#this isn't even necessarily a critical statement I just think it's something that gets so widely ignored except to prove points | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

arealtrashact · 6 months

Note

What is the appeal/what do you like about Saw? I enjoy horror as a genre and have seen people post about saw a lot on here and had the opportunity to watch it so I did. But. I'm kind of confused? what I enjoy about horror is (a lot of different things, some of which are:) the anticipation, the contrast of good, pleasant times and the deeply horrific things which then happen, a plot that is unpredictable even if it's clear it will only end badly, I enjoy not knowing how exactly it will be bad and then the film slowly revealing that to me. Saw did very few of these things. Maybe it's just not a film for me, (I haven't watched many slashers and I can imagine they might be similar and it's just a subgenre I don't understand/am destined not to like?) but even so I just cannot understand what people enjoy about it??? from the get go it's grim and horrific, which means that when things get worse, they never really feel that bad because you have no example of goodness in that universe to compare it to? The characters are. Pretty two dimensional and also not necessarily likeable. Idk I could go on but I don't want to sound like a dickhead who loves the sound of their own voice writing a really critical review of something I don't understand. I feel like with the fanbase it has on this website, I must be missing something. Please enlighten me!!! And if you can't explain it I would love any articles/analyses of the franchise that go some way to explain why people like it if you know of any. Sorry for littering your inbox with this mini essay lol but I watched it last week and I'm still just like. Disappointed and confused and you're the first person on my dash to post something related to it so lucky you, you get to be the receiver of this ask !!! Thank you in advance if you even read this far lol, I'd really appreciate if you could point me in the direction of some kind of explanation !!! No worries if not tho, have a good rest of your week 🌻🧡

I think you had it when you said, 'Maybe it's just not a film for me'. It really is as simple as that.

There isn't always a deeper meaning or some secret detail everyone else who does enjoy it is privy to. There is no magic answer that will enlighten you into the appeal that something holds for certain people.

That being said, you shouldn't feel confused or left out by being perturbed by something as polarizing as Saw lol.

I can't answer for everybody who likes this franchise because I'm sure everyone has different reasons but speaking solely for myself : I like these movies for all the reasons you listed that you don't.

These films are like chicken soup for my soul, and have been since I was about ten years old. They make me laugh, they provide me with catharsis, and ( contrary to your statement) I find the characters very charming. I could wax on about what these movies did for me at that tender age but I am not in the habit of analyzing why I love the things that I do ( I think I'd find some patterns I wouldn't want to acknowledge /coughs/ ). All I know is that when Hello Zepp starts playing at the end of every installment, my heart swells with uncomplicated joy.

#Trashtalk #Anonymous #The short answer to your question : Hoffman's stacked rack.

123 notes · View notes

max1461 · 7 months

Text

One of the most frustrating things is making a post that you think is right, and also important, but which unintentionally conveys something that you think is subtly wrong. Especially when the post gets popular. You want to keep it circulating, you want your point to keep spreading. But you worry that you're spreading something bad along with it, a misconception that your readers might not even know they're absorbing.

That post I made about the Meiji restoration a while ago was one of these. I ended up making in unrebloggable, mostly because I was just getting tired of that discourse. I think it was a good post and I stand by it. I criticized the Meiji government for an ideology that saw "Westernizing" and "industrializing/modernizing/becoming competitive with the Great Powers" as necessarily part-and-parcel, and I criticized contemporary political leaders who think the same thing. And I think that's a fair criticism in both cases.

But I did have a major concern about that post, which is that it I think it played into this idea that the Meiji restoration was some absolute break in Japanese history, where Japan stopped being... idk, "authentically Japanese" and started being "a Westernized country". Which is almost exactly the type of narrative I'm trying to critique! Like, no! Disregarding even the general dubiousness of those categories: there was serious continuity between pre-Meiji and post-Meiji Japan, this wasn't an early-Soviet-Union-level reshaping of society.

Maybe I shouldn't say that, I don't know enough about the early Soviet Union. But you get my point. I worry that my post made it sound as if the Meiji government were ripping up shrine gates and shit left and right, shredding kimonos and foisting Western suits upon people, and banishing nay-sayers to the gulag. No! That would not really be an accurate description of what happened.

So I worried about giving the wrong impression. I think I've posted about this already.

But my whole point, really, the point I was trying to make with that post and the point I am perennially trying to make, is that the modern world is not inherently "Western". Not in principle or in actual fact. Modernity was made across the whole globe. That sounds like a sort of trite statement, a meaningless inversion of the typical Western chauvinist narrative, but it isn't! The more you learn about early modern history the more clear this really becomes.

Japan was an early industrializer. Not among the very first wave, but ultimately still early. This means it was not only "on par", in terms of access to material wealth and technology, with many nations in Europe, but that its industrialization also meaningfully predated that of much of Europe, especially Eastern Europe. The core element of industrial society—the industrial factory—is a technology. A technology invented in Britain, which just like any technology spread first to nearby regions and later to far off regions. Of course in the increasingly interconnected modern world, sometimes technologies make big geographical jumps, as industrialism made to Japan in the nineteenth century.

And of course I'm oversimplifying the history here, but my point is that this is all ordinary. There's a narrative which sees the whole process of the spread of industrialism as almost mystically exceptional. A divine enlightenment was given to the West, which from then on separated the West and the Westernized in their very essence from the rest, the unenlightened masses, the savages. The White Man's Burden. But, aside from being a perennial justification for colonialism, this view is intellectually immature. It's a just-so story.

Like all inventions, the industrial factory and the technologies which emerged around it have a geographical place of origin. But like all inventions, they spread—both inside and outside the West—and people in the places to which they spread immediately started iterating on them and adapting them to local conditions and contributing to the larger sum-of-effects we call the modern world. Modernity was made all over the globe. Japanese modernity is not a mere Western importation, layered on top of indigenous pre-modernity. It was made right there in Japan, by Japanese people, in Japanese institutions, and so on and so forth. It drew from ideas developed elsewhere (as cultures always have! As Japan did with China just centuries before!), developed in France and Germany and Britain, and it contributed ideas which were then taken up in France and Germany and Britain.

And these kind of effects are easy to see with Japan, because it was an early industrializer, but once you pay attention you see them everywhere. The making of the modern world not as a unilateral imposition of the West upon the rest, but as a mutual engagement of many societies across the globe making something new together—sometimes cooperatively, usually competitively, and very often at the expense of the most marginal. But, still, together, as an aggregate process.

Our world was made everywhere. I do think it sounds completely trite, especially because I'm rather tired and don't have the wherewithal to source more specific examples. But I really do think this because meaningfully clear when you engage with the history.

