#but I don't understand why that's appealing from a faith perspective

[glimblshanks]

It's so difficult, because I genuinely do want to understand what the whole deal with Christianity is, but Christians are so apposed to any line of questioning about their belief system (in a way that no other religion is) that if you say anything they don't like they shut down and accuse you of being a sinner.

And it's like bro, I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm trying to understand why this religion is even appealing to you. How do you manage to get so many converts when you're not even willing to answer basic questions about your theology?

Everyone I've found who's actually willing to discuss Christian theology with me is an ex-Christian which is super unhelpful, because ex-Christians are people who have deconstructed Christian belief and come to the conclusion that it doesn't work for them. They're always very cynical about the whole situation. That's not what I'm looking for.

I want to talk to someone who's still into it. I want to understand what actually draws people to this religion ( I do not want to be trauma dumped at - I don't know what aspect of Christian belief confuses y'all into thinking that trauma dumping is an appropriate substitute for theological discussion, but it absolutely isn't).

Like you would really think for one of the most popular religions in the world finding answers to this stuff would be easier. Why can't you guys just talk about your beliefs?

[familyabolisher]

sorry if you've already already answered this, but do you mind explaining your thoughts on anti-intellectualism (/the discourse surrounding it)? I'm trying to understand it but while I get how what is defined as intellectual is very selective etc, I took a lot of the discourse to be about how folks tend to ignore themes entirely for the literal, or not noticing obvious subtexual racism/propaganda and going 'it's not that deep' when folks point it out, the like.

maybe it's that I tend to hang around in sff circles bc stuff like that tends to proliferate there, and while I definitely think the mocking gets very over the top and cruel (+ ascribes a lot more importance to media than it has in reality) and I dislike the way folks seem to think it's a moral failure, from my perspective there is still things that are reasonable to criticise?

I'm genuinely asking this in good faith and trying to understand, sorry if there's something big/obvious I'm missing

i talked at length about my feelings on the discourse here; that post should cover most of what you're asking for, but to address your specific queries:

i understand what's meant by "[ignoring] themes entirely for the literal," but, to be blunt about it: i don't care! i have my way of engaging with what i like and you have yours, and if you're interested in my way then it's on me to keep the door open for you rather than sneering about how anyone who doesn't adhere to my preferred methodologies is beneath me. how we identify a reading that orients itself towards "themes" rather than the literal material of a text is already pretty incoherent and certainly not conclusive; many will argue that eg. writing fanfiction is fundamentally at odds with engaging with such 'themes,' but i don't see why that should be the case at all. my mantra for this kind of discourse is "worry about yourself"; discuss texts in the way you like to, and you'll probably encounter like-minded people who want to engage further, as well as interested parties who may not have thought about the approach you're taking before now but want to learn more. i think it's good to assume that we can't draw definitive conclusions about any one person's understanding of or approach to a text based on how we see them talk about it, and i think it's necessary to avoid making a character judgment based on a[n assumed] lack of xyz critical analysis skills.

& i talk about this in the linked post, but i think an appeal to an absence of 'intellectualism' wrt people refusing to engage with eg. racism in a text (or similar such bigotries) is obscurantist. it's not that people lack the intellectual capacity to engage with such criticisms and if they had these capabilities then they would be able to do so in a conscientious manner, else elite academic circles of literary studies would not invest significant time and effort in trivialising and dismissing readings of canonical works which speak frankly about their relationship to white supremacy. there are incredibly racist readings of texts which are wholly cohesive within the "intellectual" tradition of literary criticism; that tradition itself cannot be separated from the context of western imperialist hegemony from which it emerged, and nor can the critical practices which inform and perpetuate it. intellectualism alone has no explanatory power when talking about racist literature and racist readings of literature; it's a smokescreen behind which lie a handful of possible explanations that i touch on in the above post.

of course there are reasonable critiques to be made of which reading practices proliferate and which are sidelined, but "[anti]-intellectualism" is not an explanatory framework that i find actionable, because it is rooted in appeals to idealism rather than materialism.

[thyandrawrites]

On Nagi's emotional intelligence

One thing I find interesting about Nagi's character is that he's not only bad at getting across his emotions in a way that leaves little room for misunderstandings; he also struggles a lot to identify feelings (not just his but especially other people's) for what they are, and to put himself in other people's shoes.

Both the manga and Nagi's light novel offer several examples of this, and I noticed a common denominator in most of them. So I thought it could be fun to compile them in a post.

(long ramble under a cut! Contains slight manga spoilers up to manshine city arc)

Preface: I did not study psychology, and though I try my best not to misuse words and be insensitive, mistakes in good faith can happen. Please bear with me

So, what kicked off this whole thing is a scene from Episode Nagi. This one:

Now, without context it would be easy to write off Nagi as a self-centered genius who is looking down on team Z for being "weaker". And that's exactly how Isagi, who doesn't know Nagi prior to this, takes his questions. They're just a taunt, as if Nagi is mocking Team Z's determination to overturn the scores when they're a team that doesn't yet know its own skills fully.

And the thing is, regardless of Nagi's intentions, his words are condescending. He doesn't mean them to be, but you can't deny that calling someone stupid to his face is not conductive to a polite or constructive conversation, lol.

Unless you're Nagi Seishiro, that is.

Nagi... Doesn't seem to grasp that essentially calling team Z the bottom of the barrel while asking what keeps them going is... Well, rude. Patronizing, even. Which is why he looks so puzzled when Isagi's response is negative, and when he doubles down on his hunger for goals.

In his head, phrasing it this way was perfectly fine. He was genuinely asking, and he expected a response. He wanted to know, not to piss Isagi off and be left hanging.

The reason behind Nagi's obliviousness is of course a lack of social skills. We know he tends to keep to himself, preferring video games and the silent company of a cactus over social interactions, and it shows in how stilted his ability to properly communicate becomes over time.

But in the intro I said I don't think it's just a struggle with communicating what he means. I also interpret it as Nagi struggling to put himself in other people's shoes when their experiences don't mirror his, which complicates his attempts to communicate further.

What is translated as "What's his deal?" in the panel above in japanese has a bit more nuance than that, and it clues us in to what was likely going through Nagi's head a bit more.

"What's this creature (Isagi Yoichi)"

The kanji that compose Isagi's name are transcribed with a different reading (the furigana indeed reads "creature")

Now, if you read Nagi's light novel, the words might sound familiar:

(credits to @/ hoshi801_ on twitter for this translation)

That's because we have another example of Nagi being weirded out by and puzzled at how differently he and others seem to function.

From Nagi's perspective, he's not the weirdo, others are! He keeps observing this world where everyone puts effort into things that he only sees as a hassle, and he doesn't get how anyone can find any appeal in them. In other words, Nagi doesn't really understand how other people work (how they think, how they feel, what motivates them), and he tends to use himself as a metric for understanding them better, not realizing how flawed that approach is.

I also reckon this is why he can sometimes come across as lacking tact.

"it's easy for me. How come is it not easy for you?"

What he says to Bachira during the 4v4 seems like another prime example of Nagi attempting to figure out others by comparing them against himself.

In his intentions, this little speech serves as a way to get Bachira to step up his game. After all, had he really been fine with not picking him, he could've kept his mouth shut, won the match, and picked Rin as he said he would. No need to warn Bachira beforehand, giving him a chance to prove himself in the field and compete with Rin as the best choice moving forward.

But the words Nagi uses are familiar once again.

