#distrust in institutions

[alwaysbewoke]

#francis scott key bridge #baltimore #conspiracy theories #misinformation #online rumors #erosion of trust #social media #fact-checking #disinformation #alternative realities #distrust in institutions #media credibility #angela chao #mitch mcconnell #false claims #social media rumor #shipping company #bridge collapse

[silverwingborn]

//Working on Silver’s Oh Heaven Verse, where instead of being killed by the Exorcists, she was taken and imprisoned in Heaven. She’s part of an experiment to “reform” Nephilim to become more angelic and “repent” their “sinful nature”.

#(basically a Jail AU) #(it’s like a prison/institution for Nephilim) #(Silver is far more distrusting and angry in this verse) #oh heaven verse

[dykegonzo]

most beautiful and true effect of testosterone is being able to yell at people without crying for realsies

#anyways yeah just chewed out my brother 4 having dogshit based-in-nothing-but-vibes political ideology and he got rlly mad at me 😁 #apparently i am a 'lunatic' and also 'prejudiced' for being distrusting of the institution of the church #and he is totally open minded and righteous for thinking that the church has never had any ulterior motives ever 👍👍👍

[essercipertuttienonperse]

was listening to a podcast and the author being interviewed was a gay man and he was saying that in this new era of constant online surveillance there's a lot of emphasis on politicians' "authenticity" and a lot of outrage when it comes up that they said something in their off duty time that's not as progressive as their "public" politics/views are but he said he actually doesn't care at all about what they say in private, (I'm paraphrasing here) bc an homophobic joke in private is very different from a public speech instigating hate or laws reinforcing discrimination and he said "I don't want authentic politicians, I want responsible ones".

idk I just thought it was an interesting statement

#ive said something similar before too for example about how people defend public figures ' questionable public choices with remarks about #how great they are in private and ive always said yea but what good does it do being decent in private and then doing shitty things with #your public platform #i guess this is the same thought just reversed #although i think theres more nuances to it like can someone who doesnt believe in something actually be fighting for it at an institutional #level ?? #but i also think that in an ideal society that shouldn't really matter bc in an ideal society/democracy #if a politician that gets elected with a promise to do something and then turns around and doesn't respect that #then theyd simply be kicked out of their positions #but unfortunately in our current society people seem to have forgotten that politicians are meant to work for us and to represent us so ! #i also understand people who distrust someone who has different views in private even if they dont act on them institutionally #idk its a thought provoking idea so i thought id share

[katealot]

Trying to cope with the fact that Season 2 might be my favorite season of TMA

#doing my silly little relisten and oh my GODS i LOVE how unhinged Jon is #i remember the first time around thinking jon’s paranoia was funny #but knowing what i know now its just so fun to see his actual non-pompous overcompensating ass personality start to shine through #even if it is fueled by a deeply rooted distrust in the institute and his peers #first time hearing ‘someone in the archive wants me dead i just don’t know who’: lol ur on some WHACK shit huh? #second time hearing ‘someone in the archives wants me dead i just dont know who’: cheers babygirl I’ll drink to that

[mirrorofliterature]

I saw someone include Christians in their DNI.

(which I find largely questionable... you think those are going to be effective? anyway).

and I'm like

Christians.

you're putting all Christians.

on the same level as Nazis.

like mate I know Christianity is questionable at best but they're nearly a third of the population.

like. okay bye.

#rambles #seriously wtf #'christians are problematic' like christianity is and some christians are but mate #this is a major religion #I mean I'm only catholic living in a Christian-majority country what do I know? #also read half of exodus once #weird time #I also distrust the catholic church as an institution #I disown it #anyway

[specialagentartemis]

I get variations on this comment on my post about history misinformation all the time: "why does it matter?" Why does it matter that people believe falsehoods about history? Why does it matter if people spread history misinformation? Why does it matter if people on tumblr believe that those bronze dodecahedra were used for knitting, or that Persephone had a daughter named Mespyrian? It's not the kind of misinformation that actually hurts people, like anti-vaxx propaganda or climate change denial. It doesn't hurt anyone to believe something false about the past.

