had to share this
In every way this is set up to be a joke like any other short video, it even uses the trope of main character in a wig to represent their mom, but it isn't funny at all. It's just sweet and nice

Love Begins
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

#extradirty
Doug Jones
Noah Kahan
occasionally subtle
tumblr dot com
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
NASA
almost home
★
todays bird
macklin celebrini has autism
No title available
EXPECTATIONS
Claire Keane
🪼

bliss lane
Fieri Frames
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
seen from United States

seen from Venezuela

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Portugal
seen from Pakistan

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia
seen from Brazil

seen from Nepal
seen from Brazil
seen from United States

seen from Colombia
seen from Canada
seen from Kenya
seen from United Arab Emirates
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Indonesia

seen from Pakistan
@agedsolarwhisk
had to share this
In every way this is set up to be a joke like any other short video, it even uses the trope of main character in a wig to represent their mom, but it isn't funny at all. It's just sweet and nice
I love me a pseudo-historical arranged marriage au but it always nudges my suspension of disbelief when the author has to dance around the implicit expectation that an arranged marriage should lead to children, which a cis gay couple can't provide.
I know for a lot of people that's irrelevant to what they want from an Arranged Marriage plot, but personally I like playing in the weird and uncomfortable implications.
So, I've been thinking about how you would justify an obviously barren marriage in That Kind of fantasy world, and I thought it'd be interesting if gay marriage in Ye Old Fantasy Land was a form of soft disinheritance/abdication.
Like, "Oh, God, I don't want to be in this position of power please just find me a boy to marry", or, "I know you should inherit after you father passes but as your stepmother/legal guardian I think it'd make more sense if my kids got everything, so maybe consider lesbianism?", or "Look, we both know neither of our families has enough money to support that many grandkids, so let's just pair some spares and save both our treasuries the trouble".
Obviously this brings in some very different dynamics that I know not everyone would be pinged by, but I just think it'd be neat.
This is actually a really cool variant solution to a real historical problem, wherein either primogeniture or other profoundly shitty customs led to wealthy parents having insufficient resources to provide for all of their children in a manner consistent with their station.
Historically, the Church and its widespread monastic structure functioned as a dumping ground for second/third/etc sons and all the daughters one can't afford to marry off adequately, with the military eventually picking up the slack for the former post-Reformation to the point where it's been argued that the need for something to occupy these dispossessed sons played a role in Europe's ongoing conflicts between its nations and the eventual push of imperialism and colonization over the rest of the world.
In a world where homosexuality were more accepted, it would offer a new option: spare a comparatively-small outlay of resources from the main family fortune to equip a house and accoutrements, which would be reabsorbed into the family as a return inheritance in a few decades, and contract a marriage which would be deliberately unable to produce legitimate offspring.
You get the advantages of creating marital ties with another wealthy family, the people married therein have a spouse and the status achievements that go with marriage, and the risk that your child goes off and marries someone unsuitable or inconvenient is removed entirely, as is the risk that they could marry someone and have legitimate, inheritance-claiming children with them. Sure, they can have affairs and thus get children if they're married to a same-sex spouse, but those children cannot be passed off as legitimate issue of the marriage, and so they pose less of a threat to the the main body of the family's wealth.
And, thus: perfectly reasonable reason why your pseudohistorical fictional characters can find themselves in a same-sex arranged marriage!
"Nicholas, we've arranged for you to marry Eric, in the neighboring kingdom."
"But father, I'm not...."
"I'm well aware. I've just decided that you shouldn't reproduce."
the problem with knowing things about battle tactics is that an ever-increasing subset of popular media becomes impossible to enjoy properly because you have to sit there like 'wow Captain Protagonist good to know all those dead people on your own side are a direct result of your total lack of anything resembling brains'
seriously i'm not talking about anything elaborate, just basic common sense, but common sense is so much harder to ignore once you've got systematized data to back it up, like