"Do you think you'll get chosen if you lose? Still living in dreamland? [...] I want Rin, and I bet Isagi feels the same." -> Nagi to Bachira

Vs "you'd be satisfied if I chose you here? You wanna act like a team even if we're not excited about it? You think becoming best in the world is that simple?" -> Nagi to Reo

And then

"We don't need you the way you are now." -> to Bachira above

Vs, "'You're fine as you are.' That's what you said to me, Reo, but... For me to dream with you about being the best again, I want to change." -> Nagi to Reo (in his head)

Nagi doesn't really understand Bachira, either, but he understands the bond Bachira shares with Isagi. Two separate times, he sees himself and Reo's relationship mirrored in it, and that's what prompts his "pep talk".

While he might not grasp what motivates Bachira's ego, Nagi knows what motivated himself. So he offers much the same to Bachira. You want to keep playing with Isagi, just like I want to keep playing with Reo. So change, like I did. Keep working towards that dream, and don't throw in the towel, accept defeat, and wait for Isagi to pick you.

Bachira and Isagi's bond is pretty much the only time we see Nagi try and succeed at relating to someone else's emotions. He's able to do this because he can sense the similarities between them. It's a pattern he's plenty familiar with. So we could say he's still applying that flawed method I talked about above. Understanding others by comparing them to himself, assuming they think the same way.

But I'd like to point out that while he does get their bond as far as it mirrors his and Reo's, Nagi still doesn't grasp the ways in which it differs. Namely, he remains oblivious to Bachira's desire for connection. Nagi is perfectly comfortable being a loner, and while he misses Reo, he adjusts to the separation quite easily, at least emotionally. Well, partly because he caused it, but also because from his perspective, he and Reo were never really apart-apart. They'd eventually meet up again, Nagi would tell him all about his side quests, and they'd be fast besties once again.

At least, that's what Nagi envisions, because Nagi is a straightforward person who doesn't really grasp other people's perspectives past his own personal experience.

For that reason, I think, he remains oblivious to how his advice to Bachira hits like a slap where the boy's at his most vulnerable. But it all works out in the end, so in the grand scheme of things, Nagi has no reason to give it more thought past this interaction. Nagi's team loses, Isagi advances with Bachira, all is well again.

If Nagi got away with giving this as little thought as possible, though, his dynamic with Reo doesn't give him the same easy out. Not for lack of trying on his part. Reo doesn't initiate conversations with him for days (weeks?) on end, and Nagi is fine with never questioning it.

Now, normally I'd make a point here about how Nagi's major weakness is his refusal to think hard about anything unless he's forced to—or about how that's the main hinder to his development to date—but that's a post for another day. Suffice to say, for the sake of this argument, that his willingness to let things stay tense between him and Reo is part of the problem here.

Well, "willingness" might not be the right term here. From his pov, there isn't any tension at all, in fact.

Again, because Nagi had a reason that justifies leaving Reo behind, he doesn't see a strain in their relationship until Reo points it out to him. Worse yet, he struggles to see Reo's viewpoint even after Reo does point it out to him.

He's as clueless as they come, and he's closest to Reo than anyone else in blue lock. Despite this, not only does he not realize why Reo is upset with him and doesn't want to link up anymore, he also fails to grasp that Reo's angry at him at all.

I ran out of image space so I'm just gonna quote the next bit:

N: "We promised, right? To win the world cup together. I've just kept making the best choices I could for that goal. During the rival battle, I thought I could get stronger if I went with Isagi. And I chose England because I thought I could learn from Agi and Chris. So, now it's you, Reo. You're stronger now, so you and I can beat Isagi, unlike last time."

To which Reo understandably replies,

R: "Damn, you really are a selfish jerk, you know that?"

Nagi doesn't seem to realize that if you are a team, you should, you know... Communicate with your partner. Instead, he decides for himself, without even asking for Reo's input, what's the best course of action to achieve their dream, doesn't share his thought process with Reo at all, embarks on said course alone, and then one day randomly decides to have Reo tag along in it.

In his head, I think it all makes sense to him because he assumes Reo already knows all this, intuitively. After all, that's how their whole dynamic has been built so far. When Reo isn't anticipating Nagi's needs before Nagi has uttered them aloud, Nagi is instinctively following the vision Reo set up with a pass, and completing it with a goal.

I'd say that the fact that they relied so heavily on silent communication for much of their time as friends is half the reason why they are so bad at communicating with actual words. I'm including Reo in this because he's equally guilty of it too, what with him saying "do what you want" aloud, only to wish for Nagi to stay without verbalizing that thought to him.

But I digress.

My point is, in the scene above, Nagi assumes Reo would be fine with the split because Nagi himself was. It doesn't even occur to him that Reo might see it as the negation of their promise to each other, or that he would feel abandoned and forgotten about (sorry, can't post pictures, but notice his shock at Reo's accusations. Chapter 187). After all, Nagi spent the whole time thinking about all the things he wanted to tell him.

Once again, much like with Isagi in the first selection, Nagi's puzzled and surprised at Reo's angry burst in response to his pushing; he assumes the drive he feels will be mirrored or at least understood by the other person, but instead he's turned down, faced with a negative reaction he doesn't quite understand.

As Reo puts it, Nagi's imagination comes short of letting him empathize with Reo's feelings. The choice to move on without him is purely functional, then, but from his perspective it never involved any emotional distance. To Reo, however, who was left with an easy to misunderstand parting speech, the hurt of a perceived loss strongly overshadowed anything else. Nagi doesn't anticipate Reo's emotional response over rationality because Nagi himself is not an emotion-driven person. He doesn't see that Reo would be plagued by self doubt because Nagi doesn't doubt his skills. He fails to see how his actions could easily be misconstrued as indifference because Nagi's not one to read hidden meaning into people's words, and assumes others take things as face value, too.

But that's more than communication failure! That consistent lack of effort to imagine how others would feel or act in a given situation is a pattern, at least imo.

I think Nagi never had to make that kind of effort before, since he was pretty much on his own, and in a lot of ways he's still adapting to having peers he trusts and that he wants to be trusted by in response

One could say this is as much a process to him as understanding his own ego for football is, and I find that really fascinating to watch

[ruthlesslistener]

We sure do live in a society, don't we.

The anons sending you hate are doing my head in. Like, I can completely understand why they bristled at your initial response, because as someone who writes Ghost as an adult in a child's body (hi, Gently, my beloved fic that is drowning from my dead muse), I had a kind of similar "hey wait" response at first.

But then you CLARIFIED. You took the time to ask, listen and let others educate you on another POV. It may not have changed your own personal HCs (and that's OK!!!), but you clarified your meaning was not people like me - it was not the average person who spurred it - and that's all anyone can really ask for. You don't have to agree with or ask people.

The best part of fandom is taking bits and pieces of each other's ideas and using them to decorate our sand castles and make them our own. That means "I wouldn't spin it that way but I liked reading how you did it." It also sometimes means "Oh I cannot get behind that but I respect your right to."

I think it says a lot that people are on anon, rather than actually talking to you and giving you a chance to engage with them one-on-one. I'm not sure I would label them trolls. I think their feelings got hurt and they are lashing out because of it, in an impolite way, rather than stopping to listen to explanations. I am going to give the benefit of doubt and assume that ill-intent wasn't meant, and that the reason they're on anon is that anxiety has them going "if I say it on my main, I'm going to get flamed because I offended popular tumblr user." To that I say: If you weren't on anon, Aren could've replied privately to you, and likely would have. A one-on-one conversation can go a large way for trying to clear up misunderstandings.

