#both in a human to human perspective and in a like

[unsolicited-opinions]

Signal > Noise

Gentle, short introductions to media literacy and information literacy

(I keep kvetching about the absence of media literacy and information literacy...and kvetching is useless.

Signal > Noise will be the tag I use for short, digestible intros to concepts in both media literacy and information literacy.

Asks are open if there are specific topics you want covered.)

------

2025-06-18

[Topic: Bias vs Lying]

Our discourse has gotten so ridiculous that we've mostly lost the ability to disagree constructively, think critically, or benefit from the work of smart people with whom we disagree.

We're so fractured and polarized that we routinely say stupid things like:

That source is biased, so it's not valid and nothing it says is true.

If everything is dismissed as bias, and bias is treated as dishonesty, then truth has nowhere to live - leaving us well and truly fucked.

Confusing bias with lying makes us cynical instead of smart. It turns healthy skepticism into hopeless nihilism

"All media is corrupt" isn't enlightenment - it's intellectual surrender and cowardice.

Bias ≠ Lying

A perspective does not prevent a piece of information from being true or useful.

What Bias Is

Bias is all but inevitable and unavoidable, even for those operating at the highest levels of journalistic integrity and discipline. It's baked into how we work.

Below are two paintings of Daniel in the Lion's Den. Same subject, radically different paintings. Is one of them more true? Is one of them less biased?

Maybe photography provides a better analogy. The angle, lighting, composition, saturation, brightness, contrast, and cropping all affect the final image. But the photo is still of a real object, isn't it? Is one of these six photos of the same man in the same room more valid than the other 5?

That's how all media works.

All media selects, frames, and focuses utilizing both conscious and unconscious biases.

That's not inherently deceptive - it's how all storytelling functions. Our brains are wired for narrative, it's how our minds work.

Bias can emerge from:

Cultural worldview (like Western vs. Eastern framing)

Political orientation (like left vs. right vs. authoritarian)

Institutional interest (like corporate vs. activist vs. governmental)

Professional constraints (like time limits, editorial priorities, sensationalism for clicks)

A liberal news outlet might cover climate change in terms of justice and inequality. A conservative outlet might instead focus on economic cost and individual freedoms.

Both might be factually accurate. Both are biased. Both have value.

More examples:

A conservative media outlet may emphasize crime statistics.

A progressive media outlet may focus on police accountability.

A US media outlet might frame a Middle Eastern conflict through geopolitics

A local media outlet might highlight the conflict through individual suffering.

All may very well be reporting true facts, but they frame those facts differently.

If you see journalism without bias, let me know - because that's what I'll read when I need to be put to sleep without learning a single thing.

Lying is a completely different animal.

What a Lie Is

Lying goes well beyond having a perspective. Lying is a choice to mislead - an intentional, deliberate falsehood.

Humans can lie with all media: words, pictures, headlines, graphs, statistics...even silence can deceive.

The key ingredient is always intent. Lies are designed to obscure the truth.

Types of Lies in Media:

Outright falsehoods: "Vaccines contain microchips."

Deceptive omissions: Leaving out exculpatory evidence to frame someone unfairly.

Fake sources or data: Citing studies that don’t exist, or misrepresenting real ones.

Image manipulation: Using photos or videos out of context, or editing them deceptively.

A biased report might emphasize some facts over others, but a deceptive one tries to convince you of something the producer of that media knows to be false.

Framing = Bias ≠ Lying

Framing is one of the most common and most misunderstood forms of media bias.

It's not lying - It's the rhetorical and narrative choices that shape how every story is told.

Examples of framing in headlines:

"Unarmed man shot by police" vs. "Suspect neutralized in police operation"

"Protesters clash with police" vs. "Police attack peaceful demonstrators"

"Israel retaliates after attack" vs. "Israeli airstrikes kill civilians"

The facts might not be in dispute. Someone was shot, a protest occurred, airstrikes happened, etc - but how those facts are framed shapes how we interpret them.

Framing isn't necessarily dishonest. It reflects the values and assumptions of the writer or publication. Understanding framing is essential for media literacy. When you learn to spot frames, you can wring an additional layer of information from the story.

Since it's Unavoidable, Make Bias Work for You

Expecting media to be perfectly neutral is like expecting food to be completely flavorless. It's neither realistic nor desirable. Without a perspective and a framing, a story ceases to be storytelling and our brains...mostly stop processing it.

Every outlet has an editorial mission, an audience, a funding model, a history - so bias is always baked in. That doesn't mean you discard the source. It means you read it strategically, looking for and identifying those biases.

Instead of asking, "Is this source biased?" know in advance that it definitely is.

Instead of asking yourself "should I read this news outlet and regard everything it presents as objective truth"...know that it definitely doesn't, you definitely shouldn't.

Instead, ask yourself questions like:

What kinds of stories does this outlet consistently choose to tell?

