward Field location (Agate Street) ; Red dot = Pre's Trail (also marked in its entirety from a workout I did, located in Alton Baker Park); Purple dot = Pre's Rock (Skyline Drive near Birch Lane, not far from Hendricks Park).

2 notes · View notes

magstorrn · 4 years

Note

I see you're a huge fan of new hh I honestly don't really see the appeal there, I much prefer the original cast and none of the songs seem as good (if you have any songs from the new seasons you think can rival 1-5 songs, please send them my way) but I'm just wanting to say that I'm sorry for all the people being horrible on your posts about it. Even if I think the songs are rip offs of better, earlier songs (Warlords from Hell seems to just be Roman Emperors: We're Bad) I respect you. :D

hi! thanks first of all for the message, im definitely getting a bit tired of people reblogging stuff from me/replying directly just to tell me my horrible histories posts make them throw up in their mouth etc etc. anything else is refreshing. slightly longish reply ahead!

tbh the biggest reason i like the new stuff so much is that it’s still horrible histories? it does the same stuff, its purpose is the same, all of that. its still a fun sketch show that, as a history student, i get a lot of enjoyment out of even if it’s obviously meant for children. horrible histories is so incredibly nostalgic for so many people (the cast especially) which is why i totally get why people are reluctant to watch the new stuff, and are even hostile to it. but i believe writing off all of the new stuff immediately without giving it a proper go is unfair and does a disservice to the new cast and the writers who are like, still winning awards lmao. another reason why im such a proponent of the new seasons is that i think someone should be, that someone should gif the funny parts of it, that the cast should still be supported and encouraged and celebrated. im sure you can see i dont have a lot of ‘allies’ in this regard but a fair few of my gifsets/photosets purely of the newer seasons have done pretty well, which encourages me that the content is still funny once you remove yourself from the assumption that it’s going to be absolutely terrible by virtue of the fact it doesnt have the six idiots in it

and on that note, i didnt like it at first either! i was a fan of seasons 1-5 first, watched every episode and owned all the dvds, even had the brief obligatory crush on mat baynton lol. im still a fan of it now... believe it or not you can like both iterations at the same time. i persisted with the new seasons despite some initial reluctance because i love the concept of the show so much, and im rly attached to the new cast now as well (although the cast has rotated since series 6 - the main consistent cast members are jessica ransom, tom stourton, and jalaal hartley)

i agree with you that the songs arent as good, a lot of the time. i put it down to less involvement from the cast (particularly larry, who wrote a ton of sketches and seemed to have a lot of general creative involvement), and the fact that we live in a different time now and the songs are engineered to appeal to a different generation of kids. it’s not as palatable, and they often do unfortunately miss the mark, but they’ve been steadily finding their feet. there’s a wonderful site that someone’s set up with playlists containing all the songs from series 1-8 (including the 2016 specials, which i consider to be highlights). im wary of including links here just in case the post doesn’t show up, but google ‘horrible histories tv wixsite’ and it should be a couple of results down!

since you asked, here are some of my favourite songs, not just from the new seasons but overall (and therefore are songs i believe can rival the originals):

season 6: magna carta, alfred the great (’i’m out of town’), a little more reformation, mary queen of scots song, napoleon bonaparte, antony and cleopatra (’i can’t go on’)

season 6 specials: literally ALL of them. the shakespeare song is a huge favourite and i also adore the great fire one (’starting over again’)

season 7: casanova, downtown threat, good vaccinations, all about this base, qin leader, heroes, iron curtain falls

season 8: bronte sisterhood, romantic poets, flying to the moon, for the common people, moving picture show (and there’s more still to come, including a song about ira aldridge that im really excited for)

if you can’t find the site/playlists i’m talking about just send me another message and i’ll sort you out!! im not sure where youre from but if you have access or a vpn, abc iview (australia) and bbc iplayer both have episodes from series 6-8 so you can check those out if you want!

last thing i’ll say is that i get where you’re coming from with warlords from hell; theyve reused the boyband idea a lot of times too, but theyre hardly carbon copies of the old songs, and i think the new cast and crew deserve credit for how far theyve gone in making the show their own. i mean, they overhauled the format entirely, focusing on people and concepts as opposed to randomised time periods, and it’s worked really well for them. tbh i think that the show is more historically focused now than it used to be - they’re able to go into different topics and historical figures with a lot more depth since they’re not constantly jumping between time periods ten times an episode.

thanks again!