#society

77 notes · View notes

a-town-called-hometown · 1 month

Note

hi!! i loved your post about deltarune's metafiction and its (not) escapist themes, and it got my brain jogging, like... i guess ive just been thinking "why"? like ive heard that take before and i think its valid, but also like. why ? its obvious enough to me that deltarune uses the lightner/darkner relationship as a reflection of the player/game relationship and both of these things are addressed critically, but i can't help but wonder if there's a driving force for it all, outside of deltarune. like i can accept diegetically the darkners are not, or shouldn't be, subject only to the whims of lightners, but with any good story if you break it down to its core is ultimately saying something about humanity or the world and such. i mean i seriously doubt the people who seem to think that Toby Fox intends to induce *actual* guilt into the people who fund his life's work and career by purchasing his videogames, like, it's obvious that "you are a bad person because you play this videogame" isn't the intended message, nor was it in undertale. but then, what is? what is the purpose of a story that invites us to think of toys and game characters as "real"? not to trash my beloveds but i mean, literally speaking, their lives DONT matter, they r not real. it just feels like ive seen a lot of discussion about 'what' toby is doing with the narrative but i feel like that's only half the ordeal, the other half would be the reason why. my first thought was that the implicit 3rd thing being compared to the light-dark, player-game thing is actual social hierarchy IRL in which people are oppressed by another group that doesnt see them as human, bc iirc toby talked a bit about feeling powerless and wanting to do more to change the real world on real issues in an interview in 2020ish and of course there's the snarky gag about the fedora plugboy who doesn't like politics, so he doesn't care that an evil ruler is taking over the world. im not sure if that sits right with me as what the intention is (esp because the latter is a darkner talking about another darkner) but i couldnt think of much else although i do feel like a fallacy people get themselves into a lot in the fandom is the assumption that toby fox is this Impeccable Writing Machine and not just like A Guy. people make weird or flawed art sometimes, it doesn't *have* to adhere to standards. maybe deltarune is meaningless (or the meaning IS that it's meaningless, as though to complete the metaphor of it being a "real" fictional world, because if it is 'real' then like our world there is no "answer" or "purpose", it simply *is*.) dunno! im not expecting it to boil down to a simplistic fairytale moral like "dont bully people!!" or something, mr. fox tends to write more convoluted than that, but i feel like if there's something to be gained from this particular part of the game's story then i'm not sure i see the vision. what do u think? do u think this question is even answerable with only two chapters?

respectfully, I do heavily disagree with the notion that good stories necessarily have to say anything about the world or about humanity. one of the reasons I like metafiction is that it usually says something about how stories are constructed, and that's enough for me. there's plenty of stories that have bigger themes that aren't really all that much about human nature, at least, not directly. a story can comment on one specific thing without necessarily making a broader statement about people, you know? not every story has an easily explained moral lesson.

that being said, yes, this plot element is in service of deltarune's larger themes! which are about agency, control, fate, and identity.

deltarune's fate theming and its metafiction elements are a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation given how interlocked they are, but I've found it helpful to describe deltarune as a "person vs. fate narrative that uses a metafictional lens to characterize fate." rather than the three fates of greek mythology or whatever dictating its characters' lives, it is instead the structure of the rpg their world was made to be. they are player characters. they are npcs. they play specific roles in the narrative. no one can choose who they are in this world.

control is emphasized in this story. there's the control we have over kris, of course, and in a much subtler way the control we have over the world through them. there's the darkner-lightner hierarchy, which parallels our dynamic with kris. i would argue that there are even social forces in hometown which also serve to place the lightner characters into specific roles. under this level of control, it's hard for characters to push back and determine their own identities.

all these forces combine to mean that deltarune's characters are fighting back against the narrative itself! which says stuff about people's agency, and the way rpgs are written, and how we interact with all that...

ultimately, you can apply this to real life. even if there aren't things like "fictional people who are actually real," hierarchies of control do exist in real life. narratives that erase the agency and internality of certain types of people exist in real life. it's admittedly a rather general statement, but like with any narrative about fate, seeing characters resist rules that are seemingly written into the fabric of their existence can make you feel inspired to also define your own identity! and to be transgender. don't forget to be transgender

#deltarune #deltarune analysis #im not kidding deltarune really did make me transgender.

28 notes · View notes

front-facing-pokemon · 1 month

Note

To be fair, while bulbapedia is just one source, it does tend to be a relatively solid one, and often does include notes about official design statements (there’s a note about the designer of the swords of justice intending for terrakion’s horns to resemble hatchets, for example!), so I don’t think it’s a bad source of info just because it tends to use the term “seems to be based on”. In fact, while many do make fun of the “polteageist seems to be based on a teacup” thing (and it is funny!), I think it’s better that they word things like that, because what Pokémon are based on can often be up to guesswork and interpretation!

Don’t get me wrong, it’s still entirely possible that Naganadel is inspired by xenomorphs! And that would be very cool! I just wanted to add that there are other things it can be based on as well, and that I personally haven’t seen the xenomorph thing mentioned anywhere before.

well of course bulbapedia isn't a bad source. it's my primary source of information on pokémon and shit. i've used it my whole life and it's the one i know how to navigate. the main problem i have with it is all the fucking ads. that site is designed to Look like wikipedia while being littered with so many ads that it becomes nigh unusable on mobile. it's encouraged me to learn a different pokédex site but none of them seem to have all the same information that i want in the same easy-to-access (somewhat, not considering the ads) place. sure, i have ublock origin on desktop, obviously. but when i'm out and about, it's not exactly Easy to find ad blockers that work on my particular mobile browsers of choice, which means i just end up going to serebii or something, and the only reason i still go to bulbapedia on desktop is because i have an ad blocker. now, i know they have a tumblr blog here and everything (i even follow them!), and obviously i doubt lisia themself is personally littering all the ads on the site, cackling "this is gonna make the site so unusable" or some shit. but it's spawned lots of criticisms from me of the site itself, where i wouldn't necessarily have had them before if it hadn't left a sour taste in my mouth. which is all to say: if you find another site that has all the same information as bulbapedia with less ads, i'd love to know about it. i've tried serebii, zukan, pokédb, even the official pokémon website. but bulbapedia continues to be the most comprehensive source of information, sprites, game data, trivia… et cetera

#not pkmn #in other news‚ galar has already started getting difficult as the model for coalossal was skipped for no reason #oooooooohhhh babey!!!!!!#really loving running this blog right now!!!!! (lie!!!!)

20 notes · View notes

genericpuff · 7 months

Note

What is your advice on handling criticism?

I saw your response to a critic on Lore Rekindled in the sub and it's very good and you could say, professional.

I have a big problem of people-pleasing, so if I get critcism (eventhough it's very polite), I get very sad at the fact there's fault with my work (I also suffer from perfectionism). It will drastically change how I see my work, and in the end I give it up 😭

fam i got teased tf out of for making it so wordy LOL

I totally get that struggle though, I know it probably doesn't seem it at times, but I do have the 'ole RSD (Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria) due to being ADHD/autistic, so I totally relate to the whole people pleasing thing. It's hard to feel like something you made isn't making everyone happy! But that's also ultimately not what it's for. You can't make everyone happy, and your art doesn't deserve to exist any less just because some people don't find it their cup of tea.

I've definitely had to like, disconnect my work from myself over the years to get better at taking criticism. Not to the point that I get apathetic, obviously I should be invested in whatever I'm working on, but enough that when people criticize my work, it's not necessarily an attack on my own self.

And if they are clearly just out to attack me, then I dismiss the criticism, it's of no value to me.

Unless it's something that's specifically a result of my own values or biases bleeding into the work, most of the time it's people literally just saying, "I like this work, but I feel like it wasn't as strong as it could have been here and here" and that has nothing to do with me as a person, I'm just still polishing my skills and those outside opinions help to target specifically what needs improving. I think we as artists pour a lot of ourselves into our work, especially when we're just starting out, so it can be hard not to take criticism as an attack or rejection of yourself, but we have to ultimately remember that we are not 100% of our work. Even with works like LO, while some of the criticism I give of it is indicative of Rachel's values and personal preferences as a person, a lot of it is also just about the work itself and how far it's fallen beyond what I assume Rachel intended from the beginning.

