#nuance in action

[hanmadi-hangukeo]

보다 vs 시청하다 vs 관람하다

Just like in any language, there are many words in Korean that in essence mean the same thing but have specific nuances that differentiate them from each other.

So, today I’d like to talk about the difference between 보다, 시청하다, and 관람하다, which all mean "to watch".

시청하다…

means "to watch a television broadcast" (1) and has the nuance that the viewer is watching a recorded video and is not watching something at a public venue or in real time.

Ex. 넷플릭스를 시청하고 나면 스트레스가 풀린다. (I feel relaxed after watching Netflix.)

Ex. 지난번에 A팀 경기 시청했니? (Did you catch team A's game the other day?)

관람하다…

means "to watch/see performances, movies, sports games, or exhibits" (2) and means that someone is viewing something in a public space in real time.

Ex. 사람들이 스포츠 경기를 관람하고 있다. (People are attending a sporting event.)

Ex. 나는 여동생들을 데리고 연극 관람을 갔다. (I took my younger sisters to see a play.)

보다…

has several different meanings in Korean, but it is often used to mean "to watch" (3). Unlike 시청하다 and 관람하다, 보다 can be used to describe watching anything at all since it does not imply where the watching is happening or what is being watched.

Ex. 그 밴드의 공연을 보기 위해 수천 명의 사람들이 많은비싼 ��을 지불했다. (Thousands of people paid good money to watch the band perform.)

Ex. 난 텔레비전 보고 싶지 않아. (I don’t want to watch TV.)

⚠️ 보다 can be used in place of both 시청하다 and 관람하다, but 시청하다 and 관람하다 are not interchangeable.

Nuance in Action:

below you will find the sentence "last weekend, I watched a baseball game" written with each of the verbs above to illustrate how using each verb changes the nuance of the sentence

지난 주말에 야구 경기를 봤어요.

Last weekend, I watched the baseball game.

지난 주말에 야구 경기를 시청했어요.

Last weekend, I watched the baseball game (on TV or some other electronic device).

지난 주말에 야구 경기를 관람했어요.

Last weekend, I watched the baseball game (in person at the stadium).

[the-golden-kingdom]

As a person of colour, Toshiro is so unbelievably relatable once you realize the reasons and emotions behind his actions. He's been microaggressed upon p much all the time down to the name people call him, but he continues to be silent about it because of the cultural pressure he was raised on of having to be polite and kind and not to speak his true thoughts.

I can relate so hard to his jealousy about laios being able to be more open and confident and speak his mind. I can never bring myself to dislike him at all esp during the laios/toshiro fight because both of them are coming from very real relatable places to me. Its a nuanced conflict. Toshiro has a lot of pent up emotions he needed to get out for all the reasons i said before. And laios was rightfully upset about Toshiro not seeing him the same way he sees him and hiding all of this from him. Both of these guys are in the wrong in this situation. It's not a good guy / bad guy thing.

They both are different kinds of autistic people under different circumstances and I can honestly relate to them both on different things.

Also the scene right after dude gives him the bell and gives them a way out if things were to get bad. And with that we see he obviously cares for laios and the rest of the party despite everything.

All in all. Love u Toshiro they could never make me hate u !!

[turbo-virgins]

Sorry, but I just don’t buy the whole “actually Mythal decided after centuries of wandering Thedas as Flemeth that modern people deserve a chance” thing. Because the fragment of Mythal we’re talking about is the jaded old swamp witch who

-Inhabited the body of a woman betrayed by her lover(s) because they found common ground in their suffering and the injustices done to them. (“Once I was but a woman, crying out in the lonely darkness for justice.” - DAI)

-Resents that betrayal to the point she views men as disposable playthings that she can lure back to her hut, have her way with, and then… murder? I think? (Based on Morrigan’s own account in DAO)

-Abused her daughter under the guise of tough love in an attempt to prepare her for a cruel uncaring world. (Again, Morrigan’s account, DAO)

-Says during her appearance in Inquisition that she will have her reckoning.

