#think piece

[honeytonedhottie]

how to be audacious, a guide⋆.ೃ࿔*:･🧁💕

for the longest time, i used to shrink myself... i was too scared to ask, too scared to seem “too much.” but recently i’ve realized: being afraid to ask keeps you stuck. it keeps you small. being audacious? it’s about putting yourself and ur goals FIRST and pursuing them without shame, and knowing you're worthy of them. this post is your push to break out of that bubble and start asking. because the closed mouth never gets fed…💬🎀

YOU KNOW YOU HAVE FREE WILL... RIGHT? ;

are u taking full advantage of ur free will everyday? i swear, sometimes we forget we have it and we wonder why everything seems boring, or why we're still stick in the same place we were last year. ur not a sim on autopilot, every decision that u make/don't make is shaping your life.

you can ask for more. you can walk away. you can say no, or better yet, say yes to something that scares you a little (but lowkey excites you too). my mom always says, "ur not a tree thats just rooted in one spot, you can get up and move."

YOU DESERVE IT ;

ur only limited by the limitations that u accept in ur mind. if u say something or someone is not in ur league, or u don't deserve something than you dont. simple as that. stop taking on limitations from others, society, ur own limiting beliefs and just let urself live! if u can conceptualize something then you. can. get. it. and i want u to drill that into ur head.

YOUR AUDACITY ISN'T HURTING ANYONE ;

idk why we're so afraid to be audacious, to ask for things, to take up space. its not like being audacious and asking for more is hurting anyone, in fact it only hurts urself when u sell urself short. by you having audacity, your exposing urself to more opportunities and options. you miss 100% of the shots u dont take, so don't be afraid to fail a few times.

ADMIT UR DESIRES ;

why lie to urself and tell urself u want x when you really want y? bcuz u think x is more attainable? stop pretending like ur fine with the bare minimum and dont be shy to be fussy or difficult or a diva. ADVOCATE for yourself. asking for more doesn't make u greedy, it makes u self aware. clarity is step one to getting everything you’ve ever dreamed of.

it doesn't hurt to try! if u try the same things then ur gonna get the same results so think of ur life is a testing lab. try it for the plot. worst case? you learn something. best case? you’re living your best, most unexpected EXCITING life ever...💬🎀

[agirlwithglam]

you know what. you're a cool person. you're a damn awesome and amazing person. you're so freaking gorgeous, and you're smart and intelligent, and you're weird and fun and funny and so so so cool. you're someone who's presence makes people happier and lighter because your energy and vibe is just so positive and happy. you have the innocence of a little kid but also the baddie-ness of Nicki Minaj. people love and adore you AS THEY SHOULD because you're such a privilege to be friends with! you're so caring and sweet and kind to your loved ones and you're so fun and fabulous and funny to be with. you're a special and unique person. you're one of a kind. no one can find someone like you anywhere else, you make people feel so special and happy to be with! i love you and so should you <3 💌🎀✨💕🗯

[lauralas9]

Sinners Think Pieces

Alright i think its officially time to wrap the think pieces up because it’s honestly getting tired. I think the longer the movie has been out the more thoughtful analysis has turned into projection.

On characters you don’t like, y’all are completely ignoring on screen dialogue and context to make up narratives that go completely against historical context, Ryan’s writing, and things he has said in interviews. On characters you do like yall are either completely overlooking their flaws while completely demolishing other characters for doing the same thing or you are rewriting the movie in your think pieces to appeal to what you wanted to happen. ( I’m obviously not talking about fan fiction because it’s your right to write fan fiction how ever you want.) I’ve literally seen think pieces where someone says a character does something I go back and watch it and it didn’t happen that way. I really be thinking to myself, “Did we see a different movie?”.

However, I do think that outside of all of that there is some over analyzing going on because there’s nothing else to talk about because we have talked about damn near everything in the movie. That happens with every good movie fandom not just sinners!

But hey who am I to tell y’all to stop because technically this is still a think piece. 🤷🏾‍♀️

*I’m interested to know if I’m the only person that feels this way*

[no-squ4sh-4-b4by]

Kanye West and Bianca Censori's appearance on the red carpet was something out of a nightmare. If you haven't seen the clip, go look it up.

It starts with them posing, then they face each other and start to talk. Their conversation is not audible, but you can see Bianca shaking her head no and readjusting her large fur coat to cover herself. After three or four words are exchanged, she turns away from the camera and starts taking off her coat slowly. Revealing her naked shoulders, then her back, then her buttocks. She turns around to finally show off the dress she's wearing, a tight, see-through piece of nylon (designed by Kanye himself, according to a post he made on his Instagram) that leaves her breasts, genitals and ass exposed. She's essentially naked. During this whole scene, Kanye is just facing the cameras with sunglasses on, neutral expression on his face.

Now, I'm not shocked by nudity. Censori is definitely not the first celebrity to walk the red carpet wearing a very revealing outfit (and she won't be the last). What disgusts me is the scene they built around the outfit.

First, the little conversation they have. You can clearly see Bianca shaking her head no and tightening her coat around her before being made to undress. There's two possibilities here:

A) Either this wasn't rehearsed, so we essentially witnessed Bianca being pressured into undressing herself in front of dozens of cameras or;

B) It was rehearsed (the most likely option, in my opinion). But then why? Why act out this discomfort before the reveal?

Some could argue they were talking about something totally unrelated, but I very much doubt it. It's their big moment on the red carpet, in front of cameras, it's not the time to talk about the groceries.

