salty-blue-mage:

alicenmaryjane2016:

thesinglesock:

A lovely old lady. has a nice color scheme, and a fair amount of personality. she’s been doing magic for a long time, and is confident about her skills. would probably give you cookies along with the potion she brewed for you. 10/10

the minimalistic approach is not really working here, but I like the classic children’s book wizard theme she’s got going on, with the blue star-speckled robes and all. the white eyebrows are a nice touch, but it’s not enough to make up for her soulless, black eyes, empty smile, and ugly hat and wand. overall just really bad. 2/10

now this is a good stylistic approach. how the pointy beard and pointy hat makes his smiling face pop out, how the straight staff balances the emoji. Nice! also he looks very polite and eager to aid lost travelers. Would invite to join my D&D party. 10/10

another sweet old lady. looks like a friend of the Apple mage, but is trying too hard to copy her. the shading is kinda off, and her staff could be mistaken for a microphone or grape on a stick. you tried. 5/10

oh, honey… this city girl desperately wants to become a mage, but all her resources are from the cheap halloween store across the street. kinda bland. gets two extra points for trying 5/10

oh this one is interesting! reminds me of the microsoft mage, but obviously has his own personality. I love the curly beard and pointy hat, but it gives him more of a gnome vibe. the line-less style doesn’t look too good on him either. 7/10

looks like the whatsapp mage went and got a little more experience under her belt. good for her. she has a nice smile but the art style is ugly. 4/10

ohohoho! now that’s what I call a wizard! facebook really came through with this one! they perfected the mage emoji! I love it! 12/10

absolutely disgusting. -2/10

welkinalauda:

pyrrhiccomedy:

animate-mush:

amatara:

I’m pretending all the time to be, kinder, stronger, funnier, more sociable than I am. I guess we’re all like that but it just feels so inadequate.

What’s the difference?

I know it sounds flippant but… certain things are fundamentally performative.  And other things are so close as makes no difference.

Kindness is performative.  Actions are kind, and people are kind by performing those actions.  You can’t “pretend” to be kinder than you are, you can only perform kindness or not perform kindness, and choosing to perform kindness is always worthwhile, no matter how much you may second-guess your motivations.

Strength is so many things.  It takes strength to pretend a strength you don’t feel.  And the way to achieve strength is to exercise it, so long as you do it in enough moderation to not strain or break anything.  Being able to affect strength when necessary while being able to put it down again when that in turn is necessary is healthy.  Everyone starts weight training with the littlest weights.  It’s not fake or pretending to do what you gotta do in any given situation.

Funniness lives in the interlocutor, not in the speaker.  It doesn’t matter how funny you think you are (or think you are pretending to be) – that’s not how it’s measured.  At what point are you “pretending” to be a musician if the music still gets made?  And often what it’s tempting to describe in first person as “pretending” is more accurately described in the third person as “practicing” – which is of course the way you cause things to Be.

Sociability is also performative.  Pretending to be sociable is just…being sociable, despite a disinclination towards it.  It’s making an effort towards something you value.  So long as the effort is not so great that it backfires into resentment, there’s no practical difference.  

Qualities or activities or whatever are no less worthy because you have to actively choose to perform them.  If anything, the worthiness lies in the act of choosing.  It’s not “pretending” – it’s agency.

tl;dr: ain’t nothing wrong with “fake it till you make it.”  A plastic spoon* holds just as much soup as a “real” one

* I keep wanting to talk about semantic domains!  Artifacts are defined by their utility, whereas living things are defined by their identity.  So plastic forks are still forks, but plastic flowers aren’t flowers.  So there’s two pep-talk messages to take away from this: (1) for certain things, the distinction between “fake” and “real” isn’t a relevant one so long as they still get the job done, and (2) the purpose of a living thing is to be the thing that it is.  The idea of a “useless person” is as semantically nonsensical as the idea of “pretend kindness” (or fake cutlery).

I love this post. It illustrates what I think is maybe the key difference between a developing self-identity and a formed self-identity, which is, like…confidence? If you are BEING kind, consistently, if you are prioritizing that over your own comfort or fatigue or even, occasionally, your emotional inclination (because OH MY GOD FUCK THIS GUY, I HAVE HAD IT UP TO HERE–uuughhh, but no, I’m not gonna lash out at him, that won’t accomplish anything, and besides, he’s probably had a bad day, he’s under a lot of stress, I don’t have to be an asshole about this…), guess what? That makes you kind. That is literally what kindness is. Same for patience, same for strength, same for all of this stuff. You got it. You’re doing it. You’re not faking anything. Stop second-guessing yourself and cutting yourself down. Give yourself enough credit to look at your actions and confidently assert to yourself that you are no longer just making things up as you go. 