-Spent centuries consolidating her power as well as cycling through different human women’s bodies via questionable means for the sake of bringing about said reckoning. (“I have carried Mythal through the ages ever since, seeking the justice denied to her.” and about the Inquisitor: “A Herald indeed. Shouting to the heavens, harbinger of a new age.” - DAI)

-During her scene with Solas at the end of Inquisition does NOT say ANYTHING about disagreeing with Solas’s plans, just that she considers him and old friend and is sorry things are going the way they are. (Seriously, is the dialogue in that regret scene in Veilguard supposed to be from a mental connection they had? Because that dialogue just isn’t in the Inquisition scene.)

And I’m supposed to believe that in her last moments, Flemythal backed off and went “actually I think we need to maintain the status quo”????

None of this paints a picture of someone who has gone soft over time. At least not to the degree that is presented in that regret scene in Veilguard. Sure Flemeth wasn’t all bad, she had some tenderness to her. She shows some genuine care for Morrigan and Kieran (if present) and seems hurt when Morrigan implies she was trying not to be the kind of mother Flemeth was to her.

At the end of Inquisition, we can’t tell for certain to what degree she approves of Solas’s methods. But it seems like a step in said methods was to absorb her power and doom her, an embodiment of Justice, to take a passive role once more. And we know what happens when a spirit is denied its purpose. Justice denied its purpose could turn to Vengeance. Which, to me, feels like it would better echo the themes of Solas’s pride/wisdom duality, inquisition’s themes around what it means to become a god-like force of nature, DA2’s question of whether violence is necessary for revolution (which literally has the Justice/Vengeance duality in it with Anders), and DAO’s theme of sacrifice for the greater good.

[transrevolutions]

going back in time to introduce dante alighieri to anti-carceral theory, resulting in vast changes to the divine comedy and deeply altering the course of history forever.

[candycatfalls]

Forgot the other option in the first one WHOOPS

Anyway been wanting to ask this for a while, bitch as much as u want in the tags 👍

[bennetsbonnet]

Much has been made of Mr Darcy's "confession" to Elizabeth that he does not converse easily with strangers. It is repeatedly used to support neurodivergent interpretations of his character. And I suppose that when taken at face value, a character confessing that they do not easily converse with strangers and struggle to catch their tone or appear interested in conversation can absolutely scream AUTISM! (I say as an autistic person myself)

But this line is often taken in isolation. When considered in terms of the passage in which it appears in Chapter 31, it appears far less of a smoking gun than may initially be suspected. After some discussion about Elizabeth and Darcy's prior acquaintance in Hertfordshire, Colonel Fitzwilliam asks Elizabeth for information about Darcy's behaviour there. She readily supplies it:

'Pray let me hear what you have to accuse him of,' cried Colonel Fitzwilliam. 'I should like to know how he behaves among strangers.' 'You shall hear then—but prepare yourself for something very dreadful. The first time of my ever seeing him in Hertfordshire, you must know, was at a ball—and at this ball, what do you think he did? He danced only four dances, though gentlemen were scarce; and, to my certain knowledge, more than one young lady was sitting down in want of a partner. Mr Darcy, you cannot deny the fact.' 'I had not at that time the honour of knowing any lady in the assembly beyond my own party.'

What Darcy leaves out here is that it was he himself who chose not to be introduced to anybody. As we learn from the description of his behaviour at the Meryton assembly in Chapter 3:

Mr Darcy danced only once with Mrs Hurst and once with Miss Bingley, declined being introduced to any other lady, and spent the rest of the evening in walking about the room, speaking occasionally to one of his own party.

Anyway, Elizabeth correctly does not buy his excuses. Not only does she respond with a cutting sarcastic remark, but she tries to bring the discussion with an end by speaking to Colonel Fitzwilliam:

'True; and nobody can ever be introduced in a ball-room. Well, Colonel Fitzwilliam, what do I play next? My fingers wait your orders.'

But Darcy does not get the hint and continues conversing with Elizabeth rather than quitting while he's ahead. However, I don't believe him to be missing a social cue here. Rather, this is an exceedingly conceited man who cannot conceive that anyone would not want to speak to such a Superior Being as he and more-so, is determined to defend himself from a perceived slight against his impeccable character.

