#Critical Ditto

[deepblueink2d]

✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*NEW ANIMATION *:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ✧ So excited for this one! Join our Pokemon heroes from

@criticalditto fight, flirt heavily and scheme in today's animation "Plotting against the Pokemon League - Critical Ditto Animated" going live later!

[arogoldpika123]

In other news, I've been binge relistening to Critical Ditto. Even better then I remember.

[moonknightproductions]

Found a new tabletop podcast where it’s a home brew Pokémon narrative called Critical Ditto and I’m so excited to listen to it because it sounds AWESOME

[eye-symbolize]

If I had a nickel for every black NB protagonist I had met in a podcast — I would have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s cool that it’s happened twice.

[podcasts-are-amazing]

It’s sad how many podcasts are slept on

[septic-aye]

Some old critical dotto fan art based off of some if those group pose references :)

[ducksbellorum]

[kimabutch]

Finally watched EXU Calamity and I'm just in awe of how good that was. Heartbreaking, hilarious, nerve-wrecking (I was stress-crocheting through most of it), beautiful.

As someone who struggles to create characters that make terrible life choices and hurt other people, I'm just amazed by those characters, the roleplaying, and the choices. Luis really showing with Zerxus why paladins are my favourite class when they're fucked up in a righteously arrogant way, hitting so many of my favourite tropes at once. Marisha and Lou creating these amazing character arcs in a handful of sessions. Travis and Brennan roleplaying such a realistic parent/children dynamic. Aabria and Sam breaking my heart over and over again with Laerynn and Quay's love story. I could write so much more about the characters and they're going to live in my heart for a long time.

[psqqa]

okay wait, because i can never edit tags on poll posts and the notes on that one are like genuinely catching me off guard: do americans for real not use duvet covers? like as a rule? across the entire country? like you’re all just using random blankets or quilts and shit all the time? and then sticking a sheet between you and the blanket pile? or is this one of those “depends on where you are but obviously each regional standard is considered universal by its adherents” situations?

[pocketgalaxies]

"you'll leave me alone?? D: i'm canonically a coward!!!"

[13lack-cat]

I rewatched detective pikachu yesterday and overall still excellent but that makes the ableism so much more jarring

[rotzaprachim]

reading retrospective 2023: extremely thick and unexpectedly gripping general histories 

[cavepop]

and that lonely girl? billlie love

[eye-symbolize]

I know there aren’t many Critical Ditto fans on here, but I think Theo would make a good Juno Steel, you know?

[bougiebutchbinch]

Not to beat a dead horse but

if I see one more take to the tune of 'saying that Izzy was abused is a disservice to his character because he would spit in your face and reject the idea that he was abused' (:staring at a certain post made 6 days ago by a certain someone:)

I am going to go apeshit.

People who are nasty and mean can be abuse victims.

People who are proud can be abuse victims.

People who REJECT THE CONCEPT OF BEING ABUSE VICTIMS can still be survivors and have still suffered very real abuse.

Denying that Izzy was abused because 'he's tough' is just so fucking disturbing, and really shows what you think about abuse victims IRL. Please take a good long hard look at yourself and ask yourself WHY you think that is a good stance.

Ditto for everyone who liked that post. Maybe think about how it reads to people who've actually been through abusive relationships.

This fandom truly has thee most rancid takes sometimes, and I think a lot of it comes from an unwillingness to critically engage with why you think certain characters 'deserve' what they get.

[specialagentartemis]

We talk a lot about reading comprehension and misinformation on this website, but learning how to slow down, assess sources, and fact-check is a skill. A skill a lot of us have not been called on to demonstrate since high school, but a skill that's vitally important in the modern world.

I'm in graduate school for the social sciences (anthropology) - critically assessing sources is part of the skillset we are taught. I've had people ask on my post about historical misinformation, "How can I only reblog things that are true? How can I tell?" And it's a good and important question!

A couple core questions to ask, about history, science, or current events, are:

Who is saying this?

Where are you seeing this information? Is it a legal scholar, a historian with a PhD, a museum curator, an on-the-ground activist, a rando twitter poster, a Mormon conspiracy theorist? For scholarly questions, look for people with PhDs and published articles; for questions of current events, look for what people who are actually there are saying and showing.

Who agrees with them?

Can you find articles from other sources corroborating this, or is it just one guy who is saying this? Conversely, do you see anyone disagreeing and correcting this information? Who?

Does this person have an ideological bias that might cause them to discount conflicting information?

Everyone has biases, of course, but some are obvious. A lot of revisionist American history is put out by Mormon groups to try to prove the literal truth of the Book of Mormon; ditto for history that seeks to prove various things in the Bible. It may be easy for us to laugh at that, but a lot of tumblr revisionist history involves inventing gay historical figures out of flimsy sources because we want it to be true. Is there a reason that the person making this claim might want this to be true? This doesn't necessarily make it false, but it does mean you have to require more robust claims.

What sources do they cite?

Do they cite well-documented research or well-provenienced archaeology? Do they have photographs of what they're claiming happened? Or do their claims rely on nameless, dateless, "I can't show you my sources yet" or "I swear I heard about a guy..." Do they cite any sources or is it "just trust me bro"? Are those sources that they do cite reliable, or are they circular? Do the sources they cite actually say what this person is claiming they say? Are they cutting out half of a quote, or ignoring conflicting evidence presented in the same source?

Is this conspiracy theory thinking?

Is this making claims that an individual or a group is secretly hiding information from the general public? Is it blaming one individual or group for widespread societal problems? Is it claiming that the only reason this isn't common knowledge is because Somebody is suppressing it? Is it claiming that the solution to a complicated political problem is actually simple and everybody knows it but people just don't want to do it for nefarious reasons? That's conspiracy thinking, and it's almost never as clean or easy as the claimant wants you to believe.

Just because someone is saying something confidently doesn't necessarily make it true, but also, just because you don't like something doesn't necessarily make it false. Ask these questions when you see a claim that makes you feel angry - or makes you feel righteous. Look for journalists, scientists, historians, legal scholars, who present their credentials and their sources. Look for multiple independently verified news reports or scientific articles. Determining The One Truth about things is not always easy and sometimes not possible, but asking these questions helps you assess what you're reading critically and evaluate claims.