Which, one, thanks for letting me know on my post that you think my job doesn't matter and what I do is pointless, if it doesn't really matter if we know the truth or make up lies about history because lies don't hurt anyone. But two, there are lots of reasons that it matters.

It encourages us to distrust historians when they talk about other aspects of history. You might think it's harmless to believe that Pharaoh Hatshepsut was trans. It's less harmless when you're espousing that the Holocaust wasn't really about Jews because the Nazis "came for trans people first." You might think it's harmless to believe that the French royalty of Versailles pooped and urinated on the floor of the palace all the time, because they were asshole rich people anyway, who cares, we hate the rich here; it's rather less harmless when you decide that the USSR was the communist ideal and Good, Actually, and that reports of its genocidal oppression are actually lies.

It encourages anti-intellectualism in other areas of scholarship. Deciding based on your own gut that the experts don't know what they're talking about and are either too stupid to realize the truth, or maliciously hiding the truth, is how you get to anti-vaxxers and climate change denial. It is also how you come to discount housing-first solutions for homelessness or the idea that long-term sustained weight loss is both biologically unlikely and health-wise unnecessary for the majority of fat people - because they conflict with what you feel should be true. Believing what you want to be true about history, because you want to believe it, and discounting fact-based corrections because you don't want them to be true, can then bleed over into how you approach other sociological and scientific topics.

How we think about history informs how we think about the present. A lot of people want certain things to be true - this famous person from history was gay or trans, this sexist story was actually feminist in its origin - because we want proof that gay people, trans people, and women deserve to be respected, and this gives evidence to prove we once were and deserve to be. But let me tell you a different story: on Thanksgiving of 2016, I was at a family friend's house and listening to their drunk conservative relative rant, and he told me, confidently, that the Roman Empire fell because they instituted universal healthcare, which was proof that Obama was destroying America. Of course that's nonsense. But projecting what we think is true about the world back onto history, and then using that as recursive proof that that is how the world is... is shoddy scholarship, and gets used for topics you don't agree with just as much as the ones you do. We should not be encouraging this, because our politics should be informed by the truth and material reality, not how we wish the past proved us right.

It frequently reinforces "Good vs. Bad" dichotomies that are at best unhelpful and at worst victim-blaming. A very common thread of historical misinformation on tumblr is about the innocence or benevolence of oppressed groups, slandered by oppressors who were far worse. This very frequently has truth to it - but makes the lies hard to separate out. It often simplifies the narrative, and implies that the reason that colonialism and oppression were bad was because the victims were Good and didn't deserve it... not because colonialism and oppression are bad. You see this sometimes with radical feminist mother goddess Neolithic feminist utopia stuff, but you also see it a lot regarding Native American and African history. I have seen people earnestly argue that Aztecs did not practice human sacrifice, that that was a lie made up by the Spanish to slander them. That is not true. Human sacrifice was part of Aztec, Maya, and many Central American war/religious practices. They are significantly more complex than often presented, and came from a captive-based system of warfare that significantly reduced the number of people who got killed in war compared to European styles of war that primarily killed people on the battlefield rather than taking them captive for sacrifice... but the human sacrifice was real and did happen. This can often come off with the implications of a 'noble savage' or an 'innocent victim' that implies that the bad things the Spanish conquistadors did were bad because the victims were innocent or good. This is a very easy trap to fall into; if the victims were good, they didn't deserve it. Right? This logic is dangerous when you are presented with a person or group who did something bad... you're caught in a bind. Did they deserve their injustice or oppression because they did something bad? This kind of logic drives a lot of transphobia, homophobia, racism, and defenses of Kyle Rittenhouse today. The answer to a colonialist logic of "The Aztecs deserved to be conquered because they did human sacrifice and that's bad" is not "The Aztecs didn't do human sacrifice actually, that's just Spanish propaganda" (which is a lie) it should be "We Americans do human sacrifice all the god damn time with our forever wars in the Middle East, we just don't call it that. We use bullets and bombs rather than obsidian knives but we kill way, way more people in the name of our country. What does that make us? Maybe genocide is not okay regardless of if you think the people are weird and scary." It becomes hard to square your ethics of the Innocent Victim and Lying Perpetrator when you see real, complicated, individual-level and group-level interactions, where no group is made up of members who are all completely pure and good, and they don't deserve to be oppressed anyway.

