syncopatedid:

“Kakeru!! Don’t forget we’re here.”

professorsparklepants:

webheadstan:

Some of you have never shipped a rare pair and it shows.

Some of you have never invented a rarepair, written the only fic for it, and then wallowed alone in your special mud pit of crack pairings and it shows

takeseiya:

“Masa-san. We made it through.”
“You all worked hard, didn’t you?”

bemusedlybespectacled:

hey folks, I’m gonna introduce you to two very important fandom terms and they are watsonian and doylist 

they come (obviously) from the sherlock holmes fandom, and they are two different ways of explaining something in a story. say I’m a fan and I notice that, in the original books, watson’s war wound is sometimes in his leg and sometimes in his shoulder. the watsonian explanation is how watson (that is, a person within the story) might explain it; the doylist explanation is how sir arthur conan doyle (a person in real life) would have explained it. 

sherlock explains the migrating war wound by making the shoulder wound real and the limp psychosomatic. the guy ritchie films explain it by having the leg wound sustained in battle before the events of the film and the shoulder wound happen onscreen. the doylist explanation, of course, is that acd forgot where the wound was.

this is very important when we’re discussing stuff like headcanons and word-of-god. I see this when people offer watsonian explanations for something, and then a doylist will say something like “it’s just because the author wrote it that way,” and I see it when a person is criticizing bad writing/storytelling (for example, the fact that quiet in metal gear solid v is running around the whole game in a bikini and ripped tights) and someone comes back with “but there’s an in-story reason why that happens!” (that reason being she breathes through her skin).

there’s nothing wrong with either explanation, and really I think you need both to understand and analyze a text. a person coming up with a watsonian explanation has likely not forgotten that the author had real-life reasons for writing something that way, and a person with a doylist interpretation is likely not ignoring the in-universe justification for that thing. 

but it’s very difficult (and imo often useless, though there are exceptions) to try to argue one kind of explanation with the other kind. wetblanketing someone’s headcanon with “or it could just be bad writing” is obnoxious; dismissing someone’s criticism with “but have you considered this in-universe explanation” is ignoring the point of the criticism. understanding where someone is coming from is important when making an argument; acting like your argument is better because you’re being doylist when they’re being watsonian or vice versa is not.

anarcho-rokabilly:

blacknonbinarybabe:

farsizaban:

A man who has traveled to 217 countries in the world on visiting Iran 

http://highlife.ba.com/articles/lessons-learned-from-travelling-to-217-countries/

This is so cute omg

Grandma’s all over the world gotta make sure you’re fed

garbage-empress:

it’s really weird how all the touted historical examples of “women” who “pretended” to be men seem to fall into two extremes:

1. women who did it for maybe a couple years at most on an extremely limited basis and usually not full time, died as women.

2. people who were men 100% of the time their whole adult lives and made explicit instructions to a trusted person to ensure they were remembered as a man even after death.

gee it’s almost like these two groups were totally separate and have completely different motivations or something. almost like it’s super obvious the 2nd category were all trans men and the only reason they aren’t remembered as men is due to transphobia.

sydnova:

🌲🍂 cozy asks 🍁☕️

yarn: what’s your favorite language?

apple picking: dream destination?

cider: have you ever fallen in love?

mittens: how tall are you?

fireplace: who/what makes you feel happy?

fuzzy socks: what’s a habit that you want to break?

scarves: do you like cuddling?

candle: what’s a trait you look for in a friend?

vanilla: where’s your favorite place to go where you live?

petticoat: would you change your name? what would you change it to?

letters: what’s your go to drink?

rosy cheeks: favorite memory?

sweater: five ways to win your heart?

bookstore: favorite childhood book?

snow globes: what would you become famous for?

wool: how do you spend a lazy day?

knitting: what’s a hobby that you would like to start?

autumn: what’s something you constantly worry over?

honey: you have three wishes; what are they?

melt: five ingredients/things that would be in a recipe to make you?

cardinals: what’s a song that makes you nostalgic?

lavender: what’s the most vivid dream you’ve ever had?

kitty: who’s your favorite celebrity?

rain: where do you want to be in ten years?

cozy: favorite gift you’ve ever received?

floating-head:

bumbleshark:

bumbleshark:

the more time that passes

the dumber spiderman (2002) looks

yall dont believe me huh

the-punning-ubus:

bakuhatsuou:

To this day I still cannot believe Kacchan fought Deku in some Louis Vuitton looking loafers and won

WITHOUT completely ruining his shoes 

squirrelstothenuts:

「Kaze ga Tsuyoku Fuiteiru, episode 13」

aphony-cree:

lord-kitschener:

voidbattlemage:

weedle-testaburger:

thescotchinthenorth:

arthicat:

elphabaforpresidentofgallifrey:

breaking bad, fight club, rick and morty, clockwork orange, and the catcher in the rye are all arguably good things - but if a man says they are his FAVORITE book/movie/tv show? RUN.

Can someone explain this to me?

They’re all works that are examinations of compelling but deeply flawed (usually narcissistic and violent) men. People rightly like all these works because they are good, but the implication of the original post is that if a guy says they are his favorite work, he is probably misunderstanding the point of the work and instead idolizing the male protagonist and is unable to recognize their flaws.

Basically, ask why they like it. If they like it because they think it’s well-written and made, you’re probably good. But if they want to be like Walter White, or Tyler Durden, or Rick Sanchez, or Alex DeLarge, or Holden Caulfield: yeah, RUN.

Finally I can reblog this post.

This also goes for Mad Men, run like hell from any guy who identifies with/idolizes Don Draper

“It’s a satire. Many don’t get that… My daughter had a friend named Max. She told me ‘Fight Club’ is his favorite movie, I told her never to talk to Max again.” David Fincher, director of Fight Club 

geekdorknerdfangirlblogger:

Spiderman Appreciation Post Part 1❤🕷🕸💙

Because not enough people appreciate Spiderman in all his many different forms and genres!

I

LOVE

ALL

MY

SPIDER

BABIES!!!

concentrated-sunshine:

nunyabizni:

nunyabizni:

Fixed it

As I’ve told my boss,area manager and regional manager..if you want my services on constant stand by outside of my contract then I charge a simple £10 per hour fee for that service, so far they have declined to take me up on it oddly.

passionpeachy:

passionpeachy:

Unless SOMEHOW this video isn’t just thinly veiled hatred towards women and non-white characters who are just as talented as their white cis male counterparts, I really wished Youtube would stop recommending me this shit

white cishet male: *half-asses everything and saves the entire fucking universe*

alt-right youtube: epic……………..

woman: *is smart and can wield a sword*

alt-right: as if her feeble women hands could even hold that……….fail