Who does the outlet consider trustworthy or quotable?

What kind of loaded language does this outlet use for different groups or events?

Who funds this outlet? Who is its audience? What agenda are they likely to have based on that funding model and target audience?

Bias isn't a disqualifier. It's a clue which tells you more about what you're reading.

Use Biased Sources Without Getting Played

You don't need to trust a source completely to learn something from it. In fact, the most valuable sources are often obviously biased.

1. Identify the Bias

Before even reading, know what kind of outlet you're dealing with. Look at its about page, ownership, funding/revenue model, recurring columnists, and core audience. Does it lean left? Right? Is it globalist? Nationalist? Religious? Secular?

Knowing this lets you anticipate the angle and spot distortions more easily. The more you do it, the easier it gets. After a little practice, you'll see clearly (for example) the huge right wing bias of the Jerusalem Post, the huge left wing bias of Ha'aretz, and how The Times of Israel is mostly pretty disciplined (in their news gathering and framing) about minimizing left/right political biases.

None of these three is perfect, but seeing their usual, institutional biases lets you read them against each other.

2. Use It for Contrast

Biased outlets often highlight stories others avoid or ignore. Fox News may underplay climate change but overplay immigration crime. Al Jazeera will underplay Hamas human rights abuses but spotlight in depth the most embarrassing moments in Israeli politics. The Jerusalem Post will underplay corruption charges against Netanyahu and spotlight the most depraved behaviors committed in the name of Hamas.

Use this to your advantage. Compare coverage across ideological lines. The contrast tells you volumes about outfit AND audience.

3. Look for Hard Facts

Don't quote the adjectives. Quote the data. What happened? When? Where? Who said it? What did the video actually show?

Stop taking an analyst's word as truth - see it as a lens to try on at look at the facts through. If the lens helps it make sense, put it in your back pocket for later use.

Strip away the spin, extract the structure.

4. Cross-Reference Across Angles

Treat each biased source as one side of a triangle. To understand the shape of a thing, you need multiple sides. Balance a left-wing story with a right-wing one. Add an international perspective. Compare them.

Over time, you start seeing the shape of the event instead of the biases of each outfit.

(If you're anything like me, you never want to see or hear another advertisement for Ground News...but still use it sometimes to do exactly this.)

When Bias Becomes Lying

Bias turns into lying when it refuses to admit its own existence or crosses into manipulation. You're dealing with deceptive bias when:

It claims neutrality while advancing a clear agenda

It actively suppresses or distorts opposing views

It refuses to promptly issue corrections or acknowledge errors

It flattens complexity into false binaries like good guys vs. bad guys

It consistently omits key information that would challenge its narrative

It's part of a disinformation campaign (state media, bad actors, bots)

Ask yourself these questions:

Does the outlet ever challenge its own side?

Does it interview or quote those it disagrees with...without distortion?

Does it foster critical thinking or does it push tribal loyalty?

Thesl answers will let you see lying much more quickly.

When evaluating a media claim, ask:

Is this verifiable?

Does this trigger a strong emotional reaction? Was that the goal?

What's missing?

Does this match the tone of propaganda? (overly simplified, emotionally charged, black-and-white framing?)

Is this story meant to inform...or to rally?

And perhaps most importantly:

Do I want this to be true because it confirms something I already believe?

Recognizing your own bias is more critical than spotting it in others. We are all vulnerable to confirmation bias, and most of us seek out what feels good while avoiding what challenges us.

Practice pausing. Breathe a few times between the click and the share. (Confirmation bias will be the topic of a future Signal > Noise.)

Vary Your Media Diet

To understand a complex world, you need inputs from multiple angles.

If you only get your information from one side, you're not informed - you're enlisted.

Real media literacy is not about being neutral. It's about navigating bias with awareness, curiosity, and courage.

That means reading:

Across ideological lines

Across national borders

Across formats (print, visual, audio)

It's not always fun, it takes some time, but it's essential and cwn dramatically reduce your susceptibility to propaganda -

...so go read smart, articulate people you disagree with!

Instead of avoiding bias, learn to read it. Recognize it. Use it. Balance it. Counter it. Triangulate past it.

And when you find actual deception? Name it and reject it.

That's media literacy.

[olderthannetfic]

Different anon than the pokemon one, but similar sort of circumstance. In the pokemon media it's blatantly clear to anyone who knows even a little bit about animal psychology, that if they existed IRL they would be considered sapient. They can understand really complex instructions given to the letter and can even recognize abstract meanings of symbols and understand the use of them to communicate ideas.

I think there's a lot to work with there, viewing the world of pokemon as one where the pokemon are effectively people, literally without a voice. Like, sooo many ideas you can bounce off of that concept, themes of systemic oppression and having stories which show how literally powerful peoples can be made docile and their culture erased by a society of physically weak tyrants.

