ok I know it's just a staple of horror games these days but every time I run into a bunch of mannequins in a game it throws me right out of it. It gives me too many questions. Why are they there? Why are there so many?
if you don't work in fashion design/tailoring/some other profession related to clothing, then you're probably not going to have even one mannequin, let alone a whole room full of them. They're not cheap! No they're not the most expensive thing in the world but we're talking anywhere between $45-$330 a pop, depending on quality. And you got a whole room full of them? So you can *checks notes* jumpscare Joe Schmoe who has automatonophobia and happened to wander in off the street?
(I'm looking at you, Baker family! You could have used that money to buy Jack a new lawnmower but noooo, instead you had to have a whole attic crammed with mannequins you don't use)
at some point I guess everyone just agreed that mannequins are scary, the same way everyone decided clowns are scary (after stephen king's It first came out), but it does nothing for me. Hmm yep that sure is a tool people use for displaying or tailoring clothing. Mmhmm yeah you got me it kinda looked like a whole group of people were in here for the half-second before the light turned on. $3000 dollars well spent.
12 notes
·
View notes
I keep seeing people bitching about "uwu when I say 'from the river to the sea' people say I'm calling for geeenocide! They say I'm antisemitic!" and like.
Maybe. instead of clinging to a phrase that a bunch of white leftists have co-opted because they think it sounds nice. And digging your little immature heels in. You should LISTEN when people tell you that yes. The phrase's FUCKING ORIGIN was a call for the eradication of Jews from the area known as Israel and Palestine. That NO, you cannot divorce it from those roots. YES, it IS still used to mean that TO THIS DAMN DAY.
And look. Maybe you DON'T think that Israelis should all be killed and/or exiled from Israel and Palestine. Maybe you DON'T think that the genocide of an entire people is the solution. Maybe you DON'T hate Jews and want all of us dead. And if that's the case? Great!
But how the FUCK are we supposed to tell the difference when you are using the EXACT same phrase as countless people who DO want those things. People who DO hate Jews, who ARE supportive of organizations that want to commit violence, people who SUPPORT what happened on October 7th?
When people tell you "hey, this phrase means something else, it has ALWAYS come from those roots, and using it is NOT OKAY because it is STILL used as a rallying cry for violence against Israelis and Jews worldwide", the way to react? Is NOT to fucking double down and use it.
Because that? DOES make you an antisemite. And if I see you using that phrase? Then I MUST assume that at best, you do not know what it means and have SOMEHOW avoided the countless Jews and non-Jews I have seen talking about it, or at WORST you actively hate me and want me and every single one of my people dead.
And frankly? You are not worth that risk to interact with.
Stop saying it. There are SO many ways to support Palestine, the Palestinian people, and their fight for rights, that do not involve spouting genocidal, antisemitic rhetoric. it is NOT HARD.
But apparently, some of y'all are insistent on being racist.
387 notes
·
View notes
Fandom these days is wild.
I remember how Jaydick used to be the go to vanilla, childhood-crush-to-lovers soft ship for young, first time shippers that wanted something simple and completely unproblematic.
Now going by the general consensus if you ship Jaydick you're a fucking freak of nature and you should repent or burn in hell.
905 notes
·
View notes
My excuse for illustrating an old text post with dirkjohn making out: uhh I have none.