I've also learned to separate helpful from unhelpful criticism. I'll use Time Gate as an example because I've gotten way more input on that series than Rekindled (just because I've actually like, intentionally sought out criticism for it). A common criticism in the past was that there weren't enough backgrounds and the story's pacing wasn't concise. It sucked to hear at the time, especially the backgrounds one, because I'd heard that one time and time again... but it was literally because I wasn't doing anything to improve them. You know what stopped those criticisms? Drawing backgrounds more LOL And I still suck at backgrounds tbh but I feel like I've definitely improved compared to the first few volumes when I was just drawing characters on top of white constantly LOL

old and busted:

new hotness:

(i think there's like a 4-5 year difference between these two pages. and the backgrounds STILL aren't perfect in those newer volumes but they still feel more finished than the older panels did)

So that was helpful criticism! My art wasn't as strong as it could be in a few specific places that people were clearly able to pinpoint, so I did what I could to improve those places and I'm still working on it.

Unhelpful criticism has just been either personal attacks (not valuable) or statements that are basically asking the comic to not be what it is, criticizing things that are features, not bugs. Things like "well I think the story is too anime-like", "it's a lot to try and read", "why don't you draw eyelashes on the girl character", etc. which are criticisms of things that I know are intentional. The story's anime-like because that's the story I want to write. It's a lot to try and read because it's intended to be a longform series for people who like reading longform series (people like me!). I don't draw eyelashes on Uzuki because she would look terrible with them LMAO (we even made a joke about that later on):

(the hilarious part is that that comment was definitely made with the idea that all women should have that makeup look, meanwhile mitsuhiro's pulling off the look so much better and he knows it LMAO

And actually, the example you're referring to where I responded to crit in the ULO subreddit, is also an example of unhelpful criticism, though the person who posted it definitely didn't mean any harm by it, but the crit was literally "why aren't Persephone's boobs big enough" which I thought was pretty funny. She still has boobs! I just don't draw them popping out of her top like Rachel does LOL I also don't give her the exaggerated pinched waist or broken spine that Rachel often gives her because that's all just to, again, emphasize her boobs, and it's often unnecessary, especially in a comic that's being marketed as a feminist piece of work, yet is often drawn completely through the male gaze. So yeah, that was definitely crit that wasn't really beneficial because it was literally just about Persephone's cup size lol

I know it's easier said than done, but when you feel that sadness coming on in response to criticism, remember that that criticism exists to help you, not hinder you. Considering you've been getting polite criticism, that means the people giving it likely have your best interests in mind and want to see your work improve. The only way to do that is to learn how to critically analyze your own work, and the only way to do that is to surround yourself with works whose quality you want to achieve, and get outside opinions. And if that criticism isn't in good spirit, then toss it aside. If it's not going to help you, then it's not of any value to you. And yes, it will take practice, there are still times I find myself getting overwhelmed, but ultimately I can't control what anyone else says or does, only what I do. So I funnel that into my work and I always keep moving forward.

Be at peace with the process of learning and improving, because you never stop having to learn, there's always something new to improve, and that shouldn't be taken all doom and gloom "I'll never be perfect", that's literally just the process and beauty of being an artist, there's always something new to learn and that's something that should be exciting!

Think about whenever you give criticism or have personal critiques of other comics. I'm willing to bet most of the time, you have those opinions with good intentions, you're not trying to attack anyone. So why not give yourself the same grace?

...holy shit, I forgot Uzuki's lipstick in the bottom right panel- （；´д｀）ゞ

#and i know i'm sounding hella hypocritical because i'm MEAN about LO lmaooo #but that's what y'all followed me here for sksksksk #i'm NOT entitled to her attention or acknowledgement #and also i genuinely don't expect or wish rachel to find my crits of LO here #i do think she needs to get better at taking criticism but at this point i'm just shitposting so that's not helpful to her LMAO #ama #ask me anything #anon ama #anon ask me anything

39 notes · View notes

idkwhatimdoingbutslay · 9 months

Note

OH ALSO, i didn't say this in my response to your response but i think what you said about "vi isn't super connected to zaun as a people" is super correct. i don't think vi feels like she really has a place within the system of zaun and piltover. we see her work against the system, outside of it, or even attempt to work WITH it at different points throughout the show. it doesn't seem to matter to her where she stands with respect to the powers that be so long at she's getting what she wants (very similar to vander). so it seems like the author of that other post wants vi to be something she just isn't, some kind of social justice warrior. but vi doesn't believe the system can be changed ("topside and bottom, oil and water, that's all there is") so she doesn't concern herself with it. she's focused on protecting the people she loves.

ironically, OP seems to be somewhat anti-caitlyn, but caitlyn is actually the one who wants to fix the system and believes it can be done. caitlyn is going to be the one to get vi to take part in solving the bigger problems, because she offers vi a new place to belong, not in piltover as part of the system but at caitlyn's side trying to bring the two halves of the city back together.

UGH YEAH!

It’s been said before, but it’s always the Anti-Caitlyns who seem to have closed their eyes and plugged their ears in every single scene with Vi (and of course Cait) in it. The CONSTANT projection is crazy. Again, personal biases making it hard to critically think for people.

Vi is NOT Vander and her beef with Silco is not super similar to the beef Vander had with Silco. Vi is here for the people she loves and the collateral damage and/or improvements is not what she’s concerned about.

Like you said, Vi isn’t as progressive as people think. She was stuck in prison for SEVEN YEARS, abused constantly and beaten down her entire life to keep her in her place. She’s accepted the different positions in society, she just wants Silco GONE and her sister BACK. Not for particularly political/societal reasons, but because her sister is who’s she’s dedicated to and tied her worth to. She wants to go back to before Vander and Claggor and Mylo died, maybe even to before her parents died. She’s never been one to look for a future, but for the past. That’s why her and Cait were rocky in the beginning. Progress was never an option with her. (Idk if this got my point across just yes to what you said already 😭)

Again, you’ve basically said everything, but I really want to amplify the fact that CAITLYN WANTS TO DO AND BE BETTER!!! THATS WHAT SHE WANTS!!! VI WAS THE ONE WHO SAID OIL AND WATER AND CAITLYN WAS THE ONE TO COUNTER IT!!! THEY ONLY EQUATED OIL AND WATER TO THEIR RELATIONSHIP FUTHER INTO THE CONVERSATION, IT WAS ABOUT TOPSIDE AND BOTTOM FIRST!!!!

LIKE UGHHHH!!!! I’ll never understand what people who are anti-Cait want from the story (not to accuse op of being anti-Cait but that’s the vibe from their posts, sorry if that’s isn’t your intention). I WANT Zaun and Piltover to get better, I WANT Piltover to acknowledge their actions and change, I WANT Zaun to finally be respected as a population of LIVING BEINGS!! THATS ALSO WHAT CAITLYN WANTS!!!! THAT WAS HER WHOLE ARC!!!!! Ok, let me calm down.

We want progress don’t we???? Caitlyn is how we’re really going to get it.

Anyway, you’ve literally covered it all. The only person we REALLY see dedicated to the community the way people say Vi is is Ekko. Not even Vander and Silco were truly dedicated to the Undercity as a whole the way he was. Vi hasn’t necessarily really made a statement in the Undercity, Ekko has! Ekko looks at the Undercity as a whole, Vi looks at her loved ones like we’ve stated.

Ummm… yeah that’s it I think. Got my blood pumping there, jeez.

#arcane #caitvi #vi arcane #vi #caitlyn kiramman #caitlyn arcane #caitlyn #ekko #Ekko arcane #slay?#you’ve got it all right orphanmaker #in my opinion at least lol #also I’m honoured to receive an ask from you 😤🤞🏾#this might’ve just been a ton of repetition but I hope it itched the scratch the og post gave you 😭😭#to slay or not to slay

49 notes · View notes

anendoandfriendo · 7 months

Text

Some New Guidelines on Askbox Accusations/Callouts Since We Have Had This Happen Twice in Our Life Now

...and would like it if it didn't happen again.