But the pokemon fandom is really just stratified into two groups that barely interact, the people who like the humans and the perspective of the official media, and the mystery dungeon fans where humans don't exist. There are some people who write/roleplay/etc. pokemon povs in human worlds, but they still usually take the stance of the official media, just now pokemon are intelligent. There's only like 10 fics which frame pokemon as being sapient and oppressed, but they're all aftermaths of some magical war.

It's definitely a "write what you want to see" situation, but it's also lame that it feels like there aren't really any people who want to see it other than me and some people from like 15 years ago who wrote the war fics. It's really fun thinking about these ideas, just at the same time kinda lame that I'm in few company.

--

Honestly, I blame this one on canon: it both makes them obviously sapient and has strong vibes of "Let's catch bugs, yay!", depending on which game/episode/whatever.

[abandonedquiched]

Wait wait WAIT

Okay so.

THAT looks like a human.

Why. Why did the Titan, for just a moment, look like a human.

But not a just human. That’s not like Kris (who may not be a human if you subscribe to vessel theory, but we can probably expect that they look like a human - a deltarunian human).

That looks like a 3 dimensional ‘real’ human. Like Us.

We are the SOUL within Kris. At least, the SOUL is our most direct connection to this world. It is called a “Human SOUL”.

For a while this worried me. Because humans exist in Deltarune, even if Kris isn’t one. And if humans exist, and Human SOULs exist. Than can the SOUL really be a pure representation of us? I mean we are human, but how can we be human from the perspective of a world that expects a human to be like Kris?

Between the gonermaker sequence and the weird descriptions, I don’t think this was originally Kris’s soul. So what we inhabit, was it originally someone else’s SOUL? Another humans? A secret protagonist? Third entity theory real but it is the SOUL. I hope not, though I can’t entirely discount it.

But the other possibility. Is that the world of Deltarune has multiple meanings for the word “human”.

Basically? Biblically accurate humans are a thing.

By far the two strongest possibilities for who the angel is, is Noelle… and Us. And in following Undertale, it could very well be both. A pretty simple solution being in at least one of the timelines Noelle is our avatar.

Still, here. The black screen (which could hold our reflection), Susie’s trepidation. What could frighten her so in only an image. She was pretty frightened when fighting the titan, which is probably for a number of reasons. However I wonder what she thought of its visage.

The SOUL, the human SOUL. It has strange powers. Able to shine on different party members to strengthen them. Light up the darkness. Unleash light. Banish dark. Close fountains. Purify. Defeat Titans. And this seems to be a strange assortment of powers to give to a human - it makes more sense in the lens of device theory, where we exist on a layer (or 2) above the light world. So we are a more pure form of “light.”

However, instead of imagining nested realities, for a moment let us imagine a line. Between the light world and the dark. The Titans are what is darker than dark worlds. We are what are lighter than light worlds.

The dark world is reflection of the light world across that line.

The Titans are a reflection of Us.

[greafest]

Artistic references in squid game. There were a lot of them within season 1, more subtle homages than whatnot. Here were the ones with less discussion around them that I wanted to talk about, and that I wanted to try and tie to the characters of our series.

Visual references such as René Magritte’s Empire of Light often pop up in the backdrops of Squid Game. Interestingly enough, although the paintings are often interpreted as visual illusions meant to challenge our perception, Magritte himself rejected a single fixed meaning. Some believe the paintings are meant to depict wealth inequality. Which we know as a whole represents the entirety of Squid Game, and aligns with its most prominent theme— the centering around human contradiction, especially in how it places familiar elements in unfamiliar contexts solely to evoke a sense of disorientation amongst the players. Paired with the fact that the games are created as entertainment for the uber wealthy (a whole other potential post in itself about how the games are essentially a wager on class wars)— the use of these backdrops for philosophical value are definitely intentional. It’s not just for aesthetic value or to nod at Inho’s art obsession. All of this has probably been noticed before, albeit it’s still a very nice reference to talk about.

A scene which is shown further in the season displays a crowbar with blood on the handle. It didn’t immediately strike me as an artistic expression until I watched an analysis video by yogvampowerment via tiktok (love them). It had me thinking about René Magritte’s The Survivor and how it encompasses the psychology of characters such as Gihun and Inho well. Especially in both their roles as the protagonist and antagonist. The idea of an involuntary sacrifice and its consequences, though not solely onto the victim but perpetrator as well; a role most wouldn’t immediately jump to think also has its own mental consequences. The painting depicts a gun with a visible bloodstain on the butt, set against a seemingly domestic and peaceful background. The elements of the painting are meant to convey survivor’s guilt, and the different people who are affected in times of crisis. Squid Game is all about survival despite human conditioning. Even outside the games, the real world creates its own kind of crisis— one where people are pushed into desperate choices. Which is what shaped both Gihun and Inho in the first place. As we all know, Gihun becomes a changed person after the games. He ends up carrying an extreme amount of survivor’s guilt, even though he doesn’t directly kill anyone by the end of Season 1. He’s a shell of his former self, though more socially nuanced and aware which came at a cost. Inho has his own form of compartmentalization (an interesting mirror to Sangwoo). The drinking to aid his seemingly strong detachment when watching the games, his own self corruption that he wishes to pass onto Gihun in the name of nihilism, which is a belief he continually doubles down on so strongly likely because of his lingering shame over going down that path in the first place. To me, both character origins and the unexpected consequences they face as a result parallel the meaning of the painting. It also just reinforces to me the idea that Gihun and Inho were direct (and purposeful) counterparts to each other. Both of them are marked by their participation in systems of violence, even if their roles differ.

