Tumgik
#incorrect legion of horribles
adalwolfgang · 1 year
Text
Jervis: FOUR MONTHS-
Penguin: what’s wrong with him?
(Name), laughing: it’s nothing really…
Jervis: THATS HOW LONG YOU STOOD BY AND WATCHED ME WATER A FAKE PLANT!
137 notes · View notes
Text
Jerome: oh, i can totally suck my dick
Tetch: ...i'll bite, prove it
Jerome: JEREMIAH!
Jeremiah: *sighs* what now
Jerome: can i suck dick or not, gorgeous?
Jeremiah: *rubs temples* yes, you can
Jerome: ta-dah
Tetch: but you said YOUR dick
Jerome: his dick's MINE, it counts
22 notes · View notes
thejsquadswhore · 2 years
Text
Gotham incorrect quotes with reader :)
Jerome: “I’ve never been in a snowball fight before! I don’t even know the rules”
You: “..what?”
Jerome: “IS IT TO THE DEATH?? Or until you admit defeat and accept me as your ultimate leader?”
—-
*you in a job interview with the legion of horribles*
Jervis: “so what’s your biggest weakness?”
You: “I can be very uncooperative”
Jervis: “can you give me an example?”
You: “no”
Jerome: “I like her”
—-
You: *holding up sign*
Oswald: “what gender are you? … well male”
You: * “what gender are you ATTRACTED TO?”
Oswald: “Attracted to?? You little mf🤨” … “still male tho”
—-
Zsasz: “oh fuck!”
You: “we gotta work on your cursing.”
Zsasz: “why? I think im good at it already :(“
—-
Zsasz: “you look familiar.. have I threatened you before?”
You: “…” *sigh* “yes😓”
—-
Jerome: “don’t worry I got a plan!”
You: “okay :)”
Jerome: “traitorsaywhat?”
Oswald: “excuse me?”
Jerome: “what?”
You: *face palms*
Oswald: “…”
Jerome: “WAIT NO-“
—-
You: “hey im getting in the shower.. wanna help me out?“
Jonathan: “…have you never showered before?”
You: “…”
Jerome: “this mf-“
—-
You: “can I be frank with you guys?”
Jerome: “but I thought you were Y/N?”
Jervis: “shhh! Let Frank speak!”
Jonathan: “can I still be Jonathan :(“
You: “I love true crime docos!”
Zsasz, trying to impress you: “I’ve actually had several documentaries made about me”
427 notes · View notes
longclawshilt · 9 months
Text
Welp ok so I generally don’t care about differing fandom opinions (unless they’re egregious misreadings specifically related to Jon Snow’s arc/character), but this article right here is absolutely BONKERS. Like in ways that I can’t even begin to explain. So the title right away is just so…
Why GRRM’s A Song of Ice and Fire is Bad Literature
Ok whatever, fantasy has traditionally had a hard time being regarded as literature. So this is nothing new. And I don’t particularly care about this argument so moving on…
I love that the first sentence is also just so factually incorrect
Nearly half a century has pasted since Billy Shakespeare has picked up his pen, and bibliophiles are still reading his plays.
Sis probably meant to say millennium but ok 😭 lowkey makes me think this is a joke but parts of this doesn’t read like that ansbjanan
And then the author proceeds to make a pretty bold claim
Traditionally, page-turners are not masterpieces. And that rule still stands when it runs by GRRM’s works. Yet legions of his fans sprout ridiculous praise, such as GRRM revolutionizing the fantasy genre and the diversity of his characters.
But…he kinda did. ASOIAF has had a great impact on the genre (good and bad). Plus, it is really important to acknowledge the sheer diversity of characters presented to us in the series. Characters who would traditionally not get the big focus that they do. Two of our main characters are disabled, and a big part of their arcs is how they navigate a world that is so horribly ableist. He upends the return of the king trope by shifting it to his sister who starts out a child bride/sex slave forced to take on the mantle of a dead dynasty. We have two female characters whose arcs revolve around how gender nonconforming they are but how they are so rooted in ideas of justice and compassion, especially towards the disenfranchised. He upends the revenge of the glorious and noble king by putting the focus on his mother. Et cetera, et cetera. Now GRRM is not without his faults (and he has many), but one cannot in good faith act like he hasn’t given us a different spin on a lot of what fantasy offers. There’s no need to be contrarian for the sake of it.
GRRM, being the revolutionary monster he is, rejects the romanticism of fantasy in favor for realism. He eschews the wonder, the ideals, the heroism, the chivalry, and the subtle social commentary. Congrats, you’re very innovative, GRRM. What did you replace them with?
I just vastly disagree with this and idk where to start.
Case in point. Throughout the series I masturbated to rape scenes, lovemaking scenes, and even a lesbian scene in which a vagina is described as a “Myrish swamp.” Yet in the aftermath of my orgasms, I was left to wonder: where’s all the pederasts? GRRM addressed this curious phenomenon by explaining none of the viewpoint characters were homosexual; “Sorry, none of the characters chose to be gay. Nothing I can do about it.”
Ok the beginning of this section is INSANE. Might just be me but idk why you would even add this to an essay that’s apparently about literary criticism. But I anyway…it is a fair critique that none of our POVs are explicitly non-heterosexual (and we can also criticize some fetishization with female-female relationships), but like the “myriad swamp” thing…isn’t it about power? Like there’s something in that scene that gives us glimpse to who Cersei is and what she craves…idk
Which goes to show, GRRM doesn’t use sex for verisimilitude; he exploits it so degenerates such as I can buy his books. Sure, heterosexual rape happens in war. So does homosexual rape, but its complete absence in the books ought to raise some eyebrows.
The second sentence makes a good point but it’s preceded by what is honestly just a mind blowing statement I- 😭
Additionally, not every graphic sex scene in the books contributes to the narrative. Sometimes it is absolutely redundant. In Dance of Dragons, Asha Greyjoy fucks Qarl the maid, which serves to… Show Asha’s feminine side? Reveal her disdain for her arranged marriage? It obviously didn’t supplement the plot; ten minutes post-coitus, a fucking battle occurs. I don’t understand why it needed to be so explicit as well. Its short appearance in the chapter was awkward, almost entirely random. Yes, sex happens in real life. That doesn’t mean portrayals of real life have to be so ridiculously pornographic.
Wait, this is satire right? Did I fall for it?