538 notes
·
View notes
they're so childhood friends to lovers bodyguard au coded to me 😌✨ (they have killed so so many people)
276 notes
·
View notes
AO3 is back up but I’m still writing Nimona headcanons
I feel like the main trio are all really bad at taking care of themselves
Nimona can go a long time without eating drinking or sleeping so it's really easy for her to fall into a pattern of not taking care of herself until she’s sluggish and snappy
At first it was really hard for the boys to distinguish her food withdrawals from her normal chaos
When they do figure it out they make sure she eats and drinks at least once a day even if it small
It took a minute for her to adapt to this because she views taking care of herself as a hobby
But after a while she realizes that they’re just looking out for her so she goes along with it
Every once and a while Bal gets hyper-fixated on certain projects which causes him to forget to eat and sleep
Nimona once asked Ambrosius why he doesn’t do anything to stop these habits to which he responded “Oh believe me Nim I’ve tried it’s better to just let him get it out of his system”
Nimona still didn’t understand this and tried to force Bal to get up and take care of himself
Which just ended with Nimona being on the other side of a verbal thrashing and then quickly shoved out of Bal’s workspace
Ambrosius didn’t even bat an eye
Just walked around Nimona into the room with some food and water and then quickly left him alone
After that Nimona started to leave Bal snacks and pillows in his workshop when he eventually crashed
(And occasionally carrying him to his room when Ambrosius was too tired to carry him)
Bal also forgets to charge his arm
So it’s not uncommon for his arm to die and stay locked in that position
One time Ambrosius walked into the kitchen to find Bal hunched in an awkward position over his coffee and he didn’t flinch
Just gave him a straw and a kiss on his head before he left for work
Another time Nimona walked into the living room to find them cuddled on the couch
And they start their normal rant of “Ew gross get a room”
To which Ambrosius replied “I would if I could Nim”
She was quietly informed that Bal fell asleep and his arm died shortly after and Ambrosius has been stuck like this for hours waiting for Bal to wake up
Nimona laughed so hard they almost woke Bal up
They started storing chargers all around the house after that
So I have a headcanon that I kind of hinted at in my other post
But I’m fully convinced that Ambrosius' shoulder is fucked after the movie (he also has scars because I said so)
Because no way in hell can this man take a blast like that to his shoulder and walk away perfectly fine
Nah that man will be doing PT exercises for the rest of his life
And this dork forgets to do his exercises until he’s literally on the floor writhing in pain
Bal has tried just about everything to get him to remember
He’ll leave notes around the house, he’ll remind him before he leaves for work, writing it into his workout routine
Nimona told him “Boss you’re being too soft” and quickly switched tactics
Now you might be wondering what method Nimona used and that's simple he started blackmailing Ambrosius
Nimona started to warn Ambrosius “If you don’t do your exercises I’ll tell boss what happened to the last slice of cake” or “I’ll release the video of you singing at the top of your lungs while cleaning the house”
And the stupid thing is it worked
Ambrosius always says shit like “I should have left you in that box on the side of the road” to which Nimona responds with “Nah you’d miss me too much”
He also had a bad habit of getting sucked into little projects like trying to rebuild the city and fixing all the brainwashing that's been going on since the institute was created
You know small tasks for one person
And this dork will stay locked in his office until Nimona and Bal drag his overdramatic ass out
He always makes a big deal about it too screaming shit like “Oh please help me the heroes of the realm are kidnapping me an innocent bystander while I was simply doing my job!”
I feel like Bal and Ambrosius have a lot of nicknames for Nimona “Nim” is the most common
“Hun” and “kid” are used a couple of times but not nearly as often as the weird ones
Like “tornado” “tsunami” “hurricane” and “forest fire”
And if we're getting really sappy “starlight”
Now if you're wondering where this one came from I’ll tell you
When Bal and Ambrosius were little beans Bal called Ambrosius “sunshine”
It was supposed to be ironic but after that he started calling Bal “moonbeam”
And Ambrosius jokes that Nimona completes their little astronomy shtick
She pretended to be grossed out and lets Bal hug her and Bal and Ambrosius pretended not to notice the tears on Bals shirt
532 notes
·
View notes
spade represents the tip of a pike; an implement for killing
alex’s
white void of doom
sketch and background element/scribble that isn’t really visible but i’m sharing just in case anybody did notice it.
other details
68 notes
·
View notes
it’s only gonna eat you
The second one is a trainwreck min playlist cover, all about Him! Wow! You can listen to it here
360 notes
·
View notes
I see a lot of meta talking about how the John Verses are John telling the story of the leadup to the apocalypse with the most sympathetic biased self-justifying gloss to make it sound like nothing was his fault, and I guess that's why so many readings go for a hardline worst-faith interpretation of them, but.... I don't really see it.
When he tells about how he murdered everyone who had a gun, he could have played up the self-defense angle. He could have claimed he was scared, and he did it to protect everyone. He could have emphasized that he was killing cops, instead of emphasizing the civilians. He could have stuck with the story he told at the time, that he freaked out and made a mistake and hadn't meant to kill them all. He doesn't. He admits to mass murder, and he admits to having done it because he was angry. And he admits to still not regretting it one bit.