#horrible histories #asks #anonymous #anon

6 notes · View notes

dxmedstudent · 6 years

Note

A lot of people talk about various cuts and changes that negatively affect doctors and nurses, often in a 'the government are killing the NHS so they can privatise' thing, but there's one thing I don't get. Do the government and higher ups not realise that of there aren't any doctors or nurses there... Aren't any doctors and nurses? For anyone?

Well, that’s a question and a half! I apologise in advance that this is going to be a long and rambling answer, but I do feel that a bit of background on the NHS would help it all make sense. I guess the answer would depend on just how much into conspiracy theories you are, and what your overall view of the government there is. We all differ in what we think, and just how much we trust politicians, but I urge each and every person to just take their time and consider what ANY person’s motivations may be. Politically, financially, personally, when thinking about their actions. Never assume people intend to do the worst, but neither assume people are always trying to do the best, either. Because people are complicated. Obviously, I think most sensible people would agree that less doctors and nurses are a problem. However, I doubt that most people could agree exactly what to do about it, especially if they had to spend money to make it happen. The way that our workforce changes is complex, and governed by a lot of different things going on with the NHS...Short Term GoalsSee, the government is only usually in power for 2-3 terms, then it becomes the opposition’s problem to sort out. So politicians are incentivised to focus on short term ratehr than long term solutions. You’ll notice politics is all about fiddling around with stuff, but it appears that we keep having to reform everything; reforms to health, reforms to education; politicians are frequently announcing that their party are gonna revolutionise and fix things. Every party wants to be able to say that they’ve delivered some of the promises they made to be voted in during the last election, and fiddling around with stuff seems like an innate part of that. Some people feel that politicians prioritise this part too much. You’ll also probably notice that politicians might not have much real world experience outside of politics. Many of them even studied politics at uni, and proportionally a smaller number of them had real world jobs before politics. So your politician in charge of health won’t have been a doctor, nurse or paramedic, probably never had any experience in running a hospital, and hopefully listens to the people who advise them on what it is actually like. You hope. Anyhow, you’ll also notice that things called cabinet reshuffles occur; so the politician in charge of say, education might be moved to foreign policy. Or someone might be moved from prisons to being in charge of healthcare. Now, we all use healthcare. But that doesn’t mean everyone can agree on what the best thing is to do. And arguably, many of us believe that politicians tend to be motivated by making a point that they’ve done something for the past few years, rather than setting up a longer term plan that they may not get a chance to finish. Doctors and Nurses and demoralisation I personally believe imposing contracts on doctors was a BAD idea. You might finger wag and tell us it’s better for us (uh, we can do maths... we know some of us really lost out), but even if it genuinely was better for us, people don’t do well with being ignored and having their terms of employment changed. It breeds resentment. We feel more vulnerable to being overworked, some of us get paid more, others less, the system is more confusing, and this feeds into people’s general burnout and resentment, meaning people who were on the fence about remaining in the NHS are more likely to leave. Same for the ridiciulous pay rise caps for staff in general ( which have all been below inflation for the past several years, meaning that we are, in real terms, paid less every year) which I really don’t think helped in retaining nurses and other staff like paramedics. Nurses, HCAs, physios, paramedics and many other hospital staff are really paid modestly for the work they do, so not even making sure that their pay is in line with inflation was a really sucky move. I think they are finally relaxing this, but for many nurses it might be too little, too late. The nurses who long decided that they can’t afford to do their job any more? A tiny pay rise may not be enough to get them to stay. I promise you that most nurses aren’t earning bucket loads; I’ve met uber drivers who used to nurse. I don’t think the government have any real idea how to fix demoralisation, and really it’s generally just been made worse by lots of the changes. Calling our BluffWhat’s a word you associate with doctors and nurses? Caring? Vocation? Commitment? We’re seen as staff who are highly passionate about what we do. And because of this, it’s believed that we’ve bought into the jobs we have. And we generally do; it’s part of our identity. It changes how we think, how we