Ryan, Oliver, and Gavin talking about how they would get Eddie and Buck to be together.
credit @/divadiaz118

#extradirty

izzy's playlists!
đȘŒ
Peter Solarz
styofa doing anything
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
Cosimo Galluzzi

if i look back, i am lost

romaâ
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
No title available
h
Show & Tell
Xuebing Du

titsay

ellievsbear
Sweet Seals For You, Always

Product Placement

oozey mess
sheepfilms
seen from Morocco
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia

seen from Yemen
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from TĂŒrkiye
seen from United States
seen from Chile

seen from Germany

seen from Spain

seen from Honduras

seen from Australia

seen from United States
seen from Morocco
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from Australia
@fannishtalk
Ryan, Oliver, and Gavin talking about how they would get Eddie and Buck to be together.
credit @/divadiaz118
actually though the fact that it WAS maddie who called eddie and it COULD have been about buck completely reframes the tone of that flashback happening in the middle of buck and eddieâs kitchen fight yknow?
man.
in my opinion, the question isn't "Is RPF ethical?" but rather "Are you engaging with RPF ethically?" and even more importantly, "Are you being stupid about it?"
I personally hate any kind morality thought policing. I'm not Catholic or religious and I do not feel guilty over my thoughts. You are not an inherently evil person because you saw two athletes in an interview and went "Hmmm...... what if...." The Feds are not going to come banging down your door because you wrote about one band member dicking down the other and sent it to your friend.
Wondering about other people's lives is very human. Being nosy about their personal lives is very normal. People have been writing fiction about other people's lives since the dawn of time. Some people even manage to write New York Times Bestselling Books that are "historical fiction" or "alternate reality." It does not make you inherently bad to be curious about the details of someone's personal life. That's being human. Being nosy is kind of fun.
The problem, however, comes with the ways in which people engage with it, and involve the real people in this. Harassing an musician's real girlfriend because it doesn't fit into the RPF ship. Showing up at real sporting events holding signs about how certain teammates should kiss. Trying to get actors to sign art of them fucking their coworker. Flooding social media with comments using the celebrity's full name and speculation. There's a line, there's a fourth wall, and there's fandom etiquette.
I hate the question of "Is RPF ethical" because it feels like morality thought policing. Post your fics on locked accounts, censor someone's name when you tweet about it, blow up your groupchat with hundreds of "DID YOU SEE THE WAY THEY LOOKED AT EACH OTHER??" texts. It's not inherently evil to wonder what other people are doing when they're out of the spotlight. Kill the cop in your mind.
But just have some basic decency and do not involve the real people. Don't cross the line without caring how it affects them. This is basic fandom 101 and lately we have been flying too close to the damn sun! Everyone get more normal about RPF so major news outlets and magazines stop posting articles about "Is RPF ethical?" and blowing up our spot!
She got the idea for the study while walking with her advisor at Stanford to discuss her thesis topic, and the paper she eventually published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology in 2014 is sharp enough that it should have ended the seated meeting on the day it came out.
She ran 4 experiments on 176 people. Same person tested twice. Once sitting, once walking. The creativity tasks were the standard ones psychologists have used for decades to measure how good a brain is at generating novel useful ideas.
81% of participants in the first experiment produced more creative ideas while walking than while sitting. In the second experiment, 88%. In the third, 100%. Every single person walked into a more creative version of themselves. On average, people generated 60% more novel useful ideas the moment their legs started moving.
The skeptical question is the obvious one. Maybe it was the fresh air. Maybe it was the scenery passing by. Maybe it was the change of environment doing the work, not the walking itself.
Oppezzo killed every one of those explanations with one experimental decision. She put people on a treadmill facing a blank wall. No scenery. No fresh air. No environmental change. Just legs moving in place while staring at white drywall. The 60% boost held.
Then she ran the experiment that closed the case completely. She took participants outside in two conditions. Half of them walked through a Stanford courtyard. The other half were pushed through the exact same courtyard in a wheelchair. Same outdoor stimulation. Same scenery passing at the same speed. The only difference was whether the legs were moving.
The walkers produced dramatically more novel high-quality ideas than the wheelchair group. The outdoors did almost nothing on its own. The walking did everything.