The story John tells just doesn't paint him in the best possible light. He does include all of the justifications he used at the time, he does explain why on earth any of this ever seemed like a good idea to anyone, and he does want to be understood, but he doesn't really try to sell it as having been right.
I really don't see the verse chapters as being John's justification. They're his confession. That's why they feel so good to condemn.
658 notes
·
View notes
I don’t usually make posts like this, but I’ve been seeing a lot of anti-intellectual junk lately, and I really think we need to put the word “pretentious” up on a shelf until people learn what it actually means.
It doesn’t describe someone who likes artsy-fartsy deep meaning media. People who are pretentious are fake. They’re posers trying to be sophisticated and unique, not like other girls. They pretend to only like stuff they think will make them sound cool when they talk about it. They want to act like they know something you don’t, and they want attention for it.
By definition, if you genuinely enjoy something, you can’t be pretentious. If it resonates with you, and you analyze it, and you don’t care what people think, that’s the polar opposite, actually. If you love obscure experimental prog music, if you watch underground high concept indie films through English teacher eyes, if you spend hours in a modern art museum reading each piece as a vessel for storytelling, if your backpack’s full of poetry books that inspire you, if you play underrated games that were someone’s passion project, if you have an interest in studying the classics or the masters, you are not pretentious.
Of course, some people just don’t like some stuff, and that’s fine, but that’s not what this is about. Don’t let anti-intellectuals shame you for enjoying things just because your interests are inaccessible to them, because they refuse to be brave and put effort into critical thinking. You’re not stuck up for refusing to overlook the craft of artists.
127 notes
·
View notes
the scene in evil dead 2 where ash gets his chainsaw arm is a metaphor for bottom surgery. i will not elaborate
98 notes
·
View notes
Pan-Pan, Boléro, and Minkowski's different responses to loss
I want to compare two key lines of Minkowski's which indicate very different responses to grief:
In Ep29 Pan-Pan, Minkowski breaks down and says "Doug Eiffel is gone! There was nothing we could do to save him. It wasn't anyone's fault. It's horrible, and pointless, and it just happened."
In contrast, after arriving at the funeral in Ep46 Boléro, she says "[Lovelace, Hilbert and Maxwell are dead] to make the fact that we're not gone yet important. They're gone... so that we never forget how important it is that we're still here."
TL;DR: In Pan-Pan, Minkowski expresses her unprocessed grief through despair and hopelessness. Whereas in Boléro, she is able to find hope in the loss and lead her crew in trying to move forward. I suggest a significant reason of the difference is the presence of Eiffel to force Minkowski to confront and process the sense of loss.
Pan-Pan: "It's horrible, and pointless, and it just happened"
In Pan-Pan, the whole episode is full of anger and despair, but Minkowski speaking about the horrible pointlessness of losing Eiffel is one of the most painful and hopeless moments. It doesn't feel like she's really speaking to the others. She's focused on her internal despair (as suggested by the fact that she goes on to talk about the cracks, which Lovelace and Hilbert aren't supposed to know about).
The only potentially positive thing Minkowski says here is her recognition that "it wasn't anyone's fault". When Hera and Hilbert have been blaming Lovelace, and Minkowski has been blaming herself, it's significant that she acknowledges that sometimes a horrible thing just happens without there being anyone to blame.
But in this context, and in the tone of voice Minkowski uses, even the lack of blame doesn't really feel like a positive thing. If Eiffel becoming stranded was just pointless and random, if there was nothing any of them could have done to save him, then the next tragedy might be just as unpredictable and unpreventable. Minkowski strikes me as the kind of person who can sometimes fall into the trap of subconsciously wishing that the awful thing is her fault because then at least she'd have control over something. In her train of thought here, the lack of blame is followed by focusing on how horrible and pointless what happened to Eiffel was. The only conclusion she can draw is "it just happened". There's no sense of hope in those lines. Eiffel being stranded just happened, and so do the cracks, and the crew are at the whims of brutal fortune with no meaning to any of it.
Boléro: "They're gone... so that we never forget how important it is that we're still here"
In Boléro, Minkowski can't even say that the tragedy wasn't anyone's fault. For each of the deaths, someone pulled a trigger. There is blame, and some of it lies at her feet. She didn't want to come to the funeral because at first she didn't know what she could say about the deaths she feels responsible for.
