#which is the most extreme opposite example tbh

[baekuras]

//makes one shitposty oc-note and posts about it

me 5minutes and multiple lore-points later into a new word document:

[thatbookgirl1118]

I cannot for the life of me find the original post (tumblr is a hellsite) but this was sent in an atla gc:

@the-badger-mole

and tbh i always kinda felt like kataang was weird exactly because of that one-sidedness??? like there's one episode of katara maybe sort-of seeing aang as a love interest (when the fortune teller tells her she'll marry a powerful bender), but then the rest of the show is her being passive in the relationship or actively pushing aang away (like their second kiss). and then at the end she just randomly decided "okay i like you i guess."

whereas aang got a bunch of pining moments and you actually believed he was in love with katara.

and most of their relationship was about how she helped aang - he did contribute to her character development over the course of the series especially as a bender of course but it didn't feel as emotionally/spiritually deep as katara's literal one episode sidequest with zuko.

but then someone else wrote "I would argue the opposite? Kataang is where Katara choose the peaceful nomad which subverts the trope presented where zutara is where she chooses the strong protector/combatant. Aang as a character is a subversion of the typical hero while zutara is like,,, coloniser romance idk"

and honestly... i kinda get that. aang was problematic in a lot of ways, but he was definitely a subversive protagonist, and i can see the power of allowing the woman to choose the pacifist vegetarian over the extremely obviously hot jock badboy. this is an incredible oversimplification of their characters of course, but the point stands.

Basically, Kataang is the ship we all logically want - the sweet, friendship-based, seemingly subversive one. But Zutara is the one that actually makes sense in the story, with these characters, not their tropes. Aang is subversive, but he and Katara are also kind of terrible for each other - he isn't mature or selfless enough for Katara, who needs someone to force her to take care of herself because she's always the one taking care of everyone else (wonder what that's like). That's why she and Zuko are so perfect, because he not only takes care of her, he makes HER prioritize herself. Aang... does not. He's pretty selfish, which yes is partially due to his immaturity (I personally don't count Korra as canon because it treated ALL the og characters terribly so I'm speaking purely from his 12 yo self), but it's also just a basic incompatibility thing. And Katara is actually equally bad for Aang - she enables him waaay too much, and he needs someone who doesn't. Who forces him to stand up on his own two feet and take responsibility. She's too much of a mother, and her relationship with Aang is too mother/older sister-ish.

With Zuko, on the other hand? Katara started out HATING him, forcing him to prove himself to her instead of handing him everything she had like she tended to do with Aang and Sokka. He had to earn her care, and as a result he appreciates it way more and demands way less of it. He's a far less selfish character generally for the same reasons, and is much more mature/has a better understanding of life and gray areas. Southern Raiders is a great example of this - he's down for whatever Katara decides because he understands that there's no one right answer, unlike Aang who simply preaches forgiveness. I'm not necessarily attacking Aang about that either - I do believe that grudges eat away at a person, and taking a life does haunt you, so forgiveness isn't necessarily bad advice. But it's not what Katara needed. Aang is great as a friend, but I don't think he's what Katara needs from a romantic partner. Zuko just... is.

[slythereen]

Tbh I think the most logical and realistic theory to why RBR is pushing the lestappen agenda so much more than Ferrari is that it just benefits Max more than it does Charles. Charles is already like an angel to the F1 community. He’s EXTREMELY well liked across all fans. No one genuinely dislikes him (there are trolls that hate on him to annoy the lecfosi but otherwise). Unfortunately Max doesn’t have that same luxury. He’s seen as an evil jerk by probably a good half of the F1 community (although it’s improving). Being seen having such kind and gentle interactions with Charles helps soften that reputation. And the only drivers whose interactions with Max get this much attention is Charles and Daniel. However, I don’t think Daniel has the same positive effect on Max’s reputation that he used to, or at least not as much. Not since he got his seat again at another’s expense, and even more so after he got the contract renewal instead of Liam Lawson. The general view of Daniel is still positive I’d say, but not nearly as much. Plus, when Max and Daniel interact on behalf of RBR, it just excludes Checo and looks more like a different agenda, which pisses some people off even more and doesn’t help anyone. Charles on the other hand, there is literally no negative side effect to their interactions to be widely seen, so RBR is going to take advantage of that.

yes, this is also a strong theory in my mind! the added baggage around doing it with daniel these days is a good point. charles is unproblematic and has great star power on the grid and that’s why all the top teams like to flex their charles interactions on social media (not just rbr).

i think charles comes with the added bonus that he has never really spoken badly about max and clearly approves of his (controversial) driving style. last year, the friendly rivals “full of respect” narrative that rbr was big on was a dig at lewis for sure, but it was also about max being seen as friendly/fun at the height of a (brief) title battle. especially when rbr (or christian) still gets some good press for “defending charles more than his own team” (every time ferrari fucks up, the chrisrian horner quote goes around? great staying power for rbr). yes, there was the austria 19 scuffle (and the great lestappen unfollowing) but everyone talks about that in a fond way now because of the change in their friendship since. and austin is a good example (“no i don’t mind max trying to punt me to dallas, i - an angel! - would do the exact same”).

i think it also benefits rbr to suggest that they might be able to get charles. yeah, it’s unfortunate for the Look if they can’t get him (and suggests that even the best car can’t lure whoever they want), but this is charles. the suggestion that they’ve even been able to get him to consider it for longer than a second is powerful, precisely bc no one thinks charles will ever leave ferrari (and many think rbr would be the last place he’d go, because of their “bad” rep).

charles benefits from it too, imo. rbr was definitely driving it and charles seems more passive with it (liked the merc tweet, but not rbr — which i think is more about the “mr russell” joke than merc). the padel date is new buy in. for him, it’s useful to suggest he has options elsewhere — but i also think max’s reputation benefits him for the exact opposite reason (suggesting he’s not just a “soft” angel and is in fact as brutal and deranged as max on track, given the chance).

so. yeah. there’s also a very strong plausibility that this is all just rbr capitalizing on rehabbing max’s reputation and charles taking the extra bargaining leverage with ferrari.

