Cilla Volkov

[letsfindouttomorrow]

My low stakes heated rivalry headcanon is that Shane 100% had a brief cameo in Crazy Rich Asians. Like maybe he was on a poster or a billboard in the background, or they briefly show one of his commercials or post-game interviews where he’s all sweaty and handsome

[fractally]

Oh one BIG reason I think the general public in Canada especially would be extremely pro-Shane Hollander even post-outing: he imports Ilya Rozanov and he doesn't leave Canada even when the situation in Montreal goes sideways

It's honestly impossible to overstate what a big deal that is. Canada constantly losing their hockey talent to US teams and the Stanley drought...it doesn't fucking matter what went down with those French Canadians, the rest of the country is ignoring that, he's still their hero.

When Ilya steps out in a Team Canada jersey at the 2026 Olympics and they crush team USA 6-0 in the gold medal match Shane would be instantly deified as the first Canadian saint.

[ticklefighthockey]

it’s actually very important to me that ilya flirts outrageously with the refs while they pretend to be annoyed with him. I think shane doesn’t even know most of the refs’ names and his interactions with them are intensely formal and professional. he’s at work why would he be pestering his esteemed if somewhat loathed colleagues. ilya meanwhile has given them all affectionate hockey nicknames and tells them they’ll have to take him out for dinner to make up for bad calls and signs stuff for their kids after games. this does not earn him any fewer penalties as he is utterly shameless about tripping and slashing and hooking, but it does get him a lot of fond eyerolls as the refs herd him over to the box

[animentality]

[narniagiftexchange]

                         THE SPRING NARNIAN GIFT EXCHANGE.

                 for: @landrysaugust from @hauntedthief.

-It’s King Edmund, actually. Just King, though.

[evelyncarnahcn]

I’m a king. I’ve fought wars and — and I’ve led armies.

[jessmalia]

MAL-CODED CHARACTERS HALL OF FAME: #3. Edmund Pevensie (The Chronicles of Narnia)

Edmund was a graver and quieter man than Peter, and great in council and judgement. He was called King Edmund the Just.

[teaboot]

Something everyone should know either as an authority or as a person labouring under an authority, being anywhere from a babysitter to a parent to a government entity, is that establishing a rule of any kind is incredibly labour-intensive and difficult to enforce.

So if you're going to make something into a rule, it HAS to be something you can both Verify and Enforce- if you can Verify but not Enforce, it's essentially just a suggestion. If it's something you can Enforce but not Verify, you're going to waste a lot of energy and time becoming an authoritarian dictator that nobody likes.

And because the process of Verification and Enforcement BOTH take a LOT of work, it makes no sense to waste all that work on establishing a Rule which has no Function.

For this reason, every Rule you set must perform a Function which gives you a return that is, if not greater, then at least EQUAL to the energy it takes to maintain, in one way or another. Otherwise, the whole system collapses.

Any authority that exists has limited time and limited resources, so it must prioritize rules that minimize the MOST HARM, that are EASIEST TO VERIFY, and are MOST ENFORCEABLE.

So, before you CREATE a rule, you must ask yourself:

What does this rule accomplish?

Is the reward of this rule greater than the expense of establishing it?

Can I verify when this rule has been violated?

Can I feasibly discipline one to violates this rule?

And, what I would argue is almost MOST important after all that,

5. How do I explain this rule in a way that people will want to follow it?

As a parent, for example, "do not set a campfire in the living room" is a good rule, because it is easily explained as a risk to personal safety and property, it's a rare enough situation to come up, it's easy to tell when it's happened, and a consequence like "you will not be left unsupervised for an extended period of time" or "you will write a report on house fires" could be implemented as discipline.

But as a parent, "no eating outside of meal times" is not a great rule in most circumstances. For one, food is easy to access, the harm that can come from snacking between meals is almost zero, it's almost impossible to prove, and there is no feasible way to stop someone from doing it OR make them WANT to follow it without lowering yourself to abuse.

So, if there is a behaviour an authority wants you to follow, it must first ask itself Why. Then decide if that is reasonable. Then decide if it should be a Rule or a Suggestion.

If the desired rule is not verifiable, or enforceable, then the authority must make peace with the fact that it will be taken as a suggestion. It has no other choice but to become an enemy, and slowly lose all respect and credibility.

You cannot make "no snacking" into a rule. But you CAN say, "this is how you keep a balanced diet, this is how you stay healthy, please don't take more than you'll eat at dinner, save leftovers for later".

You CAN make "no fire pits indoors" into a rule, and you can remain vigilant that it doesn't happen and give it your full focus when it does.

This is where laws based on social or religious judgement fail.

You cannot Verify or Enforce against drugs, crossdressing, homosexuality, sodomy, satanism, tattoos, prostitution, oral sex, or abortion. Not in any way that matters. Not in any way that Protects more than it Harms. It's difficult to prove, difficult to enforce, and it happens too much and too consensually to universally oppose. You can only expend energy and cultivate a population that distrusts you in trying.

You CAN Verify and Enforce against violence, abuse, theft, fraud, embezzlement, discrimination, and murder. Because it DOES Protect more than it Harms, and you can justify the expenses. Because these are things that happen nonconsentually, and can be prioritized, because there are Victims who experience Harm. Enforcing these rules can cultivate safety and trust instead of suspicion, cooperation instead of opposition within a populace.

Which is why laws against anything that does not cause harm, in my opinion, is doomed.

Because I've been raised and raised kids and seen kids raised in both ways, and I know that "because I said so" does nothing.

If you cannot Verify or Enforce, then the best you can do is Educate, provide safe options, and build a system to heal and recover for any potential fallout.

But that’s just my opinion.

[krossan]

[yayxstitch]

[merinnan]

Happy Glorious 25th of May to you all!

[renegadeknight]

My face when Nora said Joel killed the one person who could've used Ellie to make a cure knowing damn well Jerry never finished undergrad:

[cillavolkov]

Why is it that I can only ever think of really good presents when it's too late to make or buy them?

[nederlandsespoorwegen]

Als je met de ICD gaat ben je verplicht om stilletjes in jezelf te vragen "welke pride vlag is dat?"

[quantumized-insanity]

Some things really are universal

[nederlandsespoorwegen]

I know there's a lot of queer people on this site but that's not happening

[nederlandsespoorwegen]

I was right

[pointless-achievements]

Prestatie Ontgrendeld:

Quixote's Revenge

Your windmills are about to be tilted at, my Nederlander friend.

[cressidascowper]

char's 2k celebration ⤷ 🦋 + rhaenicent or creloise for @padme-amidala

insp

[padme-amidala]

THE HUNGER GAMES APPRECIATION WEEK Day 1: favorite movie/book ↬ CATCHING FIRE + trivia (x)

[bloggingboutburgers]

My nonexistent kingdom for some DYNAMICS VARIETY (aka me finally drawing something else for Aromantic Spectrum Awareness Week)