My Svsss Comic About Sqq And His Little Personality Split (what If)

The first post is about how Donnie saw his mother 💥

instead of arguing about the no-fly list and the memes it spawned, please consider donating to CAIR (Center for American Islamic Relations) or the CCR (Center for Constitutional Rights)

CAIR, specifically, is group of muslim lawyers who routinely represent muslim americans fighting for their legal rights - all for free

both groups have already won multiple cases for muslim americans who have been wrongfully profiled and surveilled by the government, and they’ve announced plans to take even broader legal initiative to protect our rights. it’s because of their work thus far that the supreme court recently ruled that muslims who have been wrongfully placed on no-fly lists are now allowed to sue the government for damages

we still have a long way to go, but organizations like these are doing so much work to make sure we get there

demon eater

Me: Caring for fictional characters is stupid! They’re not even real! I don’t know why people care so much about them.

Also me, the entire time watching Obi Wan Kenobi: *tenderly* sir please. Just take a nap. Just a little rest. please. I love you so much.

Do you think Percy moved back into the Burrow, or did he while reconciling with his family, still decide to live in his flat? Like maybe to try and find his own self. As I feel like everything that happened in order of the phoenix to Deathly Hallows needed to happen for him to grow. I mean if Voldy never came back and he never had a conflict with his family he wouldn't of changed for the better.

No, I don't think Percy moved back to the Burrow (because he's already happy living with his fiancé Oliver Wood). In all seriousness, I don't think he would because his family stifled his ambition by dismissing his accomplishments. Overall, his parents did not facilitate a supportive environment for Percy. If the Grangers had treated Hermione the way the Weasleys did Percy, actively belittling her academic ambition and achievements, the fandom would have rioted, but that's neither here or there. Yeah, siblings tease each other, but not to that extent. It's much more normal to congratulate them, not tear them down. Source: does have a sibling. And other life experiences: friends with siblings.

And I agree that Percy did need to leave the Burrow and have his absolutely disastrous experience with Fudge to grow, but not in the same way that you (or others) might think. I think that the Burrow was an unhealthy environment for Percy - for the majority of the Weasley children, actually. Charlie and Bill and Fred and George all left the second they could, and if that's not telling, I don't know what is. My thoughts on the Weasley parents' less than stellar parenting techniques can be found in a more than two thousand word discussion between Ginny and Percy in my novella-length story, a study of cracked gold. But in short: Arthur was absent and treated Muggles not as real people but a spectacle with very rigid views (yes, he was prejudiced against muggles: look up implicit bias and how harmful the objectificiation of minorities is, even if it is in a positive skew). And Molly was incredibly prejudiced with severe internalised misogyny (thanks, Queen TERF) and treated her children favourably and yelled at them, frequently.

My dad is one of six, and my mum is one of four, so I know what large families are like. I know what healthy families are like. They are not like the Weasleys: it is just in contrast to the Dursleys, they shine. They meet the material needs of their children, mostly (Ron's wand aside), but their emotional needs are clearly suffering. Children are not there to fit parents' neat little picture, but as people who need nourishing and space to flourish. Molly and Arthur don't allow their children true individuality and it is harmful, incredibly so.

Anyway, getting back to the actual point of your question, I think Percy did change for the better because he was no longer under the influence of his family. Yes, I think realising the extent of corruption in the Ministry probably made him more cynical/pessimistic/activist, but I don’t think he was unaware that Fudge wasn’t a perfect specimen (see: this meta here). But I think that Percy not being constantly belittled for being himself and being different [autistic, likely, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he also had anxiety], allowed him to grow comfortable with himself and perhaps not so dependent on external validation and more able to rely on other people. In my personal headcanon, along with Oliver being a great support system, he also becomes close with Sirius and Remus, who, despite being lowkey disasters, are good examples of healthy adults/mentors and support that Percy desperately lacked. I also see Andromeda Tonks being a good mentor to the Weasley family (as Tonks is Charlie's best friend) for healthy intergenerational relationships are snazzy.

Percy leaving his family and 'siding' with the Ministry was good for him. He would have gained a lot of valuable (if mildly traumatic) experience as an assistant to the Minister of Magic and would have been in an incredibly valuable position during the war to help vulnerable people such as muggleborns. But the real reason, I think, he was allowed to flourish and make mistakes, was because he was not being constantly negatively scrutinised by his family and instead surrounded himself with a positive support network.

So yeah, you can say that by leaving home, Percy became his better self. Consequent to this growth, I don't think he would have gone back.