TBH, I probably could've just sent all of this on Discord but I just am frustrated. Asks like the ones you received are why I am terrified of sharing my own headcanons, why I assume anyone asking me ANY opinions has bad faith, and why everything I say has a giant ass disclaimer on it with "THIS IS LIKE, JUST MY OPINION GUYS" and we shouldn't have to do that. We shouldn't have to sit and police everything that we say because Someone Might Twist It.

Anyway, sorry. I just needed to put this out here because I was about to blow up on my own blog. lmao

Thank you tumblr user grollow I appreciate it immensely and I agree with everything you said about fandom being a sandbox made more fun by people having different ideas that make things fun to play with. It's just that I've been off in my corner playing relatively on my own for a bit, which kinda fucks over the amount of context you get on things a bit. And also the miscommunication had the misfortune of landing squarely in the intersection between 'things I really don't like' and 'things that have a canon basis but lack canonical descriptive details', turning it into a shitshow. Which I really really fucking wish didn't happen, even if I did enjoy discussing the pros and cons of different mental interpretations of Ghost and was able to come to the conclusion that it's about as appealing to me as a slice of apple pie. Which is to say, I like certain bits of it and will gladly nibble at said bits, but if there's any other option out there I'd take it over pie anyday. It's not bad and I certainly do enjoy it in extremely specific context, but it also doesn't appeal to me in the slightest and there's certain parts that I refuse to touch altogether (the texture of cooked fruit makes me cringe and nauseates me, much like the idea of Ghost being an adult trapped in a child's body from a horror perspective incites panic). But that's fine, bc then I can just plop the filling onto a friend's plate for their enjoyment, and nibble away at the bits I like in piece. My dislike of pie doesn't extend to the people who enjoy it, nor do I get upset when my brother refuses to eat what I cook for him. He's picky, I'm picky, I've got no right to judge. He's just as valid for saying my cream cheese frosting is gross as I am for thinking him refusing to eat anything but mac n cheese and scrambled eggs is gross. Same concept with fandom here

(And honestly, my judgement on the whole minor/adult thing is seperate from Ghost as a character altogether. I'm of similar mind with Miquella of Elden Ring, who is canonically an adult trapped in a child's body. Having a relationship with him in his child form would be fucked up- hell, even Mohg goes for breaking the curse first, and Mohg is canonically fucking insane! This isn't something limited to just one fandom, it's a hard line I draw in fiction in general)

Also yeah, I totally would have just worked it out in private, but I get the feeling the anon thinks I'm running some sort of clique or something over here where I would have twisted it into clout somehow. Which needless to say, I would not fucking do. Can't say this enough, but I'm autistic as all getout and had to deal with that enough in high school so I have nothing but contempt for that sort of behavior.

[thatscarletflycatcher]

Can you talk more about the heavily distorted tropes derived from Jane Eyre pls Miss Flycatcher 👀

XD

There isn't that much more to it than what I summarized in that previous post, really.

I think the most common one is the "Jane Eyre is I can fix him", which is a pretty common romance trope in JE inspired novels, but that isn't really featured in the novel. When Jane discovers Rochester is married, she leaves him, despite all his begging and pleading and excusing himself and promising she wouldn't be just another mistress. She owes it to her principles and respect of self to do so. And she only returns when she is supernaturally prompted to return, and marries him not only because he's now free to marry, but because he's had a change of heart through Divine punishment.

I think also Rochester is a huge source of inspiration for the suave asshole with a heart of gold and a sad backstory. The problem is that Rochester isn't really any of those things. He's ugly and weird in his manners and speech -his sexual history is mainly about paying women to be with him, and his marriage 95% arranged- most of his bad behavior stems from his being an insecure idiot, and the sad backstory is sad-ish, because in the end he has means to escape and dull his heart and senses that most other people don't.

I think that a lot of the "girl, he has his wife in the attic" sentiment comes from romance novels taking this transformed type and making the hero's sins non-sins. Like, in a contemporary sense, his having had mistresses and such is a *wink* sin *wink*, something the reader is asked to pretend to delightfully clutch their pearls about while the character is made more attractive by sex appeal and the expectation that he'll know how to please in bed. So, with that perspective we come to JE and are shocked that the guy has... actual sins, things that are ugly and not "naughty" in terms of "naughty Halloween costume", and assume the narrative is taking that same perspective -that Rochester's sins are meant to be winked and dismissed by the reader- but I don't think it is? Jane understands Rochester's motivations, has sympathy for his pain, and loves him for it, but cannot condone his wrongdoings or accept his worldview as accurate and right.

Ultimately at the heart of this is the reality that religion and faith are heavily featured and baked into the plot and themes of Jane Eyre, and the novel cannot be fully understood and reproduced in its mechanics without it (at least not in a form that completely makes sense in terms of why it ends the way it ends), because so much of it hinges on Divine Providence, forgiveness, and mercy.

[iwonderwh0]

Cyberlife caused like 40 percent unemployment and created a substance half the country (US) is addicted to lol the most unrealistic part of that game is how people aren’t destroying androids literally constantly left and right. Zoomer Gavin hating a physical embodiment of corporate greed and government compliance to a tech cooperation at the expense of the poorest in America is pretty believable. Yeah he’s written as a bully from Connor’s perspective but he just kind of makes sense to me.

I don't know what was the point of you writing it cuz I completely agree. Was it about my confusion about the popularity of this character? He's an asshole regardless of his android opinions, he's quite canonically this trigger-happy cop who likes to abuse his powers (the first one in line to suggest to "roughen-up a little" and things like that) I have no faith that he behaves much better around human criminals than he does around androids, so it's not a defining factor of his character, I think, at least it's not for me. And I mean, it's good to have those characters in a story, they're much needed, and I've even written a couple of posts exploring his character (because it is interesting to explore him, as a character)

I don't take any of it back. I just don't understand why he's so loved and redeemed to the point of his unpleasant qualities being forgotten completely. I like him being canonically agressive cop, and honestly wish he could be more often represented in this light.

A little PSA:

Not being a fan of a character and not understanding the appeal != hating on him or everyone of those who likes him

[eradicatetehnormal]

Terminally Online, Pseudo-politcal Rant.

I was watching a video essay the other day about how right-wing talking points are bad. Its conclusion was that they don't have to be good or compelling arguments because they're appealing to people who already agree with them. To a certain extent, they're correct. It does seem that as of late, the right-wing has resorted less to debating people on the street or on college campuses and more to circling their hatred for trans people and other "degenerate" groups.

In a way, that might signal a good thing. A party that's increasingly incapable of defending itself? Doesn't seem very strong to me. They're still pretty being, of course, if MAGA and Project 2025 are to indicate anything (for fucks sake, give me money for a passport). I do wonder where they'll be in the next 10 years or when Donald Trump dies. A lot of Republican politicians have been having "negative rizz" as of late. I'm side-tracking, though.

The problem I have with that essayist leaving the conversation there is that it might perpetuate this very Twitter, lazy leftist idea that there's no point in refuting bad talking points or educating people about a subject. That's likely not what that person meant, but it's where that idea could lead.

I'm not saying that people should just go around, looking for right-wingers to debunk and dunk on. That carries its own set of problems by making the left wing look catty and disingenuous. People can use their own platforms to talk about various issues and the right lens to see something. The thing is, not engaging and just yelling in an echo chamber, over time can make the left wing look incoherent and nonsensical.