[pralinesims]

is it bad that I wanna put luca and vale on the spot (microphone) 😁 I wanna know 50, 37 and 12 & 13 💗

THANK YOU FOR SENDING MWAH <333 They have to put up with it for once lmao, as they do deserve some spotlight 🎤

50. Is there anything that scares them about their friendship/relationship?

For Vale esp a lot tbh, but the biggest factor probably is that he has trust issues enough for more than 10 lifetimes, which is not ideal while considering the fact that Luca's friend circle is pretty large. So his mind runs through fears of getting replaced or forgotten quite regularly, which is a feeling he still can't shake off, even years into their friendship.

Luca, though while being a much more trusting person in general, sometimes wonders if Vale would cut him off out of the blue, which is a very valid thought because this event literally already has happened once. Just that his main fear is that next time their friendship wouldn't be salvagable.

37. How did they become friends?

Both met each other a short while after Luca had to transfer schools, due to his dad switching work places and the resulting move. They didn't go to the same class, but parallel classes instead, so they didn't meet immediately. The actual first meet happened when both sneaked off for a smoke during lunch break.

Of course Luca was the first one to initiate conversation, as he possesses this introvert radar (iykyk) that literally almost every extrovert has lmao. Anyways, shortly summarized, they felt a connection rather fast, mainly because both of them were rebellious outcasts, had pretty similar interests + most of their opposite qualities complimented each other well. The more they started hanging out and spending time with each other, their bond got deeper and deeper.

Also, in Vale's case it much helped him that despite Luca being such a social butterfly, he is in a not so obnoxious way, which is one of the reasons that kinda intrigued Vale, as he usually does not feel the need to get closer to people that have a very social nature.

12. What would they say each other’s worst quality is?

Vale would most likely consider Luca's impulsivity to be his worst quality. While on one hand, he mostly appreciates this very fact about him a lot, it also has led to some negative consequences which he would've wished for Luca to not happen or having to go through.

For Luca, the fact that Vale relies too much on lying through many aspects of his life. While his ability to lie without effort often helped them out during dire situations, he dislikes that he also carries this on during other things just to shield himself off, for example his emotional issues, private problems in life, et cetera...

13. What would they say each other’s best quality is?

There's lots of qualities that Vale considers to be good about Luca, but his resilience is something he admires extremely. No matter how many rocks life has thrown against Luca, he always keeps on going on and finds ways to continue, even if he'd rather would not want to and giving up was easier. Hell, he's even the one that apologizes first for arguments, even if Vale was the one who initially fucked up.

Luca above all very much cherishes about Vale that he is a ride-or-die companion, no matter what ever happened, like that he has never spread his entrusted secrets, ratted him out for personal gains if he could've, him being there for Luca when he needed to be bailed out, and many more situations which require intrinsic and unexplained trust.

[loving-n0t-heyting]

Hello loving not heyting do you have any recommendations on learning about anti-psych position/movement? For someone who really wants to understand the position does anti-psych also go in fields such as psychology and psychoanalysis? Does it propose reforms or abolition?

i have not read much anti psych "theory" tbh, and when ive tried reading any of it it often comes across with the same pitfalls common to a lot of leftist "theory" anyway: high on abstract speculation about the social role of psychiatry, low on concrete details; keen on pinning all our hopes on the abolition of capitalism or the state in such a way as to demoralise rather than inspire. i have looked a bit into more focused activist organisations like akathisia alliance that have been helpful. i also found, way back and diffusely in a way hard to either clearly recall or recommend central cases of, some autism self advocacy work that helped set me on a saner path generally; lydia xz brown, mel baggs, other internet activist microcelebs. there was more wheat with them i think than "mad liberation" and "anti psych" stuff generally (common autist w) but also still a fair amount of chaff. he is definitely NOT antipsych, but scott alexander had some helpfully sober assessments of the efficacy and drawbacks of ssris in particular (tho this example feeds into the next genre)

more illuminating than anything to me has been reading from "the enemy:" actual literature by psychiatrists and their partisans. actually looking thru the existing medical literature on antipsychotics (efficacy, side effects, etc), in particular, did more to radicalise me on the topic than any antipsych propaganda. partly in terms of laying out the problems with the medications, partly by exposing how fundamentally unrigorous a lot of this research is. (i remember once looking into a taxonomy of extrapyramidal conditions, then into i think parkinsonism in particular, and seeing the list of symptoms include... "extrapyramidal symptoms".) i used to binge read the neurodivergence-unfriendly spectrum news and you could just regularly see them report the stupidest or most degrading bullshit without an ounce of incredulity, like this piece which makes me almost too angry to articulate the retardation involved (moral luck is an open philosophical problem, not a settled fact about "theory of mind") or this piece hailing the coercive implantation of mind control chips in an adult womans brain in order to curb her excessive hand washing. academic research on the subject inspires in me similar sentiments. the dsm itself, current and past editions, can be an extremely instructive read. i could go on, theres a lot to look into here

i get the impression that ppl styling themselves as anti psych or psych critical tend to go soft on a lot of more "analytic" (freudian) approaches; here are two examples of this brand of shameful dereliction of reason. which is the opposite of helpful to me bc i was made to see freudians from ages 4 to 25, and coming to grips with the truly rank pseudoscience of freudian theory was an important step in my self devt

sorry this answer is sort of all over the place. my feelings about the psychiatric system were not really forged by reading a couple of big thought provoking books, sadly

[inkdemonapologist]

Some Inconclusive Squinting At Wilson And Audrey's Timelines

Probably someone else has already had thoughts on this, but here's some of mine!