It makes you an unwitting tool of the oppressor. The favorite, favorite allegation transphobes level at trans people, and conservatives at queer people, is that we're lying to push the Gay Agenda. We're liars or deluded fools. If you say something about queer or trans history that's easy to debunk as false, you have permanently hurt your credibility - and the cause of queer history. It makes you easy to write off as a liar or a deluded fool who needs misinformation to make your case. If you say Louisa May Alcott was trans, that's easy to counter with "there is literally no evidence of that, and lots of evidence that she was fine being a woman," and instantly tanks your credibility going forward, so when you then say James Barry was trans and push back against a novel or biopic that treats James Barry as a woman, you get "you don't know what you're talking about, didn't you say Louisa May Alcott was trans too?" TERFs love to call trans people liars - do not hand them ammunition, not even a single bullet. Make sure you can back up what you say with facts and evidence. This is true of homophobes, of racists, of sexists. Be confident of your facts, and have facts to give to the hopeful and questioning learners who you are relating this story to, or the bigots who you are telling off, because misinformation can only hurt you and your cause.

It makes the queer, female, POC, or other marginalized listeners hurt, sad, and betrayed when something they thought was a reflection of their own experiences turns out not to be real. This is a good response to a performance art piece purporting to tell a real story of gay WWI soldiers, until the author revealed it as fiction. Why would you want to set yourself up for disappointment like that? Why would you want to risk inflicting that disappointment and betrayal on anyone else?

It makes it harder to learn the actual truth.

Historical misinformation has consequences, and those consequences are best avoided - by checking your facts, citing your sources, and taking the time and effort to make sure you are actually telling the truth.

#history #history and the world #misinformation

[borninwinter81]

William Blake - an introduction for Good Omens fans

I have sent @neil-gaiman an ask regarding his feelings toward the poet/artist William Blake a couple of times, but no doubt due to the size of the poor man's inbox I haven't received a response. So I did a Google search to see if he's spoken about Blake before, and it did indeed come up with a fair few hits. I think you might enjoy seeing this Twitter post if you haven't already, the painting is from William Blake's illustrations to Paradise Lost.

It's not surprising that an author like Neil Gaiman might have an interest in Blake. A visionary from a young age, his imagination was such that he was surrounded by angels made visible in his mind's eye, and he interpreted these visions through poetry, painting and engraving, and self-printed and published many of his own works. This gave him complete freedom to say exactly what he wanted.

Though he had a passionate faith in God, he also had a deep distrust of the church as an institution, and disliked the use of religion as a means of control. This poem from "Songs of Experience" perhaps summarises his feelings best:

"I went to the Garden of Love,

And saw what I never had seen:

A Chapel was built in the midst,

Where I used to play on the green.

And the gates of this Chapel were shut,

And 'Thou shalt not' writ over the door;

So I turn'd to the Garden of Love,

That so many sweet flowers bore. 

And I saw it was filled with graves,

And tomb-stones where flowers should be:

And Priests in black gowns, were walking their rounds,

And binding with briars, my joys & desires."

In his poetry there is often an incongruity with the generally accepted religious ideas of what is good and evil, Angel and Demon. In The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (there's a title that should make any GO fan sit up and pay attention) he tells us that "in the book of Job, Milton's Messiah is called Satan", signifying that he feels it is Lucifer/the devil who is the true Messiah of Paradise Lost.

He gives us The Voice of the Devil and Proverbs of Hell, and has Angels being transformed into Demons through enlightenment. He tells us that Jesus broke all of the 10 commandments, yet was still virtuous because he acted according to his own morality rather than rules.

The god-figure of his later works, Urizen, generally comes across as malevolent, seeking to bind and control, whilst Los, the Satan/Messiah figure represents freedom, imagination and creativity.

"Restraining desire" and acting contrary to your own nature seem to be the only real evils for Blake.