Eh, I can tolerate violence. At the age of five, I remember watching from the passenger’s seat as my dad pulverized his colleague by repeatedly smashing his head into the car’s hood and fender, spraying blood all over the windshield. But there’s a distinctive difference between sensational violence and artistic violence. Sensational violence is violence for the sake of violence, for the sole purpose of evoking shock and disgust. It’s tasteless. As bipolar as he is, even my ex-convict padre didn’t attack strangers without reason.
I’m so confused this has to be a bit, right?
No literary devices such as symbolism, metaphors, even the fucking pacing. While there is a climax, the scene does not build itself up to it: there is no intensity in the air, and time is not manipulated. Catharsis is missing, and the only feelings a reader has for Oberyn’s death is shock due to the element of hero invincibility. Don’t people get it? GRRM’s writing is boring.
One of the most confusing aspects of this scene was the death of the stableboy. It’s a great example of sensational violence, because his death seems entirely random and unnecessary. His life was so dispensable, the reader could barely register what they’re supposed to feel: sorrow, terror, or shock? What if the killed bystander was someone important? Violence for the sake of violence, and it comes off as tacky.
No way did I fall for a satirical piece on literary analysis?
This is essentially what GRRM does with Brienne of Tarth. She’s incredibly ugly and described as androgynous; her life was filled with scorn and pity for the lack of her feminine social graces, and contempt and resentment due to her violation of gender norms. But if I was a biologically female transsexual in a patriarchal medieval world, I’d have no fucking reason to dress up and act like a knight, especially if I was an aristocrat (which Brienne is). I don’t understand why Brienne couldn’t stay at Evenfall Hall and be her father’s Castellan or Captain of the Guard. She’s the only surviving child (and heir) of Lord Tarth, so I’m confused why her father would let her roam Westeros as a hedge knight. It’s also never explained why Brienne wanted to be a knight in the first place. She idealizes the concept of true knighthood but you can be just as courageous and conscientious as a lord. Brienne acts like a knight just for the purpose of being a female knight.
I feel like this is a joke 😭
If it isn’t a joke, why does it feel like the author is hating on Brienne for being a good person?
Yet readers claim Jaime Lannister underwent a character arc (approximately 3M words into ASOIAF), since he became easily likable. I personally do not believe Jaime has a redemption arc because his mindset, behavior, and opinions do not change. Jaime is still an arrogant prick, and just because he was written agreeably does not indicate his growth as a character.
I’m dying rn
What passes off as “character development” is actually “perception development.” Instead of putting effort into developing his characters, GRRM decides to warp the reader’s perceptions instead. To make Jaime a sympathetic character, GRRM develops Jaime’s backstory (completely justifying Jaime killing the Mad King) and makes Jaime’s actions more approvable (executing a rapist). The former completely nullifies Jaime’s prospective redemption arc, since it reveals that Jaime was just as “well-intentioned” in the past, and the later does not have noble intentions — as a military man, Jaime expects more discipline from his men than Ser Gregor Clegane did.
?
The way Jaime is written, however, suggests that GRRM intended to build Jaime as a flawed character who matured over the course of the story. Instead we get an impulsive character whose personal inspirations are derived on those who he associate with — Cersei in the past and now Brienne. The same Jaime who would throw Ed Stark’s son out a window for Cersei would encourage Brienne to search for Ed Stark’s daughters. Not because he feels he owes more than an apology to House Stark, but because Jaime befriends Brienne after his relationship with Cersei becomes strained. What’s worse than a misunderstood character is a a character misunderstood by its own creator.
Nah this author’s having a laugh, aren’t they? Like no way they said this with a straight face.
1. Ending a plotline at the climax only leaves the reader unsatisfied and bitter for wasting their time.
A brilliant example is Quentyn Martell, who traveled all the way to Essos to get burned by a dragon. Unlike Ned Stark’s execution and the Red Wedding, Martell’s death did not open any new plotlines. He was a POV character who is completely irrelevant to the narrative. Seriously, George… you chronicled Quentyn’s entire journey to Essos just to bring Quentyn’s two companions to Essos? What’s the fucking point? There were no new characters or locations unveiled to us throughout that entire episode, and Quentyn and his friends could have been introduced later, when they arrived in Astapor
This is a criticism I’ve seen since I joined this fandom over a decade ago. Now it’s definitely understandable to be annoyed with a cliffhanger, especially one that involves a character introduced so late isn’t he series, but there are Doylist and Watsonian reasons to Quentyn’s inclusion. His death has an impact on Dorne and Dany, plus he’s a meta deconstruction of the hero’s journey which we also see with Aegon/Young Griff (who is also, by very much on purpose introduced in the same book) and also Jon, Dany, Bran, etc. We don’t know the conclusion yet, but it’s easy to see why GRRM added Quentyn into the mix.
Writers have all the power when they weave a story, and if they thread the eye of the needle they’re expected to sew up the buttons. GRRM clearly doesn’t know how to sew, because he doesn’t know how to resolve conflicts that he has created. His solution? Kill off the characters with narratives too complex to unravel or too boring to write about. This conveniently creates a vacuum of absent characters to sew together, so when the textile inevitably becomes tangled again GRRM commits another literary genocide. Rinse and repeat.
Idk this doesn’t hold up, like at all? Name one major character killed for the sake of it? Ned is the father figure whose death is meant to push the arcs of his children. Robb’s death is meant to push those of his siblings. Now GRRM himself has stated that he regrets killing character he needed, but this seems like a bizarre criticism. It doesn’t help that the author provides no examples to back up their claim.
The repetitiveness of this ploy just demonstrates to me how GRRM cannot tell a story beginning to end, because he doesn’t have the perseverance and the patience.
Now let’s be fair (and truthful). ASOIAF is not GRRM’s first book. It’s certainly his biggest series but he has written award winning stories before, to completion.
Myrcella Baratheon: “Are you the Sword of the Morning now?” Gerold Dayne: “No. Men call me Darkstar, and I am of the night.”
I can see what GRRM is trying to accomplish, but it’s incredibly cringeworthy. Although readers can see the direct contrast between the two characters, the symbolism is not comprehendible. Hence it also sounds very stupid.
Myrcella Baratheon: “Are you a good guy?” Gerold Dayne: “Nah. Men call me epic evil badass, and I am evil.”
