#misinterpreting/misattributing on here

[redstrewn]

Me: im bored i need more things to think about w leander

Brain: well theres still frankenstein and othello that you havent read up on you can read that stuff

Me: i wish there was more things to think about with leander

Brain: literally frankenstein is in the uquiz and othello has both orouboros and green eyed monster. I think you can find a lot of stuff there

Me: if only there was something

Brain: SERIOUSLY—

[bitchthefuck1]

I actually don't fully vibe with my point here anymore. I think there's definitely an element of this going on, and it was never supposed to be a full explanation of his whole "thing", but it still feels a little too simplistic and overcooked. Post cancelled.

I feel like a really crucial scene for unpacking Roman's whole "oedipal" thing is the bit in Prague where he sees Tabitha, because one of the first things he says is "dad would go fucking nuts for her." He is constantly using "well it's what dad would do" as an explanation for his actions, and I genuinely think the jokes about wanting to fuck Marcia/Caroline are less about his mommy issues and any actual attraction to maternal figures and more about "well these are the women dad's into, so they must be the right women to be attracted to." It's like a defense mechanism--Logan can't think there's something "wrong" with his sexuality if they're attracted to the same people. It's what he would do.

Except this is obviously flawed logic that only makes him seem more "wrong," because "if dad does it then he must think it's okay to do and he won't get mad at me for it" isn't even the mostly-coherent reasoning of an adult choosing a partner their parents approve of, its the logic of a kid trying not to get hit.

[infernaltenor]

been losing my mind reading hsr posts online again so you get a jade analysis 👍

yes i KNOW evil woman. we're not going down that path rn. i know shes morally dubious and all shades of suspicious and works for the fucking ipc. i KNOW.

i'm here because i believe she has been misattributed like crazy.

a) the aventurine relationship. we already know this one. any good analysis on them will tell you clearly that aventurine made both the bet and the deal. what happens after is between two adults. (and yes, i'll give points that jade is a manipulative bastard, but so is aventurine. he works for the same fucking company. they do the same assignments.) anyway, i'm not really in the mood to rehash jade and aventurine's misinterpreted relationship beyond this: aventurine made the choice to make a deal with jade and start working for the ipc. in fact he wanted to meet with diamond, but didn't, which is a fascinating little tidbit. i digress. it's easy to say "jade manipulated aventurine into working as a stoneheart" but reanalyzing the scene will make it clear that she distinctly both didn't manipulate him (into that, anyway), and made a direct deal with his gamble. honestly, they both have similar strategies. hey, i wonder if this will come up later 🤔

b) the topaz relationship. i'm sorry, but there is absolutely no way jade singlehandedly made sure topaz didn't see any atrocities committed by the ipc in her entire life. are you fucking insane? topaz grew up on an ipc controlled planet, likely surrounded by ipc propaganda the whole time. along with this, topaz has nine other colleagues in the stonehearts (eight if you don't count jade) and more than likely hundreds or thousands of coworkers. this cannot fall solely on jade's shoulders as to why topaz doesn't fucking know the scope of the ipc. this falls onto "topaz grew up on a planet controlled by them, and more importantly, a planet surviving by the ipc." you can even contrast this with aventurine, who grew up on a planet with ipc agents; but unlike topaz, aventurine's planet had a vastly different result, including the massacre of his people. both of these are facts that have very little to do with jade. her having introduced and directly hired topaz and aventurine into the stonehearts is a different fucking issue, don't go confusing them. you will not survive the winter. i will kill you. ok. that wasn't necessary. i apologize.

c) so why is jade the way that she is? well, i'm delving into theory territory here but i have two main strands. one, all of the stonehearts have similar stories, something i cannot confirm without more of them, but i am of the opinion that all of them distinctly are "something that they don't want to be." two, i think i know who jade was before she was jade. ok let's get into this.

the stonehearts being "something that they don't want to be." well, this is obvious with aventurine, as he is actively working for the ipc. there's a lot to be attributed with his self destruct personality and tendency to gamble everything ever, but i'm really not an aventurine fan so i'm not here to overanalyze him. plus, i'm confident it's been said before (side note: if you're interested in a decent aventurine analysis that looks at misinformation, i found this one pretty good). topaz is another pretty obvious idea, seen as everyone is confident she doesn't know the scope of the ipc's atrocities. i cannot fact check this but i vaguely remember her introductory event, so i'll concede that point. topaz distinctly doesn't know what she's getting into, meaning that i'm characterizing her as "a good person, naive, hasn't had her world shattered" or something along those lines. and now you ask the question: but tenor, what about jade? she CAN'T be like that, haven't you seen her manipulate the shit out of people?

well. now i give you who i think jade WAS. in jade's character stories, there's a jewelry merchant from a failing system who goes to the bonajade exchange. interestingly, jade isn't mentioned at all in her first character story, as it focuses on the merchant. even stranger, the deal ends with the jewelry merchant being contractually obligated to work for the ipc, for life (this section ends with "give your everything to the ipc" <- paraphrased, but still). essentially, for the hope that her system will be saved, the merchant gives her everything. the second story is where jade shows up. i believe the original owner of the bonajade exchange would have been diamond. i also believe that jade didn't originally have the snake. as jade only shows up in her second character story, it's my opinion that jade is that jewelry merchant. her system is, incidentally, destroyed, as it hadn't survived, something that is also mentioned in her character stories. this wouldn't matter if it didn't have something to do with her. another trait that i feel doesn't line up with popular interpretations is, well, her lightcone. "yet hope is priceless," being the name and the image/description describes her (implied) common visits/donations to an orphanage. she is actively making sure the orphanage stays afloat. jade distinctly makes deals with adults and, more importantly, gives them directly what the owe, yet doesn't discourage them from making deals with her. i believe she doesn't expand this to children, especially not the ones she's fucking donating to the orphanage for. more so, jade's lightcone name, "yet hope is priceless," makes no fucking sense with her character, someone who typically puts a price on everything. the only way it makes sense is if she had hope at one point or another. if she was the jewelry merchant, bargaining to save her home (this also lines up, imo, with jade's heavy focus on jewelry motifs. i believe she has that because she used to sell it; which would also make sense why she has "a planet" as a bracelet, though i'm of the opinion that that's a metaphor).