He expressed his faith through a love of the world and the beauty in it, summed up in this quote:

"When the Sun rises do you not see a round Disk of fire somewhat like a Guinea? O no no I see an innumerable company of the Heavenly host crying Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty".

He saw "God" in everything, in all the wonders we have around us, and considered writers/poets and religious prophets as essentially the same, since they both have a connection to the divine, and express it through stories.

It's quite ironic that probably his most famous poem, Jerusalem (the one that starts "and did those feet in ancient times walk upon England's mountains green"), was made into a very popular church hymn, yet it is supposed to be satirical in nature. The poem recounts the myth that Jesus may have visited England in his boyhood, and Blake is expressing his disbelief at that notion and the unworthiness of England.

Did I have a point to all this? Mostly to show my hand as a massive Blake nerd, but also to hopefully demonstrate that there's a lot of common ground between his ideas and those expressed in a show/book like Good Omens, and hopefully to inspire some of you who may not be familiar with Blake to seek him out. In particular I'd recommend The Marriage of Heaven and Hell to any and all.

EDIT: I should have thought to include this, here's Michael Sheen reading a Blake poem. I have the CD this is from, he reads several by Blake, as well as other poets I love ❤️ 😍

#william blake #good omens #good omens book #good omens 2 #good omens s3 #neil gaiman #crowley #aziraphale #english literature #literature #poetry #go2 #good omens s2 #good omens season 2 #book omens #michael sheen #Youtube

[crimeronan]

house md is wild cause it feels like in creating a show based on "irreverent doctor who is garbage, unlike the saint docs on all the boring medical soap operas rn" they completely accidentally created one of the most compelling and important concepts of all time, in "disabled chronic pain doctor distrusts medical institutions because of his experiences with addiction and disability, therefore he is constantly breaking the law and hospital administrative policy rules to get marginalized patients care that they would otherwise be denied, and the show uses this as a way to spotlight various forms of institutional patient inequity"

but BECAUSE the writers lucked into this concept by accident and have no idea WHY it's important, half of the show is Also "doctor commits constant heinous malpractice on vulnerable patients and treats them like shit and traumatizes them and this is considered a normal good protag thing to do because it will always be shown to be retroactively justified, because actually the patient always Was lying or being unreasonable, and this doctor is so so so smart and special that no rules ever apply to him, and no consequences will ever be shown" which is obviously. eaugh

so when it's good it's SO SO SO SO SO FUCKING GOOOOOD but it's also like. not something i can in good conscience recommend to Any other chronic illness people. u feel me.

#thats without even starting on all the treatment of various -isms #anyway. god. i think about it so much #house md #medical abuse #medical malpractice

[kittykatninja321]

Any au that has Jason willingly working for the government even if it’s as a social worker has automatically kinda lost me because we’re talking about someone who distrusts the system so much that as a child he chose the streets over going into custody of social services. Jason’s lack of faith in institutions continues into adulthood (but also through his original Robin tenure low key), one of the most substantial differences between his and Bruce’s philosophy is the fact that Bruce puts his faith in the law and the criminal justice system while Jason decidedly does not in the slightest

#‘Jason would work for Gotham social services as a civilian/day job ’ Would Jason trust Gotham social services? Genuinely honest question #feel free to answer with panels and stuff #I just don’t see him as someone who trusts state institutions or The System at all #Jason Todd #Dc #You could sorta look at the diplomat’s son case as a difference between Bruce and Jason’s faith in the law #Bruce just sorta throws his hands up and goes ‘law has our hands tied’ and Jason is very unsatisfied with this answer #and he may or may not do something very much outside of the law in response #Tangent note: cop comparisons aside any au that has Jason actually working inside a police department has lost the plot #Jason Todd says fuck 12 he told me himself

[randompoetemogirl]

SPOILERS

Okay, I like how Ballister had an actual reason for distrusting Nimona towards the end. Too many movies would have Nimona do something stupid to make him lose his trust. It’s cheap and I’m glad they didn’t do it. Same thing with Ambrosius. You never feel like either of them are acting bad or villainous, but at the same time, you know what’s happening isn’t fair.

Also, are we going to acknowledge the fact that Nimona has been by herself for 1,000 years? When I realized that my jaw dropped.