WILSON:

World War 1 ended in Nov 1918. Given Nathan was shipped overseas in the final year, it's likely he participated til the end, meaning that if he got busy with Tessa the INSTANT he got home, Wilson would be born in mid 1919 and be, uh, 53 years old by the time of BatDR

No offense to Wilson but he is NOT looking good for 53

Also Wilson somehow sounds approximately a gazillion times older than his dad's audiologs, which, since they're about the death of Joey Drew and the opening of Arch Gate Pictures, are from just a couple years ago.

There's a few different ways headcanon could go on this I think, but I actually have a small speculation/theory on this one: Wilson has been in the Ink Realm for over a decade, thus "removed from the march of time" in reality, but since he's human (the only human!) and not an ink creature, he's been aging while in the Ink Realm.

We know he's been in and out before, and a decade or more could give him enough time to learn about and do all the bullshit he's doing. Henry mentions that he hasn't eaten in years, which could be a mistaken guess -- but if he's correct, would mean he's been captured a lot longer than the 211 days they've been ink-demon-free.

This could also fit with Wilson's weird note about being hidden in plain sight:

"It's been years and my face is still a mystery to my coworkers. They don't know me. They avoid me as if I carried some infectious disease. At first, this was an insult. But now... it is a gift. With the right costume, I can play the part of anyone. I can go completely unnoticed, hidden amongst the shadowed walls. As a clerk, an artist, a producer. Or even... a lowly janitor."

I don't think it's controversial to say that Wilson is eXTREMELY DISTINCTIVE AND VERY NOTICEABLE ACTUALLY, and even the man himself describes being intentionally avoided as if he's diseased, which is sort of the opposite of being unnoticeable. But if Wilson came out of the machine looking over a decade older and was suddenly treated like a weird old man when he's only in his 50s... both his offended confusion and his later realisation that this is an opportunity to be unrecognisable could fit.

(do i think this is intended? tbh probably not. do i think it makes more sense? YES) anyway next up,

AUDREY:

We hear the "tell me another story, Uncle Joey" line in BatIM, which takes place in 1963. Joey describes his previous attempts as those that "came before" Audrey, so most likely he had not created Audrey yet.

This would mean Audrey was created in 1963 at earliest, and is a young woman by the time of BatDR in 1973

This does not look like a 10 year old:

So Joey didn't just create her as a ten year old and then by BatDR she's 20; Something weird happened with her aging. ...this isn't like, a plot hole or anything; she's an ink creature and she can grow up however quickly she wants/Joey wants. BUT IT DOES RAISE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT EXACTLY HOW THAT WENT DOWN, especially considering that Joey died only 2 years ago, describes having a pretty significant relationship to her, and then in BatDR she has completely forgotten he's her dad. There's so many pieces;

Wilson (dubious trustworthiness) says she'll forget everything, implying that on entering the ink realm she'll lose her memories -- though afaik none of her other actions or comments seem to reflect a loss of memory on any other topic (for example, confidently telling Wilson "I've never done anything to you!" rather than a question of "What did I ever do to you?!")

Similarly, her "Well, newsflash! I didn't even know my father!" line does NOT sound like she suddenly can't remember her dad -- the emotion in it sounds like something that's been kind of a sore spot for a while. Even a new, fudged memory wouldn't have the time to build up this frustration in the Ink Realm... it feels pre-existing.

Joey (dubious trustworthiness) asserts that she's chosen to forget.

With her age being weird we have no idea when she left home; she could've been out on her own for a few years, and depending on the circumstances, may have had reason to forget/dismiss the memories of a very anomalous childhood.

Nathan never mentions her and does not have any explanation for Joey's boosted spirits (when you would think "apparently he adopted a child!" would be a pretty reasonable guess), so she does not seem to PUBLICLY be known as Joey's daughter

With absolutely no information there's space for a lot of speculation -- since she's his creation, can Joey tweak her memories? Can he give her a different backstory? Or did Audrey just end up in a different living situation and her brain decided her "ten years of growing up crammed into 4 years of time" memories with Joey didn't make sense? Did Joey have to give her up for some reason? Or did she and Joey have a huge argument/falling out that led to her leaving home? Did Joey try to demonstrate the truth to her and it was so weird that she just blocked it all out? etc etc etc

She still has the animation cell signed by Henry, and the TioL book with Joey's storyboard notes, which I feel like, she must've been given by Joey? So like, does she know Joey raised her, and she called him "dad" with the assumption he was her adoptive father, and she just wonders about a birth family that must exist but that she never knew? This one feels the most sensible to me, but also doesn't track with Memory Joey making the assumption that she's "chosen to forget" -- though it's also possible he's just being dramatic, or that Memory Joey just didn't know. Or, combine this with the one about Joey telling her the truth and her just repressing that because it's too weird, so she remembers her relationship with her father but not the origin story??? And like... I guess also this would mean the machine DID scramble her memories some so that Memory Joey wasn't shocking to her to meet?