ok so how does that connect with the first point. weeeeeeeell, if we're going off of "jade is the jewelry merchant, and the jewelry merchant made a deal to work for the ipc to save her home system," this is very distinctly a deal that didn't work. i do think that jade inherited the bonajade exchange and the snake from someone else. i also think that jade originally had hopes similar to say, aventurine or topaz, when she joined. jade, in my opinion, is a character who joined originally to help people ("yet hope is priceless"), yet lost herself in her work, culminating in the manipulative bastard we see now. i don't think this end point was where she wanted to be. given the fact that, if this is true, all three stonehearts we've seen in game occupy similar stories, i wouldn't be surprised if this pattern keeps up. it's literally the classic "live long enough to see yourself become the villain." topaz and aventurine get so victimized in analyses that people do not take the time to compare them with jade, and yet all three are more similar than people want to admit.

ok well, that was a lot of theory writing. to tell you the truth, i think this is way more interesting than simply writing jade off as "completely evil woman," which i'm not sorry about. she's an interesting character! it's just that she owns her employment to the ipc in a vastly different way to topaz and aventurine, meaning that she's easier to look at as distinctly evil. not to mention, her theming being very "snake in the garden of eden." but i digress. this was a lot more than what i intended to write LMAO if you read this far i'm kissing you on the mouth or whatever.

[astramachina]

idk how to explain but sometimes "getting a good grade in writing" isn't about "dude check out this sentence i just wrote that out of context could probably be used in a million fan edits and misattributed to insert-famous-author-here" but rather realizing the sheer power behind a single three-word change in a completely innocuous sentence.

from "oh, this sentence where he's looking at the fireplace could suggest that he's planning on burning the box but it could also be taken as him feeling melancholic" to "oh, he's going for the box of matches. no room for misinterpretation here."

idk. it fucks. and it's certainly one of those instances that remind me that oh yeah, i am a writer. and i'm actually pretty good at it.

[prolife-home-care]

Gastric Cancer: Top 2025 Guide to Symptoms, Treatments & FAQs

What Is Gastric Cancer?

Gastric cancer, commonly known as stomach cancer, is a disease in which malignant (cancer) cells form in the lining of the stomach. This cancer typically develops slowly over many years and often goes unnoticed in its early stages.

Gastric vs Stomach Cancer: Is There a Difference?

While the terms "gastric cancer" and "stomach cancer" are often used interchangeably, "gastric" refers more specifically to the stomach itself, derived from the Latin word gaster. In medical literature and diagnostics, gastric cancer is the preferred term, while the general public may refer to it as stomach cancer. Despite the difference in terminology, both refer to the same condition — cancer that starts in the stomach.

Gastric Cancer Symptoms to Watch Out For

Early detection of gastric cancer can be life-saving. However, many symptoms are vague and commonly misattributed to less serious conditions like gastritis or indigestion.

Early vs Late-Stage Symptoms

Early Stage: Bloating after meals, mild stomach discomfort, nausea, feeling full quickly

Advanced Stage: Unexplained weight loss, blood in stool or vomit, persistent abdominal pain, trouble swallowing

Common Misinterpreted Symptoms

People may ignore persistent indigestion, heartburn not relieved by medication, and early satiety. If these symptoms persist, especially in those over 50 or with family history, consult a doctor immediately.

Diagnosing Gastric Cancer: Tools & Tests

Timely diagnosis is critical. Here’s how doctors detect gastric cancer:

Upper Endoscopy (Gastroscopy)

Biopsy

CT Scans & MRI

Blood Tests

Barium Swallow Test

[beemovieerotica]

Okay. Weighing in on this.

The scientific paper that the article is referring to can be read for free here

tldr; Thomas Talhelm (PhD student, University of Virginia) interviewed over 1,000 Chinese college students from the wheat-growing regions in the north versus the rice-growing regions in the south, and found differences in their approaches to answering particular types of questions which could not be attributed to either pathogen prevalence or GDP. There was a correlation between holistic thought and rice agriculture, which requires an extremely high level of coordination, planning, awareness of neighbors' needs, and community involvement because of how the crop grows. The study did not involve cultures outside of China. All of this occurred between different communities of Han Chinese people. It is an analysis of regional differences involving people of the same race.

Here is a critique containing possible issues with that paper

tldr; The phenomenon might better be described as "rice agriculture versus non-rice agriculture," but even then, there are cultures that score higher on holistic thinking than North Americans and Western Europeans that primarily grow crops with relatively lower community coordination (parts of Africa, South America, Russia, and the Middle East). Beyond this, the cost of crop production/effort to grow is not consistent throughout the world, because local growing conditions vary. The study is limited and needs to dive into other possible variables, but it's not completely without merit.

The author of the NYT opinion piece, T.M. Luhrmann, is a highly respected Jewish anthropology professor from Stanford who primarily studies the way in which different cultures treat psychiatric illnesses, and how the West's lack of compassion leads to poorer outcomes for the mentally ill.

Her opinion piece from the screenshot, which is all of 887 words, summarizes Talhelm's study and then ends with 3 brief paragraphs condemning the individualism of the United States, Congress, and Silicon Valley.

Genuinely everyone on the internet needs to develop better news literacy & research skills and understand that in any publication, there will be some variation in the quality of the reporting based on who your writers / opinion piece guests are. Especially when it comes down to non-scientists having to interpret scientific findings for the general public. But this isn't one of those cases - other than the poorly conceived illustration (which Luhrmann neither created nor approved), her article is absolutely fine. Other people may have run with the study and misattributed its findings, but that's not on her or the NYT.

PLEASE send me any questionable articles by the NYT that allude to race science, and I'd be happy to look into them and dig up the actual scientific papers to determine if / how they've been misinterpreted.

i googled this on a whim and the first thing i get is nyt race science

[bengaliatull]

Hinduphobia in Academia Leaves Students Traumatized

The Guru or teacher has always been a hallowed concept for the Indian subcontinent. A teacher is respected as the moral compass of the community, and responsible for the accurate enlightenment of the general population, in Hindu society.

The key term here is responsible. Teachers, or academics, are responsible to their students to ensure their work is accurate, free of overt bias, and open to corrections when not. So what do Hindu students do when faced with teachers who don’t?