So you’re telling me that for centuries Gloreth’s bloodline has been forced into knightly positions? Ambrosius HAS to have some unresolved trauma from that. Did he even want to be a knight? I assumed her stepped down towards the end of the movie since we don’t hear anything about him or Ambrosius being knights.

Speaking of Ambrosius, he was written perfectly. You can tell he genuinely loves Bal, but has been brainwashed by The Institute. The moment he figures out that Bal didn’t do it he immediately said “screw The Institute”. So when he shows Bal the scroll, you can’t even get mad at him. Ballister would do the same thing if the rolls were switched. Also, him saying “You’ve worked harder than all of us,” really showed me he was a good guy from the get go. He acknowledges his own privilege and knows that Bal has had to work twice as hard to be seen as half as good.

The Squire was a surprisingly good character. If he knew who to go to, he probably would have given up the footage himself. But he didn’t, and he had to go against the word of The Institute, who’s basically a step below The Queen. I don’t blame him for not saying anything.

But listen, if people hated me for thousands of years because when I was 8 or so some kid my age decided I was a monster I would be LIVID. It’s a miracle Nimona turned out as nice as she did.

Also, NIMONA COMING BACK AT THE END?! I need to write and read fanfics of the wedding, the adoption, the adoption of more children, Ambrosius and Nimona having a moment. GET ON IN PEOPLE, I’LL DO IT WITH YOU!

Overall, best movie of the damn century. Disney WILL be kicking themselves.

#ambrosius goldenloin #ballister blackheart #nimona #ballister boldheart #goldenheart #nimona film #Review

[corpsebrigadier]

I wish the distrust of expertise was more "I can see how institutional biases and structural problems have led experts to be inaccurate at times; I will be more careful in evaluating my sources" and less "I can see how institutional biases and structural problems have led experts to be inaccurate at times; I'm the expert now."

[thestephanieflora]

If Snape was using Occlumency to shield his mind from Voldemort, why didn’t Voldemort become suspicious that Snape was hiding something since he couldn’t penetrate his mind with Legilimency?

It’s because Snape did something far cleverer than merely “shielding his mind” from Lord Voldemort.

As one can make out from their interactions, Snape seemed to be the only Death Eater whom Voldemort ever had any modicum of respect for. You don’t merit Lord Voldemort’s esteem by being incompetent or stupid. Snape clearly earned his spot as Voldemort’s most revered servant by proving himself and being the asset that he was.

See, Snape never lied to Voldemort. Snape knew that Voldemort’s skill in Legillemency would immediately alert him to duplicity, so instead, Snape only told Voldemort the truth.

When Voldemort first returned, Snape justified his initial absconding from the Death Eaters by saying that he thought Voldemort had been vanquished in Godric’s Hollow. In The Prince’s Tale, we learn that this is actually true. Snape thought Voldemort had gone, and it was only Dumbledore who insisted that he would one day return. Later, he told Bellatrix that Voldemort forgave him for impeding him in his plot to purloin the Philosopher’s Stone because he did not know Voldemort was the mastermind behind the enterprise, and only thought that “unworthy” Professor Quirrell (whom Snape hated for getting the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher position) was trying to take the Stone for himself. Again, this turns out to be completely true.

Snape then spent 2 years “spying” on Dumbledore, and relayed what little he knew of the Headmaster’s activities to Voldemort. Dumbledore chose to keep Snape in the dark on most of his plots, which was actually (justifiably I might add) a source of great frustration for Snape. Then he killed Dumbledore just as Voldemort wanted.

Before the Battle of the Seven Potters, Snape gave Voldemort the correct date of Harry’s departure from Little Whinging. He correctly pointed out that Yaxley had been given a false trail, and truthfully divulged that the Order of the Phoenix distrusted the Ministry and the Auror office and wanted nothing to do with the institution. Re-read the scene from The Dark Lord Ascending in the books and pay close attention to the description of Voldemort’s body language. He hangs on to every word Snape says with great interest, and invites Snape to sit by his side. Meanwhile he ignores and then silences Yaxley (whom he shunts beside Dolohov), and expresses contempt for the Malfoys and Bellatrix by humiliating them. But Snape he holds in far higher regard, arguably valuing him more than anyone save for his beloved Nagini.