She also tested the opposite kind of thinking. Convergent thinking. The kind where there is one right answer and you have to narrow down to it. Word puzzles where 3 words share a hidden fourth word that connects them. The seated participants did slightly better on these. Walkers got slightly worse.
Walking is not a general intelligence enhancer. It does one specific thing. It opens up the divergent search inside your brain. The part that generates options. The part that produces unexpected connections. The part that takes a problem and finds five ways into it instead of one.
When you need to converge on the single right answer, sit down. When you need to find the answer in the first place, get up.
The mechanism is now well understood. Walking selectively activates what neuroscientists call the default mode network, the system inside your brain that runs when you are not consciously focused on anything. The DMN is where mind-wandering happens. Where memories cross-reference each other. Where ideas that have been sitting in separate folders inside your head finally bump into each other.
When you sit at a desk and force yourself to concentrate, you suppress the DMN. When you walk at a natural pace, the executive part of your brain gets just busy enough handling the walking that the DMN comes online and starts doing the work that focus was blocking.
The most useful finding in the entire paper is the one almost nobody quotes. The boost did not turn off the moment people stopped walking. Participants who walked first and then sat back down stayed elevated. Their next round of seated creativity work was still significantly better than people who had been sitting the whole time. The rest lingered for at least several minutes after the legs stopped moving.
You do not need to do creative work while walking. You need to walk before the creative work. The brain holds the state.
Edited down a long tweet. (x)
âThey asked me to tell you what it was like to be twenty and pregnant in 1950 and when you tell your boyfriend youâre pregnant, he tells you about a friend of his in the army whose girl told him she was pregnant, so he got all his buddies to come and say, âWe all fucked her, so who knows who the father is?â And he laughs at the good jokeâŠ. What was it like, if you were planning to go to graduate school and get a degree and earn a living so you could support yourself and do the work you lovedâwhat it was like to be a senior at Radcliffe and pregnant and if you bore this child, this child which the law demanded you bear and would then call âunlawful,â âillegitimate,â this child whose father denied it ⊠What was it like? [âŠ] Itâs like this: if I had dropped out of college, thrown away my education, depended on my parents ⊠if I had done all that, which is what the anti-abortion people want me to have done, I would have borne a child for them, ⊠the authorities, the theorists, the fundamentalists; I would have born a child for them, their child. But I would not have born my own first child, or second child, or third child. My children. The life of that fetus would have prevented, would have aborted, three other fetuses ⊠the three wanted children, the three I had with my husbandâwhom, if I had not aborted the unwanted one, I would never have met ⊠I would have been an âunwed motherâ of a three-year-old in California, without work, with half an education, living off her parentsâŠ. But it is the children I have to come back to, my children Elisabeth, Caroline, Theodore, my joy, my pride, my loves. If I had not broken the law and aborted that life nobody wanted, they would have been aborted by a cruel, bigoted, and senseless law. They would never have been born. This thought I cannot bear. What was it like, in the Dark Ages when abortion was a crime, for the girl whose dad couldnât borrow cash, as my dad could? What was it like for the girl who couldnât even tell her dad, because he would go crazy with shame and rage? Who couldnât tell her mother? Who had to go alone to that filthy room and put herself body and soul into the hands of a professional criminal? â because that is what every doctor who did an abortion was, whether he was an extortionist or an idealist. You know what it was like for her. You know and I know; that is why we are here. We are not going back to the Dark Ages. We are not going to let anybody in this country have that kind of power over any girl or woman. There are great powers, outside the government and in it, trying to legislate the return of darkness. We are not great powers. But we are the light. Nobody can put us out. May all of you shine very bright and steady, today and always.â
â Ursula K. Le Guin
I see so many arguments over what is and isn't "good queer representation" that really just boil down to "y'all are actually arguing over matters of taste and genre preference, which is incredibly subjective and personal."
Worldbuilding where being queer is normalized and queerphobia has no impact on the plot? THAT'S FINE. Worldbuilding that includes queerphobia and tackles the effects of it as part of the story? THAT'S ALSO FINE.
Low-stakes queer romcom where the characters are fluffy and cute? THAT'S COOL. Messy queer drama with toxic people who fuck each other over and clash repeatedly? THAT'S ALSO COOL.