Yet even so, this time she finds something reassuring she can say to her crew, a grain of hope she can provide without attempting to diminish the loss: "[they're gone] to make the fact that we're not gone yet important. They're gone... so that we never forget how important it is that we're still here."
In another show, or another context, this kind of line might have had an 'everything happens for a reason' tone, which is something I deeply dislike as a response to other people's loss. But it doesn't feel like that's what Minkowski is saying here at all. She isn't trying to make any grand philosophical statement about the ultimate beneficence of the universe, or about how mortality gives meaning to human life. What she says here is working on a much more personal level. It's more about finding something other than despair that the crew can take from what has happened. This tragedy may still be horrible, but it provides a reminder that they are still alive in a context where that's far from guaranteed. Minkowski emphasises that the fact the survivors are alive matters - her crew matters. I'd argue that this contrasts with the 'it just happened' outlook discussed above.
I don't know how much Minkowski fully feels the importance of them still being there in the moment, but it's something that she can offer her crew, something that she can say in a situation that words can't grasp. I think the moment when she joins the funeral is such a key moment of her leadership. In the end, despite her doubts and struggles, she's there for her crew. Eiffel brought them together for a funeral, but he doesn't know what to say when Hera asks why they have to be gone. Minkowski enters just at the right moment to support her crew and she provides an answer to Hera's question. It's not a perfect answer, but it allows the funeral to move forward. It allows the crew to move forward (even if that emotional movement is somewhat thrown off by a dramatic change in the circumstances). Minkowski starts off the eulogies; she leads her crew in the acknowledgement of what's been lost.
Why such a difference in responses?
There's lots of ways you could interpret the difference between the outlook of these two moments, and there's probably more to say about it though the lens of Minkowski's character development than I'm going to say here. But for me, the main difference between these moments is that, in Pan-Pan, it feels like no processing or recognition of grief has really occurred. When Minkowski says "Doug Eiffel is gone!", it almost feels like the first time that Minkowski has fully confronted and acknowledged the loss. Eiffel has been lost in space for 116 days, but it's only at the end of this episode that Minkowski brings herself to say in her distress calls that he is "presumed dead". Whereas in Boléro, she's already eulogising the dead and thinking about what can be learned from the loss, not even a full day after the mutiny.
Obviously there is much less ambiguity to a body bag (or least there would be, if not for alien interference). But I can't help thinking that the difference between the attitudes towards loss which Minkowski displays in these two quotes is less about the difference in the kind of loss, and more about a situation that prompted and enabled the processing of emotions in Boléro: namely, the funeral. After Eiffel was stranded in space, I think Minkowski probably went months without looking her grief in the eye. But after the deaths of Lovelace, Hilbert, and Maxwell, Eiffel's suggestion of a funeral forces Minkowski to confront her complicated emotions and provides a space in which she can offer direction to her grieving crew.
This is a good illustration of how I think Minkowski and Eiffel complement and support each other in a really valuable way. On his own, Eiffel couldn't provide the leadership that the crew needed for the funeral to work. But without Eiffel, and his determination to recognise the emotional weight of the three deaths, the funeral would never have happened and Minkowski would never have been in a position to provide hope and direction to her crew. When Eiffel was the one the Hephaestus crew were grieving, Minkowski couldn't offer much emotional direction to her crew beyond despair. But when Eiffel is beside her in the grief, saying that the grief deserves to be felt, then Minkowski can find a way for them to move forward emotionally. It's not the deaths that remind them how important it is that they are still here. It's the grief. It's the ability to confront that grief together.
56 notes
·
View notes
do people just not know what it's like to be dehumanized
the op is fine but the other people. i feel like they don't know what it's like to be treated like a literal dangerous animal
Exactly. Like come back packing the heat after you learn the story of Oscarville and Lake Lanier and talk to me about "why black dog and religion ooooohhh????"
34 notes
·
View notes
I just think that............. *gestures wildly to how Harrow experiences attraction* you know??????
490 notes
·
View notes
are you guys all s;eeing this. Trhe new compendium cover,
55 notes
·
View notes