HELP
In On Fairy-Stories, J. R. R. Tolkien argues the fantasy genre ultimately fulfills three purposes: to challenge a reader’s perspective of his or her own world, to provide escapism from reality, and to provide moral and emotional “Consolation of the Happy Ending” which he calls eucastastrophe.
Tolkien delves into his third point more into his conclusion, where he focuses how a true representative fantasy tale is manifested by joy. This does not deny the existence of sorrow and failure. But a happy ending emphasizes the final closing in the universal outcome of the story that provides gratification and catharsis to the reader.
ASOIAF and LOTR are two different stories. Tolkien and Martin had different goals. GRRM is not trying to one up Tolkien. Not sure why this take is so pervasive but it is, and it’s annoying.
So after reading all this I have to ask, is this satire? Have I been had? I’m not on twitter so idk if people have talked about this yet but it seems so out of pocket and incorrect, like no one could’ve seriously sat down and written this with a straight face, right?
10 notes · View notes
crystalmonk5579 · 1 year
Text
Please read and reblog
Hello everyone, it has come to my attention that @wowsybobowsy on tumblr has come out with a post defending @chumburber, I’ve seen some contradictory and guilt tripping within both a post and comments she has left on the original call out post of her stealing designs from @pexterambles; for context she had stolen designs for her LOS(Legion Of Stationery/Stationary) from Pex, she had deleted her original blog, made a new blog and then proceed to make comments on the call out post and then had made a full blown post that described the actions as ‘bitchy’, when I pointed out that she not only blocked @Lokistarcorner when they tried to reach out to them to understand why she stole their friends designs she had then blocked me. This is a post not based on anyone's opinions, this is based on actions,
Tumblr media
(I want to say that when showing photos of comments from the call out post, the comments are posted newest to oldest, meaning that you must read it bottom to top)
I'll start off with the first highlighted section ‘You don't need to go out of your way to possibly make someone’s day or life worse.’ this is pointing towards the possibility that the post has made her feel horrible, I mean this in the kindest way when I say that we are not responsible for your actions or how you responded to that post, the posts purpose was to make sure people knew of this action and to make sure people are safe and dont have their designs stolen, this was also meant to help you in pointing out your behavior so that you had the choice to correct it.
The second highlighted section ‘who don't know any better.’ This is referencing that she and many other people who have been called out didn't know any better, but I can confirm that for this situation that she is both a fully grown person as she had stated on her old blog that she was 18, I would also like to mention that the designs are public on tumblr. No matter what social media platform you could go on whether it be Tumblr, Instagram, or Twitter, anyone can see the original owner of the post. Meaning that if someone were to copy the designs, they will know they’re coping the designs, meaning that you were fully aware of what you were doing.
The third and final part ‘I think you, as an artist, would understand that NOTHING is perfect when you start out, but with a little practice, you can go a long way.’ You’re putting the blame on the original poster, saying that someone should understand something because of something that they are(IE: Saying someone should know how much a dog weighs based on geometric formulas because they’re good at math.) is saying that they should've known better, she was dropping the blame on them framing them as if they dont understand whats going on. I would also like to note that before anyone says that I’m contradicting myself with my reasoning for the second highlighted section, I have to say that that claim is incorrect. In saying someone should know better because they did something without knowledge is putting the blame on them without understanding what they did wrong. But I said that if Chumburber were to have copied the designs of Pex on a different social media platform, she would know that it was theirs without a doubt even if it was reblogged; tumblr has a symbol with the user name of the original poster to the right of the person who reblogged it, 
Tumblr media
Twitter is the original post with the person who reblogged it above the OP.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
This is a post she made to defend herself, this post is deleted but it is up on this account. I pointed out how she had blocked Loki after they contacted her trying to understand why she stole the designs and that she blocked them, she in turn commented that she had no idea what I was talking about(I am sorry to say that you can't find the comments as they’ve been turned off), if this were true though Void wouldn't have posted this comment.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
(Transcript: attempts were made to deal with this privately first, it’s not like the first reaction was a callout post. All they had to do was respond, take it down, and actually communicate about it instead of blocking 
and stealing is never a good way to learn. there's a line between inspiration and thievery and it was crossed. the least they could do is credit for inspiration.)
Attempts were made to contact her. Moving on.
In the first section ‘Making a whole post with peoples usernames attached to the traced art, calling them out for all to see, is a really BITCHY move!!’ She frames the post as if Chum was under a spotlight she was not ready for, victimizing her as if she did nothing wrong without knowing. 
The second section ‘Don't beat them down and degrade them! Dredging them and calling them out will only make them quit art in general.’ I’ll state it again, the call out post was meant to inform Chum about her behavior but also other people so that they can be safe and not have her steal their designs, we never controlled how she’d react to the post, it was her decision to delete her blog. It's like saying a person can control the weather and that if it rains, it is their fault that it rained.
The third and final section ‘The human race isn't perfect! And I'm sorry that not everyone has breathtaking, cutest-eutsey anime drawing abilities!!! You're not a hero if you only defend one side. That's called being a villain. You either defend all, or defend none.’ Let's start off with the first part, about the art style. Wowsy tries to diverge it, framing the call out as if it had something to do with her artstyle. As if it had some factor into Loki’s thinking, that maybe if she had better art there wouldn't be a call out post on her in the first place. Now onto the second part, everyone has differing morals and ideals, its their own decision to defend people who think they’re on the right side, and being a villain and hero is all up to people's interpretation because of their morals and beliefs, there's always one person that will see you as a villain. Defending all is not even possible, if you were to defend all it would be like saying that you support PETA but think that using gore and violence to try and get people on your side is a scare tactic that doesn't work.
Tumblr media
As most people can see, Wowsy describes Loki’s post as ‘a bitchy move ngl.’ she then went further into the post to say that she doesn't mean to be mean. This of course is controversial, saying that you are trying to be kind and respectful to someone while also throwing insults at them when critique them and trying to communicate your issues with them is(of course) very disrespectful and contradicting yourself at the same time.
Tumblr media
In this screenshot Wowsy tries, not once, but twice to diverge the original idea of the call out post; first framing it as the reason why Loki called out Chum was because her art skills and that she didn't have enough practice, she then tried again with the same reason. Stating that the call out was made because her art wasn't ‘cute’ or ‘perfect’. This has nothing to do with her art, her art style, how many years of practice she has, or anything to do with her art of actions in general. The call out was made because of her decision to copy the designs of Pex.