Literary odes to the book The Catcher in the Rye, another one of the many books on Inho’s desk featured in Season 1 that stood out to me. The book is about two siblings and holds a heavy emphasis on innocence and criticism of the “adult” world from the perspective of an adolescent. Holden, the adolescent mentioned, has his own loss of innocence and tries to shield that of other children from the harsh realities he was forced to face. Holden’s brother becomes a screenwriter for a theater which Holden dislikes—as he believes that his brother has prostituted himself by writing for the commercial entertainment industry. There are subtle parallels between Holden, his brother, and a certain pair of brothers within our series. More clearly, the relationship between Holden and his brother directly reminds me of Junho and Inho. Specifically how Junho potentially feels about the fact that Inho has become an “overseer” of such games. Inho is someone who (in Junho’s eyes) has sold himself to the rich and now profits from exploiting the very people he once swore to protect. The story as a whole also calls me back to the “innocence” of the games, and how there is a manufactured effort (on Inho’s part) to mix the world of finer art and philosophy with the softer life of the South Korean child. It wouldn't surprise me if Catcher in the Rye was placed on Inho's desk as a deliberate source of inspiration, perhaps reflecting his desire to find that same sense of lost innocence in himself and in others (which ties into the dynamic of 457 and Gihun— but once again, a discussion for another post). I’m hoping this speculation finds its way to Season 3 and will help in shaping some aspects of the dynamic. I would love to see Inho still being obsessively focused on the innocence in philosophy and morale Gihun continues to hold onto.

[anonymusbosch]

oh no, i established myself as Capable Of and Willing To Perform some minor annoying administrative tasks at work and now am being tossed additional requests to perform said tasks

i know that in a strict financial view it makes sense to spend 20 minutes of junior engineer time on mundane-annoying-task than 20 minutes of senior staff engineer time but have you considered: I Don't Like It

[mod2amaryllis]

ok for every ten silly pregnancy posts i get ONE earnest

[freewilllife]

Well if it was simple that XL saw MQ and FX less then him or even didn’t see them as friends then 1) why would he even change his mind about it later? The fact is XL is not that kind of a person.

Oh, he certainly complained about them not listening to him. But it seemed their company won him over.

They are apart fom Hua Cheng and Xie Lian the last of Xianle.

2) it doest make sense that he would MQ they have always been friends or even the whole emotional turmoil being resolved in the last arc wouldn’t make sense. 3)

I don´t know, what you mean here exactly, but I try.

Xie Lian liked Mu Qing and vice versa, Mu Qing liked Xie Lian. But their relationship was still no friendship in the past, since they were master and servant.

Before Xie Lian had hardly really known Feng Xien and Mu Qing, he understood them better after he met them again. When Mu Qing confessed his feelings, Xie Lian understood, that Mu Qing had been actually jealous and had not been disgusted with him. In fact Mu Qing admired him. Their relationship was hindered by Xie Lian´s superficiality and Mu Qing´s pride.

3) XL was a prince, and he saw the life from the point of a prince. But he tried his best to be understanding, so see from MQs perspective. You can’t take that away from him.

And yet it is a factor, why the relationship between them was master and servant and ergo not equal.

4) why would he be ok with MQ going ?! Or accept it when MQ first brought it up. He was more taken aback by MQ siding with the gods. Something MQ himself regretted but said he had no choice. (Like things are more than just one particular situation) I still maintain MQ did what he had to he was right in doing so. And XL was right in feeling betrayed. But again it was a horrible situation they were in. And in the long run it didn’t matter. They both let go. No one held it over the other. You know like friends.

Xie Lian was greatly disturbed, when Mu Qing left, actually. Because he had had his head in the clouds...the thought that the relationship between them would last forever.

And no, Mu Qing has never regretted the deed in itself, merely the pain he has inflicted on Xie Lian.

That is a difference, but an important one.

They didn´t both let go...Xie Lian drove Mu Qing out, drew rice in his face ect...

Xie Lian´s pride was more important than the lives of his father and mother. Sometimes, you have to take into account the consequences of your actions.