Stories that center the characters' queerness, show a trans character's transition, and are about the queerness as much as the rest of the plot? AWESOME. Stories where the characters' queerness isn't treated as a big deal, and have trans characters whose transition happened before the story entirely? ALSO AWESOME.
You may PREFER one thing or another, but it is actually good to have all these things. It's about variety. It's about queer characters being allowed to exist without censorship. It's about queer artists getting to make things without being told we're a "niche issue" or "adult content." It's about having as many goddamn cakes as the bakery can produce.
At the end of the day, I'd prefer a media landscape with fifty pieces of problematic queer representation over a media landscape with one single piece of queer representation that's trying (and usually failing) to be 100% perfect for everything and everyone.
Iâve been trying to share this since I found out. They are moving onto harassing people in Memphis.
Community members face retaliation for trying to spread the word out, a lawsuit alleges.
Everyone was lovely in getting the word out about Chicago and Minnesota. I want to spread that awareness for folk in tennessee.
The thing is, Eddie being held separate from the rest of the 118 could be a really strong, intentional piece of storytelling about the isolation of not being your authentic self, how keeping things hidden or repressed means not only that youâre preventing pieces of yourself from being part of the whole you but that youâre always holding back from true connection with the people around you, consciously or unconsciously, to prevent them from surfacing or uncovering those hidden parts that you donât want seen.
It could be quite powerful, beautiful even, to see those connections flourish once Eddie is allowed to discover and express his truth.
Iâm just not convinced the writers are doing it on purpose, or that theyâll ever even acknowledge it never mind use it narratively in this sort of way.
Privacy advocates gained access to a powerful tool bought by U.S. law enforcement agencies that can track smartphone locations around the wo
anyway yeah DELETE YOUR FUCKING ADVERTISING IDS
Android:
Settings âĄïž Google âĄïž all services âĄïž Ads âĄïž Delete advertising ID
(may differ slightly depending on android version and manufacturer firmware. you can't just search settings for "advertising ID" of course đȘ)
iOS:
Settings âĄïž privacy âĄïž tracking âĄïž toggle "allow apps to request to track" to OFF
and ALSO settings âĄïž privacy âĄïž Apple advertising âĄïž toggle "personalized ads" to OFF
more details about the process here via the EFF
I feel like I need to start hanging out with people at abortion clinics to let the gov track my ID If everyone hangs out there who knows what people are there for. Might be there for an abortion might be there to chill on the sidewalk, who knows. Sardine survival tactics.
Hey. Look at me. Please leave yourself a note somewhere you'll see it later that says "it is going to take years if not decades to get the United States government to the level of functionality it had in November of 2024." If we elect a democrat in 2028, we are not going to be up and running by 2032.
Please make sure you have a reminder in your phone reminding you to not look at 2028/32/36 Democratic candidates and say "why are they not promising/delivering Cool Shit?" because you are going to understand that to get Cool Shit we must have competent people running a decently funded government, and we are not going to have that.
We are not getting UBI. We are not getting single payer healthcare. We are not getting free college or free preschool. We are not redistributing wealth on a large scale. We are not getting free internet. We are not getting ranked choice voting.
If we are lucky, we are going to get an IRS that can collect taxes, qualified schoolteachers, research grants, Social Security, and a government that thinks maybe it should be a priority for people around the worlds to not have AIDS, malaria or TB.
Yearly reminder to write this down.
the more i talk w/ leftist friends the more i start to realize that they think culture is only defined by food or "traditional" (i.e. "ethnic") garb and nothing else
mentioned how white americans do in fact have a common culture and they genuinely thought i was joking. culture isnt something only granted to the Cool People of Color. just feels like among progressive groups there's this dichotomy created in which only the virtuous oppressed minorities have culture and anyone who is privileged some sort of void cultureless being
When I visited Chicago, the very first thing to weird me out from the airport was⊠how almost everywhere had revolving doors.
Iâm Australian. Sure, we do have those doors, but the vast majority of places in Sydney are automatic sliding doors or old-fashioned manual push/pulls because we donât need to block out the cold and wind the same way here.
So every day I experienced a culture clash with something as basic as what doors were normal for me.