live, and to a huge degree, who we are. I’m not the same person I was in school; I’ve learned to think more analytically, to assess things more coolly, and to think more carefully before I speak. But I think it’s true that it becomes a part of your very identity, and that we’re very, very emotionally tied to our jobs. Also, we’ve put our eggs in one basket. We’ve spent years or even decades training to do this one thing, so we’re kind of stuck with it. Some of us have other talents and hobbies, but on the whole medicine kinda ties you down and takes away all your free time. And politicians know this. They know we’re emotionally attached to our role, and tied into medicine. So do journalists, if the papers were anything to go by last year. I suspect that when we protested, a lot of people said “yeah, as if they are all gonna quit!”. People know we care about patients. They also know we put up with a lot of crap already, and that’s why people assume we’ll just put up with lots more. And we do put up with so much. And many of us will keep putting up with things if things get worse; I’ll be honest with you, we won’t all quit, because people need to put food on the table and because we like helping people. But many of us staying isn’t always enough. Even if some of us leave, the rest will really struggle to cope. Most rotas have empty slots; people have been leaving for some time, and there’s a real need for doctors and nurses to fill those gaps. I’m talking about most (if not every hospital) being short of significant numbers of doctors and nurses. Not just the odd one here and there. But of course, the politicians don’t see how this affects us. If a hospital is standing, patients still get care, and they are understaffed, someone might think “well, they seem to be coping”, not realising that this means everyone is more stressed and working harder, staying late, and fighting to keep patients safe. Being overworked increases our risk of harm to patients, because we don’t have the same amount of time to check things are done right, so missing things is more likely. And I think some people use this against us. People throw the vocation card at you. “But it’s a vocation!” they say. You should be motivated by your sheer passion for helping people, alone. And it frustrates me, because if we want to improve working conditions or patient care, how dare you imply that we lack vocation?! I’d like anyone who thinks this way to come and see what we do, before they say something like that. Although docs and nurses aren’t motivated by money, it’s true to say that we can’t live on fuzzy feelings and altruism; even though we may not want pay rises, the things we’d suggest to make the NHS better (like better staffing, more equipment etc) would all cost money. I don’t think I have many suggestions that are free. And that’s why we fear that things won’t get better; even if we have suggestions on how to improve things, there probably won’t be the funds to make it happen. We actually do a lot of small audits and quality improvement projects on what we can do to improve healthcare that we give in our departments, to try and make things better (on a budget; we do this research all for free and for portfolio points), but there’s only so much you can do for free. How do you get more staff?You’ll notice that governments are fond of annouincing that they will find more nurses or doctors. Sometimes they even use the words ‘train’ more. But ALWAYS ask yourself; are they going to pay for it? How long will it take to train them? Have they actually increased med school/nursing school places to accommodate this? Can universities even accommodate those figures? Because a lot of the figures coming out just seem implausible. No, you won’t get X thousand more GPs very fast, because it’s areal struggle to recruit to training, and it takes 10 years to get someone through med school and to become a qualiffied GP. And that’s assuming people want to do the job and are staying in medicine, which they may well not. I’m not a fan of the idea of forcing people to stay, which is occasionally floated. People like to raise large scary figures of ‘how much it costs to train a doctor’, but those figures also include things like our tuition fees, the costs WE pay towards exams and training, and our actual salaries. The money the government pays hospitals to train us just seem to to into the general hospital pot. The only official training I’ve ever got since I graduated med school was 1 hour of weekly teaching by a consultant. And a couple of simulation courses now and again. The rest of our learning is from my own reading, preparing for exams, and talking to our colleagues. Most of the learning we do is informal, due to the good will of our peers and our seniors. We teach each other; I’m not paid any more for instilling my advice into my peers, it’s just part of our job to educate each other. So I personally get mad when these figures are used to justify forcing people to stay. Because having talked friends who were really, really having a bad time with medicine off metaphorical ledges, I really don’t agree with the idea