5)as for putting in his shoes (as I have said before) the whole separation arc and subsequent 800 is what made him see beyond his privilege.

And he has still not achieved to put himself in Mu Qing´s shoes one time in that situation.

The point being, just because they were his attendants, doesn’t mean XL didn’t see him as his friends. He did.

Xie Lian was pretty much aware, that they were master and servants. When they observed a servant beating up his master, Xie Lian became quite nervous himself. And asked Feng Xin, what he thought about it...

The fact stands that a friendship was not possible during that point in time. a) because they were not equal b) Xie Lian did not know too much about his servants, nor had he really perceived them more as people than his servants. c) Especially in Mu Qing´s and Xie Lian´s case there were many hidden feelings and thoughts.

Same way I think MQ didn’t have to be an ass after XL ascended the 3rd time.

Actually, it was pretty fine. I guess, Xie Lian had hardly been aware, how much grudge Mu Qing held. It also helped that they spoke more rashly towards each other, to build a bridge between them.

I don’t see human relationships in such black and white perspectives or to be put more accurately through a modern moral lens. Especially a tale set in a fantasy world with kings and queens (XL was also a prince) + gods who are no better than demons.

That still doesn´t change, that there was no friendship until the end of the series.

If Mu Qing had been really his friend, he would have not expressed, "that he wanted to become his friend"...

If they had been friends from the start, this sentence would be ridiculous, so the author was aware, that their relationship couldn´ t be counted as friendship.

But like to each their own. We aren’t changing each other’s mind. And honestly it’s a subjective interpretation… hope you have a good day 😁😁

Yea, I wish you also all the best!

Ok so someone sent me this post. And like what?!

Like how do I explain that this is not what friendships are or how they work. While yes they had every right to leave (actually FX didn’t leave, XL literally told him to leave).

I’d agree to this if they said MQ and FX had every right to leave but XL has every right to feel betrayed.

Like the story is more than one situation… that’s what the book is about. The actions which are a culmination of thousands of others and its consequences. And how characters respond to these consequences.

The three were “friends” especially in XLs eyes. That’s the very reason he doesn’t blame either of them. This is so… Had every“right.” 🙄 If that’s what you think about friendships then I’ve got some news for you…

MQ was worried about his mother and saw the reality for what it was (their homelessness, their hunger etc). Ascending helped him help both his families (his mother and XL/FX). Also, at the end of the day what happened at the hill was betrayal (you can justify it all you like) MQ knew it too (I wonder if he actually discussed his thoughts with FQ or XL about ascending himself) and hence his immediate reaction. But XL was too far gone at that point (that’s one thing you wouldn’t expect your friend to do at that point).

But it was such a horrible time for all of them so afterwards (years later) even XL understood it was just awful circumstances so he never held it against MQ. AND THAT IS THE POINT.

Also, if I leave my friend during their worst time l (no matter what I’m going through) yes I’m not being a good friend. Like wise if I can’t understand my friends actions in that circumstance then I’m not being a good friend either. THAT IS THE POINT.

I wonder id MQ ever discussed with FX about his plan (may be he did because Id like to think so especially considering FX was accepting the food from MQ. On that note don’t forget after a while XL ended up eating the food MQ gave despite initially not wanting it. THIS IS THE BIGGEST HINT THAT THINGS ARE NOT SIMPLE BLACK AND WHITE). Hence yes, XL did feel betrayed after the hill. Whether MQs actions right/ wrong is irrelevant. Whether XLs reaction (right or wrong) to the betrayal (I think Jun Wu also made an appearance then and this was the beginning of XLs mental health crisis as well) is again Irrelevant. Especially 800 years later. SO GETTING HUNG UP ON THIS IS SOOO D*MB.

Which is why I get annoyed at MQs behavior in the first book (The weird smiles/ wanting to feel vindicated/ superior). Keyword “get annoyed” doesn’t mean I can’t understand why he’s reacting as such or rather it’s coming off as such (the latter part is what I like to believe). He’s still stuck in their early dynamics that he’s of a lower status than XL and FX. Honestly, he needed to realize that XL always considered him a friend. (Something he didn’t realize until the very end 800 years later). This comes from him still grappling with his own status while a human. He can’t even understand how XL would consider him a friend… Like he was shocked. All his actions in the first book point towards MQ believing XL thinks he (XL) is better than MQ bro is too stuck in his head (yes that come off as mean/ rude af. There is no denying at at all).

THESE THINGS DONT HAPPEN IN A VACCUM.

FX was more about blind loyalty. That he couldn’t see (for that part neither could XL) the reality of the situation that MQ did. Honestly FX needed to tone down his judgements towards MQ (guess who was cleaning and cooking and managing their finances even after their kingdom fell? MQ). No matter how right he was, he chose the worst way to say it. It was getting on my nerves as well. (MQ way better than me I’d have smacked FX. Having said that MQ was rude as well). This is something both XL and FX realize after MQ is gone.