I suggest to you all that you block @wowsybobowsyslay, other than that all I have to say is thank you for taking the time out of your day to read this post. Reblogs are very much needed to spread this information.
37 notes · View notes
Text
Whenever I need a new post I just go to one of the ridiculously long notes pages that I have of “Legion of Horribles Incorrect Quotes” and “J Squad Incorrect Quotes”
1 note · View note
jazzsumblr · 3 years
Text
Legion of Horribles Incorrect Quotes
Oswald: Dumbest scar stories, go! Jervis: I burned my tongue once drinking tea. Jerome: I dropped a hair dryer on my leg once and burned it. Jonathan: I have a piece of graphite in my leg for accidentally stabbing myself with a pencil in the first grade. Bridget: I was taking a cup of noodles out of the microwave and spilled it on my hand and I got a really bad burn. Victor: Victor: I have emotional scars.
Oswald, walking into their house: Hello, people who do not live here. Victor: Hey. Jonathan: Hi. Jervis: Hello. Bridget: Hey! Oswald: I gave you the key to my place for emergencies only! Jerome: We were out of Doritos.
*The squad is over at Oswald's house* Jerome: Ohhhh, we each get our own oven? Oswald: ... N-No... Oswald, laughing: How many ovens do you think I have??? Jerome, motioning to their kitchen: Three, I thought! Jervis: I see a- Oswald, motioning to one device: This is a microwave. Jerome: Oh, well I- Oswald: Hey wait wait, actually- hang on- *fiddles with the buttons on the microwave* Oswald, amazed: Its got a bake setting! Jonathan: Ohoho, you learn something new every day! Bridget: Do we- Do we roshambo for who gets to pick first? Oswald: Now I've just discovered I have more ovens than I thought, we don't have to roshambo nothin! Oswald: I am someone who owns four ovens... Oswald, louder and way too happy: I am someone... who owns FOUR OVENS... Oswald: I didn't know I was so rich with ovens... Victor, pointing to another appliance: Also the toaster oven! Oswald: Jerome: Ohhh, toasty boy! Four- Five ovens! Oswald: Oswald, fucking ECSTATIC: I AM SOMEONE WHO OWNS FIVE OVENS
Oswald: If you bite it and you die, it’s poisonous. If it bites you and you die, it’s venomous. Jerome: What if it bites me and it dies!? Jervis: Then you’re poisonous. Jesus Christ, Jerome, learn to listen. Jonathan: What if it bites itself and I die? Bridget: That’s voodoo. Victor: What if it bites me and someone else dies? Jerome: That’s correlation, not causation. Jonathan: What if we bite each other, and neither of us die? Bridget: That’s kinky. Oswald: Oh my God.
Oswald: Time for plan G. Jerome: Don’t you mean plan B? Oswald: No, we tried plan B a long time ago. I had to skip over plan C due to technical difficulties. Jervis: What about plan D? Oswald: Plan D was that desperate disguise attempt half an hour ago. Jonathan: What about plan E? Oswald: I’m hoping not to use it. Bridget dies in plan E. Victor: I don't like plan E.
Victor: I CAN'T DO IT! Oswald: I CAN'T EITHER! Victor: I CANT FUCKING DO IT ANYMORE Jonathan: WELL I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, YOU CAN EITHER GIVE UP NOW, OR YOU CAN FIGURE IT OUT. BECAUSE WE CERTAINLY CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT YOU, AND WE KNOW YOU CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT US. Victor: Victor: I appreciate it, Victor: BUT LOOK WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH- Bridget: Victor- Victor: YOU GOTTA DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE! Jervis: Victor we gotta- Victor: YOU GOTTA DRAW A FUCKING LINE IN THE SAND. YOU GOTTA MAKE A STATEMENT. Victor: YOU GOTTA LOOK INSIDE YOURSELF AND SAY 'What am I willing to put up with today?' Victor, motioning to Jerome: NOT FUCKING THIS
130 notes · View notes
yeah-thats-a-spoon · 3 years
Text
Jim: All of you, explain. Now.
Oswald: It was Jerome.
Jervis: It was Jerome.
Jonathan: It was Jerome.
Bridgit: It was Jerome.
Victor: It was Jerome.
Jerome: It was Jerome.
Jerome: Damn.
347 notes · View notes
ficklefics · 3 years
Conversation
Oswald: Depressed
Barbara: Blessed
Jim: Stressed
Jeremiah: Possessed
Ed: Obsessed
Jervis: Impressed
Jerome: Chicken Breast
Everyone: ... What?
Jerome: I just wanted to join in
161 notes · View notes
arkham-anarchist · 3 years
Text
so ive had this in my drafts since October and with recent thoughts about Oswald and Jeromes (WASTED) dynamic, I thought now would be the perfect time to post it, its long-ish though so its under the cut
(Also here is the source)
Oswald: Hey Jerome?
Jerome: What?
Oswald: Can I share something with you from earlier today?
Jerome: What is it Ozzie?
Oswald: Well, I sent you a text early in the morning, because I have to go out of town for a weekend later this month,
Jerome, already smiling: Uh-huh.
Oswald: And so I was like;
>Do you have any preference whether I go this weekend or next weekend?
Jerome, trying not to laugh: Mhm,
Oswald: Your response,
Jerome starts laughing
Oswald: At 9:30 in the morning:
>motherfucking jesse eisenberg jesus christ fuck dude motherfucking face Book movie Bullshit jesus can you FUcking believe this shit
Jerome laughs harder
Oswald: No punctuation. Random capitalization.
Oswald: So I respond,
>I have no idea what we’re talking about right now.
Oswald: Forty five minutes pass, I get a text from you,
>goddamn created facebook then fucking lawyers and shit right fucking winkleboss twins goddamn rowing the boat fuck yo shit i cant even fucking believe this shit have you seen this shit fuck i just watched this shit fuck jesse eisenberg man
Oswald: I respond,
>Jerome, you’re scaring me.
Oswald: An hour passes, you respond,
>motherfucking spiderman spiderman you put in the time fuck put in the time mothrfucking built shit with his bare hands fucking best friend shit jesse eisenberg
>im very tired
Jeromes just fucking losing it
Oswald: I'm just like,
>No problem man, I’ll do most of the talking at the Legion of Horribles meeting today.
