lord grant me the strength to accept the plot lines i cannot change
courage to continue to watch the show
and wisdom to remember i am not a member of the psychotic part of the fandom
I will fear no canon. For Thou art with me. Thy fanfic and thy meta, they comfort me
Forever and ever AO3
Did I ever tell you guys how much I love Avatar Kyoshi?
Just look at those moves.
Death once had a near Kyoshi experience.
Death looks under the bed every night to make sure Kyoshi isn’t hiding beneath it.
My dad got a text last night telling him not to come to work today because there is snow everywhere and so he’s spending his morning watching Gu Family Book music videos on Youtube instead.
— Firoozeh Dumas, Funny in Farsi: A Memoir of Growing Up Iranian in America (via mahakavi)
Anonymous asked: i legitimately do not understand how people can respond to "people i don't know act like i'm doing things wrong and it makes me anxious" with "good" and see that as a just response. i mean, i understand the rationalization that goes on, but it doesn't seem like something that is implementable in practice.
Some people are pretty well-off. Some people are pretty badly off. This is inequality, and that’s generally regarded as bad because we are egalitarians. So a lot of people want to fix the inequality. There’s two basic ways to fix the inequality (which can be combined):
- Make the worse-off people better-off.
- Make the better-off people worse-off.
People who are focused on the inequality might simply conclude that both of these are valid, and that since they lead towards more equality, both of them are good. But wait. What do I mean, “focused on the inequality”?
Another way of looking at things might be: Some people are pretty badly off. This is suffering, and should be regarded as bad because people have inherent value and we should try to achieve situations in which there is less suffering. Someone who’s focused on the suffering as the problem, rather than the inequality, will regard the first path as good, and the second as not-as-good, because the second is actually making things worse overall rather than better.
In general, nearly everything that stays focused on determining whether we should be jealous of other people, and doesn’t result in an immediate “no” answer, is going to produce toxic results.
I don’t know if there’s an official word for baby griffins but as far as I’m concerned they’re “grufflings”.
that works for me.
now i want a fantasy world where the fantasy creature in question doesn’t say ‘your human cubs/chicks/foals’ but instead struggles internally for a minute and goes ‘your… dingalings?’
The protagonists of post-Enlightenment relativism and perspectivism claim that if the Enlightenment conceptions of truth and rationality cannot be sustained, theirs is the only possible alternative.
Post-Enlightenment relativism and perspectivism are thus the negative counterpart of the Enlightenment, its inverted mirror-image. Where the Enlightenment invoked the arguments of Kant or Bentham, such post-Enlightenment theorists invoke Nietzsche’s attacks upon Kant and Bentham. It is therefore not surprising that what was invisible to the thinkers of the Enlightenment should be equally invisible to those post-modernist relativists and perspectivists who take themselves to be the enemies of the Enlightenment, while in fact being to a large and unacknowledged degree its heirs."
— Alasdair MacIntyre, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (via ayjay)