Anyway, I haven't been able to cobble together a SATISFYING THEORY about Audrey's timeline so much as a bunch of really interesting headcanon fodder, depending on how you want to interpret Joey.... Just feels like there's a big space there where SOMETHING Obviously Happened but absolutely no clues towards what it might be.

[glacierruler]

Bipolar 1 Disorder

So there have been a few people, who on this post, weren't sure what Bipolar 1 Disorder is. Keep in mind this varies for everyone, but I'll give you the medical definition, and what it personally feels like, for me.

Also feel free to rb with questions, or how these things feel/affect you, or just to spread awareness.

CWs: manic episodes, depressive episodes, hallucinations, delusions, intrusive and impulsive thoughts, suicide ideation and thoughts of suicide, car crash mention, medication

According to this website, NIMH Bipolar 1 Disorder is:

Bipolar I disorder is defined by manic episodes that last for at least 7 days (nearly every day for most of the day) or by manic symptoms that are so severe that the person needs immediate medical care. Usually, depressive episodes occur as well, typically lasting at least 2 weeks. Episodes of depression with mixed features (having depressive symptoms and manic symptoms at the same time) are also possible. Experiencing four or more episodes of mania or depression within 1 year is called “rapid cycling.”

Again, every individual experiences this differently, and this won't be completely true for all individuals, but this is a good place to start your research(I do not agree with all the information in this, but it's one of the most credible sources I have). And again, you should definitely do your research, not everyone experiences this like I do.

Okay, so most of this has to do with, or is tied to emotions and feelings. Which makes explaining it harder. But bear with me here.

First, manic and depressive episodes are two extremes. And like you can feel both at the same time, despite how polar opposite they can seem, but both of them are still two extremes.

Now manic episodes in particular are interesting, because like, for me, most of the time they're chaotic and happy. But there have been a few times where I'm irrationally angry. However, at least until I reblog this with probably more information, I'm going to focus on the more happy chaotic side of manic episodes, because that's the main thing I have experience with.

During these happy chaotic moods, these manic episodes, I feel like I'm on top of the world. I legitimately think laws don't apply to me, which is not a good thing. I'm more likely to act on my impulsive thoughts, and thoughts that would usually be intrusive, become impulsive. Like, for example, burning down a building with people in it, usually that would be an intrusive thought for me, but when I'm manic, all of a sudden, I do not care about human lives, and it seems like the most fun thing I could do(this is an example of where my mind could take me). So it takes what would usually be an intrusive thought for me and turns it into an impulsive one. And while my manic episodes don't usually last for a week(has happened a few times), they do get really bad. And I will be a danger to myself or others because of these episodes. I am also like so much more honest, because I don't see the point in lying, lying takes more effort than it's worth in these episodes, which is not great when you're closeted. Thankfully I am mostly left alone when I'm like this, and have never been asked about my identity during an episode.

And while yes manic episodes can be, and in most cases are, dangerous, I can usually do my best writing/painting/drawing during these episodes. I find that I'm more creative, with ideas flowing out of me, and as long as I'm sitting at my computer or easel, I'm not nearly as dangerous.

As for depressive episodes, those are different. Er... I don't think I can explain them very well tbh. But I'll try my best.

Depressive episodes are interesting, because they themselves aren't depression. Depression is a completely different feeling. Like, don't get me wrong, depressive episodes contain depression, but that's not all they do. Depressive episodes make it harder to do anything, but in a different way than depression does. Like, at least for me, with regular depression, I can still be objective about the day that I've had. Where as with depressive episodes that reasoning that I have with myself is like, taken away? And like, depending on how bad it is, it's harder to fight off certain thoughts. And these episodes can last a few hours to a few weeks for me. I'm not explaining it well, because it sounds like regular depression, but as someone who has regular depression and depressive episodes, there's a difference in the feeling. Like depressive episodes contain depression and the hardships that come with it, but make it worse and have a different feel to them. Like, with normal depression, I might think about killing myself, but I'll be able to tell myself no, and why I'm valued. With depressive episodes, the worst one I had I almost crashed my car on purpose, and it took everything in me to not do that. (And that was when I was on my meds, so I'm very glad I didn't have it while off of them).

Now, I experience hallucinations and delusions as well and while not everyone with bipolar 1 disorder experiences this, it is common. And like it's interesting because it can be caused by manic and depressive episodes, usually manic, but with me, it's more of an everyday type thing? Like, they're stronger when I'm manic, but I still get them when I'm not experiencing manic or depressive episodes. With the hallucinations bit, I'll see shapes floating in the air, or hear a few words loudly or even a distant conversation that I just can't make out the words too. Along with some sensory hallucinations, where I'll feel random stings or crawling sensations on my skin. With delusions it's more like I believe something that is so obviously false. One common thing that happens with me, is I'll believe I'm a literal disney princess, like I'm the daughter of Ariel or something. And again, when I'm manic it's worse than when I'm not. So like, a delusion that will usually take me a few hours to break out of, might take me a few days. And hallucinations that are more obvious, become harder for me to tell the difference between, say a see through figure on the streets, and what looks almost like a full body person. (Although it's usually shapes that I see, but I have seen what looked to be a person a few times even though there was no one there). And like, sometimes my hallucinations and delusions will team up, and to keep with the previous example, I will envision the dining room in my house as this big grand ballroom, even though it is literally not big enough to be as spacious as what I'm literally seeing with my eyes. The only hint that my hallucinations aren't real is they will be slightly see through, like, even the most vivid ones I can slightly see through, but some are harder to see through than others.

Again, just to reiterate my point here, this is what I go through. Not everyone who has bipolar 1 disorder will go through these like I do. It is NOT a universal experience.