What I think is happening is that they (but most likely Kanye) voluntarily chose to paint a scene of a woman being forced to undress herself in front of thousands for the amusement of her husband. It's essentially a brag, a show of force for Kanye. He's saying: "Look at my wife and what she'll do for me. Look what I can make her do. "

The last thing I haven't mentioned, and the scariest, is Censori's facial expression through it all. Neutral expression, no smile. Her eyebrows are trimmed downwards in a way where she looks slightly worried. And her stare is totally vacant. I've seen people say she looks drugged, dissociated, downright "stupid."

I think this is the main difference between Bianca's look and others who have worn skimpy outfits in front of the cameras. Whether it be Lady Gaga, Kendall Jenner, or Madonna, they all share something: confidence. A sultry look, a cheeky smirk, hell, at least a smile! Something to show that they feel desirable, that they're in control. That they choose to show us their bodies.

Whereas Bianca looks dead inside as she's posing.

After standing in front of the cameras for a little while, Kanye takes her hand and leads her away.

The whole sequence (no matter how much Bianca has consented to it) feels like a humiliation ritual. Kayne, standing there fully dressed, pressing his wife to expose her body to the entire world before parading her around. A gross display of chauvinist male domination on the body of a woman. Like, I don't know how else to say it, but it looks like he's walking around with his sex doll, still partially in her plastic wrapping.

Why are we seeing this? What is the point? I can't help but relate this to Elon's n*zi salute. It feels like we're witnessing more and more rich and powerful men pushing the boundaries of what is socially acceptable, trying to see how far they can go. How much of their toxic, repressive views they can share before we come for them.

My heart goes out to Bianca, I hope she's safe and happy in her marriage.

[gpt890]

if I think too hard about Gayvincible & William I start throwing up and crying and screaming

I remember watching the ep in season 1 where Mark & Amber tag along with William to visit the University and I like Clutched my pearls so hard at this scene and turned to my bf like “THIS HAS TO BE WHY GAYVINCIBLE EXISTS…”

I didn’t Think this was gonna be a long form post but fuck I have a lot to say hold on

This scene in the Gayvincible-verse (spare me I literally don’t know what else to call it) to Me would read more so as William being not only shocked that Mark’s Invincible-but also getting a small crush on him for saving his life. I personally would like to imagine Rick is still there and he and William are still a thing, but maybe just not as emotionally invested? I can’t see William as a guy who swaps his interests so easily, so maybe he just has extra room to be attracted to Mark bc he’s not super serious about Rick.who knows anyone else cab see it differently it’s not canon I just like making my own personal canon

Then due to this new Romantic infatuation with Mark (specifically his super badass scary super hero side) William acts pretty much the same as he does in the normal episode but Tenfold-def tries to slip really bad flirting into there and Mark just. Isn’t impressed 😭in Maskless Mark’s universe specifically, I see his relationship with Amber crumbling partially due to him questioning his Own sexuality (his name is GayVincible. he likes boys only💔) and that of course frustrates him even more so in this scene bc he doesn’t know Why he’s staying with Amber if she seems to get so angry over things Mark *has* to do, and if he’s not even that attracted to her..!!!

That’s why I feel like in this universe Mark would agree to follow William to find Rick immediately instead of looking for Amber at the party. (Yes he flies William in costume to where Rick went missing and despite William’s worries about Rick he’s Extremely giddy he gets to be carried in Mark’s arms.) But to sync things up and make William getting restrained make sense, maybe Sinclair knocks them both out at first and restrains them both (to which Mark easily breaks out of the restraints bc duh). The three super humans would go to restrain him again, which causes the fight that happens in canon to break out.

A thing I like to think about the other Mark variants is that they’re all just a little bit more Viltrumite than og Mark is, who is closer to a 50/50 human-Viltrumite. Maskless Mark specifically probably isn’t too much more Viltrumite, but he’s closer to a 55/45 range.

That being said, Maskless Mark is Stronger than og Mark, and doesn’t get his shit rocked as hard by the super humans in this universe😭

When he knocks Rick’s faceplate off, William still attempts to reason with Rick, and admits to the “doing the dirty by the lake last summer” thing, but my freak ass likes to think that maybe….Thats what helps motivate Mark to kill this guy. I’ve seen a lot of ppl lean towards a more “yandere” trope for Maskless Mark, and while I wouldn’t say this is necessarily *That*, I do like the idea of him being extremely jealous…

All that being said, Rick *doesn’t* come back to consciousness anyways, so Mark *has* to kill him. And he does so by snapping his neck in front of William mercilessly 😭

Which leads to this very intimidating and yet. Intimate? Screenshot between them,,the aftermath of the college trip becomes that Mark comforts William the whole night, and can’t get himself to leave his side, even after Amber returns back to the dorm and he finds her asleep in Rick’s bed. Amber and Mark break things off at this point, and they are pretty much the same as they are in canon about it (not hostile or terrible to each other after the break up, just very very sad. Maybe a little less sad since it dragged on for less time here) And Eventually Mark gets with William. Probably post Nolan betrayal, as William is Terrified for his safety and Mark…is single and crazy in love with him.