[The "Weird It Happened Twice" meme. It's Doofenschmirtz from the TV show Phineas & Ferb stating "If I had a nickel for every time I was doomed by a puppet, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice." while looking very confused or disconcerted over two image frames.]

Okay so like, here's the thing: if you tell us "X user is Y identity and that's bad," and you give us zero other details we will simply call you a cop and tell you to fuck off.

If you can detail to us "hey, I think you may not have known this. X person is part of Y movement. Here are links Z, A, V, and U along with their web archives detailing how X user is acting and here are links T, B, I, and O to add additional context. Here are links to articles C, F, R, P, and K plus their web archives describing how this is a hate movement that X user is a part of," then maybe we will listen to you.

We might vent about anti-endogenics being bigots for example but we aren't going to like, send specific callouts about specific anti-endogenics or whatever and invade peoples' spaces telling them to not talk to that person or reblog without sourcing our claims that the person or system is anti-endogenic because that would be fucking rude at best. The person we are sending the accusation to may not even know about it!

In addition:

If we are going to be entering someone's inbox to tell them X person is part of Y movement then articles/posts C, F, R, P, and K plus their web archives cannot just be random vents directly from us unless the vent contains pertinent information. We are allowed to be mad, but you probably want to know we are serious about what we are claiming. We expect the same of you.

Regarding the above: this does mean we do not want to hear "and if you support Y then I hope you die in a fire," or similar on a serious discussion post. A vent post might be a much better option for that language. Please see the previous point about vent posts.

"A lot of people accept D bigoted thing in Y community therefore it is a hate movement" nope, wrong! By that logic everyone in your rather benign but possibly uninformed community is actually part of a hate movement down to the last person who does not use the "right" language around you. We hope you realize why this is a very bad path to go down and it is one we are personally trying to heal from.

Screenshots do not count if something is supposedly publicly available where a link would suffice. Unless it is either about something horribly and-or urgently dangerous or we have directly asked you about it, we really do not want to see your personal beef with anyone as seen through the screenshots of DMs/PMs.

Please expect us to fact-check your statements if and when we manage to find the time/energy/motivation to do so. We may not get back to you immediately or even ever but that doesn't necessarily mean we have done nothing either lol.

Hopefully this will make it clear what our standards are when it comes to looking into movements, people, organizations, and groups we know zero information about.

If it is not: we are essentially asking you to put together a cohesive argument defending your opinion the way we were taught (mix of formal and informal with a hint of critical-synthetic thinking). We are not asking for your inferences about what the words in the DSM mean or your assumptions about what a particular group of people are like. We want you to use your resources to do your own research and then explain the most basic, most important points to us along with the footnotes to turn those inferences into an opinion with weight behind it.

For example: if the DSM V says "associated with" trauma when it comes to DID, and you take that to mean a causative relationship, we have some very bad news for you when it comes to science. And here's an extra source for good measure for all of the hateful sysmedicalists out there who believe DID is the only way to be plural and/or that endogenic systems cannot have DID.

Therefore, anything that even infers that DID is proven, beyond a doubt, by specifically trauma and only trauma will be seen to us as anti-science. The DSM says "associated" and we can speculate about the reasons why all day. Speculation still isn't the same as scientific inquiry. How about, instead of letting your hatred over some systems not being the same as you get in your way, you go and do some anti-saneism advocacy in your local neighborhood so systems can exist in public spaces without discrimination?

We are not putting a double standard on anyone, this is the same reaction most people would very reasonably have if you screamed the word fire in a movie theater and there was no actual fire.

-----

Now that this is all cleared up, we can confidently state as follows:

The biggest elephant in the room since we see discorse pop up about it once in a blue moon and it is also the reason we had to bring back the "don't be a cop and assume we are pro- or anti- anything just because we reblog from someone we don't even know" post: we do not know what a radqueer transid is and do not fucking give a shit for the most part. Preliminary conclusions tell us we are likely to be staunchly against anything that is transhateful; that we see no difference between transbodic versus aldernic or chronosian and transage as even if people try to assert there is a distinction, we just don't see it we guess; transspecies and transgender when they are opt-in (and the key phrase IS, in fact, opt-in) are fine we think; and that everything else is on thin fucking ice at best. As soon as you hear a word combined with another word and it's anything besides derogatory you start assuming we are pro-whatever-the-fuck-this-is. We can see this debate going on in our periphery and the hostility and vile attitudes all around is making it fundamentally unsafe for us to say we don't know or do not have enough information. We have seen how groomer accusations go down when it comes to LGBT queer people. Stop it. If these people are just trying to exist in peace we don't want a part in the harassment. If they are harmful then we will find the proof of it one way or another but you are not going to be sending unsubstantiated claims and ad-homniem attacks to our askbox. C'est la vie — keep it on your blog and shut the fuck up if you cannot calmly substantiate your claims while bringing it up to us.

The same goes for random fucking statements like "well I guess I should just die then lmao," about anti-psychiatry stuff. Especially if you are pushing yourself into our notifications and making that sort of claim, and especially if there is nothing in the text stating as such. You are the one who is barging into our space and making umprompted accusations and the onus/burden of proof is on you, not us and not anyone else.

This is also the reason that we tend to lean more pro-ship than anti-ship to be honest? Saying "we don't give much of a damn," is not accurate in the slightest but is also the best phrasing we can come up with for this one unfortunately. We simply think that a lot of folks were not taught media analysis skills one way or another. While the curtains may actually just be blue, we also do not think people should get to say "the curtains were just blue," until they can understand how rhetoric works. This is the mystery "second time," we had this happen to us and it was when we were back on our old (probably termed by now tbh) account @/thatoneweirdhumanisback. It was the same as before but with the added annoyance of this particular system having asked to be our "friend" not more than a month ago. That by itself felt incredibly manipulative weather or not it was intended.

Just because we come to a decision or conclusion that you do not agree with does not mean that we did not listen and if you imply that, you are essentially using the same tactics our abusive former-stepmother used to accuse us of "misbehaving" and being an immoral person for the supposed "misbehavior". We sincerely hope you understand why that is not a great look. Please look up the acronym DARVO and the term gaslighting if you do not. If we see even a hint that is the direction any conversation is going you're getting an immediate block. It isn't a moral judgement on you, it's for our own safety (and possibly yours too if that is how you handle your interpersonal relationships generally — we also get like that when we have a sense we have lost control of our life and we hope you get better if that is truly your situation).

If you are going to send us an accusation about another being in our askbox or DMs and your own emotional investment leads to a failure to follow these guidelines, we're also probably going to block you on sight for that as well. That is not something we want to get involved in. That tells us you are clearly incapable of basic decency at the time the message was sent.

We also hope it is obvious why the same result will occur if you do this in reference to us but if it is not clear that also tells us you are clearly incapable of basic decency at the time the message was sent and in addition you're...probably also pulling something out of context. If we are venting we probably won't be giving any nuanced thought to something. If we are not venting, we think scrolling around our blog for five or so minutes will make it a little more clear to most people how we generally act and react. If someone or somesys didn't even bother to do that they probably aren't worth our time anyways.

Basically, this is a very long-winded way to tell you to not ask us about our opinions, interject and try to influence our opinions (particularly if you are using shame and guilt in doing so), or debate us unless we have openly and clearly invited you to do so.

Guidelines and our opinions (the opinions listed here or elsewhere) can and always will be subject to change dependant on new information we find to be credible.

Find a different blog to satisfy your bloodlust writhing need for hatred.