Then we come to the passage containing the oft-cited line which allegedly contains proof of his neurodivergency:

'Perhaps,' said Darcy, 'I should have judged better, had I sought an introduction; but I am ill-qualified to recommend myself to strangers.' 'Shall we ask your cousin the reason of this?' said Elizabeth, still addressing Colonel Fitzwilliam. 'Shall we ask him why a man of sense and education, and who has lived in the world, is ill-qualified to recommend himself to strangers?' 'I can answer your question,' said Fitzwilliam, 'without applying to him. It is because he will not give himself the trouble.'

Once again, Elizabeth does not buy his excuse for even a single second. She's fully aware of all the advantages a man such as he will have received in society (opportunities not open to women, might I add!) and draws attention to that fact. It's a brilliant, cutting line from her and she really set that one up for Colonel Fitzwilliam to deliver the knockout blow.

Not only do we have the testimony of Mr Darcy's cousin, that 'he will not give himself the trouble,' to appear cordial to strangers, but we have evidence from Wickham too. Although after this statement, Wickham quickly goes onto misrepresent Darcy's kindness to the poor, which contradicts Mrs Reynold's later testimony, I do believe Wickham to be telling the truth (for once!) here, when he tells Elizabeth in Chapter 16:

'Mr Darcy can please where he chooses. He does not want abilities. He can be a conversible companion if he thinks it worth his while.'

Which, again, demonstrates that Darcy is capable when he wants to be. That is the crucial point. Autistic people fundamentally lack the ability to understand social cues, they cannot turn it on and off as they please because they are snobs.

So, now we come to the infamous line about Darcy's supposed social struggles, and I hope that I've provided enough context to the line to make you see that it should not be taken at face value:

'I certainly have not the talent which some people possess,' said Darcy, 'of conversing easily with those I have never seen before. I cannot catch their tone of conversation, or appear interested in their concerns, as I often see done.' 'My fingers,' said Elizabeth, 'do not move over this instrument in the masterly manner which I see so many women’s do. They have not the same force or rapidity, and do not produce the same expression. But then I have always supposed it to be my own fault—because I will not take the trouble of practising. It is not that I do not believe my fingers as capable as any other woman’s of superior execution.'

Again, Elizabeth is not buying his excuses for even a single second and tells him if he feels like that, maybe he should put the effort in. She has seen him in numerous social settings and been thoroughly unimpressed with his behaviour which, when you consider his rudeness to her at the Meryton assembly, she has every right to be.

So, what do I make of the line?

Well, I think it's abundantly clear that Darcy absolutely can speak to people when he wants to. Perhaps, in his mind, he struggles to make that deeper connection and make friends easily. But making friends is not always easy, it's a process you must invest time and effort into. If you do not do that, it stands to reason that you will struggle. Plus, if you hold others to ridiculous standards (as Darcy does) without recognising and fixing the flaws within yourself, you're not going to have deep, lasting friendships.

While this quote may appear to be a moment of vulnerability where he does confess a fault of his, which is astounding given his pride, personally I do not think it was not a soul-searching exercise. It was to make Elizabeth stop grilling him. It was self-serving. Although, I don't think he's entirely lying. Darcy is veeeery careful with his words and though this statement is not considered and perhaps comes out rather abruptly, it doesn't necessarily follow that it isn't true. I can imagine that it is probably something he's felt for a while, yet it is a rather desperate attempt to defend himself from a woman who sees right through him.

I think perhaps Darcy does realise that he isn't as naturally gifted as other men he knows (such as Wickham, Colonel Fitzwilliam and Mr Bingley) when it comes to forming acquaintances. However, he looks outwards and turns that bitterness against the world rather than looking inwards, reflecting upon himself and improving his manners which would be the correct thing to do. Thankfully, he later does this, but it took him twenty eight years...

In addition, Darcy appeared to have been under the illusion that he could coast by on Pemberley's reputation... which has always worked... until he met Elizabeth. For perhaps the first time, he encounters a woman who is not awestruck by him and his reputation and delivers the rebuke that he always needed.

