Why Adam Is Not A Bad Person

first comic ( kinda shit sorry ;-; )

we should start oppressing people who have a good sense of direction

musicians really are walking red flags, aren’t they?

Arthur: We both look very handsome tonight. Merlin: You know, if you'd just said that I looked handsome, I would have said, "So do you." Arthur: I couldn't take that chance.

Why Elams is good and needs more popularity in the fandom

Eliza is not left out, thing that happend a lot in this fandom

John is not left out too! No more pointless angst!

You still want angst? Just immagine Eliza being heartbroken like Alexander after the Laurens’ interlude

“We need more polyships

“But John was gay” Yeah, but what about platonic love between him and Eliza?

Just, immagine them talking shit about Alexander together, and giggling, immagine them as best friends

Aus where John is alive are awesome, but in those AU people forget about Eliza, or Alexander cheats her. Just- Just stop hurting Eliza she dont deserve it

In short, Elams is a good ship and is not problematic, and it would fix a lot of love triangles we see in the fandom.

If is not your cup of tea i get it, but if you like it help the tag #Elams to get bigger! We need more fanart and fanfics!

Books that people read romantically but shouldn’t because they’re missing the point:

Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov

Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare

The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

I can’t sleep so I’m going to talk about the term ‘favorite’ historically and why it’s making me lose my mind for merthur (and because I have to link anything I read or watch to them).

Merlin was Arthur’s favorite. There’s no debate really about it and it’s very much canon, because historically, and quoting Wikipedia, “the feelings of the monarch for the favourite ran the gamut from simple faith in the favourite’s abilities to various degrees of emotional affection and dependence, and sometimes even encompassed sexual infatuation,” which excluding the last part and even if you don’t ship merthur romantically, it’s Arthur and Merlin’s relationship explained in a sentence. 

Now, hear me out, everyone in Camelot must’ve realized Merlin was Arthur’s favorite at some point. I think it must’ve been common knowledge in s5. So no problem there really, but what about Merlin? He didn’t grow up in Camelot, let alone in court. Uther never had a favorite anything as far as I know, and so it must’ve went over his head completely when he’d hear people describe him as Arthur’s favorite, because he’s Arthur’s favorite what? do they mean favourite servant? favourite friend? Being Merlin, he must’ve had no idea of the political or social ramifications of the title at all and thought it was just something he was called because he was close to Arthur.

I’ve heard people in the fandom talk about visiting people to Camelot being puzzled about Merlin’s station or role, but imagine them being told he was the king’s favourite just off the bat. Merlin doesn’t think much of it, but favourites have historically been envied and loathed by nobility, especially those of higher station than the favorite, because a lot of favourites have historically been from humble or minor backgrounds and have been elevated by royal favour. Many favorites have been assassinated, even had been executed or forced to retire by monarchs due to political pressure. Imagine how Merlin who probably never wanted a higher position in Arthur’s court embracing the title favorite because yes, Arthur is his favourite too, so what if he’s called Arthur’s favourite? and having double the attention on him because of that, because once you’ve been named favourite, there’s no going back. 

But also, Arthur’s reaction hearing people call Merlin his favorite, like he has never thought about it before. Merlin? I mean yeah, he accepted that Merlin is his best friend for life and the best advisor he’d ever have, but his favourite? He’s never given Merlin land or money, but that’s because the idiot wouldn’t accept them. Why would people assume he was Arthur’s favourite? Arthur would have a literal mental breakdown for about a week and then come to the conclusion that he didn’t really care. 

That’s at least until Merlin barges into his chambers one day, face red and panting from running up the stairs after someone finally explained to him what being a king’s favourite actually means and Merlin just being horrified because he wasn’t a bootlicker and because he was going to kill Arthur and then everyone’ll see who’s really the clotpole’s favourite, but then Arthur himself starts blushing and avoiding Merlin’s eyes and says he had nothing to do with it, that people assumed and he never corrected them because well, you are my favourite, aren’t you?

and now it’s Merlin who’s speechless, because yes, he was, wasn’t he? Arthur was his favourite as well, so what’s changed? 

and I have no idea where I’m going with this but Merlin as Arthur’s favorite owns my entire heart 🥺

things I read about favorites that I love and have reminded me of merthur:

favorites have been compared to mushrooms because they would spring up suddenly overnight (and now I’m imagining Merlin hearing people calling him a mushroom and just losing his mind because what the hell arthur).

“Like favourites/ Made proud by Princes" Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing.

“One who stands unduly high in the favour of a prince,” the definition of a favourite according to the Oxford English Dictionary. 