However their relationship ends or William potentially dies is still a mystery to me-but that’s up for other Wark fans to decide I guess >;D

[kevjeanyves]

i just got here (and by that i mean i binged the whole show while studying for finals between november and december), but buddie can’t NOT go canon. not at this point. not with everything they’ve set up

bucks canonically bisexual. that’s a massive key component. the queerBAIT is now lying entirely on eddie’s shoulders. and in terms of bucks storyline, the horrible guy he dated was given a barebones personality…that resembles eddie (military, likes sports, had a serious relationship with a woman). almost every trait they gave That Guy resembles eddie (except eddie isn’t racist). they did that on purpose. buck, bothered, bewildered, bisexual or whatever it’s called was so centred on bucks relationship with eddie

plus the whole confessions “i’m not your last” moment, only for the LAST shot of that episode to be buck and eddie sitting side by side. confessions as a whole is such insane proof of impending buddie canon too…the whole focus on eddie finding joy, on eddie’s catholic guilt and guilt in general, on eddie not wanting to See himself both figuratively and literally because he’s scared of what he’ll find…josh’s speech applying to eddie but making no sense regarding that Other Guy (the glee thing made no sense regardless)

and THAT focus is so obviously pointing towards eddie being gay. eddie’s entire everything has always pointed towards him being gay, i can’t lie, but it’s getting so much more obvious. they’ve reached a point where nothing about eddie’s personal arc or journey makes any fucking sense UNLESS he’s gay, and every storyline is making it more obvious that they’ve realized it

his catholic guilt being brought up. not wanting to be intimate with a woman who represents god in his mind. sex, god, and shame all coming together in that episode, AND bobby bringing up that eddie does this thing in relationships where he makes excuses instead of examining how he really feels towards them…now im sure bobby doesn’t know eddie’s gay, but it invites the audience and eddie to examine his past behaviour towards female romantic partners. and every single thing about that priest/juice scene in confessions. catholicism guilt tied into sexuality again (“uh…n-no offence…i-im straight” to a priest like cmon)

and speaking of past relationships, eddie’s grief is at the forefront of his storyline too now. his main most pressing storyline being chris’s running away. eddie’s grief and complicated emotions towards shannon have always been something he struggles with, and in s7 we learn that chris has complicated feelings around his mom too. and at the end of s7…well. what a stupid fucking storyline, but grief is the driving force of the chasm between eddie and chris. this addresses the most important romantic relationship eddie had with a woman (obviously shannon), and hopefully the relationship he has with his son, and both of those people are excuses eddie might be making in his own head to justify not even questioning his sexuality. eddie and shannon had chris when they were teenagers, eddie’s been a dad literally his entire adult life. does he know he can be gay if he’s been married? if he has a kid? does he know he’s allowed to even question his own sexuality? it’s probably what michael felt, but more complicated

AND michael stayed with athena thinking she could “fix” him. eddie said in s7 that he thinks he’s broken and can’t be fixed, to a woman he’d been unadvisedly pursuing, a woman who looked just like his own wife…

then, the “you think being a cheerleader makes your son weak?” storyline. cheerleading is seen as feminine and there are a lot of stereotypes about male cheerleaders and feminine men. both cheerleading and being gay are seen as feminine. the cheerleader called eddie “dad” and hen pointed out to chim that it his emergency is difficult for eddie because he misses his own kid AND the conversation with the cheerleaders dad where he relates it to his own current situation, which connects the storyline to eddie and chris. but the “you think [stereotypically feminine thing] makes your son weak?” brings eddie and ramon to mind. because eddie was raised to be hypermasculine and Not Weak, never weak. what would ramon think if eddie comes out as gay?

and, finally, the focus on eddie finding joy. on eddie doing any introspection at all. on eddie Seeing himself and understanding himself and being kinder to himself. on eddie realizing he deserves to be happy. on eddie realizing he doesn’t have to hide behind his (ridiculously adorable) moustache, that he doesn’t have to hide who he is

s7 was for bi buck. s8 is for gay eddie AND likely for buddie. eddie’s currently trying to see Himself and make amends with his past (and because that went badly, making amends with chris…the child he sorta partially legally gave to buck, in a way…). buck’s trying to not lose hope over the future, wondering who’ll be the last to love him (or wondering if he’s loveable at all). eddie’s true self AND bucks endgame are called into question at the same time…now maybe i just got here But

[cybernaght]

The fandom echo chamber: fanon, microanalysis and conspiracy brain 

As someone who has been in fandom spaces, on and off, for 20 years, I find some fascinating trends popping up in the last decade that I thought to be fandom-specific but clearly aren’t. So, I would like to do a little examination of where those things come from, how they are engaged with, and what it says about the way we consume media. This is a think piece, of sorts, with my brain being the main source. As such, we will spend some time down the memory lane of a fandom-focused millennial.

This is largely brought about by Good Omens. But it’s also not really about Good Omens at all.

Part one. Fanon.

The way we see characters in any story is always skewed by our very selves. This is a neutral statement, and it does not have a value judgement. It’s simply unavoidable. We recognise aspects of them, love aspects of them, and choose aspects of them to highlight based entirely on our own vision of the universe. 

Recognition comes into this. There is a reason so many protagonists of romance novels have a “blank slate” problem. Even when they do not, we love characters who are like us or versions of us that we would like to be. And when we say “we”, I also mean, “me”. 

(I remember very clearly this realisation hit me after a whole season of Doctor Who with writing which I hated utterly when I questioned why I still clung so incredibly hard to Clara Oswald as my favourite companion. Then I looked at myself in the mirror. Oh. Well. That would do it, wouldn’t it?)

Then, there is projection, and, again, this is a neutral statement. Projection exists, and it is completely normal and, dare I say it, valid way of engaging with — well, anything. Is the character queer? Trans? Neurodivergent? Are they in love? Do they like chocolate? Are they a cat person? Well, yes, if this is what the text says, but if the text does not say anything… You tell me. Please, do tell me. Because, in that moment of projection, they are yours. 

