Marta wins because she was a nurse and a caregiver before anything else. She wins the inheritance because she gave Harlan companionship, not just medical care. She gets the truth out of Ransom because she acted as a nurse, trying to save Fran even though she still dies in the end. Had Harlan just fucking listened to the actual medical expert in the room instead of himself, he would have lived.

Helen wins because she's a third-grade teacher—her job is literally educating, caring for, and looking out for kids. Glass Onion isn't just the working class vs the wealthy, it's an actual functioning adult woman vs a bunch of adult-sized toddlers, whining and throwing temper tantrums and thinking only of themselves. She plays games with her third graders, and in the end she wins by making a game of destroying everything Miles ever held dear, even getting the others to side with her.

Jud wins because he's an actual fucking priest, who actually embodies everything his god taught. He doesn't try to poach Wick's "flock" or anything, nor does he allow himself to surrender to anger and vindictiveness in the way Wick did. Jud is absolved of all his crimes because he just wants to do good by his church, in the name of his god.

Just as Blanc is an excellent detective, so too are these three spectacular at their jobs.

Rian Johnson and Daniel Craig just keep reiterating the same points in every film and I do love them for it.

• Respect the working class

• Fucking respect women.

• Listen to the local queer person who is excellent at their jobs and you will go far.

Me, watching: is this estate entailed or under a strict settlement? If it’s the product of a strict settlement, how was that disclosed to the viscount given he was of minority age (and thus barred from contracting) at his father’s death? Did he later perpetuate the strict settlement in his lineal favor despite having zero obligation to do so given that he now stands as legal fee tail owner? Maybe he just saw it as a way to perpetuate the power of the family and bar against less successful descendants wasting the estate resource, all at the direct, deliberate expense of barring his siblings and their families from a landed inheritance? If that’s the case, why are the younger Bridgerton sons such desirable matches among the gentry?? But maybe that’s not an issue, since all of his younger brothers seemingly have independent allowance, and if that’s generated from the family estate, this must be a strict settlement with a life estate income provision for siblings - def NOT an entailment. Is that why these younger brothers are considered good matches despite being unlanded untitled gentlemen in need of professions? Or maybe their mother’s marriage settlement provided for their independent allowance should their father die?? Are they to obtain their own property without title???

Bridgerton hot people: *have now actively started getting down in said gazebos and library locations*

Me, flipping through a facsimile of a 1788 English law textbook: on that note, why are the featheringtons kicked out of what appears to be an owned home by a male cousin upon their father’s death? Was their estate a strict settlement that benefited a cousin instead of a descendant?? Why would their grandfather force their father to settle away from his own descendancy line, with no allowance or dowry provided for the girls? But if it’s entailed and thus out of their hands (also explaining the lack of allowance), why didn’t their father employ common recovery to undo the entailment???

Fortunately, banks no longer just ask 'did you make that transaction' they want to make sure you weren't scammed into making that transaction and 5mins after their call will give away all your money anyway.

This is an honest to goodness life saving movement and I cannot be happier banks are adopting it

Unfortunately, it meant I had to have the most embarrassing financial call of my life

-

Me: Ah yeah I was just trying to tip a tumblr blog

Cash: right and were you directed there by a Facebook link? An Instagram advert?

Me: no I was just on tumblr...on purpose

-

Caah: and this person asked you for money?

Me: oh no they just had a funny story, which happened to be about money and I thought, "wouldn't it be funny if I tipped them"

-

Me: * covering a reblog by reblog update on the adventures my mutual was having *

Cash: okay I don't think that can actually happen though..

Me: It might not have, but i was happy to tip them just because it was funny

-

Cash: and how well do you think you know this person?

Me: *considers explaining how much I know about a beloved mutual without ever knowing their name or face* ... I have no idea who this person is

Thanks, Anon!

Yeah, sure, serial killers deserve human rights too, but isn't there a more obvious demographic you're sliding right by? Isn't there a demographic of people so thoroughly erased by human rights discourse that their rights aren't even debated, it's just taken for granted that human rights don't apply to these people?

I take a poll: "how many of you would agree that 'everyone deserves the right to privacy' is a pretty uncontroversial statement?"

when 95% of them have put their hands up, I say "now, what if I clarify that 'everyone' includes children?"

Pedophiles, rapists, serial killers, the most evil people you can imagine are, in fact, still people.

All of them, if we're humoring the idea that your government has your best interests at heart and can be relied upon to do the right thing. Which, lol. Lmao, even.

But also, this has nothing to do with *forgiveness*. I don't have to "forgive" a person for that person to be *a person.* I don't think that only good people are people. I don't think that your humanity is dependent on your innocence or moral purity, and I think it's actually really dangerous to literally dehumanize people, especially as a way to justify state violence against them.