Oswald: IMMEDIATE response, I’m talking like 5 seconds later;
>no man ill just talk about the facebook movie all day shit man you have to be so interested in the shit i have to say about the facebook movie fuck dude i just watched it a year and a half ago fuck jesse eisenberg man he fucked over spiderman crazy winkleboss twins rowing trent resin or did the soundtrack fuck this guy who invented facebook i dont like die i cant think of who the fuck invented facebook all i can think is the guy who played the guy who invented facebook who the fuck invented facebook
Oswald: And then, in all capital letters, two hours later,
>MARK ZUCKERBERG
Oswald:
Oswald: What the fuck-
Jerome, though laughter: I swear to god- okay first of all, I had to wake up supremely early-
15 notes · View notes
scaredyjokes · 4 years
Text
au where ecco gets away from bitchmiahs crusty ass and becomes friends with jerome and joins the LoH gang. of course, they terrorize bitchmiah twice as much now, because they now have two people to protect
37 notes · View notes
captain-peroxid3 · 4 years
Text
*in a legion of horribles group chat*
Jerome: help im dying lol
Jonathon:same
Jervis: rip
Jerome: no guys im literally dying
Jerome: i got stabbed outside wendys
Jerome: the lol was just a habit
*jerome sends blurry pic of himself bleeding out*
Jerome: did i pass vibe check? :0)
*5 people are typing*
85 notes · View notes
diggorypuff · 5 years
Conversation
Jerome: I found every negative email you've ever written about me to the group.
Jervis: What emails are you talking about?
Jerome: Jerome Valeska's favorite songs: Creep by TLC, Creep by Radio Head. You remember that one Oswald?
Oswald: ...
Jerome: There is no way he hasn't strangled at least one stripper.
Jerome: Jonathan
Jonathan: ...
Jerome: He eats his yogurt like he's punishing it for disappointing him.
Jerome: Bridgit.
Bridgit: That's not that bad actually.
Jerome: P.S We should kill him.
Bridgit: [ facepalms ]
Everyone: [ glares at bridgit ]
107 notes · View notes
desertbroad · 5 years
Text
kaj + (inverted) tropes: part two! * * i don’t know all the actual Official TM names for these tropes, so most are made up. also, you might notice the regular trope list (part 1 of this headcanon) is significantly longer. this is because kaj has a few main inverted tropes but tons more regular ones, since tropes are like atoms: they make up everything. i just wanted to focus on the few inversions that created her character and let the rest come naturally! under a read more for length. ** also as of 7/6/19 part one isn’t done yet. yes i know please don’t shame me ok IM GETTING TO IT
fridged woman (aka back from the dead)—
for this one i took inspiration from laura moon from american gods, with a few tweaks (love neil gaiman, but some of the things about her character are...a bit squicky). unlike a good number of women in media, kaj isn’t shoved over gently and pronounced dead so that a man can grow from her pain. in fact, she’s shot in the head twice, pronounced dead, & buried. while her “death” means more pain and character development for the characters surrounding her, it means pain and character development for her, too. truth be told, she survives a hell of a lot more than any average person should, especially one with her low luck stat. half of this is the fun and wacky way new vegas’ world works (obviously, no real person could survive all this), but also because of her good ol’ courier determination. things that should’ve fridged kaj but haven’t include: two shots to the head, numerous combat scrapes, being stabbed, having her brain/heart/spine removed, having a bomb collar attached to her neck, killing an entire fortification of trained legionnaires, stepping on landmines, etc etc. the courier is pretty much the bruce willis of fallout.
world ending vengeance—
specifically applies to certain characters. while most others who piss kaj off get the full brunt of her wrath (see: caesar, mr. house, elijah, general oliver, ulysses), benny, along with dr. mobius & the think tank & mcnamara*, get a pass. in fact, she lets him go not once or twice, but on three separate occasions, even knowing he’s likely to betray her again. the reason why? not even kaj knows. some people speculate it’s because she likes him / slept with him (incorrect; she liked house to a degree, and slept with caesar); others speculate it’s because they’re so similar (also incorrect; she shared an alarming number of similarities with ulysses & elijah). the theory that comes closest to the truth is that she pities him. it fits in line her past behavior with mobius & the think tank, who were physically unable to see the effects of their actions and thus were spared a horrible fate. likewise, kaj seems to have judged benny to be innocent in her own personal court, and though he continues to be a thorn in her side again and again, she refuses to “sentence” him for anything. it helps his cause that his plan helped her take over vegas, and he created yes man, one of the only living beings she’s ever fully trusted. also a slight inversion of kaj’s maneater / black widow trope; the one person she truly should seduce and kill, she doesn’t.
that said, benny doesn’t get away from their encounters without any punishment—after narrowly escaping being crucified, both kaj and benny have matching rope burns around their wrists. it’s her morbid idea of a joke.
*mcnamara doesn’t fit within this trope, but kaj spares the bos for veronica & christine’s sake, despite yes man’s warnings. also for the off chance that they might convert to being her allies (they don’t, and this choice helps lend itself to more BOS trouble all over the wasteland).
white man cowboy—
kind of a simple inversion that’s been done before, but an important one and one that i like a lot. for starters, the “john wayne” cowboy is a bastardization of a history that was made up of ethnic minorities and whitewashed for hollywood aesthetic (also fuck you john wayne). while none of my research has come up with anything about women of color or nonbinary people in the western scene, only moc (whether this is intentional or not, i’m not sure), i still wanted to write kaj as non-male. frankly, this is because i wanted her to be an inversion of tired tropes, and that included being a debonair, byronic woman / non gender conforming hero (think gentleman jack) instead of a debonair, byronic white dude. we’ve got 20 of those for every fleshed out woman/enby on screen, lbr. kaj is also a femme fatale, but only by coincidence; she’s more of a wandering heart breaker than a necessarily dangerous woman, much like many of the heroes on screen.
i also find that non-men of color are one of the most underrepresented minorities in fiction—even media that celebrates diversity simplifies them down (hamilton), or centers their narrative and entire purpose around a man (hamilton, again). nevermind nonbinary people / trans folk. for that reason, i wanted kaj’s story to be about a woman of color / someone who doesn’t conform to expectations and doesn’t allow herself to be put in the sidelines for a white person or a male to lead her life. and regardless of whether a woman filling this swaggering, womanizing cowboy role is accurate to history or not, fallout’s setting lends itself an air of exaggeration, so i felt it was appropriate to include her here, instead of arguing with people over whether someone like her existed in actual history (my suspicions say yes, and that these people have simply been erased from the narrative for the convenience of certain people’s feelings, but still).
