#isolation depths

[gvnther-vitriol]

....chronicles of riddick | रोहित

[samnevskaya]

[seaquestions]

love at first sight

[ID: a painting of three silos seen from below with a silhouetted person in the corner, and an outdoor staircase connected to it which is intertwined with a heart & cardiovascular system painted on the right side of the canvas. piercing the anatomical heart is a heart-tipped arrow. a few white hearts with red borders are drawn by the silos & in the bottom is red text that reads: "squeeze me, shrink me, suffocate me!" End ID]

[oaxleaf]

i do feel like pulley makes a conscious choice, whilst she typically acknowledges the homophobia that would be present in a period setting, to not make it a significant plot point or to have too much angst surrounding it, which i very much appreciate. sometimes you can put queer people in fun historical settings and let them be miserable for reasons other than being queer. simultaneously, i’ve been thinking a lot lately about the themes of heteronormativity in thlovk. because those are not necessarily the same thing? i’m lucky enough to not have experienced much in-person homophobia, but by god does hetero- and cisnormativity prevail no matter how progressive of a place you live in.

so yeah, the way valery talks about things like marriage and family really resonates. the pretty much presumed loneliness, the notion that if you don’t settle down with your opposite-sex partner and have a bunch of kids then you’ll end up sad and uncared for. and whilst homophobia is mentioned and relevant (though more so when it comes to shenkov), heteronormativity is the real insidious attitude in the novel. how valery himself, throughout the entierty of the novel, keeps presuming that he’ll always lie farthest down on the list of people shenkov cares about, because the straight nuclear family promotes the idea that love and caring is a limited resource in a person when it really isn’t, and that a romantic, heterosexually married spouse will always take the automatic highest priority, followed by ones biological children, and that there even needs to be a hierarchy. valery’s insecurities are not about being queer, but it’s about the things everybody assumes you’ll never have just because of your queerness. and i appreciate an exploration of the struggles of queer identity that go deeper than the risk of hatred and homophobia

[chryblossomjjk]

...

[acepalindrome]

Should I play Dredge? It’s on sale, and looks like it’ll fill my current cravings of spooky stuff and nautical stuff.

[the-avaricious-meddler]

o/ warm isolation and niagara with anybody

[sysig]

You learn to live with it, learn to love it if you can (Patreon)

[fizzlo-and-the-cubes]

bro imagine if by the time everyone goes to rescue phil he's been caged up for so long that he doesn't want to leave-

[stilldoingscience]

people really need to get a grip. The pale blue eye is a book set in 1830s, why are you surprised that there’s misogyny in the film?

[fuck-em-up-your-grace]

Shadow.

*breaks into tears*

[gvnther-vitriol]

walk alone |

[bluesidedown]

.

[ickypuppi3]

you ever wonder about billy’s other relatives

grandfathers and grandmothers, aunts and uncles etc

like what’s the deal there

[shopcat]

this might sound a bit dumb and out of no where but hmmm. how do i say this... there are a lot of posts and a general consensus about quote unquote media literacy on tumblr and how we feel about it, as well as the things that go hand in hand with all that (discussion of mischaracterisation, symbolism, analysis, etc) and i think people (generally) need to be more open about their thoughts or findings and less i don't know... harsh isn't the word but like, just less assumptive that people are inherently out to be willfully ignorant when it comes to dissecting media thematically or discussing characterisation & the narrative, esp things where the outside factor of the consumer/creator changes things drastically if you do or do not know or experience something (and therefore would have no reason to be like, somehow maliciously interpreting something). i guess?

like i get it and i absolutely understand and also hate when people seem to go out of their way to say all the wrong things and stubbornly cling onto things that are WRONG, and confronting someone's opinion and it being SO wrong that you can comfortably think of a rebuttal is ultimately very satisfying and scratches a certain itch and can lead to a lot of thoughtful discussion despite being essentially a big "get a look at THIS guy". but i do think there is a vast difference between like, a) someone masquerading behind being knowing buzzwords and being able to say the right words in the right order, b) someone who isn't familiar with certain concepts and DOESN'T know the right words to say but is happily open to learning, and c) someone using the guise of talking about "media literacy" to be ignorant, bigoted or willfully misinterpreting something in a biased way who refuses to concede if confronted or goes out of their way to pick arguments. whilst the first two aren't malicious, both could turn out to be, just like the last category tends to be rejects of the first two who dug their heels in about it.

whilst there is a DIFFERENCE if someone was being say bigoted and prejudiced with hateful intent, not being "media literate" is not actually a moral failing as much as it is made out to be in moments of sweeping generalisation, and i think punishing people for not knowing how to hold thoughtful discussion is obviously cruel and dumb and unnecessarily othering. you don't want people to learn things out of a sense of shame or guilt. i know it's not the INTENT, and i don't like, interpret even 99% of discussion about this whole thing that way, but that doesn't change that discussing people very broadly who just Don't Know something is always going to leave the 1% of a LOT of harshness thrown against someone who doesn't deserve that. even if they're the stupidest twitterina known to man or something.

media literacy itself is not inherent and it is HARD, as much as people try to pretend it isn't. personally i am someone who has always and probably always WILL struggle to understand complex themes and often do need someone else to guide me towards thinking a certain way, thinking in these ways don't come naturally to me as much as i try my best to and i often think the "wrong" thing as my natural conclusion. and every Damn time that happens i see someone going "if you didn't realise this you're a fucking idiot" like woah man 😭 calm down. i dunno i feel like people just forget that this stuff is something you have to train like a muscle, esp things like vocabulary or a more complex academic way of speaking, and to some of us that is always going to be inherently inaccessible or it's going to take twice as long for us to grasp, for whatever reason. i just wish people were more fair is all.

[plantsinyourpants]

.