Imagine you're just a normal, center-leaning person logging into Twitter to keep up with your favorite celebrity, and you see a right winger being like, "Western society won't be fixed until the perversion or trans ideology and crt is pushed out of our schools." To which that centrist might think "What the fuck is crt and trans ideology? This person sounds outlandish." Then they see a left-winger all like, "The rates of women who have reported being SA'd are abysmal, but let's not forget about our black and indigenous sisters who were trafficked and never had a search done for them." To which the centrist might say, "Why is this person centering black and native women on an issue that affects all women? This person also sounds outlandish." From their perspective, there's not just one dumbass in an echo chamber, but two dumbasses in an echo chamber, since they didn't grow up around an outwardly conservative community and don't listen to enough of those people to flat out being transphobic or racist, nor do they have an understanding of intersectional politics.

Some might say, "Well this post is just making people engage with optics and identity politics. We have nothing to prove!" I get where this is coming from. A lot of great people and activists were pushed out of communities or silenced because people felt that they optically made them look bad. To the person who says this, though, have you ever supported the de-platforming of a leftist or liberal because of their bad takes or terrible behavior? Guess what? You care about optics. Part of the reason you wanted them gone was because, they were toxic and annoying to deal with, but another part of that reason was likely because they were garnering an audience who may go around acting like them or using their arguments, which could lead to a large group of people misrepresenting and hurting a movement.

We need to get better at distinguishing people who are trying to insult or belittle us from people who are asking questions in good faith. We also need to learn when to end a conversation. Having the last word does not always make you look good. If you get frustrated easily or you get nervous, you don't have to engage. It's just worth explaining what you mean, on occasion. Throwing in a statistic every now and then (rarely ever personal life experience, because not only is it not the best evidence, but people will try to belittle it).

[bitchatcloudtower]

Do you think Musa is Chinese and Flora Hispanic if they’re in the magical world and there’s no china or latin america in magix?

I don't think calling Musa strictly Chinese is accurate. I understand she's based on a Chinese woman but the aspects of Asian culture we see being drawn from aren't strictly Chinese and I don't think it's right or fair to ignore the other influences present, even if it was done because of orientalist views.

I think coding is more for the audience's sake than world building. By coding them the way they are, we're being told something. And sometimes what we're being told is simply just "this is what they'd look like to us" From a marketing perspective, we are being told as viewers: oh she's just like you, you should support us for having a character that is like you. I know I related to Musa simply because she looked like me, and I know that was the case for a lot of other young girls. Especially for young POC for whom having characters that look like them is a rarity. It gives people something to latch onto and raises the chances of them sticking around but making us connecting to a character in that way. On the flip side: sometimes, coding can be done to conveying a stereotype the audience may already have. A less subtle example: I don't think it's a coincidence that the Wrong-Righters are coded as Japanese, it feels quite intentional given the tropes being employed when it comes to their behaviour and the little we see of their characters. Or even 4Kids' Tecna being English where none of the others are. Yeah, England doesn't exist in 4Kids Winx Club anymore than China or Latin America do, but it's pulling from the assumption that the largely American audience (for whom the dub was made) views English people (or at least people with that accent) as inherently more intelligent, so we, as a presumably American audience that holds this stereotype, see Tecna (English) as being smarter than the other (non-English) girls. (Don't ask me why the Wizards are coded as whatever the fuck they are, I don't speak Wizard lore.) I'm not sure about the intentions behind coding Musa or Flora that way, but diversity is often used as something to capitalise on, and that's what I think is the case with Winx. Especially given the way it keeps changing/being changed so as to appeal to whatever market they choose to target.

Story-wise, you're right. Asia and Latin America don't exist in the Magical Dimension. But it does on Earth. (We see the Winx go to China at some point in the later seasons (don't ask me which one, I just remember seeing badly written Chinese and the Great Wall.)) And you know who's from Earth? Bloom. The character whose eyes we see through for the entirety of the show. To Bloom, and us, Musa and Flora and Layla are coded as Asian, Latina, and Black respectively, but to the other magical characters, those distinctions don't exist. To Bloom, there isn't as clear of a distinction between the fairies, witches, and specialists beyond what they do but it's entirely likely that to someone raised in magical society that those distinctions are much more obvious.

Finally, I don't like this argument. I'm assuming you are asking in good faith, but this is very reminiscent of "well if Asia/Latin America don't exist in Winx Club then why can't we cast white people in these roles?" We don't exist in the world of Winx Club, we exist on Earth where these regions do actually exist and are wildly mistreated by western societies. And since Winx was created on Earth and we'd be casting this on Earth for an Earth audience, those distinctions do matter.

[project1939]

Day 61- Film: The Snows of Kilimanjaro 

Release date: September 17th, 1952. 

Studio: 20th Century Fox 

Genre: Adventure 

Director: Henry King 

Producer: Darryl F. Zanuck 

Actors: Gregory Peck, Susan Hayward, Ava Gardner, Leo G. Carroll, Torin Thatcher, Ava Norring 

Plot Summary: Harry Street, a famous writer, is dying of gangrene in Africa. While waiting for help to arrive, his latest wife tries to make him comfortable. As he confronts death, he reminisces about his past loves, and especially his first wife, Cynthia. 

My Rating (out of five stars): *** ½  

(Spoilers) This is another one of those movies that is so mixed, it’ll be hard to write about. There were many good things about it, but a lot of it didn’t work. Much of the trouble, from my perspective, comes from the attempt to adapt the original short story into a Hollywood production. Almost all of the problems the film had were changes made to the original work.  

The Good: 

Gregory Peck. He was perfect as a masculine writer and lover of women. He was good at letting the right amount of emotion creep through at the right times. He played a dying man really well, too- he successfully showed the anxiety, the pain, the reflection, and even the irritation with people around him. I cared about his character, even though I didn’t totally like him. 

The Technicolor. The print I saw on Youtube was beautiful, vibrant, and warm.

Gregory Peck in Technicolor. We’re talking about one of the most insanely gorgeous and sexy men of the Classical Hollywood era here- then add that luscious color... It could be the most boring movie in the world, and I would still be captivated just watching him! 

The location footage. There was a lot of cool footage of Africa, especially the wildlife footage. It was clearly filmed on location.

Susan Hayward. I liked her in this. She’s absolutely stunning in Technicolor as well, and I liked her complicated character. She loves Peck, but she also knows he doesn’t really love her. 

The ominous eerie feel to the present scenes in Africa. It almost feels like there’s a plodding drumbeat in the background, counting down Peck’s last moments on Earth. It’s very chilling. 

Hildegarde Knef. She was in Diplomatic Courier, and I loved her in that. This role didn’t give her nearly as much to do, but I enjoyed seeing her. I loved the scene when she was sculpting. 

The Bad: 

The ending! The ending! I knew Hollywood would probably change it, but I had a little hope they might not. They let Bette Davis die at the end of Dark Victory, right? Sadly, Hollywood would not stay faithful to the material this time. The fact that Peck survived just stripped most of the power from the story. Then it got worse, because they made him suddenly fall in love with Susan Hayward as well! It was just the kind of ridiculous thing you’d fear. 

Ava Gardner. I don’t know why, but there is just something I don’t like about her. Maybe it’s cause she’s such a “man’s woman” type and I don’t find her appealing at all... But her being cast as Peck’s one true love did not work for me. I didn’t care about her, I didn’t care about their romance, and I didn’t understand why she had such pull over Peck for the whole movie. 