And then, there is fandom osmosis, and that is the most fascinating one of them all, the one that is not very easy to note while you are inside the echo chamber. It’s the way we collectively, consciously or not, make decisions on who or what the characters are, what their relationships are, and what happens to them.  

(Back when I was writing egregiously long Guardian recaps on this blog I actually asked if Shen Wei’s power being learning actually was stated anywhere in the canon of the show. Because I had no idea. I have read and reread dozen of fanfics where that is the case, and at some point through enough repetition, it became reality.)

We are all kind of making our own reality here, aren’t we? 

Back when things were happening in a much less centralised manner - in closed livejournal groups, and forums of all shapes and sizes - I don’t remember there being quite as much universally agreed upon fanon. Frankly, I don’t remember much of universally agreed upon anything. But now, everything is in one place: we have this, and we have AO3, and it’s wonderful, it really is so much easier to navigate, but it’s also one gigantic reality-shifting echo chamber, with blogs, reblogs, trends, and rituals. 

Accessibility plays its part, too. If you were, say, in Life on Mars (UK) fandom between seasons, and you wanted to post your speculation fic, you had to have had an account, and then find and gain access to one of the bigger groups (lifein1973 was my poison, but ymmv), and then, if you feel brave you may post it, but also, you may want to do so from your alt account if you wanted to keep yours separate, and then you would have to go through the whole process again. And I’m not saying that fan creations then were somehow inherently better for it than fan creations now (although Life on Mars Hiatus Era is perhaps a bad example - because some of the Speculation Fic there was breathtaking), but there is something to say about the ease of access that made the fandoms go through a big bang of sorts.

(I mean, come on, I can just come here and post this - and I am certain people will read it, and this blog is a pandemic cope baby about Chinese television for goodness sake.)

The canon transformations that happen in the fandom echo chamber truly are fascinating to witness as someone who is more or less a fandom butterfly. I get into something, float around for a bit, then get into something else and move on. I might come back eventually when the need arises, but I don’t sustain a hiatus mind-state. This means that when I float away and return, I find some very intriguing stuff.

Let’s actually look at Good Omens here. Season two aired, and I found it spectacular in its cosy and anguished way; deliberately and intelligently fanfic-y in its plot building; simple but subversive, and so very tender. (I will have to circle back to this eventually, because, truly, I love how deliberately it takes the tropes and shatters them - it’s glorious). And, to me - a person who read the book, watched the first season, hung around AO3 for a few weeks and moved on - absolutely on-point in terms of characterisation. 

So imagine my surprise when the fandom disagreed so vehemently that there are actual multi-tiered theories on how characters were not in possession of their senses. Nothing there, in my mind, ever contradicted any of the stated text, as it stood. This remained a strange little mystery until I did what I always do when I flutter close to an ongoing fandom.

I loaded AO3 and sorted the existing fic by popularity. And there it was, all there: the actual earth-shattering mutual devotion of the angel and the demon; willingness to Fall; openness and long heart-aching confession speeches. There was all of the fanon surrounding Aziraphale and Crowley, which, to me, read as out of character, and to one for whom they became the reality over the last four years, read as truth. 

Again, only neutral statements here. This is not a bad thing, and neither this is a good thing, this is just something that happens, after a while, especially when there are years for the fandom-born ideas to bounce around and stew. I can’t help but think that so much of what we see as real in spaces such as this one is a chimaera of the actual source and all the collective fan additions which had time and space to grow, change, develop, and inspire, reverberating over and over again, until the echoes fill the entirety of the space. 

Eventually, this chimaera becomes a reality. 

Part two. Microanalysis 

Here are my two suppositions on the matter:

1. Some writers really love breadcrumb storytelling. 

Russel T Davies, for instance, on his run of Doctor Who (and, if you are reading it much later - I do mean the original one), loved that technique for his seasonal arcs. What is a Bad Wolf? Who is Harold Saxon? Well, you can watch very very carefully, make a theory, and see it proven right or wrong by the end of the season. 

Naturally, mystery box writers are all about breadcrumb storytelling: your Losts and your Westworlds are all about giving you snippets to get your brain firing, almost challenging you to figure things out just ahead of the reveal. 

2. We, as humans, love breadcrumbs.

And why wouldn’t we? Breadcrumbs are delicious. They are, however, a seasoning, or a coating. They are not the meal. 

Too much metaphor?

Let’s unpack it and start from the beginning.

Pattern recognition colours every aspect of our lives, and it colours the way we view art to a great extent. I think we truly underestimate how much it’s influenced by our lived experiences.

If you are, broadly speaking, living somewhere in Western/North-Western Europe in the 14th century, and you see a painting in which there is a very very large figure surrounded by some smaller figures and holding really tiny figures, you may know absolutely nothing about who those figures are, but you know that the big figure is the Important One, and the small ones are Less Important Ones, and the tiny ones are In Their Care. You know where your reverence would lie, looking at this picture. And, I imagine, as someone living in the 14th century, you may be inspired to a sense of awe looking at this composition, because in the world you live in, this is how art works. 

If you, on the other hand, watch a piece of recorded media and see the eyes of two characters meet as the violins swell, you know what you are being told at that moment. You don’t have to have a film degree to feel a sort of way when you see a green-tinged pallet used, when cross-cuts use juxtaposing images, or notice where your focus is pulled in any given shot. This stuff - this recognition of patterns - has been trained into us by the simple fact that we live in this time, on this planet, and we have been doing so long enough to have engaged recorded media for a period of time. 

