Buffy ~ Kill me
(i'm sorry that you're going through something hard)
occasionally subtle
trying on a metaphor

izzy's playlists!
Three Goblin Art

No title available
Misplaced Lens Cap
Game of Thrones Daily
No title available

@theartofmadeline
Monterey Bay Aquarium
ojovivo
Xuebing Du
No title available
hello vonnie
YOU ARE THE REASON
đȘŒ
macklin celebrini has autism
tumblr dot com

Kaledo Art

romaâ
seen from TĂŒrkiye
seen from Canada

seen from Colombia
seen from Colombia

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Italy

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia

seen from TĂŒrkiye
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Canada

seen from India

seen from TĂŒrkiye
@shadowcay
Buffy ~ Kill me
(i'm sorry that you're going through something hard)
how it feels to be online these days
she was at the club. it didnt change anything. it didnt save anyone. there were just too many forces against it. but it still matters that she was at the club.
clicker training but its just a single piano key that makes you sad
Ainât this what MCR did to a bunch of 2010s emos
I donât think youâre ready to have an adult conversation about politics until youâre able to admit that there are things you love and enjoy that would not and should not exist in a just world. $8 billion dollar budget movies every other month donât exist in a just world. New 900 GB AAA video games every year donât exist in a just world. Next day delivery doesnât exist in a just world. 80 different soda brands donât exist in a just world.Â
All of those things come from exploitation on some level, and if you wouldnât trade those for a world where everyone can eat and have a home no matter who they are or what they do, I donât know what to tell you.Â
Man, this post makes me feel conflicted, because on the one hand, of the things listed, next-day delivery is the only one that DOES actually exist in the world today. The others are exaggerations, and while I understand the point being made, they do detract from it.
I understandâand agree withâthat sentiment of, âI want slower deliveries by drivers who are paid better,â as one recent tumblr post put it. I absolutely agree with the idea that we need to produce and consume less as a culture, and that an actual substantive conversation about politics should involve willingness to relinquish the many modern luxuries that are built on exploitation.
I donât think these are good examples of those luxuries, though.
Large budget movies are possible because consumers (and investors) are willing to pay for them. A large budget is actually a necessary component in making sure workers are being adequately compensated; the fact that they currently are often exploited by studios is a result of deliberate misallocation of resources, not anything intrinsic to the size of the production. Same thing goes with high-quality video games. As for releasing a new film/game every month/year, thatâs only unsustainable because thereâs only a handful of monopolistic studios doing it. In a well-regulated industry that encourages growth and competition, we could see tens, if not hundreds of studios producing big-budget films and games. And, with a well-compensated and socially-supported citizenry, consumers would have enough disposable income to support it.
Similarly, the problem with soda isnât that we have 80 brands; itâs that we have two. And those two brands each own 800 different labels. In a healthy economy, these monopolies would be dissolved, and we could support well over 80 moderately-sized independent beverage companies producing their own sodas.
Same-day delivery, again, could be easily supported with proper allocation of resources. Currently, we have huge centralized distributors like Amazon exploiting gig-workers with slave-wages to ferry cheap mass-produced crap to people, and thatâs what makes it bad, not the speed at which they do it. If instead, we had something like a super-robust USPS, with well-compensated deliverypeople working reasonable hours within a decentralized network of independent-but-cooperative suppliers, there would be absolutely no reason why you couldnât get something delivered to you from the distro ten miles down the road within a day.
When we critique capitalism, and they respond, âYeah, well capitalism made the cell phone youâre using!â our response shouldnât be, âOh shit u right,â it should be, âNo, capitalism made the cell phone Iâm using break after a year so Iâll buy a new one, and they use slave labor to do it while they pocket the rest.â
There are luxuries, and there are artificially-valued, mass-produced, built-to-break trash that are marketed as luxuries. But we donât solve the problems of fast-fashion by saying, âWelp I guess I shouldnât wear clothes.â
yeah thatâs a decent rebuttal imma reblog now
honestly my favorite thing about hardison is that he has no real tragic backstory, heâs just like âi am very smart and therefore i should be allowed to do crimeâ and heâs entirely correct
#this show is liiiiiiiiiife#hardisonâs tragedy is basically just the failure of society to care for its poor#he didnât have individuals be horrible to him necessarily#he didnât have an incident that caused things#he grew up in foster care but clearly was loved by nana#he gets along well with people and was socialized as akid#but basically he had no opportunities#so why not do crime? he could get away with it (tags by @fandom-frenzy)
i hope you donât mind me copying your tags bc while i stand by how funny it is that hardison just kinda does crime bc itâs rad, i think itâs a really cool subtle way to strengthen the premise of the show, which is that the system is bad and you SHOULD break it with crime, and thatâs why the sweetest nicest guy who loves everyone is also the guy who had a perfectly fine life with his nana except for systemic issues and now he, an incredibly smart guy who could probably rock the hell out of any job on the planet, just kinda does crime? and not in a sad way but just in a âhey this is bullshit iâm gonna rob a bank nonviolentlyâ way
also i really like how that contrasts with nate who intensely benefited from the system until it screwed him over and who then twists the system against itself for revenge (and who is an absolute self destructive bastard), while hardison is like ârules? for me? no thank you iâm smartâ