The whole plot with Ava Gardner. I suppose I addressed a lot of that above! But, as I wrote, the whole thing was a miss for me. 

The absurdly ludicrous reunion of Peck and Gardner in Spain. Hemingway never would have written such a stupidly unbelievable scene. 

The rear projection and sets for Africa, especially when juxtaposed with actual location footage. Both the rear projection and the sets were so obvious it was distracting. 

The whole idea that ambushing and shooting a large animal proves a guy's manhood. Same with the bullfighting. I don't get why these things are supposed to prove how macho a man is. It bores me.

The way the whole story had to be cleaned up for Hollywood. No prostitutes, of course. Marriage to all the women, of course. Attrition for sins, of course.  

[disgruntledexplainer]

John Wick doesn't understand Gnosticism, thank Theus

something I find rather amusing is that the author John Wick (not to be confused with the movie assassin), who wrote the TTRPGs Legend of the Five Rings and 7th Sea, has an incredible grasp of the history and behavior of a variety of religious a cultural groups, to the point where he can create compelling and nuanced fictional religions which I could very well see actually existing in the real world.

but his understanding of the associated terminology is essentially non-existent.

the most egregious case of this is the Reformed Vaticine Church of the Prophets from the 7th Sea setting. He describes it as if "the Catholic Church took a more gnostic approach to faith". except his interpretation of gnosticism is so vastly different than historical gnosticism that it is practically a complete inversion of it.

which is great, because gnosticism was some of the most incoherent elitism refuse to ever exist.

gnosticism, in all of it's variations, was a belief that man is saved by secret knowledge. this is as opposed to the Catholic belief that man is saved by faith through works. A Gnostic would believe in a secret scripture which provides the true path to salvation, and only those who comprehend this revelation could achieve salvation, or transcendence, or whatever else the particular sect desired. in effect, salvation was essentially restricted to the elite, literate, academic class, and of them only those who had that particular book. on top of that, the message of the book was deliberately obscured so only the worthy could obtain it, with the worthy being those of sufficient education.

gnosticism flew in the face of the Christian belief that God wants everyone, especially the poor and the simple, to be saved by His Grace. Gnosticism ultimately died because of it's bizarre mean-spirited nature and it's deliberate exclusivity appealed only to the ancient equivalent of the modern basement-dwelling neckbeard.

if you want a good example of what the Gnostics actually did, look at the Borborites. or don't, because they were rather vile in a way that makes those edgy atheists at the Satanic Temple look tame.

now, how exactly is the Reformed Vaticine Church of the Prophets, a supposed fictional "gnostic" faith, the inverse of this elitist pattern. while it puts a very large emphasis on learning and education, it COMPLETELY DROPS the exclusivity aspect of gnosticism. The Vaticine Church of the Prophets does EVERYTHING IN IT'S (rather considerable) POWER TO ENSURE THAT THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE POSSIBLE KNOW IT'S "SECRET" KNOWLEDGE. among other things, this means free education for everyone who seeks it, spreading literacy and scientific learning as far as possible.

further, it also drops the idea that knowledge alone saves, adopting a more Catholic perspective of the integration of faith and works. effectively, a member of the Vaticine faithful must not just KNOW the truth to be saved, but also act on it.

the reason for this is simple: John Wick, in his efforts to make Gnosticism make sense for an organized religion, inadvertantly MADE GNOSTICISM MAKE SENSE. he rationalized WHY secret knowledge would save someone, a sort of spiritual mechanic which does not really exist in true gnosticism.

the simple explanation of the Vaticine Church's beliefs on salvation is that everyone is saved by default (as opposed to real world christian and muslim belief that damnation is the default), allowing them to go to a heavenly realm of enlightenment upon death, but that a person's actions in life add a kind of "weight" to their soul which will ultimately drag them down to the Abyss. The Vaticine Church of the Prophets holds knowledge of WHICH ACTIONS SEND ONE TO THE ABYSS, WHICH THEY NOTABLY TRY TO MAKE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE EVEN TO PEOPLE WITHOUT AN EDUCATION TO SPEAK OF. the Vaticine Church is also equiped with Sacraments to aid in the lifting of this weight where it already exists.

in short, they are anti-elitist.

all other seeking of knowledge for the Vaticines is a sort of bonus enlightenment. they believe that their God, Theus, literally created the world for the express purpose of allowing humans to understand it; as such the highest form of worship is philosophical and scientific investigation.

this is explicitly opposed to typically gnostic focus on knowledge which is essentially useless outside of the gnostic's desire to achieve salvation or transcendence; Vaticine knowledge ACTIVELY IMPROVED THE WORLD AROUND THE PRACTITIONER IN EXTREMELY PRACTICAL WAYS. Vaticine philosophy has resulted in a very egalitarian society in countries where their philosophy is the strongest, such as Castille, Eisen, and mainland Vodacce (though notably not the islands of Vodacce which are riddled by a horrifically inverted version of the faith). Vaticine science resulted in medical advances which actually HALTED THAT WORLD'S VERSION OF THE BLACK DEATH. in other words, where gnostics were simultaeneously elitist and useless, Vaticines are egalitarian and BADASS.

finally, theologically speaking the Vaticines have MUCH more in common with Reform Judaism than gnosticism. read the actual text of the core rulebooks to see what I mean. and of course structurally and behaviorally they are pretty much identical to the Catholic Church. there is not a true Gnostic feature to be seen, thank Theus.

Anyways, all that to say thank you John Wick for not understanding Gnosticism, it actually improved your fantasy world.

[ccimpj-blog]

Thinking

You lead me beside still waters.

And,

I can walk On Top of Storming waters!

The first statement details a safe place where sheep (those who need to be led) feel Comfortable.

The second statement speaks of having an intense Singular ability to Focus and Be Determined to Follow (Go After) their Comfort Instead of Being led (made willing to go) into Comfort.

In Context, Comfort is to give strength - our effort and energy; and hope, which is the motive for giving our efforts and energy; to an idea, situation, or person.*

The characteristics of Comfort point to the means, motives, and intentions for the when, how, why, and wherewithal - the principle value - of a thing.

Simply, We Tend to Focus Our Attention on finding 'What is Worthy of Valor (Courage)' as the reason for giving effort, energy, and our life to a venture.

Okay

Don't mistake my tone as an appeal to say, "DON'T BE SHEEP!" To be clear, I understand that In Life, a sheep's disposition, as an analogy, gives a perspective on Conquering (Gaining Mastery) from Humility (Liberty within Limits).

From this viewpoint, Humility is to live in a state of "freedom from pride."* Following this path, Freedom can be the "absence of coercion."* or "Not giving Attention to compelling urges!" So Humility is a Creed - system of belief - and not a character trait!

Sheep adhere to the Shepherd's Creed. Therefore, the rules of engaging the sheepfold are structured from the principles that govern the Author of its design.

Paying Attention to the pattern develops the skills to Trust Discipline's Directions. Simply, The Endurance to Trust the Process. Learning to live and build with our natural limitations while surrounded by enemies and opposing "friends and loved ones" at our table—a concept well developed and understood by King David, a former shepherd.

In contrast, we are NEVER TO BE Another sheep's sheep. We're NOT qualified to BE for Others WHAT WE DON'T HAVE for Ourselves—morally speaking.