I’ve noticed lately that it’s often Americans who leave tags like “I don’t even care if it’s made up” on posts I make that are not particularly unbelievable, but are pretty specific to my way of life or corner of the world (like the one about the cheese vendor). It reminds me of that tweet that was circulating, that said Americans have a “medieval peasant scale of worldview”—I mean, if you don’t want to be perceived this way by the rest of the world maybe don’t go around social media saying that if a cultural concept or way of life sounds unfamiliar it must be made up?

It’s the imbalance that’s annoying, because like—when I mentioned having no mobile network around here I had people giving me info about Verizon to fix my problem. I post some rural pic and someone says it must be somewhere in the Midwest because the Southwest doesn’t look like this. My post about my postwoman has thousands of Americans assuming it’s about the USPS. On my post about my architect there’s someone saying “it’s because architecture is an impacted major” and other irrelevant stuff about how architecture is taught in the US. This kind of thing happens so so so often and I’m expected to be familiar with the concepts of Verizon and the Midwest and impacted majors and the USPS and meanwhile I make a post about my daily life and Americans in the notes are debating like “dunno if real. it sounds made up”

Going online for the rest of the world means having to keep in mind an insane amount of hyperspecific trivia about American culture while going online for Americans means having to keep in mind that the rest of the world really exists I guess

In Chile we didn’t nonviolently defeat Pinochet: he decided to step down. Yes, we got to vote for whether we wanted him to stay on power or not, and the “no” won. However, had he wanted to stay in power he would have. He became dictator by fucking bombing the presidential house and killing anyone that disagreed with him, don’t think he couldn’t have done it again. But by “stepping down” he could live the rest of his life as a free man, with the income of an ex-president added to everything he stole, what he was paid by the USA, and whatever he got from allowing narcos to do whatever they wanted.

He wasn’t arrested after we returned to democracy. And when he was finally arrested, it wasn’t even done by us; the order was issued by Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón for the causes of genocide, terrorism and torture, when Pinochet was in London for medical reasons, almost 10 years after stepping down. How humiliating is that? That the murderer of our people had to be arrested in a different continent, because nobody was brave enough to do so in the land he abused?

So no, I don’t believe nonviolent struggle can defeat a dictator. For at least one of the examples quoted didn’t involve much “defeating”, but the dictator deciding to abide by democracy for once. And it took 17 years of dictatorship, 200 000 people in exile, the torture of 28 459 (denounced), 2125 deaths and 1102 missing people (in a country that had less than 9 million people). Do you want that “peaceful way” for your country?

Waging Nonviolence

Can nonviolent struggle defeat a dictator? This database emphatically says yes

The Global Nonviolent Action Database details some 40 cases of mass movements overcoming tyrants through strategic nonviolent campaigns.

"With Donald Trump set to take office after a fear-mongering campaign that reignited concerns about his desire to become a dictator, a reasonable question comes up: Can nonviolent struggle defeat a tyrant?

There are many great resources that answer this question, but the one that’s been on my mind lately is the Global Nonviolent Action Database, or GNAD, built by the Peace Studies department at Swarthmore College. Freely accessible to the public, this database — which launched under my direction in 2011 — contains over 1,400 cases of nonviolent struggle from over a hundred countries, with more cases continually being added by student researchers.  

At quick glance, the database details at least 40 cases of dictators who were overthrown by the use of nonviolent struggle, dating back to 1920. These cases — which include some of the largest nations in the world, spanning Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America — contradict the widespread assumption that a dictator can only be overcome by violence. What’s more, in each of these cases, the dictator had the desire to stay, and possessed violent means for defense. Ultimately, though, they just couldn’t overcome the power of mass nonviolent struggle.  

In a number of countries, the dictator had been embedded for years at the time they were pushed out. Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, for example, had ruled for over 29 years. In the 1990s, citizens usually whispered his name for fear of reprisal. Mubarak legalized a “state of emergency,” which meant censorship, expanded police powers and limits on the news media. Later, he “loosened” his rule, putting only 10 times as many police as the number of protesters at each demonstration.  

The GNAD case study describes how Egyptians grew their democracy movement despite repression, and finally won in 2011. However, gaining a measure of freedom doesn’t guarantee keeping it. As Egypt has shown in the years since, continued vigilance is needed, as is pro-active campaigning to deepen the degree of freedom won.  

Some countries repeated the feat of nonviolently deposing a ruler: In Chile, the people nonviolently threw out a dictator in 1931 and then deposed a new dictator in 1988. South Koreans also did it twice, once in 1960 and again in 1987. (They also just stopped their current president from seizing dictatorial powers, but that’s not yet in the database.)  

In each case people had to act without knowing what the reprisals would be...

It’s striking that in many of the cases I looked at, the movement avoided merely symbolic marches and rallies and instead focused on tactics that impose a cost on the regime. As Donald Trump wrestles to bring the armed forces under his control, for example, I can imagine picketing army recruiting offices with signs, “Don’t join a dictator’s army.”  

