Im Not Anonymous But I Agree But I Agree With You Guys. I Heard That When Itachi Did The Poke For Sasuke,

I’m not Anonymous but I agree but I agree with you guys. I heard that when Itachi did the poke for Sasuke, it had different intentions/promises than when Sasuke did it for his family.

When Itachi did it for Sasuke, he obviously loved him very much but it was a gesture to try and distance himself away from Sasuke and had an unsure/empty promise, given the route he was taking himself on. But Sasuke took it as something a little differently, he interpreted as one of ways his brother showed genuine affection for him and was back to his old self with Sasuke, which was bit entirely false.

When Sasuke used this very meaningful gesture with his family, he showed genuine affection to them and had a sincere promise of returning to them/fulfilling a promise, which I think is the main difference between when Itachi used this gesture and when Sasuke and subsequently Sakura used this gesture.

How some antis say that the poke is a sign of distance makes me laugh.

Because Sasuke always remembered the poke as something important between himself and Itachi. It was always an important gesture for Sasuke.

And one thing makes me chuckle is, how a few of the antis were confident after the first spoilers that Sasuke would do the poke to Naruto. Only after it was confirmed that Sasuke did the poke to Sakura they changed their tune and claimed it meant „distance“.

They claim the poke is a sign of distance, as if the giver wants to distance themselves, but that's obviously not the case. Itachi never wanted to be away from Sasuke, and always gave him the poke as a sincere sign of affection, to relay to Sasuke that despite his need to be away, he still cared about him greatly.

That's exactly how Sasuke used it on Sakura and Sarada - To let them know that despite his need to be away, they were still very important to him. It's exactly as you said, the poke was always a very sentimental gesture of affection for Sasuke because it always reminded him of the kind big brother that Itachi used to be.

The statue scene is actually a little more interesting considering we now know that Adrien thinks Marinette is objectively hilarious.

It wasn’t just a prank. It wasn’t just a lonely boy trying to make a relationship with a friend better.

Adrien was trying to joke and banter with her in even the slightest way he does with Ladybug, all without the protection for his heart that comes with all of his masks. All because he wanted to be closer to her.

He just wasn't prepared for how game she would be to that.

How do those people even reach those conclusions?

Almost every thought Anya has about Damian is about how to try and be friends with him to put into action Plan B, where, when they’re friends, their dads will meet and Twilight will collect information from him or something and world peace will be secured, because that is what she understands from reading her father’s mind.

Besides, Anya is a naturally kind person who likes making friends and helping people. She does not look at someone’s status and think of it in the same way as some else might normally do, she looks for the kind of character the person has.

Although first impressions aren’t always everything, and seeing her sometimes act on that is funny, like how she initially walked away from Becky and Damian after she first read their minds.

i see comments like anya is getting close to damian because of his father and desmond status but i feel like she’s more of getting close to him for world peace and the mission that her dad, loid gives her. so i wouldn’t say anya is totally ‘using’ him for his status or whatsoever. not to say she’s so young she doesnt even understand much but she just tries her best for her dad loid just like how damian tries his best for his dad. 

★ 【鳴神亜鈴】 「 生生流転 」 ☆ ⊳ giyu (demon slayer) // bday: 2.8 ✔ republished w/permission ⊳ ⊳ follow me on twitter

Inspired by that stupid billionaires post:

It would really be nice if we could get some kind of discursive consensus to put ethical debates over inequality in economically literate terms, like:

A focus on consumption inequality. E.g. “I think it is immoral that some people get to consume so much while people in Africa go hungry.” Better yet if some actual statistics on consumption inequality are introduced, rather than the old “X% of people own Y% of the wealth”.

Actually considering trade-offs when talking about wealth that is invested and not consumed, like, “I think society currently invests too much in benefiting future people who will be richer than us, rather than in helping the poor to consume more here and now.” Or even, “I think we are too far past the point of diminishing returns in investment, where too much is wasted on speculative ventures that won’t pan out. Even though some of these will have returns, the money is better spent on present consumption.”

Instead of “rich man have all the money, no fair” vs. “rich man work hard for money, yes fair”.

Eid Mubarak! 😊

Eid Mubarak!

Eid Mubarak everyone! 🥳🎉🎉