what do they even think a fortification is for???
what do you think a shield is for. what do you think ranged weapons are for????
make the other sonuvabitch have a hard time killing you without getting killed first! most basic goal of combat! why are movies so bad at writing characters who actually attempt this on even a very small 'army' scale?
and like i said in the first post, it's not just that it's Dumb, the thing is that once you put the character in a command role, their ability to think their way through a combat situation with some degree of optimization becomes a reflection on their character on like. a moral level.
if your tactics are dumb and reckless but you usually win and it's just you punching people that's one thing. or even if it's you and five guys who've decided they like how you roll!
but if you are put in charge of soldiers. and you throw their lives away because you don't know what you're doing. that's not okay.
it's not always avoidable! one of the basic problems with armies! but when it happens in fiction it needs to be on purpose, to make sure the military elements of the narrative remain thematically congruent.
when you have a bit where Main Character is in command and then makes avoidable bad decisions and people die who didn't have to. either the protagonist has been put in a horrific position by whatever authority figure thrust them into a role they didn't want and weren't competent to handle, without support.
or the protagonist, voluntarily assuming a management job they suck at, has committed a grievous harm against others by not recognizing their own limitations.
even if they win! i don't want to be watching a movie where the main character squanders every tactical advantage and loses 40% of their forces totally unnecessarily for Narrative Tension, but the enemy retreats or gets eaten by a dragon or loses the MacGuffin or whatever, and then there's triumphant music and a party because They Won!!!
no! they fucked it up is what they did! this is some Light Brigade gaslighting shit! shut up. our boy just massacred people who trusted him.
This is reminding me of the extremely weird experience I had watching, of all things, The Kid Who Would Be King a couple months ago, because it was one of very few fantasy movies I’ve seen recently wherein actual tactical thinking is evidenced.
And like, granted, it wasn’t especially brilliant tactics, but it was weird as hell to be watching a bunch of middle schoolers fighting hell zombies display a better understanding of concepts like fortifications and ambushes and traps and bottlenecking an invading force than most purported “good leaders” in fantasy with far more adult target audiences
#it is possible that the kids were good at tactics #because being a movie for kids meant NOT letting their Allies (other children) get massacred #for later dramatic payoff #so instead they’re allowed to make good choices and not die
rip that could very well be
It’s funny, despite being the grandad of the genre, I seem to remember Lord of the Rings doing battle strategies pretty well. The only big exception is when Aragorn challenged Sauron and that was deliberate to get the guy’s attention.
Yeah, because Tolkien was 1) a soldier and 2) a medievalist and also 3) a person who gave a shit about things making internal sense, so he couldn't have abided writing really bad strategy that was meant to be read as good, and he was equipped to know the difference.
Most fantasy is not written from that baseline, and Tolkien while a huge influence is often overblown in terms of impact because he's a respectable antecedent as opposed to, say. Conan the Barbarian.
#I love how many posts about tropes in fantasy are like #‘this is bad’ #‘weirdly tolkien founder of fantasy did it ok’ #‘oh that’s bc tolkien was a freak and very few people who try to emulate him have been equivalent freaks’ #‘alas!’
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
^^ this + the accompanying series on the battle of helm's deep is a rly good look at the battle strategies, operations, and tactics in tolkien! and also how he uses good/bad strategy to build character
I am reposting because a) even as someone who doesn’t know tactics I notice a lot of the stupid fighting. Like, you don’t need to be proficient to make better choices. Granted I also watch a lot of fantasy with a West Point Alum (Dad), so I have SOME info.
b) The kids have better tactics in the kids movie not only because they are allowed to- but also because, realistically, most kids excercise thier imaginations more often than adults, and honestly, fighting tactics start with imagining what your enemy is going to do.
Like seriously? All middle schoolers I know play games, either physical, video, or in head, that require some form of tactics. If I was ever in a zombie apocalypse I would trust the doom prepper, the home farmer, and the kid who keeps chirping up with suggestions. Not nessisarily in that order.