smarter than you look / deadly doctor (this one actually has a tvtropes page! look it up!)—
from the deadly doctor page : ‘ surely the ultimate example of the morally ambiguous doctorate. one reason for this is due to all his/her training : while having advanced knowledge on the human body can be used to save people, it also gives all the knowledge on how to injure and kill people with minimal effort by knowing all the body's weak points. some more sympathetic examples equate to the medical version of a well-intentioned extremist, who may certainly have good (or at least sympathetic/understandable) intentions but ruthless medical ethics. ’
one of the most important things kaj took from her thorough education is medical training—unable to depend on anyone after being traumatized, trusting any doctor who happened along to treat her illnesses was out of the question. she was also smart enough to know the original kaj wouldn’t be around to heal her up forever. thus, she began her training as a self preservation instinct; but over time, as she grew and relearned how to be compassionate and empathetic, she decided to use healing for good, too. trained as a young girl by the original kaj, and then later trained officially as a combat medic by the ncr, kaj has spent a countless amount of hours inside army tents, healing wounds and assisting doctors with tough cases. she even keeps a medical bag on her person for exactly that sort of situation (especially since supplies in the mojave aren’t exactly easy to dig up). though she’s a big scientist in general (the big mt saw to that), medicine is her specialty. she’s even stitched up her own wounds, though it’s not something she particularly enjoys (it takes a lot of whiskey and something for her to bite down on).
for reference, consider this scene of anton from no country for old men (TW: he’s performing self surgery, so it’s pretty gruesome). though both anton and kaj’s lifestyles are rough and even sadistic at times, they both still have medical training—if not to protect others, then to at least protect themselves. and like anton, it shows kaj’s inability to trust anyone with her most important commodity: herself. this makes her surgery in the big empty doubly as horrifying, given she took specific pains for something like this to not happen. it’s why she refuses to leave without all of her organs (also, stubbornness). all of this is just one of the ways kaj is way more ... well, everything than she looks. which leads into...
underestimate me if you dare, aka femme fatale (sort of?)—
though fallout prides itself on being a soft reset on the world, people’s perceptions of minorities are still ... iffy, due to real world influences by the creators. thus, the people around kaj often jump to assumptions about her based on her identity—mostly, that she’s weak. once, it offended her, but now it’s a perception that she encourages. after all, she’s not flat out strong like your usual hero, but is more of a hamlet-type; smart, perceptive, fast, and willing to strike from the shadows. it’s hard to do any of that if you’re putting on a big performance about your power (though admittedly, she’s been known to go big or go home if she’s planning on killing everyone; if she’s not faking nice and telling you what you wanna hear, trouble’s ahead).
of course, the reality is that kaj is a powerhouse. but these perceptions about her supposed weakness are why posing as a legion member is so easy—those who think she’s weak underestimate her or keep their distance, which gives her leave to do what she wants. she’s viewed more like a pet than a person by most, and though it frustrates her at times to pretend, it also gives her leave to do more, than if she were to simply pose as a man.
all that said, kaj doesn’t exactly qualify as a femme fatale. most of her lovers are just information givers, and they escape from their interaction unharmed. kaj killing her bed mates is actually less likely than her just sparing them and letting them go, none the wiser. of course, you kill one tyrant (maybe two or three) and suddenly you’re a black widow—
3 notes · View notes
Photo
Tumblr media
actingnt said: "@[redacted] a tulpa is a a purposeful creation within a tulpamancer’s mind. It can mean anything from a single-purpose drone to a whole person. Traumascum is truscum for multiplicity: People who accuse others of faking on the basis that they haven’t suffered enough to earn their multiplicity."
I found this while in the actuallytraumagenic tag. This person has us blocked apparently, hence why I'm responding to a screenshot. Here's the original post: https://actingnt.tumblr.com/post/184864792553/tulpa-systems-and-spiritual-systems-are-just
Firstly, how is that at all racist? Claiming to have alters without having the necessary causal factor isn't a race, it's a claim, and disagreeing with that claim isn't singling any race out or discriminating against any race, it's disagreeing with a claim. If you're claiming that disagreeing with somebody's spirituality is racism, then you're wrong - spiritual beliefs are not a race, they can have cultural significance but disagreeing with somebody's beliefs does not make you racist. You, by definition, must disagree with the vast majority of spiritual beliefs because most of them contradict each other massively - racism would be to disagree because the belief is held by a particular race, and not to disagree based on contradictory evidence or contradictory beliefs. Spiritual claims can be as factually incorrect as any other, and when you're claiming to have a medical condition that you couldn't possibly have then you don't get to hide behind "it's magic" to avoid criticism. I couldn't say "I have appendicitis" and when all the tests come back negative respond with "actually I believe that I have appendicitis for spiritual reasons" - if you don't have something then you don't have it, no matter how hard you believe.
Secondly, dissociative identity disorder is a medical condition, it has a necessary causal factor - being the victim of abuse or other prolonged/repeated trauma at a very young age. You can't have PTSD without trauma, and you can't have other disorders that are caused by trauma without trauma, that's what causes them, that's how they work. It's not whether you've "suffered enough to earn" it - it's whether you've experienced the thing that causes the disorder (plus "earn", really? it's a disorder not a trophy). When your doctor refuses to give you stitches for a wound that you don't have, they're not saying that you "haven't suffered enough to earn" stitches, they're saying that you don't have a wound and thus don't need stitches. Nobody's saying this because of some suffering elitism, they're saying it because if you don't have the causal factor then you don't have the medical condition that it causes. They're saying it because the people who are claiming to have our disorder without actually having it are spreading masses of harmful misinformation, misrepresenting the disorder, and actually hurting people (see the legions of assholes who faked having DID, invented "system-hopping" and other lies, and used those things to abuse others). People don't want to be misrepresented, lied about, and abused by people who are pretending to have a medical condition that they couldn't possibly have. It's ableism to go around pretending to have a condition that you don't have and negatively affecting sufferers of the condition and the reputation of the condition in the process.
