1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker

[1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker]

"The average Jew has four wives" factoid is actually just a statistical error. The average Jew has 1 wife. Wives Shlomo, who lived in Jerusalem and had 1,000 wives, is a statistical outlier and should not have been counted.

[1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker]

[1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker]

[1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker]

Some women are conditioned to be fragile and weak, and to believe that it's a sin to outperform a man. Her feminism would involve allowing women to be strong.

Some women are expected to be strong at times when they can't. Her feminism would involve reassuring her that it's okay to not be strong.

Some neurodivergent people are raised to believe that they're too stupid to ever amount to anything. Their disability activism would involve reassuring them that they're capable.

Some neurodivergent people are raised to believe that they're smart and gifted, and are expected to live up to impossible standards. Their disability activism would involve allowing them to fail, make mistakes, be stupid, etc.

Some children are constantly reminded "you're the child, I'm the adult" in order to deny their autonomy. Their youth rights activism would involve treating them like an adult at times when they feel ready for it.

Some children are treated like adults in order to justify increased expectations or to downplay abuse against them. Their youth rights activism would involve allowing them to be a child.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to oppression. Each individual person's experience is different. Whatever trauma is caused by their oppression, the activism should focus on undoing it.

[1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker]

[1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker]

Hey, here’s a concept. What if we stopped saying “but autistic people CAN do all those things” (erasing high support needs) and instead started saying “not being able to do those things doesn’t impact someone’s value as a person nor does it make it okay to commit eugenics”.

[1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker]

I came up with this three-way table to help me (and now you, if you want) to rate things out of 5 stars. I was thinking of books and films when I made it, but you can probably use it for other stuff.

The idea is that you rate the thing on how much stuff you loved and how much stuff you hated, and those things weight against each other. There's only one way to get 5 stars or 1 star, so those should end up as the rarest ratings, wtih 3 stars being the most common.

'Spicy' means that the thing inspires emotion, whether positive or negative, while 'bland' means it doesn't affect you much either way.

An example of a 3-star (spicy) - for me personally - would be the Twilight series, because there's plenty of garbage in there but also some things that are like crack to me. I can't think of an example of a 3 star (bland) because by nature they don't stick in the mind.

(This also assumes giving 0 stars isn't allowed. That'd throw it out of whack...)

[1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker]

The Onion continues to never miss

[1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker]

I feel like we need a refresher on Watsonian vs Doylist perspectives in media analysis. When you have a question about a piece of media - about a potential plot hole or error, about a dubious costuming decision, about a character suddenly acting out of character -

A Watsonian answer is one that positions itself within the fictional world.

A Doylist answer is one that positions itself within the real world.

Meaning: if Watson says something that isn't true, one explanation is that Watson made a mistake. Another explanation is that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle made a mistake.

Watsonian explanations are implicitly charitable. You are implicitly buying into the notion that there is a good in-world reason for what you're seeing on screen or on the page. ("The bunny girls in Final Fantasy wear lingerie all the time because they're from a desert culture!")

Doylist explanations are pragmatic. You are acknowledging that the fiction is shaped by real-world forces, like the creators' personal taste, their biases, the pressures they might be under from managers or editors, or the limits of their expertise. ("The bunny girls in Final Fantasy wear lingerie because somebody thought they'd sell more units that way.")

Watsonian explanations tend to be imaginative but naive. Seeking a Watsonian explanation for a problem within a narrative is inherently pleasure-seeking: you don't want your suspension of disbelief to be broken, and you're willing to put in the leg work to prevent it. Looking for a Watsonian answer can make for a fun game! But it can quickly stray into making excuses for lazy or biased storytelling, or cynical and greedy executives.

Doylist explanations are very often accurate, but they're not much fun. They should supersede efforts to provide a Watsonian explanation where actual harm is being done: "This character is being depicted in a racist way because the creators have a racist bias.'" Or: "The lore changed because management fired all of the writers from last season because they didn't want to pay then residuals."

Doylism also runs the risk of becoming trite, when applied to lower stakes discrepancies. Yes, it's possible that this character acted strangely in this episode because this episode had a different writer, but that isn't interesting, and it terminates conversation.

I think a lot of conversations about media would go a lot more smoothly, and everyone would have a lot more fun, if people were just clearer about whether they are looking to engage in Watsonian or Doylist analysis. How many arguments could be prevented by just saying, "No, Doylist you're probably right, but it's more fun to imagine there's a Watsonian reason for this, so that's what I'm doing." Or, "From a Watsonian POV that explanation makes sense, but I'm going with the Doylist view here because the creator's intentions leave a bad taste in my mouth that I can't ignore."

Idk, just keep those terms in your pocket? And if you start to get mad at somebody for their analysis, take a second to see if what they're saying makes more sense from the other side of the Watsonian/Doylist divide.

[1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker]

You pierce my soul. I am half agony, half hope. - Persuasion, Jane Austen

[1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker]

"I am ready to fall in love with any woman who wants to love me and isn't Anne Elliot," said Captain Wentworth, lying to both the audience and himself all at once

[1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker]

Persuasion 1995 is great btw because every time Wentworth appears unexpectedly it zooms in on Anne like a horror movie

[1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker]

My theory is Leverage: Redemption is more goofy than the OG is because OG series is from Nate’s POV and in reality it’s always been this goofy he just never noticed

[1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker]

Can (and did) women fight?

I was very anxious about making this video, but I’ve seen a bunch of arguments on the topic lately, and it felt important to discuss.

Women rarely fought in historical armies (as far as we can tell), but there are (an astonishing number of) (astonishing) exceptions!

Patreon - Everything else

[1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker]

rick astley did a cover of pink pony club and i loved him singing about having fun on stage in his heels

[1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker]

Who's your Jane Austen roommate?

Inspired by this LOTR roommate post, I present you with the Jane Austen character roommate picker!

Spin it one time only to get your character, and then vote:

[1st-time-caller-long-time-lurker]

Leverage Redemption Season 3 will premiere April 17th!