Guys I just came up that the reason why the Dark Lord died. It wasn’t because of Lily’s love but cause of Voldemort. Let me explain,

So we don’t know how to make a horcrux, we can guess that it probably has to do with sacrificing/murdering someone. It makes sense that you have to take a life in order to gain a longer lifespan through preserving the soul. Every time we’ve seen Voldy make a horcrux, it usually is tied to him killing someone to obtain it.

This leads me to my next point. What if Voldemort went to the Potter’s with the intention of creating an 8th horcrux. Not Harry but something else. It makes sense. If you were an egotistical homicidal maniac who heard a prophecy for telling your death. And you’ve decided to go kill that person and their whole family. Why not make another Horcrux using the deaths of said Vanquisher and his family?? It would make sense also for Voldemort to use their deaths to make a horcrux. Cause Tom Riddle is a Egotistical Dramatic bitch and more important that BitchTM even if he only has 10% of a nose. The man purposely tracked down the most Famous magical artifacts (some of which had been lost for centuries) to make into Horcruxes. There’s no way he would pass up a chance like this to be as symbolic and extra as shit and make a Horcrux.

So Voldemort goes to the Potter’s house with the intention of not only killing Harry Potter, the boy supposedly destined to kill him, but also has the plan to use The Potter’s deaths for a horcrux. And this is where Lily comes in.

Lily’s death is what was needed to turn Harry into a horcrux.

Perhaps the ritual just went wrong or something. Since we don’t know how a horcrux is made, we can’t say. Harry isn’t a proper horcrux anyways, but it makes sense that he became a sort of Horcrux. The ritual part of killing someone was done right before the Soul was “infused” into him. And Lily’s death was what was needed for part of Voldemort’s soul to latch onto Harry instead of just disappearing. So instead of Lily’s love killing Voldemort. It was his only ego of trying to make an 8th horcrux that “killed him”.

So while it wasn’t Lily’s love necessarily that destroyed the Dark Lord. Her dying to protect her son was what vanquished the Dark Lord. Her death directly vanquished the Dark Lord the first time. And indirectly (through Harry) vanquished him for good.

writing smut like

how many synonyms for “penis” do I actually know?

What she says: im fine

What she means: the average age of conception over the past 250k years is apparently 26.9. Let's round it down to 25. Think of your birth mother at 25. Hold her hand. Imagine her holding hands with her mother. Within 4 people, you're back in time 100 years, and it's an intimate family dinner. Just after WWI. Add another 16 people, a small party of 20, and you're in the 1500s. Double it, twice, and you're at 80 people. Your family would fill a restaurant, and you're at the height of the Roman empire. At 100 people, Confucius is alive but Socrates has not yet been born. 100 people. That's a medium sized wedding. A small lecture theatre or concert. 200 people, probably the biggest party i could ever hope to host, takes you back 5000 years. The guests at your soirée of parents would be contemporaries of the Egyptian and Indus Valley civilisations, although you'd probably be too busy fixing drinks and nibbles to talk to all of them. Just imagine it. 200 of you. That's all it takes to get back 5,000 years.

And we could go further. 1,000 people, a decent sized concert, a large high school, and we're at the end of the last ice age. Your ancestors are comparing their pink floyd vinyl with music played on instruments carved from wood or bones of long vanished species. Wander through the crowd. See your own features and phrases and gestures refract out like a kaleidoscope. What would they make of you? What do you make of them? Why does it feel so unfair that even that first 100 years --that small family dinner of four--is out of your grasp? Maybe it's because questions of spatial distance have become negligible to us now. why, oh why, does time hold out against us so stubbornly

taking off a mask to reveal what lies beneath as a romantic gesture is overdone, and besides i want to see the romantic or even platonic potential of protecting someone's identity beneath the mask, without any expectation of ever being allowed to see what's under it. picking it up and holding it gently to their face when it's knocked off and they're in danger of being exposed, without trying to catch a glimpse of what they "really" look like under there. throwing yourself in front of them to hide them from view while they put themselves back together without taking advantage or looking back to see what you're protecting. learning to read them by body language, tone of voice, and behaviour so well that you never need to see their face to feel like you know and understand them.

drake rodger’s interpretation of john winchester has major anakin vibes. puppy dog kid with anger and darkness inside, introduced to the loss of family and the horrors of war way too young. he thinks he can fight his inner demons by fighting real life demons. he’s wrong. he says he’s here to save people. but he likes the violence a little too much. in fighting monsters, he loses his humanity. soon, he will forget how to imagine a life outside of the hunt. that’s the moment that seals his doom.