Another important takeaway: Occasional actions that simply protest a particular policy or egregious action aren’t enough. They may relieve an individual’s conscience for a moment, but, ultimately, episodic actions, even large ones, don’t assert enough power. Over and over, the Global Nonviolent Action Database shows that positive results come from a series of escalating, connected actions called a campaign...

-via Waging Nonviolence, January 8, 2025. Article continues below.

East Germany’s peaceful revolution

When East Germans began their revolt against the German Democratic Republic in 1988, they knew that their dictatorship of 43 years was backed by the Soviet Union, which might stage a deadly invasion. They nevertheless acted for freedom, which they gained and kept.

Researcher Hanna King tells us that East Germans began their successful campaign in January 1988 by taking a traditional annual memorial march and turning it into a full-scale demonstration for human rights and democracy. They followed up by taking advantage of a weekly prayer for peace at a church in Leipzig to organize rallies and protests. Lutheran pastors helped protect the organizers from retaliation and groups in other cities began to stage their own “Monday night demonstrations.”  

The few hundred initial protesters quickly became 70,000, then 120,000, then 320,000, all participating in the weekly demonstrations. Organizers published a pamphlet outlining their vision for a unified German democracy and turned it into a petition. Prisoners of conscience began hunger strikes in solidarity.

By November 1988, a million people gathered in East Berlin, chanting, singing and waving banners calling for the dictatorship’s end. The government, hoping to ease the pressure, announced the opening of the border to West Germany. Citizens took sledgehammers to the hated Berlin Wall and broke it down. Political officials resigned to protest the continued rigidity of the ruling party and the party itself disintegrated. By March 1990 — a bit over two years after the campaign was launched — the first multi-party, democratic elections were held.

Students lead the way in Pakistan

In Pakistan, it was university students (rather than religious clerics) who launched the 1968-69 uprising that forced Ayub Khan out of office after his decade as a dictator. Case researcher Aileen Eisenberg tells us that the campaign later required multiple sectors of society to join together to achieve critical mass, especially workers. 

It was the students, though, who took the initiative — and the initial risks. In 1968, they declared that the government’s declaration of a “decade of development” was a fraud, protesting nonviolently in major cities. They sang and marched to their own song called “The Decade of Sadness.” 

Police opened fire on one of the demonstrations, killing several students. In reaction the movement expanded, in numbers and demands. Boycotts grew, with masses of people refusing to pay the bus and railway fares on the government-run transportation system. Industrial workers joined the movement and practiced encirclement of factories and mills. An escalation of government repression followed, including more killings. 

As the campaign expanded from urban to rural parts of Pakistan, the movement’s songs and political theater thrived. Khan responded with more violence, which intensified the determination among a critical mass of Pakistanis that it was time for him to go.

After months of growing direct action met by repressive violence, the army decided its own reputation was being degraded by their orders from the president, and they demanded his resignation. He complied and an election was scheduled for 1970 — the first since Pakistan’s independence in 1947.

Why use nonviolent struggle?

The campaigns in East Germany and Pakistan are typical of all 40 cases in their lack of a pacifist ideology, although some individuals active in the movements had that foundation. What the cases do seem to have in common is that the organizers saw the strategic value of nonviolent action, since they were up against an opponent likely to use violent repression. Their commitment to nonviolence would then rally the masses to their side. 

That encourages me. There’s hardly time in the U.S. during Trump’s regime to convert enough people to an ideological commitment to nonviolence, but there is time to persuade people of the strategic value of a nonviolent discipline. 

It’s striking that in many of the cases I looked at, the movement avoided merely symbolic marches and rallies and instead focused on tactics that impose a cost on the regime. As Donald Trump wrestles to bring the armed forces under his control, for example, I can imagine picketing army recruiting offices with signs, “Don’t join a dictator’s army.”  

Another important takeaway: Occasional actions that simply protest a particular policy or egregious action aren’t enough. They may relieve an individual’s conscience for a moment, but, ultimately, episodic actions, even large ones, don’t assert enough power. Over and over, the Global Nonviolent Action Database shows that positive results come from a series of escalating, connected actions called a campaign — the importance of which is also outlined in my book “How We Win.”  

As research seminar students at Swarthmore continue to wade through history finding new cases, they are digging up details on struggles that go beyond democracy. The 1,400 already-published cases include campaigns for furthering environmental justice, racial and economic justice, and more. They are a resource for tactical ideas and strategy considerations, encouraging us to remember that even long-established dictators have been stopped by the power of nonviolent campaigns.

-via Waging Nonviolence, January 8, 2025.

I told my mother that Hiccup should count as a Disney princess. Her only complaint was “but Disney princess dont suffer for amputated members”.