12 notes · View notes

krookodyke · 10 months

Note

what do you think van and jackie’s relationship is like?

OH ANON... EYE AM SO GLAD YOU ASKED!

generally the vibe that jackie gives me towards van is that like... i don't think she fully Understands van. like we understand jackie is only an asshole to nat because nat is everything jackie is not. nat is comfortable w being GNC and comfortable w her sexuality, but since van is Van it's literally impossible to be a dick to her even as jackie i'm sure has similar minor qualms in her head with van. like jackie would make a weird comment about like van's leg hair then feel horrible about it afterwards and apologize profusely. because while nat is very sweet she is also very abrasive, and van isn't. and i don't think van really fully gets jackie as well, since jackie can just be So Weird to her sometimes even if it's not necessarily like jackie being mean. taissa obvs has a (justified) grudge against jackie, so i would think when the two of them would just gossip about whoever when they would talk about jackie van would just be like. well. Idek ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ whereas tai would be like i dunno dude i just hate she's so haughty about shit when she's not even the best player or whatever. i feel like also though van definitely recognizes that there's Something more going on there but can't exactly place it. like she's clearly compensating for something but van doesn't know What exactly... and in the pilot when jackie basically leaves van to die to save shauna... it creases van like a motherfucker. but that scene of course is less of a purposefully evil action on jackie's part than it is clear thesis statements for both of their characters; jackie will always think of shauna first and act accordingly and van has been continuously thrown out and always neglected and passed over. i love them both as deeply tragic characters, and this is to say that i think both pre-crash and in the wilderness before jackie died van was always uncertain about jackie and jackie had reservations towards van for reasons she didn't even know of. IDEALLY in a perfect world wherein jackie doesn't die and also finally Gets It i would like to think they would be besties and bond over corny gay movies... jackie definitely loves a good romcom and van has a soft spot for some of them so i believe it! van would criticize them the whole time (i hate to say it but i think jackie's goofy ass would LOVE crush 2022, and van would HATE it like "jackie for fuck's sake the script of this movie was generated via an AI attempting to mimic 17 year old lesbians on twitter") and jackie would beg her to like her goofy movies to no avail... of course some of them they'd mutually agree on though (that one post that's like "rip jackie taylor you would've loved but i'm a cheerleader" which is so chrew). THIS IS ALL TO SAY; they COULD'VE been real asf polar opposite besties... Alas.

#Anonymous #ask #yellowjackets #van palmer #jackie taylor #you know. jackie van nat bestieism would be so..... it would be crazy

33 notes · View notes

set-wingedwarrior · 9 months

Text

Just saw a bunch of comments from a rwby critic about how Blake should have spoke out more about racism in atlas (and Weiss too considering how she grew).

Aside from the fact that Weiss throwing racist in a trashcan is defenitely a statement (lol), and that I don't necessarily disagree because it could have been cool to see other more explicit scenes with Blake, using these wishes as objective critics misses a couple of points.

First, as usual we got the limited runtime to consider. When writing episodes you gotta balance serious and fun moments, all while making sure that the main plot stuff gets all the exposure it needs to tell its story properly and without missing pieces.

Second, even if there was time for that, do you really think that every time a victim of something gets in a situation somewhat connected to their past experiences, they just start monologuing about it? How realistic do you think it is?

It depends on the situation. When Blake and co get in the mines they are on the job looking for grimm, do you think this would have been the best moment for a racism speech? Would YOU do that? It's just very unnatural. But we still get her behavior and body language. She doesn't talk about it but she thinks about it, as she should. And it's very clear, so I really don't get when people say she just ignored it.

Blake isn't constantly worried about it sure, but again not even the busiest activist spends 100% of their time about their cause.

Besides, friendly reminder that the show isn't about the faunus racism. It is part of it and the world, but the main story isn't that, so a constant focus on it just doesn't make sense (now, if it was a show ABOUT racism, that would have been different).

I understand some points because, yes, we all know that the whole white fang subplot could have been better (even if I am personally okay enough with it) and yes, Atlas had potential to bring out a few more comments about it and it would have been cool to see Blake talk about it more.

But it's not the fatal flaw critics make it to be, nor it's completely unmentioned as they like to say (Marrow referencing it? Blake's behavior at the mines? People's comments both before and during the evacuation? The "no faunus" sign in Cinder's flashback?). They just aren't paying attention.

#rwby #Vent #Sort of?#This is a very impulsive post I wrote #And it's like 5am #So sorry if it's not too well thought out #I just needed to write down my thoughts #Hoping they make sense

8 notes · View notes

gothicprep · 2 years

Text

god, i feel like i'm in a very weird position being someone who's always largely disliked true crime, but think 99% of the criticisms of it aren't very insightful and never get to the heart of what, in my opinion, is actually wrong with the genre.

usually you just get one or more of the following:

"something about the way it's structured/presented encourages people to be intrusive and nosy with real tragedies in the lives of real people"

something about most of the victims in true crime stories being white women

"it glorifies murderers and doesn't emphasize the victims properly"

something about how the genre says a lot about how society engages with women.

it's not necessarily that these statements are incorrect (although imo the last one is only really true in the same way that all media is going to reflect the cultural biases of the world that produced it to some extent) but more that it applies to, like, a specific subset of content in a really, really massive genre. it makes sense to say these things about those weirdly glib "murder and silly unicorn cupcakes lol" podcasts and youtube channels but it doesn't translate super well to, like, dateline and 48hrs that have massive back catalogues and can vary a lot in tone and focus depending on which episode you pick. or something like last podcast that does openly focus on the criminals, but does so in a way that's committed to ridiculing them.

some of this can be explained away by the fact that a lot of those overly chipper true crime things are made by white women, and have audiences where white women are the biggest consumer demographic, so the content and the communities around it can descend into this weird trauma self-actualization circle jerk where everyone projects their baggage onto the victim. and it kind of dovetails into this thing that women do very often amongst themselves where they unintentionally (at least i hope) stoke each others anxieties about how dangerous the world is. incidentally, i think the emphasizing victims critique is kind of an offshoot of the desire to do this kind of thing – it's hard to milk catharsis out of an investigation procedural.

it should go without saying that i find this to be pretty unethical and not a particularly emotionally healthy use for your brain cells, but obviously not every true crime thing is presented like that, and not everyone who consumes this stuff does it for that reason.

that and, like, people being nosy is just something that comes with the territory of true stories getting a lot of public attention. this happens even in really mundane ways – you can't tell me you've never watched an episode of bar rescue or kitchen nightmares that featured an absolute basket case of an establishment and google it to see if it was still open. obviously this is morally worse when you're cyber lurking on people whose relative or friend died, but to call it an issue of true crime specifically isn't entirely honest.

so with all that prattle out of the way, here's what i think is the fatal flaw of the genre: i'd say the majority of people gravitate towards true crime stuff because they're either a fan of mystery stories or they hear about, idk, the ken and barbie killers and think "what has to go so wrong with someone's development that they do... that?". the problem is that even a really, really well done true crime thing is almost never as satisfying as a competently written mystery story, and the latter question is fundamentally impossible to answer in a way that makes a remote amount of sense to people who don't have impulses like that. there's an implicit cap on how much you can get out of it in, like, any meaningful way.

a lesser issue is that a lot of other documentaries ape the general tone and aesthetic of popular true crime content and it just... does not work. the three mile island mini docuseries on netflix was a hot ass mess because it was clearly attempting something like this. like obviously, i'm not a nuclear physicist and the overlapping aspects of nuclear physics that are germane to astro are not a crash course on how power plants work. but so much foundational stuff was left out – like, surely something like this should have some "explain it to me like i'm five" explanation on nuclear reactions and how second gen reactors work, right?

and i think some of these discussions about what true crime Says About Society also just tend to make true crime worse than it already is by structuring them with meta self-aware bullshit baked in. i remember my old roommate watching don't fuck with cats during lockdown, and the final scene is one of the interviewees turning to the camera and saying "are the people at home watching this complicit?"

like, no baby, i'm relatively certain i'm not. i have better things to do with my free time than play online cat and mouse games with canadian sociopaths. tell yourself whatever helps you sleep at night, i guess.