man i love this show
#also ALSO that Hardison sublimates anger in comedy #the running comedic commentary with little barbs sometimes thrown in is a pressure release #which is more common in systemically oppressed groups in which outright anger is stigmatized or criminalized #like Hardison is on page and in performance trying to lean away from the angry Black guy stereotype #whereas Nate who experienced one tragedy despite his structural power is like âI am the most sinned against man in the worldâ #and then romanticized his own anger to the extent that he endangered multiple members of his own team
reblogging again to add @peri-hellionâs excellent commentary
has anyone done this yet?
the best movie genre is heists where everything goes slightly wrong but in the last 10 minutes they show in flashbacks that actually everything was planned and they meant to break every bone in their body then go to prison or whatever
I know no one cares but just to harp on about story structure for a minute, you see this a lot because itâs one of a very limited set of ways that a heist movie can go.
In one of his college classes, Brandon Sanderson explains that there are only basically two heist plots. One is this one -- a team of people with quirky personalities who are extremely competent in extremely niche skill sets get together and pit their skills against a very formidable foe (super advanced security) in a very high-stakes competition (get the Massively Important/Valuable Loot or Go To Jail), then at the climax, oh no! Everything goes wrong! but then, in a big twist, it turns out a false failure was the plan all along! The other is where a team of people with quirky personalities who are extremely competent in extremely niche skill sets get together and pit their skills against a very formidable foe (super advanced security) in a very high-stakes competition (get the Massively Important/Valuable Loot or Go To Jail), then at the climax, things really do go wrong, and they specifically have to use the exact skills theyâve been training for or assets theyâve gathered in their heist to get out of it. But Sanderson doesnât explain why.
The reason that you see these two plots crop up again and again is that the genre itself greatly limits the kind of stories it can tell. People watch heist movies because they want to see hypercompetent people defeat the very formidable security system with their skills, intelligence, and cooperation; thatâs the draw. Itâs most of the buildup of the story. Audiences want to see the crew getting together, getting to know each other, training for the job, and then get the payoff of their success. But, a story without tension is boring; your characters canât just be like âwe have the skills to do thisâ, and then successfully do it, and then itâs over and everything is fine. Little things need to be a threat, and you need Something Major To Go Wrong at the climax, or you donât have a climax. Which puts the writer in a bind; they need the plan to fail or the story is boring, but they need the hypercompetent team to succeed using the skills theyâve built up over the story or theyâre breaking their promise to the audience. You canât write a heist story where something goes wrong at the last minute and then the characters do something else unrelated to their training to get out of it; it makes the entire rest of the story feel pointless and unrewarding.
So you only really have two options -- the characters Pull Off The Heist because the danger was false, this was the plan all along, theyâre that clever and competent. OR the danger is real and the characters need to change their plans, but specifically using the skills and assets theyâve honed the whole story, in improvised ways. The genre itself forces the story down one of these two tracks, or it will either a) suck, or b) not be a heist story.
Anyway thatâs why approximately 50% of heist stories are the kind that OP loves.
Leverage is a show that manages to take this and apply it to 77 eps in the OG run and 29 eps in the sequel. They manage to make things feel fresh and exciting because the tension comes from (usually) 2 things:
The danger is real because of something to do one or two charactersâ growth, and the heists are mainly there to serve as character building moments to overcome/address this issue, OR
the characters have done their job TOO well, and the con has spilled out of their control.
Which I truly appreciate because it is better for them to have fucked up plans because they sold a con too well than not at all.
I can behave normally around books
I can be trusted in bookstores and libraries and you should take me to those locations
Vibe based knowledge yeah
i hate it when people ask me to "explain my thought process" like hell if i know
"what's going on in that head of yours?" nothing i want to be a part of
no i am not immune to early 2000s pop-punk music that fucks a little harder than everyone likes to admit
omg imagine being born and you are on a spaceship and everyone aboard is sooo so mad at you just because you burst out of some guy's chest to be born. like um sorry i've not been alive before i didn't even know that's not allowed please be nice to me um the spaceship floor is cold is no one going to knit me some little booties i am calling child protective services
Faith. Her name alone invokes awe. âFaith.â A set of principles or beliefs upon which youâre willing to devote your life. The Dark Slayer. A lethal combination of beauty, power, and death.
Eliza Dushku as Faith Lehane in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003)
watching a video on brewing Mesopotamian beer and look at this orange man (his ass cannot guard the barley)
corporate ppl are always like âi hate email comms they cause so many delaysâ but those people are fools. i crave communication delays. i hit send on an email and then immediately shoot a prayer up to the heavens that the response may take 2-3 days. letâs slow everything down just a bit thank you.
this is the most productive workforce in history and im just doing my part to dial that back a tad
#reblog#this is fully correct#before i sent the email it was My Problem#now the email is sent and it is not Not My Problem for as long as it takes to get a reply
Yes.