As humans, we notice things. Our brains flare up when they see something they recognise, and then we seek to find other similar details and form a bigger picture. This often happens unconsciously, but sometimes it does not. Sometimes we do it on purpose: finding breadcrumbs in stories is a little bit like solving a mystery. It allows us to stretch that brain muscle that puts two and two together. It makes us feel clever. 

So yes, we love breadcrumbs, and, frankly, quite a lot of storytelling takes advantage of this. It’s very useful for foreshadowing, creating thematic coherence, or introducing narrative parallels and complexity. It’s useful for nudging the viewer into one or the other emotional direction, or to cue them into what will happen in the next moment, or what exactly is the one important detail they should pay attention to.

Because this is something media does intentionally, and something we pick up both consciously and not, it is very hard to know when to stop. We don't really ever know when all of the breadcrumbs have been collected. It becomes very easy to get carried away. There is a very specific kind of pleasure in digging into content frame by frame, soundbite by soundbite, chasing that pleasure of finding. 

But it is almost never breadcrumbs all the way down. They are techniques to help us focus on the main event: the story. I truly believe those who make media want it to reach the widest possible audience, and that includes all of us who like to watch every single thing ever created with our Media Analysis Goggles on and those who are just here to enjoy the twists and turns of the story at the pace offered to them. And I think, sometimes in our chase to collect and understand every little clue we forget that media is not made to just cater for us.

One can call it missing a forest for the trees. But I would hate to mix my metaphors, so let’s call it missing a schnitzel for the breadcrumbs. 

Part three. The Conspiracy Brain. 

If you are there with me, in the midst of the excited frenzy, chasing after all those delicious breadcrumbs, then patterns can grow, merge together, and become all-encompassing theories. Let’s call them conspiracy theories, even though this is not what they truly are.

So, why do we believe in conspiracy theories?

One, Because We Have Been Lied To. 

All conspiracies start with distrust.

If you are in fandom spaces - especially if you are in fandom spaces which revolve around a queer fictional couple - especially-especially if you have been in such spaces for a period of time, you have most certainly been lied to at one point or another. 

We don’t even have to talk about Sherlock - and let’s not do that - but do you remember Merlin? Because I remember Merlin. Specifically, I remember the publicity surrounding the first season, with its weaponised usage of “bromance” and assertions that this whole thing is a love story of sorts, and then the daunting realisation that this was all a stunt, deliberately orchestrated to gather viewership. 

And, because we were lied to in such a deliberate manner for such an extensive period of time, I genuinely believe that it forever altered our pattern recognition habits, because what was this if not encouragement to read into things? Now we are trained to read between the lines or see little cries for help where they might not be. Because we were told, over and over again, that we should.

(Yes, I think we are all existing in these spaces coloured by the trauma of queer-bating. I am, however, looking forward to a world where I can unlearn all of that.)

Two, Cognitive Dissonance.

The chain reaction works a bit like this: the world is wrong - it can’t possibly be wrong by coincidence - this must be on purpose - someone is responsible for it.

Being Lied To is a preamble, but cognitive dissonance is where it all originates. In so many cross-fandom theories I have noticed a four-step process:

A) this is not good

B) this author could not have made a mistake 

C) this must be done on purpose

D) here is why 

(Funny thing is, I have been on the receiving end of the small conspiracy spiral, and it is a very interesting experience. Not relevant to this conversation is the fact that a lot of my job revolves around storytelling. What is relevant is that my hobbies also revolve around storytelling. And one of them is DnD. Now, imagine my genuine shock when one of the players I am currently writing a campaign for noticed a small detail that did not make a logical sense within the complexity of the world, and latched on to it as something clearly indicating some kind of a secret subplot. Their thinking process also went a bit like this: this detail is not a good piece of writing — this DM knows how to tell stories well — this is obviously there on purpose. It was not there on purpose. I created a clumsy shorthand. I erred, in that pesky manner humans tend to. And, seeing this entire thought process recited to me directly in the moment, I felt somewhere between flattered and mortified.)

This whole line of thinking, I think, exists on a knife’s edge between veneration and brutal criticism, relentlessly dissecting everything “wrong”, with a reverent “but this is deliberate” attached to it like a vice, because it is preferable to a simple conclusion that the author let you down, in one way or another. 

Three, Intentionality 

I believe that there is no right or wrong way of engaging with stories, regardless of their medium, and assuming no one gets hurt in the process. While in a strictly academic way, there is a “correct” way of reading (and reading into) media, we here are largely not academics but consumers; consumption is subjective.

However, this all changes when intentionality is ascribed. 

The one I find particularly fascinating is the intentionality of “making it bad on purpose” because, as open-minded as I intend to always be, this just does not happen.

It certainly does not happen in long-form media. Even in the bread-crumb mystery box-type long-form media. 

When television programs underdeliver, they also underperform, and then they get cancelled.

If all the elements of Westworld Season 4 that did not sit together in a completely satisfactory way were written deliberately as some sort of deconstruction for the final season to explore, then it failed because that final season will now never come.

(There will likely never be a Secret Fourth Episode.)

And look, I am not here to refute your theories. Creativity is fun, and theorising is fantastic. 