[payphoneangel]

This passage for the DVD commentary 🥲🥲🥲

BIRDIE!!!! KILL ME DEAD!!!!

Ok this is going to be SO LONG but there's a lot to unpack here.

for anyone curious this is the fic I will be talking about and the ask is based off this post.

oh where do I even BEGIN with this one. Okay. Okay so for this voicemail I had a few ideas I wanted explore.

Dean's relationship to alcohol

Dean's relationship with Jack

Dean's anger

So before we get into this, i think it's important to mention that, at least to me, one of the most frustrating things about Spn is that: It loves to beg the question, but it rarely ever answers it.

What I mean by that is the show will introduce these concepts and ideas. It will say, 'hey you ever notice X?' and I go, 'woah yeah I did notice X! What about it?' and they go, 'uhhhh idk. nothing. why are you asking? shut up.'

So for example, in Hammer of the Gods, Kali has this super great string of lines where she talks about the constant centering of western ideals. She begs the question (to the narrative), Why is the christian god the most important, most powerful god? Why is He the one who gets to be The Great Creator, while every other God is watered down to a Monster of the Week? Is that ever answered? Is it ever unpacked? To my memory, no. The show just continues on as is. They acknowledge the opposition to their argument, but do nothing to refute it.

And they do this all. the. time. with characterization.

Dean's relationship with alcohol

So Dean is canonically an alcoholic. It's shown all the time, far past the 'Red-blooded All American Man loves drinking beer' type of beat. Like we're shown time and time again that Dean struggles with substance abuse, specifically with alcohol, but what is the show trying to say ABOUT it? It seems bad, in the broadest strokes. There's plenty of scenes showing Dean drinking, breaking things, driving, yelling at people, being violent. But, to what end? Once again, to my memory, Dean never gets to heal from this problem, or grow past it. You get the occasional throwaway line, like Sam chastising Dean for drinking on a case at like 10 am (you'll have to forgive me for not remembering what specific episode).

So, in my fic, I wanted there to be consequences for this. Because consequences are the soil through which characters bloom and grow. I wanted Dean to be able to see and feel and understand that yeah, this is bad. this is bad for me and it's bad for everyone around me.

By fucking up on a hunt and then fucking up the post-hunt, that's a direct consequence for him. That's a motivation for him to realize that something needs to change and that he needs to do something. (not saying that canon Dean was unaware of these revelations, but more so that the narrative didn't care to focus on them) I wanted to give him space and opportunity to do that.

2. Dean's relationship with Jack

I think one of the things the show does well is depicting the complexities of family dynamics. It's the complex father show! It's the fucked up brothers show! It's the show that went on so fucking long the brothers became fathers themselves! This is the show about viscous cycles!!!

and im going to be honest, the whole dynamic with Jack is weird. it really is the 'the most noble death in spn is to die for the winchesters' motif taken, imo, to it's most extreme. Hey guys, let's do a filicide (part 2 tbh rip emma). Jack as a character just like, to me it's just evidence of how committed this show is to NOT changing or evolving. Early seasons begs the question, 'when is a monster not a monster? When it used to be human? When its your brother? your son? When is a monster deserving of death? when it's done terrible things? or because it simply has the capacity to?' That's something Sam and Dean have to grapple with! And tbh I don't like the conclusions that the show comes to, which is 'if you are different, you are a monster.' (evidenced by how none of the special children were redeemed or just outright killed. and then Sam went on to just. stop having his powers and just got over drinking blood like okay.)

And then 8-10 years later we get Jack and oh okay we're doing this again. Alright.

So I wanted to ease back a lot of the uhhhh crueler stuff between Dean and Jack. And give them some space to heal and be on better terms with each other. A lot of their bonding happened 'off screen' in Cell service, which I tried to imply with the college plot line, the references to conversations they've had, and how Dean starts using they/them pronouns for Jack, but never really addresses how/when/why that convo happened.

But something that I DO like is the Jack/tfw parallels throughout the show! How does Jack remind Dean of Cas? of Sam? of himself? And I wanted to keep that martyrdom complex that all of tfw has in here. But that's when Dean realizes he fucked up! Kids shouldn't be almost dying for their parents!

And we see that when Sam steps in between Jack and Dean. That's Dean's moment to realize I am doing to Jack what my father did to me and I do not want that. I wanted it to be a bodily safety thing. I wanted Dean to see Jack beat up. Because how often has Dean used his own body as a shield? He knows what it feels like. I wanted him to have this moment of horror of oh. We taught you self-sacrifice. I taught you how to be a tool.

3. Dean's anger

So we have ^^^all that. And we have this moment where Dean is drunk, and he fucks up (or in his eyes fucks up) and Jack has to save him. And he's mad. But why is he mad? What is he angry at? WHO is he angry at?

Rage is very common on the show. In a lot of the high drama moments, we see a lot of anger. Dean breaking everything in a motel room, the violence, the throwing things. And in the show, I think anger is used as a catharsis in a lot of instances. SPN, to me, is an escapist fantasy about being put into situations where the only possible option is violence. The most correct and justified reaction to this impossibly unfair situation is to be violent and angry. And i think part of this is that men are taught to be violent and angry, but also shamed for their violence and anger (it's a whole double-standard thing, but i digress)

I subscribe to the idea that anger is a secondary emotion. Essentially, anger is a response (a call to action, even) to another emotion.

In a lot of the show, the emotion under anger is unfairness. So so so much of spn is this idea of 'it's a shitty situation but you have to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, grit your teeth, and get through it. because that's your job.' and that's fucking unfair!! That's something to get angry over!! And they do.