There was a book I read once, can’t recall the name. All the adults basically died of disease, and it was the kids, breaking off into gangs, collecting supplies in wagons, and the smarter ones turning the local school into a little fortress. I was just out of middle school at the time. I spent the whole book nodding along with the decisions made, absolutely believing these were characters my age.
I’m just saying- I would trust a middle schooler with no training in tactics over an adult in the same situation. 🤷🏻♀️
the "kill uncountable numbers of henchmen and then have a moral quandry over their boss" pisses me off SOOOOO much.
according to An Immense World, apparently giant squid eyes are, like, UNREASONABLY large, even for something their size living at those depths. the next largest eyes on earth, blue whale eyes, are less than half the size, and swordfish, who live at similar depths as giant squid and have the largest eyes of any fish, have eyes that could fit inside a giant squid's pupil.
eyes hit serious diminishing returns wrt resource costs vs vision quality as they get bigger, so the question became: what the FUCK do giant (and colossal) squid need to see so badly that they couldn't see with swordfish-sized eyes that's justifying that massive energy cost? that nothing else in the deep ocean needs to see so fucking badly??
turns out the one strength eyes that big really have over much smaller eyes is: seeing large glowing objects in water deeper than 500 meters from an appreciable distance.
sperm whales are the primary predator of giant squid. sperm whales don't glow. BUT! water that deep is full of bioluminescent creatures-- these creatures light up when bumped into. something a sperm whale's size is continuously bumping into those critters, it's just surrounded by a glowing field all the time when it's swimming at those depths, visible from a distance-- if you have the right eyes-- as a massive glowing shape. so basically the only reason to have eyes the size of soccer balls is if you live in the deep ocean and your life depends on having a heads up when a hungry sperm whale lurking around
and also I gotta say, the imagery... the huge lurking threat betrayed only by the ambiguous glowing shape of its movements through the water, is really evocative, if spooky deep-sea games aren't already using that to make things extremely ominous then they should really start
was thinking about sam’s true crime hobby earlier like imagine him listening to a podcast about an unsolved murder and he’s just like wait a second. we did that.
If the lord ever got attached to a toy, he would never be able to let it go
You gotta be really publicly passionate about things if you want your friends to text you. Bc people will forget to text you because they’re human. But if you’re really openly the friend who loves identifying ants your friends will think of you when they see ants. And they’ll text you “what ant is this [blurry photo]”. And then they’ll ask you how you’ve been and we should get coffee sometime. But if they don’t know what you love they’ll never know what you like
And then when the ant convention is in town they’ll be like dude… we should go to the ant convention. But they would never think to go if they didn’t know u loved ants
And sometimes you need to ask them to go to the ant convention. But you Will not get anywhere hiding your passions
It is a common error that many faiths believe the souls of the dead depart this plane of existence for some mythical heaven or hell. In fact, the souls of the dead go to UDFj-39546284, a high-redshift Lyman break galaxy in the constellation Fornax, about 32.7 billion light years away. When asked why the dead from across the universe should all be converging on this one faint galaxy, NASA astrophysicists said “it’s like an eel thing,” and refused to elaborate further.
Pics Of Birds Cuddling Together For Warmth Will Melt Your Heart
Fibonacci: Hmm... I sure wish there was a way to mathematically represent an empty quantity.
The simple yet useful Arabic numeral:
there are a lot of really good ancient roman laws but i think my favorite is that, if you got struck by lightening and died, you couldnt have a proper burial because it meant that the gods hated you
“Jupiter cancelled him and we’re not going to question that”
genuinely asking: how would these laws apply to that guy who got struck by lightning on seven separate occasions but survived every time?
I think I would have assumed Zeus was trying to fuck him.
worst possible response thanks so much
If I were a murderer, and I'd meticulously planned a murder, and then I turned up at the place to do the murder and found that world-famous-murder-solver Hercule Poirot was also there, I would simply not do the murder.
and, look, I’m not complaining, not at all, but this is why it’s very important to be abundantly clear and specific with your Etsy witch.