But, perhaps, when the line of thought ventures into the “bad on purpose” territory, it could be recognised for what it is: disappointment and optimism, attempting to coexist in a single space. And I relate to that, I do, and I am sorry that there is even a need for this line of thinking. It’s always so incredibly disappointing that a creator you believed to be devoid of flaws makes something that does not hit in the way you hoped it would. It’s pretty heartbreaking. 

Unfortunately, people make mistakes. We are all fallible that way. 

Four, Wildfire.

Then, when the crumbs are found, a theory is crafted, and intentionality is ascribed, all that needs to happen is for it to catch on. And hey, what better place for it than this massive hollow funnel that we exist in, where thoughts, ideas and interpretations reverberate so much they become inextricable from the source material in collective consciousness. 

Conspiracy theories create alternate realities, very much like we all do here. 

So where are we now?

I am not here to tell you what is right and what is wrong; what is true, and what is not. We are all entitled to engage with anything we wish, in whichever way we wish to do it. This is not it, at all. 

All I am saying is… listen.

Do you hear that echo? 

I do. 

[doubledaybooks]

Kyle Chayka, author of FILTERWORLD, shares why he quit Spotify.

His book FILTERWORLD shares...

Why every coffee shop looks the same

How the internet is "flattening" culture

How to curate your own art and life

[ygamiraito]

Spock & Kirk Thinkpiece about Soulmates, Being Intertwined, & Destiny : made by me (first ever tumblr post omds)

[purplehalnw]

I was thinking about s4e4 of The Boys, you know when Homelander gets revenge on the scientists that tortured and experimented on him when he was a child.

Ever since we first heard about Homelander's childhood back in s1, I had always wondered about the why.

So, what really got me thinking was Barbara's explanation for why no one stood up for Homelander. She claims that they were scared. Now for a second I thought she was saying that they were scared of what Vought would do to them if they disobeyed orders. But no, Barbara says that they were scared of Homelander, telling an anecdote of how Homelander killed his bio mother, three doctors, and a nurse when he was born.

This just raised more questions for me. Because surely, if you're afraid of this child and you're scared that he might harm you, wouldn't it have been better if you treated him nicely? Like Homelander killed all of you in this ep because of how you treated him. Being nice and caring and standing up for him probably would've made it less likely for him to harm you.

Also, many people, including Barbara, say that they were "just following orders". But we know that's not completely true. Not after hearing Homelander's story about Marty. Because what Marty did wasn't "just him doing his job". What Marty did was unnecessary, gross, and cruel. And although Marty is the only example of this that the show presents, I'm personally inclined to believe that he wasn't the only one who treated Homelander this way. So why? Why did they treat him this way?

And that brought me back to the "they were scared" line. And I think I get it now. They treated Homelander the way they did so they could have a sense of power over him, to lessen their fear so they could just get the job done and create the "perfect product". By dehumanizing him, by refusing to see him as the child he was, by distancing themselves from him physically and mentally, they could get by. And then on top of that they conditioned him to be desperate for their love and attention to hopefully insure that he would never harm them. Like Jesus Christ.

Also just a little extra tangent. I'm also fascinated by Barbara's comment on Homelander never escaping. She says "you could've broken out of here anytime you wanted but you didn't". At first, I thought she was straight up victim blaming and that was it. But then she goes on to say that she knows why Homelander didn't leave, because he didn't want to disappoint them which they specifically conditioned him for. The way she says it, her tone of voice, it feels like she's saying "yeah we fucked you up and there's nothing you can do about it" or "yeah we fucked you up but you just weren't strong enough to overcome it so I guess you have no one else to blame but yourself".

This pisses me off so bad because bro even if you hadn't conditioned him, Homelander was a kid with no clue about the outside world and whether he could survive in it. And don't lie to me, even if your asses couldn't have stopped Homelander from escaping I know Vought definitely would've fought hard to get him back. And you probably could've since you had and still have a fuck ton of adult supes on your rosters.

[theaawalker]

Why Spider-Man 3 is an Allegory for Toxic Masculinity 🕷

Who is Sam Raimi's Spider-Man?

Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy gave us one of the most groundbreaking, relatable character developments in superhero cinema. Tobey Maguire’s Peter Parker isn’t a rich genius or a literal god — he’s an awkward, dorky New Yorker who’s always five minutes late, struggles to pay rent, and stammers around the girl he loves. He’s not cool, not slick, not untouchable. He's earnest, kind-hearted, and painfully human. Peter is just trying his best, even when his best sometimes isn’t enough. At his core, Peter embodies the ideal of “your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.” He’s a hero because he cares about the small things —about people, about community, about kindness. His powers don’t make him arrogant; they weigh heavily on him. And that's what makes his slow, subtle seduction by the black suit in Spider-Man 3 so devastating to watch. It’s not that Peter suddenly turns evil — it’s that he forgets who he is.

What is Toxic Masculinity?

Toxic masculinity is not the idea that masculinity itself is bad. It’s the specific, destructive brand of masculinity that says "being a man" means being ruthless, violent, dominant, emotionally dead inside. It punishes vulnerability and rewards cruelty. It’s the attitude we see pushed by influencers (hi, Andrew Tate and Myron Gaines) who teach boys that empathy is weakness, that real men “win” at the expense of others, that compassion is for losers. You see toxic masculinity in media where "strong male leads" are emotionally constipated, solve everything with violence, and never admit when they’re wrong. You see it when “strength” is measured by how much you can hurt others, not by how much you can heal. It tells boys and men that the only acceptable emotions are anger and pride — and it leaves everything else to rot in silence. It’s poison pretending to be power.