These standards have not been met when discussing the case surrounding some American Indologists and their study of the Hindu religion. As a community, we must recognize that irrational prejudice against the Hindu community is a definitive problem within vast swaths of Western academia. Scholars have allowed their personal beliefs against Hinduism to influence their work, leading to the crude misrepresentation of the Hindu community in academic circles. In order to evade responsibility for their Hinduphobic content, Indologists have labeled protest from the Hindu community as “Extremism” or a “Hindutva conspiracy.” Not only have student protests been ignored, but pleas from religious organizations and temples have been declined as well.

Last month, a coalition of 75 Hindu temples and religious organizations sent a letter to Rutgers University regarding the biased works of Professor Audrey Truschke. Truschke had previously misattributed the works of another scholar, to claim that the original Valmiki Ramayan had a quote where Devi Sita abuses Bhagwan Rama – something that was swiftly contradicted by the academic she was quoting. The temple letter stands in solidarity with the students, and states that the

coalition “could not help but feel intensely hurt and abused when a Professor uses her authority and deliberately misinterprets Hindu sacred texts or slanders Hindu deities while rationalizing such behavior as “academic freedom.”

American Indologists are allowed to publish these works under the guise of academic freedom. But what does “academic freedom” mean when used as a cover to protect action that puts vulnerable students at risk? According to the Freedom Forum Institute, academic freedom allows a university to teach what it pleases without government interference and for teachers to teach without interference from university officials. Nowhere does it deny students (vulnerable to the power yielded by tenured academics), and minority communities, their own free speech rights to peacefully protest.

The temples state, “Bigotry and Hinduphobia on social media and in scholarship cannot be excused as academic freedom, especially when these remarks have grave consequences for how Hindu students at Rutgers will be perceived by their own peers.” As a student who faced discrimination due to the misrepresentation of Hinduism in California textbooks, I cannot state the importance of these words enough. In California, kids as young as sixth grade had to face discrimination due to how schools taught Hinduism. In 2016, a significant advocacy movement led by Hindus in California paved the way for positive change. Similarly, the temple letter represents an effort from the broader Hindu American community to stand against systematic discrimination – making it invaluable support to students dealing with bias that results from Hinduphobic teachings.

For years American Indologists have ignored these pleas and petitions for correction or even a hearing. Any student, parent, scholar, or even an academic with an opposing view has been ignored. All this while those misattribute quotes or fake translations, choose to put out claims that they are facing “harassment”.

On the morning of July 6th, 2021, just days after the collective plea from Hindu temples, the SASAC, or the South Asian Scholars Activist Collective, released a statement regarding their “harassment.” The report included the “Hindutva Harassment Manual,” or tips for those who had been harassed by “Hindutva extremists.” The SASAC comprises Indology scholars across the United States and has Truschke on its board.

In its attempt to gaslight Hindus, the manual has some glaring flaws. The most important one being its definition of Hinduphobia, which in fact, denies the very existence of such a term. The manual says, “Hinduphobia” rests on the false notion that Hindus have faced systematic oppression throughout history and in present times… Anti-Hindu bias, on the other hand, cannot be easily linked to casualties on such horrific scales.”

The SASAC academics are scholars with countless resources at their command. So one has to wonder at the ease with which they ignore Hindu persecution. This amnesia includes the 1971 Bengali Hindu genocide — the largest the world has seen since the Holocaust, whose horrors documented in numerous US State Government reports, by no less an icon than Senator Kennedy. The cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus and even the decimation of Hindu minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan are blithely ignored in this attempted body count of casualties.

Barely after I had finished writing this article, I learned about another outrage. A cabal of Indologists has put together the “Dismantling Global Hindutva” conference which is an overtly political attempt to malign the religion of Hinduism under the guise of “fighting Hindu extremism" They have done so without taking the input of the Hindu diaspora or representing them in any way. Many of the universities affiliated with the conference are unaware of such a politically motivated conference occurring, underlining the lengths that the academics behind the conference will go to in order to perpetrate their hate. To join the protest against this bigoted event, please read this petition.

The SASAC’s denial of Hinduphobia has a simple purpose; to deflect from their wrongdoing, and importantly, silence any protest regarding their works – no matter how legitimate – by ascribing them all to Hindu extremism.

In doing this, the SASAC breaches a fundamental pillar. As Professor Arvind Sharma puts it, as academia is allowed to criticize the practices of a population freely, it is the fundamental right of the people in question to critique academia. Attempting to take away that right by removing their sense of accountability as an academic allows others to discriminate against the community in question. The standard set by today’s intellectuals will determine the way the American curriculum will teach future generations about Hinduism.

The price of staying quiet is high and borne by the most vulnerable. Just hear the words of Aishwarya, a graduate student “I joined Rutgers with the impression that it’s a very reputed university and will give me the perfect environment to grow. However, when I heard the comments of Professor Truschke about my faith, my scriptures, and my Gods, it broke my confidence. I felt scared about mentioning my faith, that students will judge me and might hate me because that is what they are learning in the class or on social media.” It behooves us all to stand with Aishvarya and help her feel safe.

[lance-cerejo-22]

Memory

The topic of memory has always intrigued me the most. I am very curious to know how our brain is able to store events, dating many years back. And in other times, why do we tend to recollect some incident which had occurred to us in a special way or at a specific event. Furthermore, Why don't we remember just everything from our past are some of the questions I have regarding our memory.

The following discussion is regarding the various aspects of a human memory. What exactly is a memory? How much do we know about the processes that a human brain executes to store and retrieve a memory?

Daniel Schacter is a cognitive psychologist and is professor of psychology at Harvard University. His research explores the relation between conscious and unconscious forms of memory, the nature of memory distortions, how we use memory to imagine possible future events, and the effects of aging on memory.

He emphasis about the two types of memories which are , conscious memory or explicit memory which is recollection of factual information, previous experiences and true concepts. Other one is implicit memory which does not require the conscious or explicit recollection of past events or information and the individual is unaware that remembering has occurred.

He has published books like, Searching for memory and 7 deadly sins of memory.

The 7 deadly sins of memory according to him are as follows:

1. Transience

Transience means the influence from one memory on another one. And that memories are subject of forgetting over a period of time.

2. Absentmindedness

Absentmindedness means here that the person's attention is focussed on something different

3. Blocking

Blocking is where memory is available, when we try to remember but can't caught up with the memory with time. And we usually tend to remember it all of a sudden.

4. Misattribution

Remembering some action but misinterpreting the context.

5. Suggestibility

Where memory is corrupted by misunderstandings.