We tend to over-value motive and under-value consequence. 

“I didn’t mean to hurt her!”
And yet, she needs medical attention.

“I barely know her and I don’t want to get up.”
And yet, you took her to the hospital.

Authenticity and purity of intention are often far less useful than dutiful performance of virtue.

literallyaflame:

I wanna destroy the culture of “women have to wear makeup to be considered presentable” and replace it with “makeup is a fun accessory that allows u to have horribly fake purple lips and green eyelids if u want yee haw who wants some glitter on their nose” who’s with me on this

toofabulousforthissinfulearth:

It’s Asexual Awareness Week

So, as an asexual person myself, I’ve decided to give some reminders for all you lovely ace people.

• You are valid
• You are real
• You are a part of the LGBT community
• You can have a fulfilling relationship without sex
• If you feel like you aren’t fulfilling your partner because you don’t have sex, you are wrong, your partner would not be with you if they didn’t feel fulfilled
• Although, if your partner claims they aren’t fulfilled because you aren’t having sex with them, dump their ass and find someone who respects you
• You can be ace no matter your age, gender, race, etc.
• IT’S OKAY TO BE ACE AND LIKE SEX
• IT’S OKAY TO BE ACE AND LIKE SEX
• IT’S OKAY TO BE ACE AND LIKE SEX
• You do not have to be aromantic to be ace (I’m a biromantic ace myself)
• However, aro-ace people are just as valid
• You are not obligated to explain the nuances of your asexuality to anyone unless you’re planning to have sex with them
• TW – SEXUAL ASSAULT
• Having been assaulted is not always why you’re asexual, but sometimes, having been assaulted is why you’re asexual. Both are valid. (change made here because what I wrote earlier wasn’t phrased well)
• TW OVER
• You are not “broken”
• You are not a “prude”
• Demisexuals, Greysexuals, Cupiosexuals, and anyone else on the ace spectrum are also valid
• But, most of all

You are loved

Happy Asexual Awareness Week!

yourdangerousmind:

wedontcareaboutyourbinary:

revolutionaryqueernb:

Also in all this pan/bi discourse i wanna make sure everyones fucking clear

You can be attracted to nonbinary people. Its not nbphobic to be attracted to a nonbinary person. Its not fetishizing our identity to be attracted to us.

Yes, and specifically, since this seems to be the crux of the argument — it’s okay and good and right to be attracted to us as non-binary people, rather than as people your brain is categorizing as men and women. We’ll all feel differently about how it is and isn’t okay to group us, but we are all non-binary, and being attracted to NBs on the basis of our identity isn’t any more fetishistic than being attracted to men or women on the bases of theirs. Most non-bi/pan folk (and some in that group) will only be attracted to some kinds of NBs, but you can still call that “being attracted to NBs.”

— Mod Lune

I’m gonna go one further here and say that I, specifically, would only comfortable with people being attracted to me as a nonbinary person. If you are attracted to me as as an extension of your attraction to women/men, after I’ve made it clear to you I’m neither, that is misgendering. It doesn’t magically become not-misgendering because I’m not a binary trans person.

v8ftw:

leftatlondon:

taxidermiedgarfield:

inclusivity win! jkr confirms dobbys cock huge!

throbby

The platform for the hogwarts express ain’t the only thing that’s 9-¾

malfqy:

remember in goblet of fire when minerva says ‘potter’s a boy, not a piece of meat!’

imagine harry telling her everything after the battle of hogwarts, telling her about how dumbledore raised him like a pig for slaughter, and how he had to die and mcgonagall gets so goddamned mad

she loses control for the first time that harry’s EVER seen and she’s actually yelling, she’s so pissed that harry was seventeen and he had to accept death and dumbledore KNEW he would have to die and NEVER TOLD HIM

and harry’s about to cry because yeah his friends would be devastated if he was gone but NO ONE got this damn pissed that dumbledore had raised him so that he could die at the right time and mcgonagall’s in the middle of a rant and he just shoots up and hugs her and she’s stunned into silence but after a moment she hugs back and it’s great

and then she goes up to her office and starts screaming at dumbledore’s portrait because ‘i don’t care if it had to happen, albus, he is a CHILD-’