(Another common emotion preceding anger in the show is grief. And the grief is here. Oh, how it's here. Why was Dean drinking in the first place? Because Castiel is dead. but that's more of a theme for the fic as a whole and not this particular scene so im going to leave it here)

But to me, a very common precedent to anger is fear. You're scared, so you get angry. Anger protects.

I draw on personal experiences for a lot of my writing. Nothing is ever a 1:1 situation of my experience, but there's ghosts of myself in everything I write. This voicemail was one I drew on from an interaction I had with my own father.

One time as a teenager, on a really really hot day, I forgot my water bottle when I went to band practice and I passed out. Oops! I woke up, got sat down in the shade, a water bottle was found for me to drink. I was fine. However, the teachers didn't want me to drive myself home. Which sucked because I lived pretty far out of town. I call my dad. No answer. I call again. Nothing. I leave a voicemail.

I manage to get home (thanks to my stepmom who then left my dad a voicemail saying she grabbed me). But when my dad gets home, he's pissed. He had forgotten his phone in his car when he went into work that day. When he got in the car to drive home, he listened to my voicemail explaining what happened and asking for him to come pick me up (and then my stepmoms). So i'm sitting in our kitchen, and he's just chewing me out for being careless. and I remember thinking, why are you mad? It's not like I intended to get heat exhaustion. And then the more I listened to him, the more I realized. He wasn't actually mad at me. He was worried about me and upset with himself. He felt awful that he hadn't had his phone and couldn't help me when I needed him.

His kid was in trouble, he had been careless, now the kid's hurt. Maybe, had the kid been smarter, and let the monster kill him remembered to pack a water bottle, neither of us would be in this mess.

He was scared about what happened, and that fear came from feeling a lack of control, which then manifested into anger. Anger at himself for being useless, and anger at me for putting myself in that situation. What do you do when you're scared for someone? You get angry. Anger protects.

It's a sad song i think many fathers sing. I found it fitting for Dean.

4. All together now

So Dean's struggling with alcohol, even more so after Cas dying. He's struggling with Jack, and what to do about Jack, and how to be there for them when Dean's the reason their dad is dead. And then we get to this hunt where Dean is so so far from performing at his best and it's a tough fight and he's blaming himself for everything going wrong and then he's this fucking close to being the reason Jack dies, too. And oh, how it all that fear and self-loathing and grief come bursting out of him through anger.

and he feels so out of control! Cas is gone, Jack's hurt, Sam's hurt, and Dean is useless!! So he gets mad! but it's not out of unfairness. It's not out of an impossible situation. It's because Dean was drunk (and takes everyone's lives and well-being personally).

But that begs the question: is it really his fault?

Isn't that what genre he's in? Isn't he in the complex father show? the show about being angry? The show about family being hell?

That's not what he wants, though. That's not who he wants to be. He wants to be good. He wants to be good for his family. For Cas. For the people around him. Hell, maybe even for himself.

So maybe it's not his fault, but if he really wants to change, it is his responsibility to fix.

so maybe, just maybe, given some time, some space, and a narrative that cares,

maybe he can be what who he wants to be. Maybe he can have what he wants.

[purplesurveys]

1896

20 random people... Don't look at the questions beforehand! :D

Nina

Celeste

Hans

Lui

Kaye

Angela

Mom

Reena

Gabie

Kuya

Pau

Jo

Lei

Andi

Leigh

Marie

Dad

Dev

Sam

Pia

Ok, here we go...

How did you meet #4?: College org. I was an applicant at the time, they were already a member, and they seemed very friendly to all the newbies so I stuck around them. In time we became close and even got in the same friend group, which we're both still part of today.

How much does #9 mean to you?: She's a co-worker so while I wouldn't, like, die for her per se or can say that she's 'everything' to me, I'd look out for her nonetheless.

Describe #14 in 2 words.: Extremely intelligent.

What is your best memory with #5?: I loved when she came over to watch YTC Busan live with us! That was also such a random mix of friends to end up happening, so I was anxious they'd all be opposites – but it got really fun.

Do you know all of #2's secrets?: I know none of them seeing as we're only workmates and I like my boundaries.

When is the next time you're going to see #7?: In an hour or two, I'm guessing. She went out for a bit for errands.

When's the last time you saw #17?: 2 AM, Friday – dropped him off at the airport. From there, I won't be seeing him again until November.

How do you think #13 feels about you?: After trying to teach me one of her party card games last Sunday, I bet she now thinks I can get ditzy as all hell hahaha. But apart from that I don't know what else she thinks of me! We rarely see each other and are always shy when we do, lol.

Are #11 and #12 anything like each other?: Quite the contrary; they're a good example of how two people cannot be any more different.

Describe the relationship between #14 and #19.: They have a nonexistent relationship, but if we're gonna be extremely loose about degrees of separation – Hans went to the same school as Andi (#14); they both also were schoolmates with Gab, who used to date Sam (#19).

Is #10 single?: No. Has been engaged for a while now, too.

If you could tell #8 one thing right now, what would it be?: Let's go out soon and maybe we can try a new hobby together, too.

What is the funniest thing you've ever seen #16 do?: I haven't had many funny encounters with her tbh as she's kind of shy and doesn't really want to put herself out there – that, and we've always worked from home.

Can I name coolest instead? There was a time when my teammates and I each needed to make 10-slider decks about any topic (meant to be an exercise on public speaking); and she had what I thought was the most unique and personally relatable presentation – she covered her favorite lesbian media. Music, movies...and there's a bunch in there that I was able to relate to...just cause of my past, I guess. Haha. It felt pretty bittersweet, and I gave her some of my recs too.