I don’t think FX would have left unless XL forced him to. But he needed that to see a different perspective outside XL. Likewise (the in case of XL he too realized he’d been very selfish as well)

XL, for that matter, let MQ go. He understood where the other was coming from. Period. He was betrayed at the hill (+ he was scared being abandoned). Not to mention the whole trying to steal arc… they were all desperate. And poor guy. Someone was playing a chess game-cum-roulette against him life without his knowledge. These people (you cannot seriously believe Jun Wu did not set up FX/ MQ ascending) were specifically put in the worst circumstances possible, repeatedly. One after the other…

But guess what? Despite everything MQ and FX still helped XL once they found him 800 years ago (no matter in disguise). XL recognized them after all this time no matter that they were clones. The trio made up in the end because they were friends. THATS THE POINT. THINGS WERE UNFORTUNATE AND THEY HAD TO SEPARATE BUT THEY DIDNT STOP BEING FRIENDS DESPITE EVERYTHING…

So if someone says XL was right or FX was right or MQ was right… neither of them was. There is no wrong or right. There is no saying one was more justified than other…

[wackywatchdotcom]

Rewatching episode one, I noticed that when Ragatha and Jax are talking to each other about Jax having a key, Pomni flinches away from, and lifts her arms to protect her face and head, when Jax toys with the key and catches it near her.

I wonder if she is that jumpy around others normally or if it's just when she's in a stressful situation (like suddenly being trapped in the circus) what do you think?

OK. ok. you mention this. and ive never said anything about it but i have genuinely noticed this almost every time ive seen that scene. i think about it a LOT but i havent been able to figure out my thoughts on it. but i think about it genuinely a LOT...

(i went on a huge tangent abt her thats like. only sporadically related to this specific moment SORRY. it was hard to address this moment without discussing a LOT about her i feel)

for the sake of clarity in the event someone reading this is unfamiliar, what this ask is referring to is this:

with the way that she so quickly dissociates and HARD (not that most people Never experience dissociation or smth, but its the intensity of it and how quick into this situation she starts dissociating is like. it makes it seem like its smth her body and mind are Used To Doing) she REALLY gives off the feeling that she had pre-existing mental health problems (i struggle to place anything TOO specific with the limited information we have but i feel like theres definitely a few things she has going on) before she even got to the circus, and like she COULD just be a naturally jumpy person, but with the dissociation thing and general distrust towards others, it feels like her jumpiness is also related to these issues

while her being naturally nervous is sort of implied and clear (though i think the extent of it is exaggerated by the circumstances of the pilot in particular) there ARE a few other examples that stand out to me

i THINK this can largely be passed off as her just being on edge from the horror adventure, but i this is IS notable that she reacts genuinely pretty strongly to what is a relatively minor 'jumpscare.' it happens later too w kinger pressing the tape recorder

in general she seems VERY easily startled by people, and frankly it reads a lot like it stems more from people being near her than just things happening abruptly. she notably doesnt jump hard when the angel arrives- she DOES get scared, but she isnt necessarily startled. she DOES react very strongly to ghostly, but i think its notable that she seems to find his visual appearance frightening and debatably not necessarily startling, but thats not really 100%. the times she reacts the strongest have to do with people, which imo ties HARD into her not trusting people

episode 2 breaks down her distrust of people well, and i dont think its a self consciousness thing. it seems more that she just doesnt tend to find people trustworthy- if something bad was happening to her, she would sooner assume theyd let it happen rather than help her. it could be argued that its partially a guilt or projection thing with ragatha, but im not actually so sure. pomni seems to be ashamed of leaving her behind, but particularly through ep 2 she doesnt seemed Plagued With Guilt by the way she acts towards ragatha, which implies that the dream didnt have to do with her projecting that shame in a way shed assume ragatha would turn back on her, too

it instead seems to be that she doesnt trust ragatha just... in general. the 'im not a child' thing, while a legitimate problem for pomni to have with ragatha (i love ragatha, and from my place in the audience i know her concern is genuine, and that she truly wants to encourage pomni, and is trying, but from the perspective of people around ragatha, its not an unreasonable assumption that shes JUST being infantilizing and belittling), does illuminate how pomni is seeing ragathas attempts at cheering her up- that it comes from a place of seeing pomni as immature or generally unstable. that pomni is incapable of managing herself and needs to be coaxed. it implies pomni doesnt see ragathas attempts at help as genuine. combined with her dream, that ragatha would allow the worst to happen to her even when she was asking for help, makes it very clear that, even with the 'nicest' person in the circus, pomni just... doesnt really trust her