6. Bias

Occurs when current feelings and worldview distort remembrance of past events.

7. Persistence

Cases when we are traumatized by bad memories which we can't get rid off.

Memory plays an important role in everyday life but does not provide an exact and unchanging record of experience: research has documented that memory is a constructive process that is subject to a variety of errors and distortions. Yet these memory “sins” also reflect the operation of adaptive aspects of memory. Memory can thus be characterized as an adaptive constructive process, which plays a functional role in cognition but produces distortions, errors, or illusions as a consequence of doing so. The key aspect of memory is that it's not just for recollecting the past, but also to look ahead at the future.

“We as humans inherently use past scenarios to imagine possible future scenarios by taking flexible pieces of the past and combining them to create novel ideas for the future.” Dr. Daniel Schacter

Memory is fragile because we are subject to forgetting and memory is not always as accurate as we would like to believe. Memory is powerful because most of the time it serves us well, forming the foundation of our knowledge of the world and of ourselves. In the case of emotionally experiences, memory is a source of tremendous power in our lives.'

https://www.psichi.org/page/191EyeFall14cCannon#.YzY44cYo8zY

[philosopherking1887]

Here’s my view on the Joss Whedon thing in a nutshell:

We do have a moral obligation to believe and support Charisma Carpenter, Amber Benson, Michelle Trachtenberg, Ray Fisher, and anyone else who comes forward with stories of abuse.

We do not have a moral obligation to stop liking or being capable of enjoying Buffy, Angel, Firefly, The Avengers, etc.

Rewatching them critically, with an eye to how the creator’s faults come through in the work, is important; but I don’t think we can say “we should have known” just from the works themselves (we already knew, more or less, from stories that were circulating; but that’s not the same as being able to tell from the work). We shouldn’t give in to the temptation of thinking that we’ll be able to spot the next predator or abuser by scrutinizing their shows and movies closely enough for sexist tropes. There are sexist tropes in a ton of media, and we can’t always know whether it’s because the writer/showrunner is a creepy misogynist abuser or just because we live in a patriarchal culture.

There’s another post going around warning people not to start saying “I never liked his work” or “his work was always bad” because that implies that people who did like it are condoning his behavior. I’m not going to reblog that because there are some other things I don’t agree with, including the implication that this only applies in the past tense. I don’t think that continuing to like the work is condoning his behavior.

For years, since stories about his behavior have been leaking out and people have become more sensitive to the elements of sexism present in the work, people have been claiming that he’s a bad writer in other ways -- that he’s bad at characterization and character development, or writes bad dialogue (while misinterpreting and misattributing lines...) -- and I think it’s because they’re uncomfortable with the idea that bad people can make good art. We all know how much moral and aesthetic virtue have become conflated in Tumblr (and now Twitter) fandom: everyone seems to assume that your moral worth can be determined from the media you like and the fic you read. It’s simply impossible in that worldview for a morally bad person to have made anything with aesthetic value.

Because I think bad people can make good art, I think there’s genuinely something to enjoy and appreciate in their work and that people can’t be required to stop responding to it. My view (which I ought to write a paper on one of these days) is that Your Mileage May Vary: the knowledge of the creator’s sins might interfere with some people’s experience of the work so much that they can no longer enjoy it; but that’s not true of everyone. Sometimes that will have to do with how closely those sins resonate with the viewer’s experience; the discussion of male vs. female writers’/critics’ responses to Woody Allen movies in Claire Dederer’s essay “What Do We Do with the Art of Monstrous Men?” comes to mind. But as she also says, some women will still like some of Woody Allen’s movies -- or Joss Whedon’s shows. (Some Jewish philosophers work on Heidegger. I don’t get it, but that’s their prerogative.)

I consider it a no-fault disagreement. The people who can’t enjoy the work because of their moral response are missing real aesthetic value, but they aren’t aesthetically culpable (inasmuch as that’s a thing); and people who can still enjoy it may be less ‘morally sensitive’ in the sense that their moral emotions are less thoroughly integrated with their aesthetic evaluation system, but that doesn’t automatically make them bad people -- just continuing to enjoy a work of art (as opposed to giving the artist money) doesn’t hurt anyone.

[unofficialihop]

my bad for misinterpreting and unfairly misattributing your intention, then! i wholly agree with the main point you have here, that playing other games takes WOTC down a peg more than pirating their books ever would; i just quibbled with a perceived subtext that was obviously misread

I've briefly touched upon this topic before but here goes; I know you can play D&D for pretty much free because it's extremely easy to pirate, but I think we've settled by now that piracy doesn't actually hurt companies as much as they want us to think, meaning that pirating D&D isn't as big of a "stick it to WotC" move as it's often presented as. Of course if you absolutely have to play D&D (but, like, why?) you won't get any moralizing from me about piracy, like, ever.

But the point is: supporting another game either monetarily or with your valuable time is a much more direct and tangible way to stick it to the cultural monopoly of D&D than playing D&D and not paying WotC. I mean if it's another big-ish publisher I don't have a lot of faith in their working conditions being much better than WotC's, but in some cases it probably is so. As it often happens, the market leader can often afford to pay its employees worse simply due to those positions being more desirable.

But anyway who cares, there's lots of games out there where you can actually get a full game sometimes for less than the cost of a single D&D book and since those games are often built as more focused experiences than the D&D "forever game" formula you're actually more likely to get to experience all of the game instead of a lot of the content existing just as shadows on the cave wall.

[queen-feisty-pants]

I was obsessing over my blunder from yesterday when discussing hanyou biology (as I’m wont to do in situations like this), and now I’m thinking that maybe I wasn’t that far off the mark. For reference, here’s what I wrote and deleted out of embarrassment.

While I had misattributed the definition of hanyou as having been provided in some interview and misinterpreted the context in which heart was used, the remainder of the paragraph not directly referring to it still stands. Assuming that this translation is correct, Myouga’s explanation of the phenomenon of hanyou losing their youkai powers for short periods of time appears to be framed in the same way I broke things down in that portion of my post.