25 notes · View notes

sasukesun · 1 year

Note

some sk shippers think that karin is as important to sasuke as naruto and itachi because he awakened a new power for her and went into complete darkness only when he stabed her (why didn't he want to kill her to stay alone then?)

they claim that sasuke didn't want to kill karin and therefore told her not move (but didn't he pierce her through the heart? and before that she was thrown around by his susasano... why would he care about her well-being?) and that he hesitated when tobi said to finish her off (but he wanted to kill her anyway and was distracted by sakura didn't he?)

they believe that sasuke slept with karin because of the suigetsu's commentary (but they were like 13-14 years old💀 sasuke was surprised when karin said she was agree to work with him...why would he be surprised if he should understand why she agrees...sk shippers like to say that karin can be rude to sasuke so why is she not outraged when he doesn't let her get close if they already fucked ...). they remind me of ss shippers who believe that sasuke spied upon sakura🤣🤣🤣 they like to criticize ss but sk are just as dumb as ss😳

some of those shippers believe that sasuke loved/had romance with karin because of the statement in suigetsu's profile from the 4th databook and that kishi wanted to make them canon but karin wasn't as popular as sakura (why did sasuke end up with other girl if karin's feelings weren't one-sided ... sasuke didn't love any girl and unfortunately he could end up with any of them lmao). that's why kishi made salad to believe that karin was her mother and some of sk think that karin is her actual mother (but sasuke abandon his daughter anyway... what is so good about it?)

some sk shippers don't understand why sasuke would be truly alone only without naruto. they think taka is important for sasuke because he wanted to save juggo (but sasuke needed him for some jutsu didn't he?) and apologized to karin (but would he apologized if she hadn't come running to him herself?😭... sasuke just abandoned all of them and didn't look for them because he no longer needs taka isn't it?)

i thought sasuke cared of team 7 and team taka while they were his teammates, but once they weren't, he didn't give a fuck about both of them (except for naruto)

so... i'm sorry this ask is so long and for my mistakes (eng is not my first language) and I wonder are sk opinions true? I didn't read the manga but watched anime and I didnt notice any karin's or taka's impact on sasuke at all. so pls tell if there are any differences in the manga

i’m sorry but those people are as delusional as ss shippers and they have a poor understanding of sasuke’s character to say at least.

they conveniently forget that sasuke had to think of team 7 before saving karin. i wouldn’t even say that’s exactly a new power because he just didn’t know if that was possible to do, it wouldn’t necessarily make it an awakening… but yeah, if karin is so important to him and makes him so emotional, emotional enough to improve his sharingan, why he had to think of team 7 before doing that? yikes. his feelings for her aren’t sufficient to provoke an emotion strong enough for that?

i’ve also talked about karin’s sacrifice during kage summit here. and yes, he was going to finish her off before being interrupted. and then he asked sakura to do it because he knew she was lying and that would test her.

the whole “sasuke and karin were fucking” is a big yikes too, like do i have to say how ridiculous that is? i’ve never read something so idiotic in my whole life. and using databooks to prove so? do people know that databooks aren’t written by the mangakas? they are usually written by editors or someone else, it’s not kishimoto’s work. and why people think kishimoto making the whole salad drama makes sk look good? yeah, salad is karin’s daughter, sasuke fucked her once, took her child, gave her to sakura and then abandoned her. sorry, kishimoto mocks both ss and sk in gaiden, he just doesn’t like the idea of sasuke with a woman k.

sasuke rejects karin’s approaches. why asking her to not get so close makes people think otherwise? i’ve also talked about this already. so yeah, he doesn’t get they are hitting on him and yet he still doesn’t want them to get close. he pretty much rejects karin and sakura the same way in relation to physical contact. when sakura confesses, he is harsher to her because she makes a scene and acts inconsiderate and self absorbed in her confessions, this is a way of him calling her out on her behaviour, but the other approaches he pretty much acts the same with karin and sakura, the difference is that karin never confessed while being pathetic and egocentric.

you’re right about how sasuke felt towards team 7 and team taka. he is a good teammate, he felt responsible for his team, that’s why he saves them, but has no strong bond with either. the moment they aren’t his teammates anymore/the moment he doesn’t need their skills anymore, he doesn’t care about them as people. and it’s clearly different when it comes to naruto, who needed to die so sasuke could be truly alone. karin, or any team taka member for what matters, will never be on the same level of itachi and naruto to sasuke, it’s canon.

#ask #anonymous

10 notes · View notes

bookofmirth · 2 years

Note

lele I think this fandom needs to have "unreliable narrator" taken away from them until they learn how to use it correctly. why do I see so many comments about how acosf is a more accurate depiction of everyone because it's 3rd person "omniscient" (which isn't true) and 1st person is just so unreliable? 😭

first 👏 person 👏 is 👏 not 👏 inherently 👏 unreliable

We know *LESS* about the world in first person narration, but what we know isn't necessarily WRONG.

In fact, given the way that sjm writes, there is no reason to assume that anything Feyre experienced is actually wrong because sjm doesn't use first person in order to trick the reader! There are other reasons to use first person narration that have nothing to do with being a big ol' liar.

We may as well dismiss everything that a first person narrator has ever said as untrustworthy if that were the case, but it's NOT THE CASE. The main thing to be aware of with first person is that there are facts that the MC is unaware of, but really talented writers can still give us that information without the MC being aware. SJM is not one of those writers who does that, which is fine. But there is zero reason to mistrust what Feyre felt, knew, and experienced, just because she was the one telling the story. Her "view" of the IC is just as valid as Nesta's because they are unique individuals who have different experiences, values, goals, etc.

acosf is NOT more accurate. It's just not!

We got Feyre's perspective in acotar through fas, and now we have Nesta's perspective. It's not even omniscient because we don't get any information that Nesta (and sometimes Cassian) are not also privy to. We are still limited to knowing the world through their experiences.

You know how I know? This is just one example, but we had ZERO hint that the Dread Trove existed until we were in the room with Nesta, reading as she listened to Amren describe it. If the story were truly omniscient, and if it were truly *not* tied to Nesta's (skewed!) perspective, then we, the readers, would have been able to know or figure out the existence of the Dread Trove before Nesta did. But no. We are still limited to her perspective in acosf!

Another reason I know that acosf is NOT objective and NOT "more" true than any other book in the series, is that I was able to read a sentence and think "um, no, that's actually not true, that's just how you see it, Nesta". E.g. when she thinks about how she's worthless, I know that that's not true, but it's how she feels. When she thinks that Elain is like a dog, I knew that wasn't true. When she thinks about how Feyre and Elain chose other people over her, I knew that wasn't true. Why would anyone want any of those statements to be "objectively" true just because of how those thoughts were conveyed to us???

I haven't seen these posts so idk what people are saying, but the thing that annoys me is that these are potentially really interesting conversations about how the characters shift once we focus on someone who has a very different relationship with them, but I suspect that people say things like this and then tag the posts "pro Nesta" and "anti Feyre". If I'm wrong then that would be great! I just wonder, what is the reason behind trying to argue that Nesta's book is more "accurate" than the 3.5 we got from Feyre's perspective?