Tulpas are the claim that one can create alters consciously and of your own volition - there is no evidence of this, and even people with DID can't create alters consciously, you can't design and build a custom alter. Alters are created subconsciously and come as they come, it's not build-a-bear. If you're claiming the ability to create alters without trauma, that's a claim of being endogenic (which simply means, in this context, a claim of having alters without trauma... in other contexts it means formed or occurring beneath the surface of the earth, fun fact), and it's misrepresenting what the condition is and how it works to the detriment of sufferers (imagine getting asked "Why don't you just make an alter who can do that?" when you're facing a struggle, because people genuinely think you could just magically craft an alter for the occasion... that shit happens because of the lies of "tulpamancers"). If you claim to have alters for "spiritual reasons" and not as a result of trauma then you're again making a claim of being endogenic (whether or not you actually have alters depends - some people claim to be endogenic but actually have trauma and alters caused by that trauma, they simply deny the causal link, some mistake another symptom or condition for DID, while others are total frauds who are well aware that they're conning people for their own gain or amusement), and again misrepresenting the disorder (implying it's a casual belief system that entails belief in souls and other things, and not a medical condition that causes difficulty for masses of people). That's just factually what you're claiming when you say those things, you're claiming an endogenic cause, and there is no evidence to support any of that, and there is evidence to the contrary - trauma has been isolated to be necessary to cause DID, OSDD-1a, and OSDD-1b (the conditions that can cause alters), and some of the mechanisms and neurological reasons for that have been and are being isolated too.
Calling people "traumascum" is fucked up. You're literally mocking people for having experienced horrible, prolonged, repeated childhood trauma that scarred them for life. Like, I cannot understand how you woke up one morning and thought that calling people who'd suffered severe abuse as children "traumascum" was a good idea. I literally cannot fathom the levels of either stupidity or maliciousness that are present within your skull. Additionally, you put this post in the "actuallytraumagenic" tag/search, the place that people go into to talk about their trauma and their experiences with this medical condition - that's how I found it. You're a shimmering example of why the ideology that DID isn't a medical condition, that anybody who wishes hard enough can create alters, is harmful - it's literally gotten you to a point where you think that it's okay to go into a safe space for survivors and call us "traumascum". I don't know if you've dehumanized them in your mind, if you simply don't care about their feelings, or if you've another reason to want to hurt and trigger people you don't even know, based solely on the fact that they don't want people to misrepresent the medical condition that they have - whatever it is, mocking people's trauma is way out of line.
"Truscum" (transmedicalists) believe that having gender dysphoria is necessary to be trans. They believe that it's a medical condition with medical treatment that needs to remain medical, not cosmetic, in order to allow people with this medical condition to access that medical treatment. Gender dysphoria doesn't mean "hating yourself", it isn't a quantifiable amount of suffering (because suffering isn't quantifiable - your whole "they think you haven't suffered enough" spiel doesn't make any sense when you put that into context, because I've never heard transmedicalists or traumagenic folks claim that suffering is quantifiable, in fact I've heard them state the exact opposite, that it's a very subjective experience), it means dysphoria pertaining to one's sex and sex characteristics - a persistent, ongoing sense of discomfort or wrongness pertaining to those things. Nobody is saying that you have to reach a suffering quota to be trans - they're saying that in order to be trans you have to have the necessary symptoms. Being trans is a neurological condition - the brain develops differently in key gendered areas to how the body develops, and this difference causes gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a sense of wrongness and misalignment pertaining to one's sex and one's sex characteristics - you feel like they don't match, you feel uncomfortable with them, they feel out of place, and often you feel like you should have specific different sex characteristics. If you don't have any dysphoria then you don't have the causal factor (the differing areas of the brain), and so if you then alter your body through transition you will end up with a body that doesn't align with those areas of the brain - this will cause dysphoria. Transmedicalists spread this information with the goal of preventing people from spreading misinformation, with the goal of keeping the recognition of the condition as a medical one so that people can access treatment, and with the goal of preventing people from causing themselves dysphoria by undergoing a medical procedure that is unnecessary for them. As with those against endogenics, it's not "suffering elitism", it's an attempt to represent the situation and the condition accurately.
~ Vape
6 notes · View notes
warcrafttimemd · 6 years
Text
Thoughts On The Criticism of AU!Draenei Direction
As the fallout from the revelations of the Mag’har Allied Race scenario continues to spread through the fanbase, I’ve seen plenty of good reasons why the decision to turn the AU!Draenor Draenei evil was a terrible one: it’s illogical, it invalidates the entirety of the Warlords of Draenor storyline, it’s a weak-ass excuse to set the Mag’har against a threat they need help with that they couldn’t get from the AU!Draenei that also completely ignores all the other nonsense going on like the crazy plants in Gorgrond, it’s the latest in the increasingly shameful exhibit of how Blizzard doesn’t know how to write female characters, it’s a pathetically lazy attempt to peddle the ‘both sides are evil’ narrative even though the AU@Draenei are not and have never actually been part of the Alliance, it’s just bad fucking writing, etc. It is an awful decision for all those reasons listed.
I have seen one that doesn’t work, though, and it’s been written a number of different ways:
“Draenei don’t/can’t work as oppressors because they’ve always been oppressed.”
“Draenei are victim-coded, so making them evil is wrong.”
“I can’t/don’t feel sorry for the Mag’har because they treated the Draenei so horribly in the past.”
It all basically boils down to this: Draenei, as villains, are impossible. Frankly, I don’t buy it.
“Draenei don’t/can’t work as oppressors because they’ve always been oppressed.”
Being oppressed or conquered in the past, whether as an individual or a group, doesn’t prevent an individual or a group from being oppressors or conquerors in the future. There’s no Ron Swanson-style card they get to hold up that says “I can do what I want.” What it does mean is that, having been treated in this awful way, they should know better than to turn around and do it to someone else. Unfortunately, you can look at the entire history of Azeroth to see how that lesson’s taken hold in others - or hasn’t, in most cases.
To the more severe version of the idea, that Draenei can’t be oppressors - that they are physically and morally incapable of the act on an objective scale, no matter the actual results of their actions - because of how they’ve been treated in the past, I also say bollocks. The ability to dominate and conquer is directly related to the power wielded by a person/faction; when we left AU!Draenor at the end of Warlords, the AU!Draenei were still on the back-foot (back-hoof?), but when we come back to AU!Draenor, even though we don’t have exact specifics yet, we can infer that they’ve grown in size and strength enough not just to challenge the Mag’har, but to become the dominant species/faction on the planet.
Whatever power of the Mag’har/Iron Horde wielded in the past, it’s now passed to the AU!Draenei. They have the power, and they’re happily using it to convert, enslave, and wipe out the Mag’har. When a faction starts outnumbering and enslaving other races, they don’t get to hold onto that ‘oppressed’ title. As Garrosh Hellscream himself said:
Tumblr media
“Draenei are victim-coded, so making them evil is wrong.” 