The Second Statement

There are moments in space to be trained under the mighty hand of Humility. Courage shares Equal Points in Time! To be Courageous is to have the "mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty."* Impossible to do without Humility!

Humility gives us awareness of who and what we are by realizing the resources available, like the people, places, and things presently accessible.

Courage is a Demonstration of Effort by Entrusting Credit or Intentionally confiding in a trustworthy reputation!

Courage is developed in our minds. Our Idea of resolving solutions caters to the suggested concepts we'll choose to conceive as courageous expressions. So our Source of Comfort Needs to Be the Same in All situations.

As established earlier, the concept of Comfort is the Give our Efforts to the Idea of Hope - a promised or suggested outcome we Value. In the biggest picture, there are only two Concepts of value. Truth and Justice or our version of it. From a biblical perspective, God or money.

GOD: Source of First Principle Value;

Money: Our means for establishing what we value.

If arranged in the proper Order. Truth and Justice will be the Source of Value, giving us unlimited Capital from the Offspring of legitimate Currency. Or, from a biblical perspective, Have Faith In God, The Father (First Cause, The Principal), and Son (First Law, The Principal's Principle) by The Comforter, The Holy Spirit, The THOUGHT that Governs The ARCHITECT of the design.

Concluding

To cut it short, I'll round up to the point. Humility + Courage produces the Means and Opportunity to Accomplish "The Good" in Life while Living Well throughout every season and moment in space.

I perceive this thought while meditating on this subject:

I have to lead my life from my subconscious. That's how I Consciously Follow my Intelligence. Becoming One with My Self and CREED!

Reference Tools (online)

Merriam-Webster dictionary

Oxford's Writer's thesaurus dictionary

Etymology online

BlueLetterBible

Bible app

Psalms 23; Matt. 14:22-33; Eccl. 3:9-15

"Comfort." Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comfort. Accessed 12 May. 2023.

"Humility." Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humility. Accessed 12 May. 2023.

"Freedom." Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom. Accessed 12 May. 2023.

"Courage." Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/courage. Accessed 12 May. 2023.

[btheshoe]

A game theoretic approach to networking

Please note that i am a dumbo who has done little and knows little; evaluate this argument on its quality and not on trust that i'm a big official dude who actually knows things cuz i kinda don't

The most common advice I hear (and give) about networking is something along the lines of

"Don't think of it as networking - try to establish a real relationship. When messaging people on LinkedIn, don't just ask for a referral. Instead, ask for a short meeting for advice and perspective, and then ask for a referral afterwards".

I really like this advice. And I think the principle behind this advice is baked in game theory.

The purpose of networking is to create long term, mutually beneficial relationships. But starting these relationships is difficult, because it tends to involve one party making a leap of faith and doing a favor without much trust that the favor will be returned. From a game theoretic perspective, this is a stable outcome – it’s optimal to receive a favor and not return it. But if this is the only outcome, then no relationships will ever be formed. The solution is to shift the game to a repeated one – in essence indicating that doing a favor will be responded in turn.

For those unfamiliar: here's a basic description of the underlying theory. I think the prisoner's dilemma donation game is a good model for networking. In it, two independent agents can choose either to donate (cooperate) to benefit the other agent at a personal cost, or to defect and not donate. The key is that favors tend to benefit the receiver more than they cost the giver - so if both agents choose to donate, then both will benefit overall, because they benefit more from a favor being done for them than giving a favor costs them.

In the short term, it's difficult to assure that both agents will always choose to give - because the most optimal outcome is to have a favor done for you without taking the cost of doing a favor yourself. But when shifting to a long term framework of repeating the game over many iterations between the same agents, one can adopt what is called a tit for tat strategy - choosing to cooperate on the first iteration, and then copying what the other agent does on every further iteration - encouraging the other agent to cooperate. This produces the best outcome - a stable, long term, mutually beneficial relationship where both agents continue to choose to take on the small personal cost of donating.

To be clear - the math-y analysis isn't the main reason why I like the advice for networking. It's more that it appeals to my fuzzy social and moral instincts - if you forced me to explain more exactly, I'd say something like

"I feel uncomfortable asking for favors from someone I don't know personally, and who doesn't know they can trust me. And the real point of networking is to get to know more people on a personal level because having more friends makes me happy (the real treasure was the friends we made along the way <3)."

And solely depending on a math-y approach is probably wrong, because the people you're networking with are guided more by the same social instincts that you have than some hyper-rational game theory analysis. But in general, I think that our social and moral instincts are how evolution helped us navigate game theory in a time before scientists figured it out and we could navigate these situations cognitively. And our evolved social instincts definitely can't navigate game theory perfectly, but they do tend to reflect, somewhat, the principles of game theory, and they tend to navigate simple situations fairly well. So it's probably beneficial, as you go network, to understand the principles behind these fuzzy social instincts. After all, reasoning from first principles tends to be better than memorizing methods - think the cook/chef dichotomy.

The advice to create a more personal relationship, then, is really advice on how to signal that you’re looking to play long term, repeated games. And the principle behind a good approach to networking is to strongly signal that you're looking (and able) to play a mutually beneficial, long term, tit for tat game.

[gelmaah]

What to expect when volunteering at a church - bass edition.

Today I'll go over why and how I made my application to the church to sign up for the worship team as a bassist. Confidence boost.

September blog post (2022) 🏃‍♂️

This month I signed up for the church praise (worship) team at my local church's youth division (11-18 years old). It was a risky decision, especially when considering that there is a very possible circumstance where I fail the application or the auditioning process–but if I didn't do it now it'd take too long I'll never muster up the courage to do it.

(photo of the church, circa sunday)

I'll go over the application process and some of the questions they asked/what they focused on so that if you also want to get involved in serving your church or simply volunteering, you have an idea of what they'd ask.

Why did I sign up?

It's simple really.

Ever since I joined that church mid-December last year after two years of covid, I felt somewhat belonged and accepted in a community–in person, for once. This strangely enough gave me the confidence that I didn't have before to slowly begin to inch my way into friendships–making me less prone to reverting back to the avoidant behaviours I had as I start to have more positive experiences with social relationships that allowed me to expand my area of comfort in social situations.

It also helped that church-wide and service-wide (youth) activities were common, letting us learn more about faith as well as doing something active (applying) to feel more connected to the church members and faith itself. This included winter concerts, bible studies, sports days ('olympics'), volunteering opportunities (teaching kids ☺️), and retreats.

I think the religious context also helps to boost the connection between the members and their willingness to be assertive.

I don't know too much about religion despite being religious… But one thing is true; the church community itself has helped me out a lot in terms of social confidence and belonging.

And I want to divert some of my intentions of learning the bass as an opportunity to serve the community that gave me this comfort. Working to understand faith and helping others feel more connected emotionally and spiritually as well through the worship songs we offer in the beginning and the end of services.

I recommend that joining these types of open, welcoming communities in your local area (whether it is religious or not) is a healthy experience where you can become closer with people and feel comfortable taking risks to improve your confidence.

What is the application like?

The application was for a church, so the content may differ but the concepts should be similar if you're applying for something else:

The application process initially consisted of going up to the youth pastor and asking him for an application–nerve wrecking stuff.

2. Once he takes a week to send you your application, you fill it out:

The applications can ask you for a minimum (e.g. minimum 3 sentences), so be prepared to provide your perspective that'll also appeal to (fit the context of) the organization.