of forcing people to stay. I’m not an indentured servant, and the government isn’t tying all its other graduates to their supposed jobs, so I don’t see why a workforce with a worse than average risk of burnout, mental health problems and suicide should be tied down against their will. It’s a very, very bad idea, and it’s one of the things that will completely evaporate any remaining goodwill between us and our employer. We put in blood sweat and tears, but if that’s not valued then our relationship with our employer will change. It’s hard to care about someone who doesn’t care about you. Don’t force us to stay. Make us not want to leave. We’re passionate people. We went into this because we loved it and wanted to dedicate our lives to it. If we’re leaving, it’s not a poorly thought out decision; medicine is part of our identity and nobody discards that cape so easily. Let’s poach doctors and nurses from other countries!And this is kind of what we’ve been doing. The NHS owes a huge debt to countries like India. I’m not talking about my British Asian colleagues who, like me are from immigrant backgrounds; we have a lot of colleagues who were born, educated and medically trained abroad who have come over here to work as (most often) doctors and nurses. And this is cheap for our country because somewhere like India trains a doctor, who comes over here effectively for free and works for us. Or all the nurses trained by the Phillippines, or Spain or Romania etc. This is much cheaper than training more staff here (who might then go abroad themselves), but it’s not sustainable and it’s not ethical in huge numbers to brain drain other countries. So you can argue that the government (to go back to your original question) are probably hoping that if current staff leave, they might be able to replace them with new ones. Perhaps even new ones who are willing to put up with worse conditions because they are used to worse. Perhaps I’m being cynical, but that’s often the case when you bring in foreign workers. Always think about the working conditions that workers are being asked to tolerate. I really personally think the government aren’t taking retention of qualified seriously enough. I don’t know why that is; some people might believe it’s deliberate, others might just believe politicians are inept. Maybe they just don’t know how to keep us. I suspect that it’s a balance for them; between keeping staff and trying to ‘find savings’ and ‘deliver promises’ of a 24h NHS (hint: we already have 24h emergency care, but you don’t need a routine appointment at 3am). The contract debacle makes me suspect that they want to claw back some money from the NHS, because the way they treated us doctors certainly wasn’t to make US feel better. There has to have been a financial reason for it, and most of us think that the reason was to make it cheaper to roster us for more hours or more antisocial/oncall hours. Effectively a pay cut, but by another name. Because if you do more difficult work for the same money, that would have paid more, then your pay is effectively cut, even if it technically stays the same. I have no trouble believing that the government could want to get more out of us. Because we’re a resource that provides a service. I don’t know if people at the top see me as more than a machine; I believe actions, not words, and it’s been a long while since most of us have seen actions that suggest otherwise. I think THAT’s what really demoralised many of my colleagues; feeling like we’re just being treated like robots that provide care. At any rate, they suck at retaining staff. The system is stressful, they keep mucking us about with our contracts and our training, and it’s just a big extra headache on top of the whole saving lives kinda thing. You have so many trained, passionate people who are already highly skilled, and you let them burn out and they leave medicine or nursing and never come back. And people keep talking about bringing in mroe, but nobody talks about what is causing us to leave. because the real answers would cost money; better staffing, better funding, better organisation. And politicians don’t like spending money, because there’s never enough to go around. It’s cheaper to poach trained staff than it is to train your own. And it’s trickier to retain the ones it is than it is to just offer to bring in more. Let’s Talk about MoneyArguably, most people would support paying more for the NHS, if any tax rise was guaranteed to be for that. Most people on the street value healthcare. So people in general are quite sceptical; why do politicians not do this? It seems straightforward. Obviously, people don’t like tax rises, and there’s always arguments about who should be taxed more, where it should go, etc, but I think healthcare is one of the few things people are generally supportive of. And they’d be even more so if they realise we’re paying less than most Western contries for healthcare. Only, there’s a lot of misinformation being spread. I routinely read comments declaring the NHS ‘inefficient’ and ‘bloated’, but we pay less than many countries per head, and bodies like the