How did you meet #15?: School. I can't remember when we got close, though. Maybe in high school if I had to guess – we stay friends these days, too, as she's with Andi.

What would you do if #4 died?: I'd be shocked to say the least. I'm imagining that'd bring the college friend group back together again.

What's the weirdest thing you've ever seen #3 do?: He had a brief stint as a camp...something (guide? counselor? idk terms) in the US a few years ago, so when he came back the first thing he did to me was share a bunch of camp songs he picked up from his time there. After he taught me, he proceeded to sing them all to entire time hahaha.

Are you friends with any of #19's friends?: Not with most of them. We only have a few mutual friends, all linked to Angela/Hans.

Who is #7 to you?: My mom.

What is one thing #13 is really good at?: I'm gonna go with biology and chemistry as she's literally a licensed pharmacist.

What would happen if #1 and #3 hated each other?: That would crush me, tbh. Hans is family at this point, and it'd be sad if he and my sister actively disliked one another.

Is #11 anything like #18?: I guess. Very surface-level similarities, but yeah. They're both leaders, their personalities are both pretty nonchalant...that's what I can think of now.

How much trust do you have in #12?: Lots, in the grand scheme of things. Jo is reliable and trustworthy.

If you fell off a bridge, who would you trust to catch you, #4 or #6? Why?: Angela, 100%. We're exponentially so much closer.

Who do you like the most?: It's a tie between my dad and Angela.

Who do you hate the most?: I didn't put in anyone I dislike.

How did you meet #1?: I would guess she was introduced as my little sister when I was 2.

What would you do if you never met #14?: I probably never would've gotten back into wrestling.

Would you date #20?: Hypothetically, in another universe – sure, why not? She's pretty and so so so SO ridiculously kind and has just such a warm personality.

Have you ever seen #8 cry?: Just once. We cried together at the time, but they were happy tears.

Would #5 and #13 make a good couple?: I've never thought of that. But I don't think so.

Describe #9.: I don't know her much outside of work, but from what I've seen she's hardworking; has a sensitive side in that she doesn't really like getting scolded; and she's a million times friendlier than I am – she gets along with everyone which makes her such an important part of the team. You gotta have an extrovert in PR, and she's that.

Do you like #16?: Yes.

Do you think #4 is attractive?: Personally not my type.

When's the last time you talked to #19?: Around two weeks ago.

Would you date #10?: Hard pass, that's my cousin.

What's the best thing about #15?: She has this innocent and pure aura around her that I adore very much. Like she can never get mad at anything and anyone.

Best thing about #7?: She's very resilient.

Have you ever kissed #11?: Nope.

Have you ever slapped #18?: I've never slapped any one person on the list.

When's the next time you're going to see #12?: I have no idea, our group rarely makes plans to see each other anymore. The last time I saw her was mid-2023 and we didn't even get to meet up after to talk about our Yoongi concert experiences like we planned.

Is #16 pretty?: Yes!

What was your first impression of #4?: Kind, approachable, helpful, reliable, older than me.

Is #13 your BFF?: No.

Have you seen #15 in the last month?: I haven't seen her in years actually lol. Andi and I hang out all the time and I always check in if Leigh will be tagging along...and she just doesn't.

Have you been to #20's house?: I have not. We're not that close.

Last time you saw #14?: April! We watched a wrestling gig. I'll be seeing them again later this month for trivia night – they added me to their team because two of the topics will be Friends and BTS, haha.

Next time you'll see #10?: Tomorrow, I'm guessing! We'll be coming over tomorrow and I think he'll by home.

Are you really close to #1?: Not heart-to-heart talk levels because we're a dysfunctional family and can't bear baring our souls to one another LOL – but it's a close-friend type of close for sure.

Would you give #20 a hug?: Sure. I'm sure I hugged her a few times when we saw each other 2 weeks ago at our surprise engagement party for Angela and Hans.

Tell me a secret about #5.: I don't know her enough to know her secrets.

Describe the relationship between #14 and #3: They were schoolmates in grade school until Andi moved.

What's your relationship with #5?: She's one of the school friendships I've been able to retain all these years. We're not best friends but we check in on one another from time to time.

Have you ever danced with #18?: I have not.

How do you know #13?: She's my closest cousin on my dad's side.

Does #2 have a boyfriend/girlfriend?: I don't think so. She had a dating phase early in the year, but I haven't heard much updates from her since.

Have you ever wanted to punch #6 in the face?: Maybe just once, heh.

Has #11 ever met your mother?: Nope.

Have you traveled anywhere with #12?: Nah. We could've, for Yoongi's tour! But I ended up in Thailand, she in Singapore.

If you gave #7 $100, what would they spend it on?: Probably on groceries.

Best memory of #2?: One of our events where we both ended up fairly tipsy.

What is one thing you most want #14 to know?: That I always feel bad for being the occasional terrible replier, but I hope they know that I always love it when they message and send me the most random questions or rants.

What's the last thing you did with #15?: I honestly have no clue. She's the one I've seen the least often.

When did you meet #8?: We first met around six years ago, when Angela brought us together for some drinks. We never talked again until 2021 when it was Angela (again) who put the three of us in the same chat since we all liked BTS. We got super close from there.

What do you wish for #17?: Good health is #1. It's something I find myself thinking about more often now; and for him not to feel lonely and sad when he's away.