Some general questions include:

Why do you want to join the praise team? Explain the why, what motivated for you to do this, from simple interest to service

How does the bible define leadership? (i.e. how do x define x -> e.g. how do you define service?) Asks you to define something, while offering your opinion, you should try to acknowledge the position of the organization to show your understanding

Why do you believe that consistent attendance and dedicated commitment is important for this team setting? Questions your commitment–the organization is asking, is this person worth our time and resources, will they gain anything out of it?

Without referring to other sources, what is the gospel (can be replaced for contextual content)? Honesty question, being truthful here doesn't hurt–just show your willingness to be open-minded and appeal with your attitude.

Any comments? Is there anything that you couldn't express with the questions? Asking a question, especially a genuine one helps demonstrate your interest.

3. He forgets about you for a month until the very week you go on a weeklong kayaking expedition.

4. Apologize and be asked to meet another day where he's too busy to help you understand what is going on.

5. Be accepted while eating dinner over text. 🍘🎉

...

The point is it took a while and it might take a while for you too.

Organizers/leaders tend to be busy and can forget about you accidentally, so make sure to reach out to them in a timely manner as to not result in a miscommunication.

You can set out to cause change if you take the time and effort into doing it, so don't be afraid to try–if you fail, then it was an experience, if you succeed, that's it.

bye~

[shimadatales]

So glad to see the ask box is open!! Your imagines are so amazing! How would Hanzo feel about having a younger s/o, like someone 19? You don't have to do this request if you don't want to! Thank you 💖

Aa, thank you so much! ;u; Your kind compliment made my day

- Tobe quite honest, the age difference would put him off at first, but that ismostly because Hanzo himself thinks lowly of his own personality and generallythinks you would deserve someone your own age, full with hopes and dreams likeyourself. He would feel as if he’d only hold you back from certain things thatyou enjoy, viewing himself as a rather old and boring person while you are anelegant flower. This obviously is far from the truth, as you are open mindedand caring enough to convince him to think more worthy of himself. Finding asuitable partner is not about the age or body type, after all, it is the spiritthat counts most and the archer had to admit, that you were quite the matureyoung individual already for you to be having such thoughts.

- Forthat reason, it was hard to ignore you really. He had tried moving on from you,only brushing off his feelings as just a fancy for your youthful appearance,your young beauty you can say. Over time though, he couldn’t help but becomeinfatuated with you and found you more endearing every passing day he spentwith you, as you quietly talked and laughed over a cup of tea whenever youwould cross paths. You had many things in common with each other, which madethe age gap less noticeable in return. Hanzo is also fond of the childlikeinnocence you hold, it makes him feel more at ease and perhaps even restores hisown faith in the world for a little. Thanks to your persistence, the marksmanhad no choice but to stay at your side while being thankful for your company inthe process. He never would have expected that such a fragile being likeyourself wanted to have anything to do with his older regal character, butthere was no denying it that the both of you matched pretty well and as the teaceremonies spent with you became more frequent, the both of you found equals ineach other, both intellectually as well as socially.

- Eventhough Hanzo had now accepted your company, he was still feeling like a hugefool for even asking you out for dinner and laying his heart out to you, thetiny devil in his head not quite leaving him yet. Before confessing to you, hekept reminding himself that your spirits both matched and that you were alreadyan official adult by now, completely able to make your own choices wisely. No,you were not an ordinary young person, you had already flourished into so muchmore. He especially noticed it in the way you talked, your grammar andvocabulary a lot more complex than most people your age would use, as well asyour interests. This was also the reason why most people at the Overwatch basewere fond of you, you could converse freely with them and any bystander wouldthink you were around their age, the youth you carried with you not beingevident in your voice or mannerisms at all. Hanzo had gotten to know youthrough the exact same way for that matter, it was for your passion rather thanyour age. A passionate soul that simply moved itself in a blooming vessel.

- Stillthough, he couldn’t help but feel nervous as he admired you greatly now and wasstill not fully convinced you would choose someone that much older thanyourself, no matter how open minded and accepting you were. The grey in hishair was showing after all and suddenly the archer felt more self-consciousabout that than before and changed his general look over the weekend tohopefully appeal more to you. You were shocked to say the least when younoticed him standing outside your door, but chuckled at his silly reasoningonce he explained himself. You told him it was in no way necessary to pimphimself up like that, as you were already in love with the Japanese warriorfrom the start and even found his grey strands rather divine looking. While yousmiled and laughed with joy as you accepted his confession, Hanzo could onlylook on helplessly at you, a mixture of adoration and confusion on his face asyour understanding and big hearted personality once again rendered himspeechless. You were a true being, he was certain of that now and you were histo protect from now on.

- Duringthe beginning of your relationship, things would be a little awkward at first,mostly because Hanzo would be too careful with you. The man would be so afraidof crossing any boundaries, as he still struggles with his self-image. He wouldneed reassurance now and then, knowing that you’re still attracted to and in lovewith him, as he can sometimes feel disgusted with himself at touching you,often asking for permission in the early stages. You would be hurt butunderstanding of his way of thinking, always making sure to be there to comforthim or initiate physical touch yourself to show him you enjoy it and that it’sfine for him to do the same to you if he wishes to do so. You are his littleblossom and that image might be a bit hard to get out of him in the beginning.Not that he thinks that you’re helpless, but he just wants to pamper and providefor you, seeing as you are such a wonderful young person. If you tell him it isunnecessary though, Hanzo will surely try to change himself and give you somemore space. You are an adult already after all and know your fair share ofmartial arts as well as having a healthy perspective of life.

- Asyour relationship progresses, the archer would become more confident in youstaying with him and that he indeed has a real chance with, seeing as you haven’tmade any moves on leaving him yet which he is incredibly happy for. He feelsblessed to have such a refreshing soul beside him and the both of you learn alot from each other as well, since you have different but matching mindsetsafter all. In a way, you two resemble his brother and omnic master Zenyatta,but then more romantically involved. There is a lot of mutual understanding andpeace between you two despite your age difference. Due to the rise in hisconfidence, many forehead and hand kisses would occur, as Hanzo now likes tomake you flustered and generally act like a true gentleman to give you the loveyou deserve. He would still never cross any boundaries though and if anyone betweenyou both is initiating something more intimate, he still won’t hesitate to askyou for permission first. Your comfort is his top priority and he will not swayfrom that path by risking anything.

- Thetwo of you like to talk about your goals and dreams as well, Hanzo mostlytalking about the ones of his past when he was still the heir to his clan, whilehe listens intently to your visions for the future in the meantime. He would besharing all of them with you and he honestly never felt more blessed in hislife as you stared at the starlit sky together while you’re laying protectivelyin his hold. Many cute dates to café’s or cozy restaurants are also an annualthing for you both. The archer discovers so many different but exciting thingswith you, which he didn’t have the eye for at first, making the experience everthe more enjoyable. And even though he would never admit it, you do in factmake him feel younger. Not just finding his own style, but also his own innerchildlike joy and interests. His spirit had been trapped for so long, onlyfocusing on training and discipline, that it felt like such a big relief nowthat he could be his true self again after such a long time. Perhaps you neverreally grow old, the spirit just needs a break from time to time and chargeitself with curiosity and imagination.

[semirahrose]

Why do you think there is this accusation against Sam that's he is selfish in the fandom? I have so many people say this and I don't get it.

I’ve seen a fair bit of it, too, in certain corners of fandom, and even general fans have some ideas about Sam that aren’t really accurate.