(it is worth noting that pomni DOES seem to genuinely want to help ragatha in the pilot. she DID try to find caine. but she bolts at the first opportunity. she does care about people, but when stressed, she operates on keeping herself safe first and foremost, that she needs to do anything to get out of a bad situation even if that means leaving someone behind- and with her dream, it does seem that she generally assumes other people operate similarly, or otherwise in their own best interest)

this does, of course, improve by the end of eps 2 and 3. the funeral, and ragatha offering to include her, and how the others talk about abstracted players (combined with her conversation with gummigoo, someone who she has to assure has genuine friendships with those around him despite the lack of a true reality for them to be based upon), are able to convey that oh, these people do actually care about the people around them. theyre being genuine. they arent just looking out for themselves and thats it- they care when bad things happen to each other. and theres no true reason for me to be an exception. which is ALSO why i dont think its a self consciousness thing, she seems able to reason that shes not an exception to the intents of others, so much that when she cant assure herself that others' intents hold her safety as any sort of priority as well, any trust goes out the window. she WANTS to help if she can, but esp in the pilot, as far as shes concerned, its everyone for themself when shit gets bad, including herself

ep 3, she seems more trusting of ragatha- she has neutral and positive interactions w her, rather than assuming a lack of sincerity in it. but its not just ragatha, actually, because even before her talk with him, you can see it in how she interacts with kinger as well

she initially tries to help him run, which isnt too out there- with how she genuinely DID initially try to help ragatha, it doesnt require her to go out of her way to grab him and RUN. she can run AND take him with her. she can help without putting herself in extra danger. but then she DOES go back, which is one of my favorite and imo underrated pomni moments. because THIS is what i think actually highlights an improvement in how she sees the others before her apologizing to ragatha or taking kingers hand. because she puts herself BACK into (percieved, since its not actual sure WHAT the angels intentions were her) danger in order to get kinger away too

(theres probably a case to be made that ragatha didnt seem to be in immediate danger- she was in pain, that much was clear, but kaufmo had ran away by then. but even still, pomni couldnt have known kaufmo would shift gears and start chasing her instead of ragatha that first time. and i dont know if she actually knew death wasnt possible here yet. which isnt very flattering for pomni but also people do not act in flattering ways under extreme stress, esp given a predisposition to not trusting others, which ill elaborate more on in a second here- not that pomnis abandonment was ok OR that it was like evil of her or smth. shes just a person. there is no way she was prepared to know how to act correctly in this situation, and she didnt)

theres also this

which is SUBTLE but highlights a genuine increase in trust even before their heart to heart. now that she knows the cast (save for jax, who she seems to react to the harshest, which is worth noting imo) are not acting solely in their own best interest, that they WILL consider the wellbeing of those around them including her, that their concern for one another is genuine (which is concerning that she even assumes that to begin with, which ill circle back to momentarily), she very clearly has way more faith in them and the idea that she should stick around the others for safety

and of course, ive said it before, but her taking kingers hand has little to do with her enjoying holding hands. its her knowing that, if kingers wrong, this is going to end very, very badly. if holding their breath isnt the solution theyre BOTH going to get possessed, and who knows how theyd get out of that situation. but she decides in that moment that her trust in the others isnt ONLY about looking out for them and believing that theyre sincere in their concern for her. but that she is willing to let the others put her at a potential massive risk. getting possessed was a blatantly immediately traumatic experience- and she lets kinger put her at risk of it happening again. THATS why she holds his hand, at least symbolically. she doesnt like contact. but she can brave something that she doesnt like, she can let him lead her into and through something potentially horrific, because shes deciding to trust him and the others, that theyre not just people she can interact with without fear of ill intentions, but that theyre people who she is going to coexist with. the best thing she can do for herself and the others is trust them and work with them actively

anyway that got off-track, the point being that her having to have these ideas instilled in her at all through shared experiences and trauma implies that, while these issues with distrust may have been exacerbated by the stress of everything, they didnt come from nowhere. these are problems she likely already had to some degree. its great that theres been improvement but that improvement directly implies thesse were improvements that needed to be made to begin with. and the fact that the person she gets repeatedly most startled by is jax. who, even with episode 2, she explicitly doesnt trust. in the pilot, at least, her distrust is more vague (i think the dream sequence in ep 2 IS what highlights it best) so her flinching from jax can be passed off as related to a general lack of adjustment to the new environment and situation shes in. but it happens again with jax in episode 3 (and, notably, she pauses afterwards but it takes a moment for her to relax even knowing its just jax), after shes adjusted somewhat, and after shes gained some trust with everyone except for jax (given his absence from the scene at the end of ep 2). it also happens when barons voice plays abruptly next to her