Voldemort was quite correct in recognizing Snape as an impressively talented and exceptionally intelligent wizard. He just never calculated that Snape’s cunning could be used against him. Even if Voldemort had decided to raid Snape’s mind, he would’ve found little of interest. Snape’s love for Lily Potter was already known to Voldemort (and he foolishly underestimated it, just as he did with Lily’s love for Harry), and the fact that he spent a great deal of time scheming with Dumbledore would not have perturbed Voldemort, but would’ve pleased him. That was literally the job that Snape was given; to earn Dumbledore’s trust and spy on him, and then relay his plans to Voldemort.

Snape’s deception of Voldemort is honestly one of the most underrated feats in the entire series, not necessarily because it was magically impressive (although it was), but because it was carried out so cleverly. As was made clear by his potion riddle all the way back in Philosopher’s Stone, Snape’s greatest talent was his cleverness, which so many wizards seem to lack. Hermione was quite right in recognizing Snape’s genius.

Snape fooled Voldemort with the truth, not with lies. That’s how he got away with it for so long.

Our Snapey has the brightest mind in the entire series, period. 🖤

#severus snape #snape love #snape #pro severus #severus #snape fandom #pro snape #snape content

[mellon1998]

Do I want them to stay in Last Bast and be safe and fed and have a community and maybe Tula could have a chance to slam down big style? Yes.

Do I trust this place for even like half a second? No. Absolutely not.

Let me be clear that I do not distrust each individual stoat in Last Bast, it is the institution of Last Bast itself that I do not trust.

#dimension 20 #d20 #burrow's end #burrow's end spoilers #it's giving Ba Sing Se vibes #everything looks so good and perfect #and for the most part the people are just getting through their day to day lives #but the ones at the top calling the shots are simply not to be trusted #the preview for next week of the fact that they seem to be REQUIRED to forget the ones who died even existed ??? #nope no nuh uh #do not like that #bad place bad

[anghraine]

On the one hand, I absolutely love the high tragedy of Denethor's arc in the book, think it's amazingly well-written, and that he is one of the most complex and fascinating characters that Tolkien ever wrote.

On the other, there's part of me that's also a little frustrated by how much it has to happen because Tolkien kind of wrote himself into a corner with the Ruling Stewards. He's insistent on a few things about them:

Their initial rise to power as perma-regents of Gondor was squeaky-clean. Mardil was a paragon of virtue, he tried to prevent Eärnur from getting himself killed, there were no clear successors, and retaining the regency prevented another Kinstrife and created a stable institution that would hold Gondor together for 900+ years after the failure of the kings.

They are a high Númenórean family descended from Elendil, even if they're not formally of the line of Elendil (for unknown reasons, but most likely because they're descended through women).

Denethor is notably very similar to Aragorn, in intellect, wisdom, stature, ability, even appearance. He is a towering and respected figure, and he and his sons are highly popular with their people (even with children).

Denethor's military tactics in the book are very good, and UT says Sauron hoped Denethor would be less prepared than he actually was.

Denethor is proud, unbending, and personally dislikes and distrusts Aragorn. He thinks Gandalf is using him against Sauron for now while planning for Aragorn to take power later (this is filtered through his pride but ... um, is he wrong?).

Faramir, now Denethor's last heir, is a fantastic if reluctant warrior and captain, a super special Númenórean throwback, and a thoughtful, intelligent, and wise person who is humbler than Denethor, but also established as wary about Aragorn.

Gondor formally rejected the claim of Aragorn's family before the Ruling Stewardship even existed.

What all this means is that Denethor, if alive, is someone who will never willingly give way to Aragorn. Denethor has legal precedent on his side, he is himself a perfectly good ruler from a long-standing, stable, legitimate ruling family and a highly capable military leader in war, he is liked by his people, and he even has a viable heir regardless of the personal strain between him and Faramir.