Peter Parker and the Black Spidey Suit

In Spider-Man 3, Peter Parker doesn’t find the symbiote. The symbiote finds him. It doesn’t demand much at first—just a little connection, a little enhancement. When Peter first wears the black suit, it feels thrilling. It’s sleek, powerful, intimidating. It makes him faster, stronger, sharper. For a moment, it feels like maybe this is who Spider-Man was meant to be all along. But the suit doesn’t just sit quietly. It weaves itself into Peter’s life — into his body, his mind, his instincts. It amplifies everything angry, selfish, and impulsive inside him. Peter doesn’t realize he’s changing until the people around him start backing away. And like many people first dipping into toxic behaviors, Peter initially thinks, “This is fine. This is better.” He mistakes cruelty for confidence. He thinks he’s leveling up — when really, he’s losing himself.

How Men Find Safety in Toxic Masculinity

When Peter’s life starts spiraling — losing his job, struggling in his relationship with MJ, getting publicly humiliated — he doesn’t double down on kindness or honesty. He leans into the black suit. He leans into anger. He starts using his power not to protect but to punish. His attack on Sandman isn’t about justice anymore — it’s about revenge. It’s about hurting someone to make himself feel strong. That’s what toxic masculinity offers: a false sense of safety when everything feels out of control. When Peter feels weak, the suit tells him, "You don’t have to feel weak — you just have to be crueler, meaner, tougher." Toxic masculinity says you can stomp out your pain by stomping on other people. It promises that dominance will erase vulnerability. And like Peter, many believe it... until they realize too late what they’ve become.

How Fans Responded to Toxic Masculinity

One of the weirdest reactions to Spider-Man 3 was how people loved “Bully Maguire.” Peter Parker, swaggering around with greasy hair, pointing finger guns, strutting like a jerk — became an instant meme. People thought it was hilarious. They thought this cocky, rude, arrogant version of Peter was somehow "emo" (clearly, these fans don't know that emo is not just black clothes and a side swoop). And they cheered for it, laughed with it, and celebrated it. In many ways, the fan reaction mirrored Peter’s own initial high from the black suit. Fans weren’t admiring Peter’s real strength — they were admiring his cruelty, mistaking it for coolness. It’s a symptom of a culture that loves toxic behavior when it’s wrapped up in humor or charisma. Instead of seeing this version of Peter as a warning, a lot of people saw him as a meme-worthy upgrade. Just like Peter, they fell for the trap.

Toxic Masculinity is a False Hero

Toxic masculinity makes you feel invincible — right up until the moment it destroys everything you love. Peter’s breaking point comes when he strikes Mary Jane at the jazz club. In a moment of blind rage and humiliation, he crosses a line he can’t uncross. And that's when Peter finally sees: this isn't strength. This isn’t Spider-Man. This isn’t him. Realizing the black suit’s influence, Peter literally tears it off, fighting against the suit's desperate clinging. But the damage is done. His actions ripple outward — hurting MJ, alienating Harry, pushing Eddie Brock to the edge. Peter's story shows that toxic masculinity doesn’t just hurt the person who wears it — it spreads pain outward to everyone around them. And even when you rip it off, you can’t undo all the harm it leaves behind. Or worse... you can negatively influence someone to embody that venomous, toxic behavior. For Andrew Tate, it is teenage boys. For Peter Parker, it was Eddie Brock.

Some Never Escape the Temptation

When Peter finally confronts Eddie — now Venom — he begs him to let go of the symbiote. He offers Eddie a chance at redemption. A chance to be free. Peter knows firsthand how intoxicating that dark power is, how hard it is to walk away. He tries to pull Eddie back from the edge. But Eddie refuses. Stating, "I like being bad. It makes me happy." Toxic men are aware they are toxic, but doing so pleases them. Hushes their insecurities. And when no accountability is forced nor taken, they continue to harm others and ultimately themselves. Eddie would rather burn with his hate than heal. That’s the final tragedy of Spider-Man 3: not everyone chooses to change.

With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

Spider-Man’s greatest lesson — with great power comes great responsibility — was never just about fighting bad guys. It was about the responsibility to yourself, to your community, to your own heart. Power without compassion leads only to corruption. Recall how Uncle Ben warned Peter about abusing one's power in Spider-Man 1, a lecture Peter initially rebuffed and later heeded repeatedly. Uncle Ben almost foreshadowed Peter’s run-in with the venom that is toxic masculinity. Peter had to remind him that strength without empathy isn’t heroism — it’s just cruelty with better PR. Spider-Man 3 is not just a throwaway superhero movie. It’s a warning about how easy it is to lose yourself to anger, pride, and the seductive lies of being toxically masculine. And it’s a call to all of us, especially to men: you are strongest when you choose love over dominance. You are most heroic when you reject the suit, even when it would be easier to wear it.

#ChooseTobeyNotTate 🕸

[expectiations]

I love that - thanks to one small line - their first kiss gives us a huge look at what kind of partner (and then later husband) the Eleventh Doctor is.

'What, that's it?'

First of all bear in mind from his perspective, yes they've gotten closer, but he's still suspecting that River might kill him sooner rather than later. It's understandable that some trust issues linger and thus he's still a bit quick with the casually dark (and cruel) demeanour.

River knows that. She knows where he is in his timeline. She knows that, despite how much he flirts with her (and he flirts with her A LOT), he is not her husband, not yet the man that loves her and he's not even the man that knows her. So why does his short goodbye confuse her?