So, while personally I'm inclined to believe there is some truth to his statement, as Mr Darcy is many things but he isn't a liar, I think it is said in desperation. His feeling stems from him knowing what he should do, but he can't be bothered to enact it... rather than any inherent social deficiency stemming from being neurodivergent.

Although, even if he does struggle socially, it's still no excuse for the rudeness he displayed to Elizabeth! My main issue with neurodivergent readings of Darcy is when they are deployed to defend his behaviour, when they attribute his rudeness to any potential neurodivergency and when they excuse his laziness. That is an awful message! Autistic people who struggle with social cues often do not, nor should they, go around insulting others. They should and often do put plenty of effort into being considerate and polite. In fact, I think, if anything, a love of rules makes us more likely to have good manners, rather than the reverse.

Ultimately, I'm not sure this line makes Mr Darcy the sympathetic-poor-sweet-innocent-shy-boy-autistic-representation that people want him to be. In fact it makes him look even worse, if anything. On matters such as these, he is every inch the conceited proud man he was widely believed to be at the Meryton assembly. Luckily, Elizabeth is an incredibly smart woman, who doesn't fall for it and immediately calls him out on his behaviour in a way that he has never experienced before. As she should!

[drenched-in-sunlight]

Yesterday for the first time I saw a post in a public forum that actually points out Marika has every reason to be so cold & distant towards Maliketh... thanks God.

The Two Fingers/ EIden Beast stood aside & let her entire family die, then when it successfully entrapped her in a literal divine prison it said “here we gave you a brother lol” like istg WHAT are you even saying. Her entire real family is already in a ditch !!! No prayers to the Gods help them! And now these Godlike beings are like take this random guy as your bro???

It’s confirmed in the base game Shadowbeast is like sleeper agent that the Two Fingers put there to monitor their Empyrean & off them if they try to rebel, no matter how earnest the Shadowbeast sounds. Ranni and Blaid literally grew up together & we still have to get rid of him at the end of her questline 💀 Marika was a young woman who had lost everything then forced to recognize some stranger as family. To her that must be some fucked up joke.

And get this, I do believe Maliketh and Blaidd care for Marika & Ranni genuinely, it’s a tragedy that they were born to bring “nothing but bale” to the person they love. Just like how Messmer, the beloved son in the Shadow, also became a curse to the person he loves the most in the end. That’s the doomed narrative they are trying to portray.

[kandayuu]

Ragatha is written as a flawed person with trauma and unhealthy coping mechanisms and yeah that does in fact mean she screws up sometimes and says the wrong things and is petty and bossy sometimes and then regrets it and god isnt that fucking great? Is that not interesting to you? Does it not make her more relatable? more human? What do you losers want??

[hestzhyen]

Sob Stories

Kagurabachi: a story where the main cast of teens just want to love their parents and be loved back by them, but are denied that in various ways.

Pour one out for them and pray they find happiness by the end.

[hanmadi-hangukeo]

✨Welcome to 한마디 한국어!✨

This is a Korean language learning blog where you can explore various words, phrases, and grammar patterns that you’ll come across during your studies or when listening to K-pop. You can also find some tips and tools that will (hopefully) make your studies a bit easier.

Feel free to request vocabulary sets based on your favourite K-pop songs or ask questions about anything you’d like.

I hope this blog helps you out. Happy studying! 🥳

👇🏾 Click the tags below to navigate this blog 👇🏾

[dryya-doesnt]

Death of Shad

Birth of the Shadow Lord

I hope you know I was looping "What Could Have Been" from the Arcane soundtrack the entirety of the time I was rendering this. haha

hhahaha

[mirrorofliterature]

the thing about the tusken massacre many people simply do not understand is that there are likely no possible legal consequences for anakin

tattooine is a hellscape, you think they prosecute people for killing others? nah

tattooine is not subject to republic laws.

ergo, anakin cannot be prosecuted in a republic court of law - and neither can padme - because it falls outside the court's jurisdiction.

sure, they can still face personal consequences, but it doesn't really solve anything.