Considering that hanyou are only genetically predisposed to losing their youkai powers, I actually might have been right in saying that they have a human “base” that’s “enhanced” by youkai powers. It actually wouldn’t be a stretch to say that they have human biology, which, in turn, would provide further confirmation that hanyou age at the same rate as humans. Even if this logic ultimately doesn’t hold up, the rest of the points that so many of us in the fandom have already brought up are more than enough to put this debate to rest, anyways: hanyou don’t age differently than humans.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

You're so right about the Will Roland fanart problems. It seems like back when Will Roland was only known for Jared people were way more proWill because he could be their funny meme boi who ate bathbombs but now that he's a lead with all these emotional songs it's like God forbid he's not their "twink bby". Idk it annoys me so much especially when people draw the rest of the Broadway cast and still use WillC or do an animatic with WillRs voice and WillCs character ugh like. Accept the Roland pls

lmao we are all just out here grabbing the mic like “attention all bastards: Look, just because will roland isn’t your ideal fancast for most adorable twink of the year - “

really like, i have never come across any signs of there having been any pattern in the deh fandom of ~taking issue~ with will’s Abilities to sing or play the part of a struggling teen or whatever like what crops up re: him being the lead in bmc.....it also is unsurprising yet disappointing that like, jared and alana are so easily completely ignored, but when they Are acknowledged it’s super flattened interpretations like, either they’re both hypocritical jerks (just based on evan’s gfy accusations basically lol) or if they’re actually viewed in a positive way it’s just like, alana is your friendly local Model Student and jared is memes and neither of them are in the way! :3

you litrally cannot ignore jeremy the Whole Entire Main Character tho and also like. can’t ignore the fact that caring about jeremy as a Romantique Lead is ahhh important to many ppl in the fanbase? so him being regarded as ~less cute~ is more of an Issue b/c the character must be taken seriously and is the sympathetic hero and has a lot more solo material / more of Any material / more focus than jared does in deh.........you Have To Look At Him and care about his actual feelings and not just misinterpret the character as “has no serious emotions b/c he doesn’t say serious things in a serious tone” the way ppl misinterpret jared. there’s the assumption that someone who is good / sympathetic should also be attractive / cute / Personally Appealing To Look At and that wasn’t as much a conflict when ppl didn’t think it was important to sympathize / care about / pay attention to jared too much, and the “conflict” of caring abt jeremy’s capacity for a romantic relationship but that’s less important if he’s not as Cute also not being as much an issue when most people don’t care about jared’s romantic feelings or think that they exist despite jared being in love with evan But Anyways

like it is wild the things people will just make up to “justify” their Dislike for will, which has only manifested as apparent Issues thanks to him playing jeremy rather than jared........there’s the classic “mm idk i don’t think he can sing that well” approach which like. some people are just trying to say they do not like the inherent descriptive qualities of his voice, which is more nasal obviously and don’t anyone come in here with the “Actually the Technical definition of Nasal re Vocals is” b/c we know what i mean, alright? nasal voices are not considered ~serious~ and there’s the kneejerk dumb-annoying-loser-nerd association. god knows that jeremy heere canNot have characteristics that could be automatically judged as irritating and unappealing. then there’s the notion that He doesn’t have the (vocal) range!! which like. do you honestly think they would cast someone who doesn’t have the correct range. you’re aware that will roland was being considered for the part of jeremy in the two river run up to the last round of callbacks. you know that the song that was literally written expressly to suit will roland’s individual voice and singing abilities makes use of his falsetto which people go “omg he can’t hit those high notes” except sometimes when they misattribute his falsetto to other singers they suddenly find it worth complimenting. and then you get people who like, want to subscribe to this softened version of it and get all backhanded like “oh i think will’s vocals are improving whew that’s good” in any random video and always Only single him out apparently like. did you think he gets worse with experience? you don’t wanna talk about any of these other professional singers improving or worsening or anything? only wanna give ur assessment of william’s huh

honestly i for real haven’t seen the 1.0 version b/c i’m here via will roland in the first place & i’ve never gotten the impression that there’s some Essential Content i’m missing out on by having only seen 2.0........but between a) people complaining that will r’s jeremy is Too Frustrated He Shouldn’t Be That Angry It Makes Him Less Sympathetic and b) saying just as a point of comparison betwixt the depictions that will r’s jeremy is more frustrated and c) i haven’t read That much bmc fic but people sure talk about jeremy being like five seconds away from bursting into tears at any given moment which like, okay yeah aren’t we all, but also i presume this stems from will c’s apparently Sadder portrayal of jeremy. i almost forgot where i was going with this one but i think it’s just that yeah people truly take issue with will r’s jeremy being more frustrated and it’s like you realize there’s no Right or Wrong portrayal / interpretation even if you prefer one for whatever reasons......theatre just is Like that.......you have a slightly different portrayal during ever performance even from the same actors, and you’ll often have different actors playing the role........yeah people usually are attached to the first performance they see / have that as their Standard and that’s fine, it’s just like, you don’t have to decide that’s an Objective view and that you have Objective issues with everyone else’s take. 1.0 is still there for you

uhhhh oh yeah and the whole Clout idea lmao......people really putting themselves out there shaking their heads at the supposed fact that will was cast for the off bway run to Boost Popularity b/c he was part of the deh obc......besides the whole thing that it’s hardly likely that would’ve been considered necessary anyhow, there’s the little thing that a) again, will roland had already been very seriously considered for the part even before will connolly was decided on for the original run and b) like.....these people had been collaborating for eons and you really think will roland only popped into their minds thanks to being in deh....and c) joe iconis has repeatedly said they specifically did Not want to cast people based on who was Known enough and whose names would be good for marketing and d) maybe anyone has noticed that the marketing never involved any mention of anyone in the cast? no? cool. and yet people like so truly think they’re Wise to ~real reason~ that they’d go and cast will roland as the lead. like people are making shit up and really just thinking it’s true b/c they Want it to be true b/c they Want to be validated in having actual contempt for will’s casting despite the “issue” being that he doesn’t seem as Likeable (worthy of sympathy...cough...) thanks to his deemed-unattractive looks and sweetly-adenoidal voice and more-frustrated portrayal all seeming less cute or whatever

and i mean i haven’t seen it crop up of late but the one particular Grasping At Straws ~justification~ for will being unworthy of the part thanks to perceived acting/singing incompetence which is soooo wild is when people are like “ough i Hate when he just holds his arms out when he sings” like fmslkdj if anything that’s just an individual quirk and the fact that it was something you noticed means you just latched on to it as potential fodder for “the fact i registered this information abt someone whose existence i Resent means it distracted me which means i hate it and it’s bad”...like another thing he does with his hands while singing is when he makes the loose claws and kind of half crosses his arms in front of his chest! where are the complaints about that?? nowhere, b/c people have not really processed it as a particular thing, so they can’t deem it a Particular Thing To Criticize. people sometimes Notice that his jared talks with his hands a lot, which will says is an acting choice that came from an unconscious tendency, but people really only bring it up to juxtapose will’s jared’s dramatic tendencies and nervous habits with sky’s jared’s more outwardly still and smoothed-over behavior. aka they don’t Complain about it or deem it a weakness / bad thing. and yet people caring about bmc are really jumping on that chance to be like oh ugh there he goes again, having a characteristic i associate with him as an individual, disgusting, can’t believe will connolly was murdered for this..