Americans who say they donât have a culture are plagued with defaultism beyond belief. Culture isnât just made up of costumes and language and the largest stuff, itâs constructed of a billion small things you do every day that you never even consider could be different because thatâs just ânormalâ to your daily life. No one has no culture just because theyâre not adhering to the biggest markers they can consciously recognise.
The iceberg concept of culture: only 10% of what most people immediately think of as their culture is above the surface, and the deeper you go, the more emotional depth it gets.
if maddie and chim can get married to avoid tax fraud then buddie can get married to adopt a child
while I donât agree with that referring to men in their 30s-early 40s as âold man yaoiâ, I UNDERSTAND why many people who primarily consume honest-to-goodness BL manga are quicker to call it that, because there is just such poor representation for men that arenât hairless dehydrated 20-something twunks. Theyâre wrong, but I get why it happens.
I also understand that âmiddle-aged yaoiâ isnât as fun to say as âold man yaoiâ, even when itâs more technically accurate.
So I would like to propose new vocabulary: Grown Ass Yaoi. yaoi thatâs grown ass men. theyâre not old but theyâre not young adults either. you get me? Grown Ass Yaoi
WAITâ
not only do i think it's pretty clear that eddie does not in fact Know, i think it's also pretty unlikely that his reaction to finding out would be a sense of immediate joyous acceptance and ease. i think he'd actually get really fucking weird about it. the only reason he's not as weird about the concept now as buck is because it's literally never occurred to him. once it does, all bets are off.
I also think in terms of television Eddie already knowing is just poor in terms of dramatic potentialâŠ9-1-1 is a DRAMA! Unless Buck and Eddie get together on the very last episode there will be drama surrounding their canon for sure
no, exactly. eddie already knowing and/or being immediately totally cool about it is just frankly the most boring option. it doesn't have to be some awful dark night of the soul, but this is a huge deal, in terms of his identity and in terms of one of the most important relationships in his life, and i want to see him grapple with it a little bit!
also tbh eddie already knowing and just leaving buck to twist all this time without saying anything for no good reason is just like. nonsensically evil, lmao. why on earth would he do that. either he doesn't know or he's got some hang-ups about it - and realistically at this point, he doesn't know.
I also think people undervalue the subconscious!!! Eddie pulling a loving face at Buck does not mean he KNOWS. Him agreeing that he is the other guy doesnât mean he KNOWS.
He instinctively and emotionally has love for Buck that is undeniable. But in terms of being able to clearly define their relationship and his relationship to sexualityâŠhe doesnât know. Maybe you could argue he knows that he doesnât want a relationship with a woman but that doesnât translate to him knowing he is gay. Eddie is an avoidant personâŠhe isnât deeply dissecting these things. Ryanâs interview confirms that at least in terms of his acting performance. Eddie is NAIVE!! Eddie canât see whatâs right under his nose because he is too close to it!!!
I agree that I donât want the realisation to torture Eddie or be super dark!! I think him having to grapple with reconstructing his notions surrounding himself is really interesting and important. His journey will be different than Bucks because they have very different contexts. I think the realism of the struggle grounds him as a character more (which is why Iâm really not a fan of Eddie having a really chill reaction in fics and just have him bomb it on Buck so non chalantly! Like it makes it kind of feel like a prank or as if them getting together is a comical thing??? Like not yucking on anyoneâs yum but it just always reads ooc to me. In general I just love the realisation thatâs literally half the fun!!! It being of screen would be a tragic waste!!!)
Eddie panics! He gets weird! I think it would be beautiful him reconciling the heaviness of the realisation with the lightness of loving Buck and how easily they slot together.
CeCe Rogers on Facebook writes: "Two Black Tennessee lawmakers were physically escorted out of chambers this week while Republicans quietly held a hearing to approve gerrymandered maps that would eliminate the state's only majority-Black congressional district.
No referendum. No special election. No public vote.
Because they know what happens when voters actually get a say â just look at Virginia, where the people spoke so loudly that Republicans had to drag the courts in to override them.
This isn't new. During Reconstruction, Black Americans held more congressional seats than at any point in the prior 90 years of American history. And white supremacists spent the next several decades tearing that down, through gerrymandering, poll taxes, and voter intimidation.
150 years later, the same tools. Different suits.
The audacity of escorting Black lawmakers out of their own chambers while dismantling Black political representation, and then telling us the courts aren't political, is breathtaking. These are the same courts they're counting on to make it stick.
This is a coordinated, multi-front assault on Black Americans. And we need to say it exactly that plainly."