King’s Fund or even more independent bodies usually rate the NHS highly on efficiency. This narrative suits people who want to argue that the NHS needs more cuts and reorganising (hint: people who work in the NHS hate reorganising because it makes no difference at the frontline level and it wastes time and money hospitals don’t have), and the idea that we don’t need more money to offer improtant services, we just need to be better with the money we have. Which passes the blame from the government (whose NHS budgets have not been meeting recommended amounts) to hospitals, who should just be expected to make do with what they’ve got. Interestingly, hospitals aren’t just handed money for existing and having patients that need care, they have to meet targets to actually be funded. So if they are struggling, and miss targets, they get penalised, get less money or the coming year/s. Which most sensible people would realise is a problem; how can they do better if they have less money with which to improve? When hospitals get declared really bad and put in special measures, they get some more funding and attention (and more CQC visits) to help put them right. But the penalty system can appear a bit flawed because most hospitals are already struggling and many are ‘overspending’. I don’t know what we would replace this with, but I’m a little uneasy about how it all works at present. Aaand in Summary, People Just Don’t Trust PoliticiansGiven that it’s sensible to assume we’d want to keep doctors and nurses on board, people come up with all sorts of reasons why politicians choose the choices they do. Why impose contracts? Why freeze pay? Why not train more? Why not improve working conditions? And people come up with all sorts of interesting answers. Some people believe politicians are just inept; perhaps they don’t know how to run healthcare. Perhaps treating us like robots is backfiring. Perhaps they’ve just assumed we’d put up with crap, but they overestimated how much crap we’re willing to put up with. Perhaps they are trying to think of ways to force us to stay, but they just aren’t working, or can’t be implemented. People are fallible; running a health service is hard. All parties mess up; I don’t believe in laying all the blame on one person or one party alone. Others believe politicians are deliberately running the NHS down for political or financial reasons. Because certain companies (hint: private healthcare) would benefit hugely if the NHS was privatised. It would be huge. And companies are powerful and good at lobbying, and many of us fear how much of a role they may have behind the scenes. It doesn’t help that Hunt co-authored a book about dismantling the NHS. Many people are afraid of who politicians might be lobbied by; because politicians are human with their own personal interests. Many have stakes in private healthcare companies, so arguably some politicians are financially better off if the NHS struggles as more people will go private. Companies tend to look after their own vested interests first and foremost; the way corporations run is built around making more money for themselves, and whilst I wouldn’t say they never act ethically, most people are wary of them. Some people think this is all deliberate. Some politicians gain financially from private healthcare companies, but there’s a general fear of whether others are being influenced by lobbies. Large companies are very, very powerful, and they are motivated to protect their financial interests at all costs, so it’s very sensible to be afraid. Many are particularly afraid that we’d get a US style of healthcare if things were privatised here, and US healthcare is incredibly costly and inefficient; they pay something like 3-4 times more per person for healthcare than we do. And lots of people still can’t afford basic treatments. For many of us working in the NHS, that’s a nightmare scenario. We’re motivated by doing our best to help people, and part of why we try so hard with the problems we have, is because it’s for the NHS.It’s a very popular theory that the governent want to run the NHS down to privatise it, and therefore sell it off to private companies. And it’s hard to argue with something like this, when it happened in the past with rail. So it’s hard to argue against such a conspiracy theory. Because yeah, they would make a ton of money from selling it off. And yeah, they’d have someone else to blame when it all goes wrong, which is something people love because suddenly they arent technically responsible. In terms of politics, that’d be a huge change, and in some ways advantageous to politicians. Arguably, politicians have access to private health care, or at least the funds to access it, so many people are wary because they know that politicians are likely to be OK regardless. I personally hope politicians don’t feel like that, but I know little about what they think or feel so I don’t wish to make assumptions either way. This certainly isn’t eveything about healthcare, but I hope it at least gives you a few ideas of the theories going around, and what it’s like from the inside.

19 notes · View notes