it’s a bit clearer too with bmc moreso than deh that people aren’t super willing to accept how will roland Looks b/c like, thanks to will connolly’s jeremy having the long hair thing you can Tell The Difference In Which Actor Is Represented when ppl draw the character even if the rest of the features are kind of “generic” (and how even the costuming isn’t a dead giveaway since ppl will draw connolly jeremy in 2.0/3.0′s outfits) and it even serves to specify the actor in writing format too if they mention the hair lol........and honestly?? this fact is one of the most damning things lol in that people the reason so many ppl continue to produce connolly-based jeremys is Not because for whatever reason they can’t / it’s too difficult to draw a will roland lookin jeremy......like a lot of the time The trait which serves to distinguish between the two is the hair thing. people are adopting jeremy’s new costuming and stuff but choosing to make sure we know that jeremy does not Look like will roland and the clearest indicator of this is the longer hair thing......which also means that for many people the main effort they’d need to exert to make it clear they’re drawing wrol jeremy would just be to....shorten the hair. And Yet!!!! it is apparently beyond people to do this

like uh nice on making a lgw animatic but really.........really we’re gonna take the song that is specifically from the 2.0 / 3.0 runs, so it’s obvious we’re Accepting that non-1.0 content, okay......and we’re Accepting will roland’s vocals, which, a person’s voice is a physical trait of theirs too, same as The Existence Of Their Body........and yet jeremy Cannot Look Like How Will Roland Looks, that’s too far, can’t do that. we can take material from the specific versions the actor was cast in, that material being a song written specifically for this individual actor’s voice, in the form of this actor’s actual vocals......but can’t have the depicted image of jeremy be based on this actor’s appearance..............of all the......

really all that it is is that more people find will connolly more attractive than will roland and this makes them feel like will roland Is Worse and then the people who just run with that either just embrace that and are crashing around on public forums saying Lol i hate him cuz he’s ugly lmao....and then you have people who don’t wanna do that but don’t wanna actually examine why they ~take issue~ with will being cast and so they’ve gotta leap on any Other things about him that feel more acceptable / Objective like oh the portrayal is “Wrong” (that’s not how this works) or he can’t sing well enough (yeah he can) or high enough (yeah he can) or he was stunt cast (no he wasn’t) or they wanna label every characteristic / trait they can think up that Isn’t his physical appearance as Annoying And Bad like. maybe stop and ask why you find it SO pressing that this other actor has the part and it Must be objectively inferior if not ruinous for reasons you gotta invent about him being incompetent cuz it’s better to make stuff up about how a professional actor isn’t good enough for a part than to say you don’t think he’s cute enough and are bothered by that

it didn’t matter as much to people when they viewed his character as either Just A Joke or Just A Jerk or flat-out disposable material. being attractive is for serious sympathetic beloved characters, natch

unfortunately jeremy can’t be written off as The Unimportant Meme Friend With No Real Feelings so now there’s a whole problem if an actor is not as cute

like b/c of the way he looks ppl can accept that a character played by will roland can be funny or can be rude or can really not be too important to take seriously / consider complex or sympathetic or likeable beyond being a walking Running Joke, but when it comes to a sympathetic main character whose emotional state is so important it’s practically assigned a character and who’s a romantic lead? now people have a problem with him looking the way will roland does

[scarlethaki-archived]

Misattribution of Arousal

Misattribution of arousal is a term in psychology which describes the process whereby people make a mistake in assuming what is causing them to feel aroused. For example, when actually experiencing physiological responses related to fear, people mislabel those responses as romantic arousal. The reason physiological symptoms may be attributed to incorrect stimuli is because many stimuli have similar physiological symptoms such as increased blood pressure or shortness of breath.

[ People can misattribute their feelings of fear for sexual arousal or even love (‘love’ here being a lose generic definition). It seems easy to say ‘I feel fear’ or ‘I feel attracted to this person’, and we may have confidence in our feelings. However, when it comes to interpreting arousal and assigning a feeling to it, studies have shown that it is quite easy to misinterpret the arousal we feel from fear as sexual attraction. [x] ]

[ Other studies have similarly shown that women who become anxious are more likely to find particular men to be attractive. Something about the state of fear or anxiety, in other words, appears to make many of us more likely to experience feelings of sexual attraction towards other people.

Strong sexual desire, although hardly what most of us would think of as a ‘survival-mode’ or ‘fight-or-flight’ response, has also been shown, perhaps surprisingly, to activate all the main components of the so-called ‘stress’ response. What may therefore happen biochemically in the brains of people who are noticeably anxious or afraid, for example, is that the stress hormones released in the brain by the anxiety or fear may mingle with, and enhance the effects of, the stress hormones and other neurochemicals that are involved in sexual desire. Since all survival-mode states appear to release stress hormones in the brain, any such state can therefore potentially become confused with sexual desire, or can heighten any authentic sexual attraction or desire that may already exist. Thus if at least some other factors – such as raw physical appeal – are present that attract two people to each other, stress hormones from survival-mode states they may be experiencing can potentiate the stress hormones from the actual sexual attraction and generate an extra ‘charge’ that may masquerade as love or as an intense, extra-special attraction. [x] ]

[godslush]

While you have my fathomless appreciocean for adding the pun opportunity that I missed, I have to also say that this -

- is not okay.

Even putting a small note saying that a post was edited by someone else would not help as there'd have to be a system in place to say what was edited, and what it was originally (considering most users here have time and again demonstrated a lack of common decency to check original posts for tags or blog contexts before going off). Suffice to say, considering how broken this site is already, a system that complex would only make matters worse.