Writers and literary critics don't talk about first person narration as a way to prove that one character is "better" than another, it's about craft and the allowances and constraints of first person versus omniscient, or third person close. 💀

WAIT I also want to add on that "unreliable narrator" isn't something that this fandom needs to discuss ever because it's just not a feature of this series, unless it's to talk about something like... what Eris and Mor say about what happened between them. But even then, we already got her POV, so...

#sorry i ranted haha #acotar fandom #ask #anon

21 notes · View notes

doberbutts · 2 years

Note

The labor issues with the Amazon show is getting a lot more attention in some spaces, social media is spreading it a lot more. So more people know and are concerned.

Many people didn't know about the labor or injury issues with the original movies. For example, I only heard about injuries on set at all from some articles a few years back that framed it in a way that completely obscured any labor issues, and the other fans I know had never even heard about it at all.

Getting information like that used to be a lot harder unless you were in certain circles, and people weren't as tuned in about labor abuses in filming.

The information about that wasn't spread like how the issues with the Amazon show are being. There have been articles since, but most people never knew about that, so saying someone "should have boycotted" it too doesn't seem right without knowing if they knew. A better thing to mention would be if someone would boycott it too from this point.

Like, knowing about that I won't monetarily support the old movies anymore, because I don't play around with supporting that. But I can't go back and boycott a movie that came out when I was like 5 and didn't even know what labor rights were, and I'm sure a lot of people are in the same boat.

Whether or not someone in the past supported x or y for whatever reason is not necessarily going to be a good guage about why they don't want to support z now. Some people will have learned more, care more, have more knowledge, etc. So the only thing people can be held to is what they'd do now, and if they're applying their morals consistently as they exist today.

When it comes to the other issues, a lot of people have issues with the way Amazon is handling it, and changes that go against things that are important thematically. (Personally I'm also bothered by stuff like that in the PJ movies, like the glorification of the battles when LOTR is thematically anti war. I get it, Hollywood needed the excitement to get people interested in fantasy, but it still grinds my gears.)

Some of why the old movies get away with stuff is also nostalgia.

It's like, there's this video game series I've been into since I was little and have followed since then. These days the 4th game is held up as practically this untouchable entry in the series, and "This new game isn't as good as 4." "4 was better" etc is something you always see.

Except when 4 came out those same sorts of people *hated* it because of what it changed. But now it's got nostalgia goggles so instead of being able to evaluate it for the good and bad, it's gone from "This is the worst thing ever" to "It's perfect and how dare you criticize it."

The way people are with criticism of the PJ movies I think is kind of similar to that. If they were coming out today you'd see complaints about the way things were changed.

But I also don't think people would have as much of an issue as with the Amazon stuff because of what was changed in one versus the other, and people are going to be more critical of Amazon in general, especially with the worry that that just want their own Game of Thrones (as far as I know that statement was just a rumor but it is believable they'd be that way about it and some of the changes are concerning my similar to a project with that motivation.)

The opening also definitely didn't help most people's opinion of it. That sort of thing can work with smaller projects especially ones on a tight budget. But for a lot of people, it coming from a giant studio on a project with a budget like this feels like it's no effort and a sign of how little care for the actual project the people in charge have. That one is pretty subjective, but it does seem to be a common feeling around it and definitely fanned the issue.

All of this combines together to make the Amazon show just feel like the people in charge are wanting a cash grab, even though many of the people actually working on the project really do care. And that reasonably bothers people who want the thing they love to be adapted with care.

This is a really long ask and I think this conversation would be better in reblogs.

I'd be willing to agree with you on "people didn't know because information wasn't as widespread back then" but that's objectively bullshit they didn't know about the original trilogy because it's in the commentary track on the very same disc as the movie itself. The actors are talking about it like it's nothing. The interviews I'm referencing are on my physical dvd discs. I found this out simply by watching the special features. Bullshit that people didn't know. They just didn't care about it back then. Now they care about it because there's more awareness for why unsafe workplace practice is bad for actors. But we've always known that Billy wasn't told about the firework, and that Orlando broke his ribs, and that Viggo broke his toe, and that Sean Austin's foot was shredded by broken glass in the river scene, and that Rhys-Davies refused to stop hitting the stuntmen on purpose with his axe, because all of these things are openly discussed by the actors themselves on the very same disc the movie resides on.

If anything, people are less likely to be informed of these things nowadays, because physical releases usually only have the movie and do not contain interviews or commentaries or special features or behind-the-scenes the way they used to. It's only through social media and gossip rags and broken NDAs that we know these things now. They were making jokes about it back then.

It's also less "should have boycotted it when you were 8 years old and had no idea about these things" (though at 8 I did learn about these things because of the above) and it's more "people are simultaneously praising the old movies while mad at Amazon for things the old movies also did, which is hypocritical, because if you're upset about labor rights then you wouldn't be praising the movie that risked an actor getting his face blown off for the sake of a prank" and "you could claim you didn't know when you were 10 sure but you're actively saying those movies are good right now and there is no longer an excuse for not knowing this".

I did mention the nostalgia thing and also that the PJ movies are mostly good by accident and I will continue to say that despite the fact that Fellowship is my absolute favorite movie of all time, it's my comfort film, it's what I watch when I'm sad and when I just need background noise and when I'm bored and when I just want to revisit Middle Earth. It's nostalgia. I get it. But nostalgia isn't a reason to turn off critical thinking.

7 notes · View notes

nicnacsnonsense · 2 years

Note

hi! so, i just wanted to say i really appreciated your meta about stede and mary's relationship. i feel like it approached them with a sort of nuance i don't usually see applied to mary's character; i think sometimes people act as though ep10 absolves her of any wrongdoing whatsoever in regards to their relationship, but imo i feel like that is patently not true. i've always regarded mary and stede as being parallels, and more alike than not. she can be petty and cruel in the same ways he is; stede fucked up royally by leaving the way he did, but i don't think her rushing to remove all traces of him from their lives was necessarily the right decision either, not in regards to the children or their development. painting him out of the portrait was something she did for herself and herself alone, not for alma or louis. especially if she told them he was dead. it serves no purpose to anyone but her, and it seems cruel to do to a little girl who thinks her father has died (and even if she knows he disappeared! i could understand taking the painting down, but there's no consideration for whether the kids might want it later in life).

another thing is that they also both enjoy the trappings of wealth, and while i've often seen criticisms leveled at stede bc of his class privilege, i rarely see the same directed at mary. imo, they are both similar in that their class largely afforded them entry and some sense of notoriety into a world that poorer people need to fight their way into (painting/piracy). granted mary isn't the same kind of clown about it all that stede is, and yes, the painting and piracy within the show are more meant to be simply allegorical than anything else, but why is stede deserving of class criticism and not mary? just because stede's boastful? they're both two extremely privileged people with power dynamics between them that are constantly shifting (mary being a woman; stede being a queer man). i think some of the disconnect here comes from the fact that their story in particular is almost entirely modern and anachronistic; the only real connection to the 1700s they have is the arranged marriage, so i understand where people are coming from, in a sense, when they place all blame almost entirely on stede (barbados as it is portrayed in this show might as well be a random east coast suburb in the 1980s), but some of the stuff she does is still weird and bonkers from a modern context (like trying to erase him from their lives entirely, and slot doug into his place), just like stede is weird and bonkers too.

and while i would say he's definitely the guiltier party in ep10, they're both openly hostile to each other. stede tries to ask her about doug and mary immediately gets defensive. even before stede left, neither of them gave a shit about each other, and it really was an equal opportunity sort of thing. he didn't listen when she spoke about painting, she didn't care about anything he had to say about the sea. 'we just can't seem to stop hurting each other' is a statement of fact, and i feel as though people often forget the 'we' in this context. i honestly hadn't even thought of how that conversation, where she's sort of attempting to extend an olive branch to him, would appear to stede. another way they seem similar to me is that at this point in their lives they're both probably repressed in the same way, with similar childhood trauma (by way of their parents, the homophobic bullying probably did not happen to mary), and this stunts their ability to have meaningful conversations with each other. mary is not all knowing as i feel like people sometimes treat her, and coming to the conclusion that she was in love with doug was likely the same sort of uphill battle stede experienced while realizing he was attracted to men.

anyway, um, i hope it was okay i just blurted this out all over your ask box lol. i just don't often see people in this fandom who have a similar read on mary as me (i feel like attitudes regarding her tend to be either visceral dislike or blatant apologia, neither of which i'm interested in honestly) so i wanted to let you know i agree and appreciate you sharing your thoughts!

