electrichills42

[electrichills42]

[electrichills42]

Someone was asking in a thread what kind of people could work for ICE right now.

I think it's a good time to remember that the image above are the people who put children into gas chambers.

When I was little, I asked what kind of person could work at a concentration camp.

The answer to both questions I think is "normal people who have accepted the dehumanization of another group of people."

[electrichills42]

© plutoxoxi via x/twitter

[electrichills42]

“Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?” ― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

[electrichills42]

more people would exercise if this culture didn't make it absolute hell

[electrichills42]

Hi! I have every disease! Do you want one?

How about you follow me to this special room

[electrichills42]

"Israel is the middle eastern puppet of the USA"

Well it is refreshing to see the puppet accusations going in that order, I must say.

[electrichills42]

Reasons why computer problems seem to mysteriously vanish as soon as a technician shows up:

You were spacing out and skipping a step somewhere without realising it, and you can’t reproduce it when you try to demonstrate it because now you’re paying attention to what you’re doing

It’s an intermittent electrical connection fault that’s being aggravated by movement/vibrations in your desk; you need to check your cables

The act of explaining the problem to someone caused you to figure out what you were doing wrong

The real cause of the problem was somewhere upstream of your terminal device – for example, at the network service provider – and it got fixed at the source while you were waiting

Your computer is in a location with poor airflow and is overheating; waiting for the technician to arrive gave it a chance to cool off

Despite all appearances to the contrary, modern computers actually have very good fault recovery, and most minor problems will sort themselves out on their own if you give it a minute

Magic

[electrichills42]

Ships with height differences. Reblog if you agree

[electrichills42]

The FDA has approved a twice yearly injection to prevent HIV!!

Let's hear it for some GOOD news!!

[electrichills42]

The Weeping Angels are really scary until you realize if any organism sees them they are fucked so they get hard countered by geckos, who don't blink and can see in the dark. If the Doctor strapped like two geckos onto him he'd be fine.

[electrichills42]

[electrichills42]

The only reason why transphobes always ask “what is a woman” instead of “what is a man” is because we all know that a man is a featherless biped.

[electrichills42]

you know who’s gay? paul the real estate novelist who never had time for a wife and davey who’s still in the navy and probably will be for life

[electrichills42]

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.