It starts in the first episode, and it doesn’t get better from there—because, well… SPN is a show about hunting. It’s specifically a show about the Winchesters hunting together. (Understandably, anyone who resists the ~noble profession~ of hunting is viewed with suspicion.) More than that, it’s a show that, for a number of reasons (the foremost being the first two seasons’ need to keep Sam mysterious and emotionally distant from viewers to heighten the tension of “will he or won’t he turn evil because of these strange psychic powers?”) made sure viewers cared for Sam as much as they were cautious of him.

It was a masterful storytelling decision. The tension was high. But Sam’s emotions, because of that (and they were perfectly understandable emotional responses) were often cast as wrong or excessive.

So, even aside from all that, we have Dean… in the first episode, appealing to Sam to help him find their missing father. Sam is the skeptic while Dean is the emotional appeal. Unfortunately, many people tend to eat those emotional appeals right up. 

So while it’s canon that John preeeeeetty much disowned Sam for wanting to go to college and it’s also canon that Sam always felt impure (8.21) and spent a lot of time alone and out of the loop and wondering if his father and brother were dead (11.19)… People listen to Dean’s words to Sam in 1.11 and take them at face value. 

Dean’s words, just in case anyone needs a refresher: You’re a selfish bastard, you know that? You just do whatever you want. Don’t care what anybody thinks. (But people don’t remember the conversation they both had later… or any of the “after-conversations” when Dean has cooled down from his emotional high and recognizes and verbally acknowledges that his accusations were unfair. Admittedly, that happened more often in the early seasons… the later seasons have almost none of it, which leaves the story kinda skewed.)

Dean is a fascinating character and Jensen is a talented actor, and it’s easy for viewers to take the events of the show at face value and to not do the necessary legwork it takes to realize that, while Dean’s feelings are entirely understandable and it’s more than okay for him to feel angry and betrayed…it doesn’t make his feelings true. It feels to him like Sam betrayed him and left the family, but the facts are that the separation was only permanent because Sam was told never to come back if he left.

And that’s only one case of many.

It doesn’t help that the show often displays a narrative bias that exalts and affirms Dean’s perspective. (Dean’s response to Sam “not looking for him,” Dean’s response to Sam’s reaction to the forced Gadreel possession, Dean’s response to Sam’s visions in s11—and on and on and on it goes. Those are only examples from recent seasons, but I could cite a number of examples before and after them.) 

Dean often makes assumptions based on faulty or shaky information (or simple gut instinct or bias) but the narrative supports his skepticism and condemns Sam’s faith, making Sam look at best foolish and naive and at worst selfish and unfeeling.

In short: Sam is perceived as selfish by a number of fans because it takes more effort to understand his story since, while it’s there, it’s rarely the focus, and his reasonable appeals simply don’t have the emotional weight of Dean’s impassioned speeches.

As an introvert and someone who strongly connects with Sam’s ways of expressing himself, I find Sam’s story and perspective to be extremely obvious. Through conversations with a number of fans of the show, though, I’ve come to realize that it’s not universally the case.

[maneaterwithtail]

undefined

It seems with the closing of Adventure Time and other Darlings that kept or created the current YouTube talk too much about stuff that's primarily aimed at kids movement there is now a much more open turn and frustration with both lore and world-building.

This is kind of like that phase where you start noticing which gender you're attracted to after you've gone through trying to imagine the rules for a world and realize it's all bullshit you start to become frustrated with things that do World building instead of Storytelling. This also especially if you're a Critic who consumes ridiculous amounts of media and has to analyze and then present it to the public is why you probably have a default setting of absolute distain for any World building or minutiae

so really when you get right down to it this was kind of always going to happen. But I honestly think that we are in the backlash phase as opposed to appreciating that World building needs to be a part of something even if it can be the main appeal. Part of the problem is that all too often you'll have stories that have characters whose dramas are very intense to the point that they should be taking up the entire focus of the ongoing narrative but they're often played out or executed in a very tepid way. Simply put I've kind of resented Adventure Time for popularizing the idea of don't finish the story you're telling flush out the characters you're dealing with or work on any of that other stuff of the now or present story and instead hack an epic backstory with lore drops hints and what have you

It's basically tricking the audience with a form of the mystery box with a show that doesn't actually in isn't set up to handle actual Mysteries. Because all too often what you end up doing is making it so that the fans are building up a narrative or appreciation or story wider and more relatable to themselves then the one you're actually displaying.

It is inevitable however that what you end up having to do because audience are naturally going to ask the questions that you leave on answered and you're going to have to answer the questions that you sent her everything around or else you're going to bore the audience so then you end up alienating them.

See RWBY with some people after years of speculation faith and lots of sponsorship so that's time and money. Well how they're reacting to the massive info dump that happened in the latest season spoiling and or answering long-standing questions about the setting and the characters. When in fact these were probably the only things we had left along with the matchups that we were hoping to see.

At the same time it's wrong for me to give Gravity Falls a pass because most of its Mysteries were deliberately in the background that we built up ourselves and then it kind of pushed all of that aside to make it a story about reconciling with family despite a history of differences. However one reason why I give it a pass is by execution that was always the point. From the dichotomy between Mabel and Dipper 2 the fact that it was a show as much about Nostalgia and connecting with people and family and what have you as it was about the creepiness or at least oddness of the town and the Mysteries that lie within

Besides that was explicitly a mystery show and then at the very least left few questions going to answer and had enough setting set up and character interaction that when the big Mysteries were answered and some ways you still had a show just following those characters.

I'm sure many more would say the exact same thing for Adventure Time and other shows that have recently ended or have gone on for so long.

You can have a work whose primary goal is just to explore lower back story or just make your character's perspective viewpoints in big events. That's not a bad thing in and of itself and in fact facilitates World building. It also makes it so that if the character fails at their own desires and goals the story doesn't end there. You can ultimately have a story about a man trying to be reunited with his wife across the battlefield while experiencing the Imperial Invasion From Outer Space. But the loss of his wife doesn't necessarily into the story because the battlefield is as much a part of it as the character himself in the goal of reaching his wife.

I think the main problem is that back story or lore or epic backstory that really had no coherence or answers just questions in order to amaze someone was often hacked into a story in place of narrative resolution or character decisions or character identity. As an example with avatar The Last Airbender while the details do get flushed out and they certainly matter by the end of the second episode we pretty much know who these people are and what drives them. And wants to escape the responsibilities of being the Avatar. Katara wants to confront the Fire Nation and restote the loss of her people. Sokka wants to do that and ultimately be the hero he feels he must be for his village. Eero is training Zuko and Zuko wishes to capture the Avatar because he wishes to surpass and or impress his father or at least regain his honor it likely has something to do with that scar that the camera keeps focusing on

Things are expanded on revealed in the understand more and more but I don't feel like we're being teased with Mysteries. After all we have a flashback of Aang being lost in the iceberg in the first episode

The problem isn't World building its World building at the expense of everything else or in place of what should be handled.

And it's not even proper world-building to me it's all too often mystery boxing the world so that that way you can make an event about revealing basic information that technically the character should already know.

What I hope is that insert epic backstory stops being the go-to for how to make your show stronger the characters deeper or to explore what's going to happen and what matters to the settings story and characters. But that takes a bit of a more Deft hand. And hinting at a cool thing that you might reveal later is a lot easier but that runs the risk of isolating all the importance of what matters to the Past in ways that makes the characters seem irrelevant