It's bad enough when people remove an artist's voice by removing their comments entirely, but giving users the ability to edit the text on posts of other people would be a whole new level of chaos, misattribution, misinterpretation, and misrepresentation just waiting to happen.

Because you can bet that people would not limit themselves to the innocent intents of adding puns.

A silly, quick pic of my faaavorite sequence break.

[bluecheezy-blog]

A gathering

For those concerned about my wanting social skills, it was an accomplishment of sorts that I decided to show up at the wedding at all. It was equally telling that I even abandoned my Nike to wear heels. The first rule in Korean pow-wows, where form trumps content, is just showing up. Here flattery prevails, as do appearances.

To recap, I have been accepted to a job position that a few of my peers consider something of a paragon of success. After one laborious(but negligible) year of studies and some inscrutable amount of luck I have made quite a headway. One flaw is that my newfound job somewhat instructs me to mingle with people, and I’d rather be finger-fucked nicely by a lobster. One of such occasions was to attend a fellow colleague’s wedding

Now, to qualify, I can ditch my lethargic self and be as amiable as the next person when I choose to be. Accompanied by somebody who will check my mistakes, I might even prove myself to be charming. But this time, I was not resolved to attending the said wedding because a) I do not enjoy being bullied to do sth b) The groom and I were unacquainted, which complicates the matter even more since I would be attending as his guest. The reason I overcame such burdens was that my companies were adamant in their views and they did not hesitate from showing it(They weren’t even oblique - “I would be horrified to find somebody saying those words had this been my wedding”, a colleague of mine said when I hinted my absence by merely suggesting the weather was too cold), which was : to abandon the wedding is to abandon social niceties alltogether. A creature of habit, I was quickly disheartened by such uncompromising attitudes. I am only 24 and remain malleable to social pressures 

But Saturday came as did other horrors. It was a clear winter morning with pristine blue sky. I entered the ceremony accompanied by my colleagues, and was absolutely horrified that only one-third of my colleagues have followed through on their promises to attend the wedding. But already the ceremony has begun, and I-naively-thought, oh well, what was to lose by celebrating the young groom?

Except that the ceremony was held in a Christian way. No, ‘Christian way’ would be too much of a misinterpretation since I would be misattributing that day’s horrors to religion. I don’t harbor any particular aversion to it, but the pastor(yes they had an officiating pastor) was adamant in maintaining his somewhat anachronistic opinions. That was when my repulsion started to crystallize. And then he went on. And on. He was no more economical in his words than a deranged man. He talked of how men are the pillars and how women, made from their ribs, are destined to be sidelined to a mere complementary role. The ease with which he was distracted allowed him to keep talking until the guests had only 40 minutes left to finish the feast(since it was a booked buffet). Finally he stopped his sermon and the ceremony has ended. I took that as a cue to leave, only now my said companies said that now we should take photos with the bride and the groom. Our acquaintance goes back to only two months ago, during which we have met on three occasions at best. And now we were plotting to photobomb a man’s wedding, only because “it was the right thing to do”. They seemed to maintain this impermeable serenity while suggesting it, while I was agape at such horror. To appear at a stranger’s wedding picture, that counts as a horror to both parties, right?

We did take the photos, but I left in haste. Not even having begun the work, little has yet come of the repercussions of hanging out with men and their strong opinions. But I’m certain that Saturday is only the beginning of the long list of self-inflicted wounds should I continue to associate with them. Seems as though socializing has fallen even lower down my list of priorities. These people are the ones steeped deep in Korea’s long-standing social structures : no grace, just form. I’m beginning to think I have the measure of these people. I will probably continue to lurch between wildly different approaches when it comes to these kind of events, but for now, my mantra is, be myself. Do not let these things drive wedge between me and myself.

[hazeldough]

i........ have a lot of feelings about tpodg with the announcement of the film adaption

disclaimer: i’m not mlm, so i can’t speak about that part of its narrative in place of mlm. plus, the film adaption was only recently announced and we don’t really have any details on it except that it exists and is set to have female leads. 

and while i’ve done my share of analysis on the book and some of wilde’s history and really passionate about both, there’s a lot i dont know yet or may be misinterpreting. my opinions and pov about tpodg and oscar wilde are subject to change the more i analyze the book and read about wilde’s life through his writings and the transcripts of his trials, so i’m open to reading other people’s opinion on the novel and film!

also, i got carried away and even busted out the copy i annotated in, so this got super lengthy. it’s mostly me reanalyzing the book after stepping away from it for a few months. 

oh, and spoilers ahead.

(i spent about 2 hours on this and it’s 4:27 am now.......... im already yelling @ a future me who is procrastinating on an essay, looking back at this moment thinking “hey, i wish u could put some of that focus and research into this thing right now” and hey......... hard same, buddy)

anyway.

 i just want the film adaption to not lose the essential themes and messages that come with tpodg and the weight it carried in wilde’s life.

it’s already not the best lgbt rep with its leads being assholes (dorian & henry) or (spoilers) ending up dead (basil). granted, the victorian era wasn’t the best time to make revolutionary strides in normalizing lgbt+ media, but it still was a novel that was written by a gay man that time period, drawing from his own experiences. 

wilde’s works primarily criticized english culture and society’s tendencies to put up a front for the public to save face for their personal lives. 

“My dear fellow, you forget that we are in the native land of the hypocrite.“

“Dorian,“ cried Hallward, “that is not the question. England is bad enough I know, and English society is all wrong. That is the reason why I want you to be fine. You have not been fine.“

Dorian & Basil (Chapter XII)

tpodg was no exception since it featured a lead who was groomed to believing that the downfall of others was the ultimate symbol of his love towards him and was eventually able to abuse/manipulate people on the regular through his charisma and get away with it because of his privileges. 

“Someone has killed herself for love of you. I wish that I had ever had such and experience. It would have made me in love for the rest of my life.“ (Lord Henry Wotton, Chapter VIII)

and it’s not like no one was aware that dorian had major red flags around him. because they did.

“Women who had wildly adored him, and for his sake had braved all social censure and set convention at defiance, were seen to grow pallid with shame or horror if Dorian Gray entered the room.“ (Chapter XI)

“Why is it, Dorian, that a man like the Duke of Berwick leaves the room of a club when you enter it? Why is it that so many gentlemen in London will neither go to your home nor invite you to theirs?... Why is your friendship so fatal to young men? There was that wretched boy in the Guards who committed suicide. You were his great friend.“ (Basil Hallward, Chapter XII)

(that whole paragraph is just basil talking about how men are afraid to be associated with dorian, there’s way more stuff, but i felt that info was enough)

even though there were consistent and frequent rumors that surrounded him. no one believed that this cherub looking guy was the reason that everyone who interacted with him either had their reputation ruined for life or were driven to suicide. 