Because this small line tells us that not only have they been dating (from his perspective) between DOTM and AGMGTW but they've been dating physically. To River, this short-fuzed ball of trust-issues is essentially not only her husband but also her actual boyfriend.

Meaning that the Doctor, before he became the doting idiot husband we saw in TATM/TNOTD and even before he knew who she was, never dropped her off after a date without at least (!) kissing her goodbye.

And I'm really putting the emphasis on never because River would otherwise not risk asking for a kiss, if there had been any doubt in her mind that this Doctor isn't a Doctor she had been dating. So what does that tell us?

Despite how much this fandom likes to paint the picture of the evil River who forced herself on the Doctor, she is never the one to initiate (physical) intimacy. She expected to be kissed, she expected the Doctor to kiss her because that's what the Doctor does. Husband or not.

And it's so ingrained in their relationship that even when he showed his honest confusion, River assumed he must be acting coy on purpose to get *her* to kiss *him* for once. And well it worked, intentionally or not, River complied because why wouldn't she? It's what they do.

Until of course she is forced to realise that it might not be what they do for much longer. This was his first kiss; so she might not see the boyfriend version of her Doctor very often from now on, if at all.

But ignoring all the insanely depressing angst of how that scene ended, yes we saw an end for River but we also saw where the Doctor's pre-AGMGTW dating spree and thus the affectionate idiot began because he makes it quite clear that he's up for more. (pun intended)

I wish we could've seen more of their time together. Unfortunately 98% of it happens off-screen but the point of this thread is to show that, even if most of it is off-screen, the show has made the nature of their relationship and the nature of the Doctor's feelings very clear. Moffat's writing style is quick-paced and certainly assumes that the audience isn't too stupid to keep up. (wonder how that worked out) And small lines like these contain so much vital information that, for some people, it's easy to overlook. But all we need to know is right there. The Eleventh Doctor dated River prior to AGMGTW, definitely prior to TWORS; they've been intimate for two hundred (!!!!) years from his perspective before he married her and he is the one to initiate that intimacy. That's all. 🥰

original post on X by @/eIevenriver (who writes the bestest Doctor x River threads ever)

[writeronartblock]

HOW THE FUCK DID I NOT NOTICE THIS THE FIRST TIME???!!?

IvanTill's Cure has them singing different verses and choruses, and the only time they sing together was the final chorus but with Ivan as a lower HARMONY

MiziSua's Cure has them singing in alternation with each of the verse's lines and when they sing the final chorus together, they sing in UNISON

Ooooohhhhh, this is fucked, why didn't I notice this earlier? How have I missed this??

[blvvdk3ep]

I don't know if this is just a Twitter phenomenon, but I am sick of some IWTV fans acting like those who identify Lestat as being abusive are being dramatic or misreading the show. Lestat's villainy intersects racial and supernatural lines; every power he has over Louis, physically or societally, he subtly uses to lure him in and to control him. He's a fantastic character precisely because he's charismatic, beautifully polished, thoughtful, and passionate, but also cruel, hiding a profound ugliness, so deranged about love it turns around into something monstrous, capable of unthinkable violence towards those he loves. And the first set of traits (are used by him to) disguise the second set. He's obviously purposefully written like that and dismissing that is doing the writers a disservice. They wrote an amazing fucking character, and he's selfish, manipulative, and yes, abusive to Louis and Claudia, and he's so cleverly written that even at his most cruel when he gets what he deserves, you can't help but feel just a little bit sorry for him. Ignoring that brilliance just to unironically uwu softboy he never did anything wrong babygirlify him is soooo lame sorry

[dusty-cobweb]

i know we say julian’s old name like “jules” but it would be such irony if his parents actually named him “jewels”. like their original intention for their son was for him to be their prize possession, their treasure, their “jewel”.

that’s why when he was 15 and found out what they did, julian couldn’t stand the name anymore.

because he isn’t really their jewels, is he? he’s synthetic. tailored to have perfect clarity, cut into a certain dimension, polished. but he wants them to love him as he was. wants them to see his cloudiness, the rock that still clings to his edges, his unfacetted form and think “this is still a precious gem, this is still my jewels.”

tldr: julian’s parents cannot see someone’s worth as long as they are not tailored to their expectation of what a jewel is. but a diamond is still a diamond, whether it is raw or polished. it is worth something no matter the form it takes.

[inbredsaint]

dean definitely views sam as extremely pure and innocent when they’re younger. throughout the series he reinforces the idea of sam being his perfect submissive baby brother. who doesn’t bite back, who’s the perfect listener, a dog that just lies down and takes it. sam does not have control in this situation. he is desperate for his older brother’s validation. he craves to be small again & *just* be dean’s “little brother” and you’ll notice that through small touches and immature teasing jokes. how he leans into dean’s physical affection like it’s the only thing he’s ever known and wanted. they fall into this dom/sub dynamic so consistently throughout the show it’s just undeniable. and as they get older (prestanford-s5) it’s harder for dean to reinforce it, considering sam is growing a mind of his own and he’s forming his own thoughts and his own wants and needs and dean winchester could not possibly imagine or handle that. so he fixes it. he uses violence, manipulation, intimidation. because he loves his brother so impossibly much he couldn’t fathom the idea of *his* sam leaving for stanford or leaving him to go back. he sees sam as an extension of himself almost, he considers sam his own. but when sam doesn’t live up to that, for example, with ruby & the demon blood, dean locked sam away in the panic room and would rather him die than be anyone else but his perfect little brother.