This variation holds the most water for me, although I’d still argue it’s inaccurate. Is turning the AU!Draenei ‘evil’ morally wrong? No. Is it distasteful? Arguably. Is it a poor idea at this point in World of Warcraft’s story? Absolutely.
To a certain extent, I think I see what Blizzard is attempting to do: they’re pulling an ‘Arthas,’ showcasing how dire a threat is by showing that even the best and brightest can be turned into moustache-twirling villains by its influence. I think that Blizzard hopes that in doing so, not only will they add a huge amount of weight to Xe’ra’s actions in Legion, they’ll also be adding a huge amount of weight to the concept that the Light can be just as dangerous as the Void, which has, up until the Xe’ra stuff, seemed more like trite ‘all things in moderation’ philosophy than something concrete.
Xe’ra’s extremist approach was easy enough to pass off as a fluke for a number of reasons: because of existing in a fragmented state for so long, her sanity was questionable (wow, another insane female character, real original Blizz), she was ancient beyond reckoning, coming from a time and place far divorced from Azeroth (and Azerothian ideas about good and evil), etc. Xe’ra was really the first true instance of a Light-aligned character doing some really questionable stuff in the name of the Light; there have been other characters in similar circumstances (Arthas, the Scarlet Crusade, etc.) but all of those were shown to be ultimately under the control or direction of more nefarious forces. There’s no question what Xe’ra is up to. Xe’ra can’t be discounted as a rogue agent anymore. She isn’t the exception, she’s the harbinger, and the AU!Draenei (and potentially more characters in the future) are what she is heralding.
As to whether turning a ‘victim-coded’ race into conquerors is ‘wrong’...I guess I don’t even really understand that concept, that once a race/faction has been established as more likely to give ground than hold or take, then they’ll never, ever do anything but that, and that changing or reversing that behavior is morally incorrect on the behalf of the writers. Honestly, I addressed most of that in the first section. Yes, the Draenei have been shown to be naturally peaceful, and retreating from a fight or attempting to negotiate is their first instinct. However, they’ve also been shown to be easily swayed to drastic action when their faith is appealed to, something both Sargeras and K’ure took advantage of in the past, though for different reasons. A running theme in the Warcraft games is how absolute power corrupts, and there’s no good reason why any faction should be immune from that, no matter what they’ve been through. Dealing with shit in the past earns you nothing on a cosmic scale, which the World of Warcraft writers seem to enjoy reminding us a lot of lately.
That still doesn’t make the decision to have the AU!Draenei go Crusades on Draenor any better. It’s certainly in poor taste. The people of AU!Draenor got about as happy an ending as World of Warcraft affords: the bad guys were defeated, and everybody was pledged to a brighter future because, down at brass tacks, that’s what they all wanted. Then we come back years later - from the clues in the broadcast text, I’m assuming the Mag’har scenario takes place about 20-30 years after the events of Warlords - and find that literally everything is ruined. Nothing the players did really mattered at all; even though the Legion is no longer in the picture, Draenor is still in the hands of tyrants, it’s just religious fanatics instead of savage warriors this time. Who knows what’s happened to the Arakkoa. They were probably first on the AU!Draenei’s ‘to-smite’ list. It’s such an absolutely bitter pill that it almost defies belief. I joked about it in a post a while back, but Blizzard really did make Warlords somehow worse.
Tumblr media
“I can’t/don’t feel sorry for the Mag’har because they treated the Draenei so horribly in the past.”
I call this the ‘Killmonger problem,’ because the folks who feel this way don’t assign an intrinsic negative value to certain actions/practices, but rather base their approval of those actions/practices purely on who’s performing them. In other words, they don’t have a problem with objectively evil actions like conquering and/or enslaving, but only as long as they’re the ones doing it or it’s happening to someone they don’t like.
Because the Mag’har were awful to the AU!Draenei in the past, there’s a tacit approval on some of the players’ parts of the idea that now the AU!Draenei should be able to be as awful as they want to the Mag’har. That’s not a perspective concerned with justice, but with vengeance, with ‘getting even.’ I’m not denying that the Iron Horde did some heinous things in the past, but visiting those horrors back on them does nothing but continue the cycle of violence.
Look, if the writers fail to elicit sympathy for the Mag’har, that’s partially on them. The way they’ve botched this entire thing, I’m not surprised. I’m having a hard time myself, although I suspect that’s mostly because I’m still trying to wrap my head around how the AU!Draenei could’ve possibly gone this bad in the first place. But I think the whole scenario also challenges us as an audience to look at this once completely sympathetic faction and what they’re doing now, and ask ourselves “Am I okay/not okay with this, and why? Am I getting a vicarious thrill out of seeing Draenei finally beat some Orc ass after years and years of oppression?” If the answer is yes, then own it, but don’t pretend like you’ve got the moral high ground to criticize story direction when you’re the one condoning or at least complicit with the faction that’s killing people for worshiping the wrong god. Glass houses and all that.
Tumblr media
There is one more variation I’ve seen - not listed above - that explicitly has to do with how certain races in World of Warcraft are tied to real world equivalents, but that’s a complete can of worms that’s not really ever worth opening. Once we start talking about how certain factions are (insert race/religion)-coded, we project biases and opinions from the real world onto situations and people in completely different contexts, and we start debating about both as if they’re one, and they’re really not. Every race and faction in WoW is a mishmash of influences from multiple cultures, and trying to superimpose real world history over a fictional universe that exists as such leads directly to The Yawning, Dark Cavern That Nothing Good Ever Comes Out Of.
Sorry if this entire post has come off as completely bonkers. I’ve been drafting and rewriting it over the course of a couple of days, so I know it’s not the most coherent thing in the world, but, for whatever reason, whenever I saw justifications like this for hating on the Mag’har scenario, it just really ground my gears. Don’t get me wrong, I hate the direction that Blizzard has chosen to go with AU!Draenei, but I also feel pretty strongly that there are valid, logical reasons for disliking something, and then there’s just pseudo-socio-political nonsense. Feels kind of like people giving a politician a hard time about his/her looks or clothing choices when they're an abhorrent human being with no morals and terrible politics. If you're gonna go after a problem, go after it for the right reasons.
18 notes · View notes