(spoilers) basil wasn’t an exception to this, not believing that all the rumors surrounding his friend, muse, and for a lack of better term crush were true. he was so blinded by his love that dorian was capable of bringing on ruin ultimately led to his death. 

“But you, Doian, with your pure, bright, innocent face, and your marvellous untroubled youth-- I can’t believe anything against you.“ (Basil Hallward, Chapter XII)

even dorian’s motives in murdering basil was a result of his own misattributions. instead of taking ownership of his own behavior, he placed blame on basil and his portrait instead.

“The friend who had painted the fatal portrait to which all his misery had been due, had gone out of his life.“ (Chapter XIII)

and when dorian was close to confessing what he had done to his confidant, the person arguably more responsible than basil for leading him to his lifestyle? he didn’t believe dorian either.

"What would you say, Harry, if I told you that I had murdered Basil?”

(...)

“I would say, my dear fellow that you were posing for a character that doesn’t suit you. All crime is vulgar, just as  all vulgarity is a crime. It is not in you, Dorian, to commit a murder. I am sorry if I hurt your vanity by saying so, but I assure you it is true. Crime belongs exclusively to the lower orders. I don’t blame them in the smallest degree. I should fancy that crime was to them what art is to us, simply a method of procuring extraordinary sensations.“

(Dorian & Lord Henry, Chapter XIX)

after stepping away from the book for a few months, i feel like some reevaluation is due. i initially approached the book thinking that it would end up with an ambiguously happy ending, having only heard slivers about it and knowing that it was written by a gay man. i guess the part of me that’s very invested in good redemption arcs and lgbt books in ap eng lit just wanted a book to read that didn’t feature weak character development and/or heteronormative relationships. the closest books i got were their eyes, atss, and tpodg.

but now that i’m looking back at it, most likely unpopular opinion: i personally think that tpodg isn’t a lgbt story. (even if it was, it’s not the best representation for lgbt characters since it has a lot of tropes that we now see as overused and negative) 

to me, it’s just a story that has lgbt characters. meaning that while the novel focused on dorian, it focused on his morality, not his sexuality. dorian knew who he liked, since it was heavily implied that dorian had male and female lovers. the story wasn’t focused on his romantic or sexual relationships, but on how his morals took a nose dive as he developed into a grade-A fuck boy using his multiple failed relationships as evidence of that.

i’ve come to understand that character development doesn’t always mean getting a redemption arc. good character development is a character starting from point A and actively moving towards point B with minor interference by other characters. most of the time, it’s a character going from morally neutral/bad to good. this time, it’s a character going from neutral to bad.

i do agree that there’s a huge imbalance of lgbt characters being portrayed as predatory and abusive instead of flawed and needing of development, adding on to preexisting homophobia that’s rampant in most cultures. i also agree that there needs to be more positive representation of lgbt characters, by lgbt people, for lgbt people. 

at the same time, tpodg was written before we could even safely discuss and address these issues in public. i’m saying that because wilde got straight up jailed for “gross indecency” for just being a gay man existing. but i don’t think wilde was unaware of the repercussions he’d face when he stated that being gay was normal. most of his works were about calling out the hypocrisy of english society. even in his own testimony at trial, he stated:

"The Love that dare not speak its name" in this century is such a great affection of an elder for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, and such as you find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare. It is that deep, spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect. It dictates and pervades great works of art like those of Shakespeare and Michelangelo, and those two letters of mine, such as they are.”

full quote and transcript found here

wilde was fully aware that he was going to be imprisoned for being gay and accepted it. not because he was ignorant of how society functioned, but because he knew how it functioned. and he was right. and i want to say that he was aware of this even when he was writing tpodg (which was about 4-5 years before his trials took place).

even if tpodg was going to be portrayed with male leads, the film would be in an era with a new perspective about mlm relationships. homophobia is still rampant in multiple societies, but lgbt people and mlm in particular have more of a voice and agency to defend themselves, look for, and create media that is representative of their experiences without needing to pander to heterosexual audiences. it still isn’t perfect, knowing that mlm still have trouble telling their stories in a field dominated by straight women who only see to use them as objects for fetishization instead of helping them create a safe platform to be heard.

basically, wilde’s context for writing tpodg is drastically different from how it can be interpreted and discussed today vs how it was in his time. based on that, i’m inferring that if writing a negative, heavily implied mlm relationship was deemed criminal enough as it is, i imagine he would have faced even more horrible punishment for writing a positive relationship between two men.

at the moment, we know nothing about the direction the film is going to follow, other than that it’ll be female-led. and, judging from the recent string of female led films (ghostbusters & oceans eight), i’m going to safely assume it’ll be a dominantly female cast, with dorian, basil, and henry being portrayed by women, and them all being wlw. (there’s a better word to describe this, it starts with a p, but it’s 4 AM now and i’m losing steam)

i’m not saying that the movie is going to be free from homophobic comments, but i am saying that it’ll face more criticism for not accurately portraying SGA (same gender attraction) relationship more than it featuring a SGA relationship at all.

even with the lack of information, i feel like if i’m going to be consistent about an opinion it’s this: the any adaption can do is to keep elements of the book while being cognisant of its perspective and purpose.

at the same time, i do want the film to deviate from the novel by being more open about the leads’ sexuality while also addressing the tropes that’s present in the society its set in and how it affects the narrative. 

to me, the film doesnt have to be a carbon copy of the novel, it just has to have the same vibe the book gave and to do that, it has to be aware of the issues wlw face in society today but also integrate it into the victorian era setting.

...yes, i know it sounds really confusing but i’ve spent around 2 hours on this already and it’s currently 4:24 AM. i’m doing my best my sleep deprived and coffee fueled brain can do atm. but again, i’m open to discuss this when i’m more put together and see more perspectives on the film adaption.

i am aware that there might not be enough elbow room for that to happen since society’s still pretty homophobic (albeit, not as much as before) as well as time constraints that come with adapting a book to a movie. still though, it’s something i’m interested to see be executed properly.