Absolutely it's okay that you blurted that all out all over my ask box! Both because I spent a lot of time on that meta and was starting to get down on myself for the lackluster response, and because I too get frustrated by the pronounced tendency in fandom to treat Mary like she was a saint in their relationship.

That's a great point about how removing Stede from that painting was unfair to Alma and Louis! I had never considered it from that angle before, but you're right, that was selfish of her.

With regards to class, I assume people mostly aren't bringing it up because it's not really a factor in her story line, aside from in resulting in an arranged marriage. The only person she interacts with that's (possibly) of a lower class than her is Doug, and that doesn't seem to have particularly impacted their relationship. I think you're right in that any class based criticism that can be leveled at Stede are probably also true of Mary to some greater or lesser degree, but I can see why people wouldn't be bringing her up in that context all that often.

For me I consider both Mary & Stede to be equally at fault with regards to their marriage in the backstory. There is a part of me that wants to put slightly more of the blame on Mary, but I'm also aware that I have some personal experiences that make me biased, so I leave it at equal fault. Then Stede abandons his family, making him the one who is significantly more in the wrong. While I wouldn't generally categorize his behavior in episode 10 hostile, and from what I recall he only really pushes back against Mary with regards to things that reasonably fall under his purview, he isn't really as apologetic as he should be considering. And Mary is hostile, but she also has a right to feel that way. Up until the point she tries to murder Stede, at which point she becomes the guiltier party, but they end up resolving things soon afterward and it becomes moot anyway.

#ofmd #stede bonnet #mary bonnet

10 notes · View notes

memoriesofthecircularroom · 2 years

Note

hey i personally disagree with that take you made, but i know the context and im not upset or disappointed or going to bitch about it like a lot of others. youre human. youre not infallible. sometimes what you say may come across as bad and thats okay. you dont deserve to be dogpiled and harassed for it. every single person whos been on your ass has probably made mistakes like that before, mistakes that caused someone harm. youre not a bad person for it and im sorry that people are acting like you are.

also, the idea that broad, blanket statements like "some traumagens are endo" isn't fakeclaiming. you arent going up to someone and going "hey, youre not actually traumagenic youre endogenic". youre saying its probably possible for someone to be wrong about what they experience.

i dont share my syscourse takes publically, so im going to go with ones from the rest of the system. non-disordered plurals to us are not systems, system is a term specfically meant for DD plurality. but those experiences are still real even if we dont believe they should be compared. in the same way a singlet could believe they are a system before realising theyre wrong, a non-DD instance of plurality could believe that they have a DD. It could happen.

the only reason that agreeing with that ask was hurtful is because a lot of traumagenic systems will jump at any chance to deny their trauma. like tim, one of our hosts, made an entire sideblog and asked a bunch of people their thoughts on whether or not we seem traumagenic. literally no one else in system agreed with him, but he was having a lot if self doubt. that self doubt came from the idea that "your trauma wasnt traumatic enough to be traumagenic". it actually came from the "stressgenic" label and him going "ok what if-" but the base idea is still the same.

if someone is a system, the trauma they went through was enough to be a system. it was enough to disrupt the integration of their egostates in childhood, that means it was traumatic. that is something we believe in and something that is so comforting to know (and also part of why we feel non-DD plurality should be seperate from systems but thats not the point)

but i still dont think you were wrong for agreeing, not necessarily. just because with the context you were having a really shitty time and you just wanted that asker to not get their satisfaction of "ooh evil ableist person who thinks some endos are actually traumagen doesnt believe in a 2 way street huh". and youre definitely not a bad person.

i hope that you have a good day and that this isn't getting to you too much

I think the last thing I’ll post on this topic. Thank you, Anon. This helped me greatly.

I try not to get TOO personal on this blog anymore (which is sort of messed up, given that this blog was made as a personal blog for me to connect to other systems and just record the things happening to me), but I want to address what this all did to me. The following is gonna be a trauma dump, so feel free to completely ignore this. I just have a lot of thoughts and want to give context and get them out on the blog that was SUPPOSED to be for these things.

Tw for sui ideation, sui bait, trauma dump, anxiety, etc.

I made a hurtful comment to some. I can see now how it could be hurtful, and I’m analyzing how this take and others could be. I’m willing to take the criticism and move on with better actions.

I’ve also almost thrown up due to the anxiety about this. I’ve been having issues opening tumblr without panicking. I’ve been needing to deep breathing each time I post.

Syscourse shouldn’t do that to someone. People shouldn’t do that to people. I understand how it can be hurtful, but every time I so much at glance at system things now, I see another vaguepost about how I’m bad, how I’m hurting everyone, how I’m a disappointment, etc etc. Even posting this ask is already making me cry.

When I posted the original long post, I was suicidal. I regularly am. It’s an issue I deal with daily. This time around, it was the worst I’ve been in a long time. I contemplated hanging myself at work. And that same day, someone reblogged my bait ask (an ask that I was too terrified not to respond to, due to the harassment I was getting, and would continue to get unless I responded.) They reblogged the ask, called the response disgusting (and I couldn’t understand why) and immediately I get anon hate. I was told to kill myself, and god, I wanted to. Why was I such a failure? Why did everything I say hurt people now? I had support on anon messages, but Everytime I look in. The syscourse tags, it’s people talking about how I’m horrible and transphobic and just.

I gotta stop on that topic because my heart is racing again.

And none of this happened with *discord*. I’m in a discord where we discussed my post. And it was a CIVIL DISCUSSION. Nobody insulted me - they just shared why people (including themselves) could be angry. They also heard me out! Some people agreed and some people didn’t. Nobody harassed me, nobody told me I should be dead. It opened my eyes a lot to how it was hurtful WITHOUT making my ideation even worse.

All this is to say… I think I may leave tumblr. Not forever. But when I can’t post a hypothetical ask for a situation that has never come up in my life, with an angry short response, but everyone else can post an enormous long angry response about how I’m a disappointment and a failure? There’s something wrong there. And I need to take a step back from syscourse before it kills me.

Thank you if you read this far. I’ve been doing a lot of introspection since OAS responded to me. I also apologize for the gendered insult - I use bitch interchangeably for anyone, as bitch and bastard are distinctly different connotations to me. I also did not know OAS’s pronouns. I apologize for insulting OAS at all - I let my anger get the best of me again.

I’m stepping away. Not forever. But I need to take care of myself.

#syscourse #personal #don’t rb #tw trauma dump #tw sui bait #tw sui ideation #tw anxiety #endos #asks #tw

9 notes · View notes