point being that imo, she IS naturally jumpy. she says herself that she doesnt handle jumpscares well, which somewhat implies this even outside of the circumstances of the circus. but with how she reacts to things, it feels like her general jumpiness is far, far worse when it comes to people she doesnt trust (be it because jax is Like That, or because shes not familiar with baron). the way i see it, then, her distrust extends to perceiving physical threats easily around people she hasnt ensured are safe to be around. she IS able to gain this trust in people, but she seems to automatically place the intents of others as being Potentially Unsafe from the jump, especially under stress. she can jump back from it fairly quickly for what its worth, but to be honest, it seems more like she operates on some general, everpresent level of hypervigilance thats just sometimes worse based on the situation

and frankly i dont think we know enough about her as of ep 4 to fully determine if there IS a reason for this. because someone can have a reason to be this jumpy around others, or they can just... be nervous and dislike people moving suddenly near them. combined with the dissociation thing, though, im inclined to think the circus did not cause this, just made it more extreme with more unpleasant stakes. there is hardly any time between her entering the circus and this happening. she hadnt even seen kaufmo yet in that very first example, but she was already on alert for a physical threat, and i just. i think about it all the time...

i think the main takeaway from all of this is that i think she isnt necessarily jumpy like that all the time, but i think trust is not a given with pomni, and her jumpiness massively depends on how much she trusts people near her and the situation shes in to not be a physical threat to her. its definitely worse in the circus, but i think it was probably still something present in a different context in the real world, too

[m0thlegs]

rereading the luxury liner arc after I just got back into my hyperfix recently and I wanna make sure I have a fresh understanding of the characters and. Guys I’m slowly being convinced of dadbastian now. I’m a changed woman

[gosteon]

TWO! OF! THEM!

[manhattan-gamestop]

You know I don't think there's enough Lore talking about the potential of vampires as disease vectors. Like having a vampire s/o is all fun and games until they give you West Nile Virus

[fictionadventurer]

Potential November Reads

In This House of Brede by Rumer Godden

The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton

Something by Charles Dickens

A nonfiction book

A piece of classic Russian literature

[rawliverandgoronspice]

Beyond surface appeal, what makes Ganon a compelling antagonist

I think cruising my blog would provide a good number of possible answers, but I guess my tl:dr would be (otherwise I could probably make a full 24h conference about it at this point): because he does reveal (if one is willing to look) the brutality of a world in which gods uphold a natural order through a given kingdom that will not budge on its god-given right to rule, and him as both a rebellious disorder to that status quo which also ends up devoured by said status quo as just one natural part of a cycle of creation and destruction that ultimately always kind of stays the same.

Also, I find the setup of a man born to a tribe of outcast women, considered exceptional by birth while also having to figure himself out + the role he needs to play in that kind of structure and in a very difficult context, someone who both is being granted a lot of natural power while also still being sneered at and considered lesser and/or inherently evil by those blessed by the gods (while also carrying a lot of unexamined baggage of their own), is just so juicy and interesting and brimming with potential psychologically speaking (especially when applied to his motivations of: why does he want power, why does he always alter his own body, his uncanny resilience, etc). It does come with a lot of baggage, as "the evil man from the desert" is far from being a neutral concept coming from a neutral historical place --but examining what kind of world would come to such conclusions is also deeply revealing of said world.

And then, Wind Waker gives him even more of a window to reflect on his own rage while also never apologizing for the horrors he commited, mourning what he wanted and what he became while also being the only one calling the gods of Hyrule out for being terrifyingly cold entities --far more than he could ever hope to become.

Yeah, I think Nintendo has been sleeping on Ganondorf ever since (even if I defend his TP appearance). But he has a fascinating cross-game story(ies), and I find him to be a deeply tragic --if horrendously flawed-- figure, which is partially why TotK was so disappointing to me, because TotK saw nothing but the surface level + the fact that putting him in a game sells and makes people horny.

(you'll notice I didn't mention Demise, because I think that, while the whole cycle thing wasn't bad or not that interesting, fans really overly simplify this concept in a way that has contributed to make Ganondorf extremely flat, which I am not here for.)

[aroaessidhe]

2024 reads / storygraph

Walking Practice

weird scifi horror novella

follows an alien who crash-landed on earth years ago, and spends their days hooking up with people to then eat them & gain enough strength to make it through the day

explores existing outside of the binary norm and being seen as other, deep loneliness, and desire for connection

meandering narration, interesting formatting, illustrations

[districtunrest]

supporting Katniss' mom as a character while my two main characters work through their mixed feelings toward her bc I think it's more realistic/in-character for them

like I agree with you guys!! unfortunately they are not quite there yet

[synonymroll648]

headcanon that as sophie ages, she gets more and more off-put by how she still looks twenty at some age past 40. the only wrinkles she has are smile lines and a barely-there crease between her eyebrows that never leaves. no gray hairs. it doesn’t feel like there’s any physical evidence of how much stress aged her too fast.

(maybe she dyes more grays into her hair to feel better about her reflection, the more time passes by. maybe, on bad days, she contours wrinkles into her skin with makeup. maybe the bad days get more frequent as she ages outside the human lifespan. maybe.)