the jedi getting involved wouldn't help, they have little cultural knowledge of tattooine and would trample over everything.

it's an uneasy situation.

also, the tusken raiders killed more people than shmi, killing a lot of moisture farmers as well.

anyway my point being that criminally prosecuting anakin for the tusken massacre is unrealistic

[exitwound]

How can we use [Deleuze's] philosophy in everyday life? Does he supply new or preferred ways of not only thinking but being? In other words: if I was looking for philosophy to guide me ethically and aesthetically, how does Deleuze show me how to live? Danger warning!  Deleuzian ethics are unconventional in ways that tend to piss people off, especially Marxists! Prevailing wisdom would suggest that opposition is essential to change.  Put in Hegelian terms, a thesis meets its antithesis in order to create a synthesis.  Tit for tat.  Action is met with reaction. For example, the government or big business or whomever does something you dislike, so you protest.  They throw a punch, so you throw a punch.  Back and forth.  Eventually, this way of thinking tries to convince us, the tides will change.  Eventually my punch will be the knockout punch, and those aggressive forces that pushed me to react will meet their doom.  (“And the meek shall inherit the earth.”) This is, unfortunately, a fantasy.  Action will always prevail.  Reaction will always fail. (Did protest end the war in Vietnam?  Did protest stop the war in Iraq?  Did protest stop the destruction of collective bargaining in Wisconsin recently?  — No.  It did not.  Why?  Because protest is reactive, not active; it is negative rather than affirmative; it assumes the subordinate position “I am against X!” rather than the dominate position “I am for X!”)  It is the myth Nietzsche exposes in his groundbreaking and devastating Genealogy of Morals, a book that is central to my understanding of Deleuze’s ethical applicability.  For Nietzsche, Deleuze, and myself, direct engagement is a mistake.  Diffuse or indirect engagement is preferable.  Diagonal rather than horizontal or vertical attack.  Non-Euclidean game plans. Rhizome rather than root, molecular rather than molar, dynamic rather than static: reroute the flow of power toward new creative constructions.  Think of it like a tug of war: the opposition relies on your engagement, on your antithesis.  Without it, they would fall on their butts in the same way a person would fall on their butt if you were playing tug of war and suddenly let go of your end of the rope.  By engaging with the opposition you merely serve to validate and empower that opposition.  The only form of power one can truly wield is the power of action, of affirmation, of creation.  Let go of the rope! ��You’re tired of going to the grocery store and finding fruits and vegetables from overseas, which have been treated with cancer-causing chemicals?  Don’t bother fussing with the management or writing a letter to your congressman…let go of the rope and go build an organic community garden. Action.  Creation.  Do not be duped into thinking that you can win a battle against the powers that be – they are the powers that be because they took action, because they created something.

Christopher Higgs in an interview on Ken Baumann's blog

[baldursghaik]

truly my most unpopular emperor opinion is that, while it's down bad for people, whether stelmane or tav/durge, I fully believe (and it straight up shows you) that if it can't get what it wants through being nice, then it will resort to uglier and nastier means of achieving its ends

big part of why I will always quantify it as evil at the end of the day

[sillystimmings]

*grips your shoulders* i need you to realize silcos manipulation of jinx wasn’t because he wanted her as a weapon but stemmed from his own trauma of being abandoned. we hear him say things like “everyone abandons US, i’m all you have i was there when no one else was” he’s projecting jinx is all HE has the only person in years he genuinely let get close to him he wants to be the rock he never had and he’s not doing good but he thinks he is because what he’s telling jinx is what he told himself is needed to survive. yes having jinx on the other side wouldn’t be great for work purposes but that’s not his priority with her. he takes advantage of jinxs fear of being replaced by caitlyn because HES afraid he’ll be replaced by vi. he’s enabling jinx in a way that’s detrimental to her but he thinks it’s necessary because he thinks turning himself into the way he is was crucial to his survival. we as the audience know he’s doing a bad job raising jinx but that’s bc we live in a different world in different circumstances and have the full perspective of everyone else’s stories while silco genuinely thinks he’s doing what’s right for jinx. i need. i need you all to understand that.