There's just no reason for Aragorn to take power that Denethor, as written, would find remotely persuasive. But Denethor is also too noble and capable and special for a power grab on Aragorn's side to feel right, esp given how destructive it would be in the middle of a war (as Aragorn acknowledges!). Despite the sparkly kingliness and mystical airs, this is fundamentally a dynastic dispute between two different houses descended from Elendil, based on the minutia of Gondorian and Númenórean law and precedent, and a fight over that is ... not the kind of story this is.

Denethor has to be driven to self-destruction by the plot so that Aragorn's rise can happen. It simply would not occur if Denethor was alive and in his right mind. Faramir has to be mystically healed by Aragorn so that his reservations will dissolve and he will voluntarily remove himself from the picture in a way that doesn't feel bad.

And both scenes are fantastic, and make sense for the characters. But I do feel that they kind of get steamrollered by the plot to make way for Aragorn.

The thing that makes that doubly fascinating, though, is that Tolkien didn't have to prop the House of the Stewards up so thoroughly. He could have written a version where the Stewards are inadequate or really sketchy or simply can't be compared to Aragorn's greatness and it's clear why they should be replaced by him and his house. Tolkien could have made this a lot easier for himself! And I do respect the more difficult and nuanced approach Tolkien took with the Stewards by making them genuinely impressive and noble and capable in their own right and not just cardboard-cutouts for Aragorn to kick over.

But, well.

#anghraine babbles #long post #legendarium blogging #legendarium fanwank #húrinionath #denethor #faramir #mardil voronwë #etc #ondonórë blogging

[judasrpc]

THE MAJOR ARCANA, REVERSED

a collection of character development questions based on the arcana and their themes !! this is part of a collection of tarot-themed asks. if multi, please specify which muse(s) the question is directed toward !!

[THE FOOL] - Do you consider them naive, or disconnected from the world aronud them? If so, what do they need to step back and reflect on to get them "in the zone"?

[THE MAGICIAN] - Do they self-sabatoge, or do they sabatoge others in their lives? If so, how?

[THE HIGH PRIESTESS] - Do they easily trust others, or do they listen to their gut more? Are they distrusting?

[THE EMPRESS] - What economic background did they grow up in, or are a part of now? Has their situation gotten better or worse?

[THE EMPEROR] - Where do they stand in the social hierarchy of their group (e.g., are they at the top of the chain, or are they subservient to those around them?)

[THE HIEROPHANT] - Do they often abide by social norms, or do they reject institutional values in favor of flexibility/independence?

[THE LOVERS] - Are they a good communicator, or do they tend to crack under pressure?

[THE CHARIOT] - Do they feel like they belong anywhere, or do they feel outcast in comparison to their peers?

[STRENGTH] - Are they jealous/envious? If so, what makes them jealous/envious of those around them?

[THE HERMIT] - Is solitude a good or bad thing for them? Do they like being alone, or do they have no choice?

[WHEEL OF FORTUNE] - Are they lucky, or does misfortune tend to follow them wherever they go?

[JUSTICE] - What do they need to be held accountable for? What actions, if any, do they deny responsibility for?

[THE HANGED MAN] - Do they feel "stuck" in any aspects, or as if they're falling behind their goals?

[DEATH] - What are they holding onto, and are they refusing to let this go?

[TEMPERANCE] - Do they tend to think in a polarized manner, or do they attempt to navigate the nuance of whatever troubles them?

[THE DEVIL] - What is their go-to recovery plan? Do they take time for themselves, or do they jump back into action without a second thought?

[THE TOWER] - What is the most disastrous thing that could happen to them? How would they navigate that situation/event?

[THE STAR] - Are they faithful? If so, to who/to what, and how do they show it?

[THE MOON] - What is one question they would do anything to get an answer to, no matter the cost?

[THE SUN] - Is it hard for them to stay positive? If so, why is that?

[JUDGMENT] - What is one thing they harshly judge themselves for? What creates doubt and self-loathing for them?

[THE WORLD] - What are they missing in life? What one thing, if anything, is the "key" to their success?

#rp memes #rp prompts #rp meme #roleplay prompts #ask box meme #askbox meme #inbox meme #character help #character development #rpc #rph #judasrpc