[momtaku]

Hi, if you don't mind could you elaborate on this from your last ask? I'd love to read your thoughts on it

"issues that have plagued the series as a whole - terrible pacing, inconsistent tone, and too much emphasis on the mystery instead of the resolution."

I started this yesterday and it quickly turned into to an unwieldy mass of words because there is so much that I could say here. And tbh everything comes off much more negative than I’d like. Isayama is a talented writer. He can pace things. He can set the tone. He can write a compelling mystery. His work wouldn’t be so popular if those things weren’t true. But his primary flaws as a writer imo are: his over-reliance on the mystery box approach to story telling, his desire to surprise the reader went to an extreme and resulted in frustration, he let the story get far too big and as a result had to blaze through important development to reach any sort of conclusion. In other words, pacing.

Properly pacing a decade long monthly manga series (which is required by its nature to hit specific beats every chapter and more specific beats every volume) is likely impossible, so while I found the early pacing issues annoying, I also found them mostly forgivable. 

But minor pacing annoyances became major problems in the final arc when Isayama had far too much story to tell and not enough pages to tell it. It all led to inconsistent tone, rushed answers and unsatisfying reveals. 

I’m going to boil this answer down to try to explain what I mean with a few examples.

“Inconsistent tone”

Just prior to encasing herself in a crystal, Annie slaughtered Levi's entire crew and smashed up a city. Amin had visited her in the crystal over the years and agonized over her potential reappearance. When she’s brought back into the story all that buildup was brushed off with a joke.

Enemies seamlessly agreed to work together. Magath made an instant idealogical reversal.  Yelena rapid-fire went from being wiling to die at Flocks hand, to unconscious, to a meddler and a menace, to who knows what because she disappeared. 

All of the botched character development was due to a cascade of poor pacing. Isayama had too much story and too little time, so character development had to be rushed or brushed aside.  Character development and character interactions that might have been meaningful and poignant didn't have time to land and resonate.  Important plot points felt like check boxes being ticked off.

“Too much emphasis on the mystery and not the resolution”

This is also best summed up in the final arc. In the end all we as readers wanted to know was what was going on with Eren and the Rumbling. Instead we were denied that until the final chapter and instead fed a diet of rehashed moral dilemmas and plot points that didn't feel like they were progressing the story. Connie’s side quest to feed Falco to his mom is the most egregious example of that.

For too many chapters we knew that the rumbling was happening offscreen, that the world was being destroyed, and that Eren was... well, really who even knew because we were not given his viewpoint until the final chapter. Instead the story stayed in Paradis where the Jaegerists were building their bullet happy government and the Alliance was panic-wringing their hands instead of focusing on things that felt unimportant in the face of world genocide.

The problem with Isayama’s mystery box approach is that holding onto important details for too long is frustrating for readers. I heard a talented mystery writer say that having your readers correctly guess a mystery or predict an ending isn’t a sign of bad writing. It’s the opposite. It means you did your job well. 

Historia’s pregnancy was a mystery with no purpose. After 86 chapters, the basement reveal fell flat for many. The anime team inserted hints about Marley and Ymir an entire arc earlier than the manga did because they knew that rather than ruining the surprise it would build excitement and make for a more satisfying story.

I could write another post about how the anime fixed pacing and tone, but I’ll link to one of my favorite examples instead.

One more grievance before I end this.... 

The Marley Arc

The Marley Arc tops my list of "good story poorly executed". It was a mystery held too long that frustrated readers. Not sharing Reiner, Bert and Annies belief system sooner led many readers to not care about them at all. 

The Marley Arc wasn’t just a minor pacing issue. Instead it screeched the existing action to a halt. By abandoning the characters the readers cared about it drove fans from the series. 

For people who did care about Marley, doubling the cast resulted in frustration because story focus had to be shared by too many characters, resulting in readers feeling like their favorite was languishing or else being ignored. And example here is that many were led to believe Reiner would have a more significant role in the end. He didn’t.

I'm not saying the Marley Arc wasn't important because it was. I love the Marley characters and I loved learning their world but it should've been handled differently. Don’t ask me how because I don’t know, but plopping a whole new story in the middle of an established story is a killer.

More thoughts on the writing of the Marley arc is in this post if you’d like to read it. I think it captures my frustration and joy.

In summary, I don’t want to change the manga. I just want to chop it up and rearrange it. Maybe turn it into two mangas. I’m grateful that the anime fixed a lot of what’s wrong. The anime shows just how much more effective a story can be when histories are introduced sooner and mysteries are revealed when they are relevant and not years after the fact.

Thanks for the ask! If you made it to end of this, wow :D

[thegodcomplcx]

The thing that annoys me about Rory as a character is that he is genuinely written not to have flaws. Anything horrible he says/does (e.g. dictating when Amy should stop hugging her best friend, “i love you more than you love me” Nice Guy TM bullshit) isn’t actually portrayed as negative, which makes it easy for fandom to also brush it under the rug. The only shortcoming he is written to have is his insecurity about Amy’s relationship with the doctor, which is not something HE HIMSELF works/reflects on but instead is “fixed” by Amy having to prove she loves him more. The doctor is a toxic person and his relationship with Amy is totally fucked up, but the narrative is extremely aware of this and so it’s compelling. on the other hand the show pushes the idea that amy/rory are the epitome of true love and has no interest in exploring their flaws as a couple (apart from the aforementioned “who loves who” more argument which is resolved by Amy flogging herself over not deserving Rory).

The funny thing is I don’t think this is because Moffat is a crazy Rory stan, i actually think Moffat as a writer isn’t even that interested in Rory — everything about Rory’s character is just created to be the opposite of the doctor, Rory himself does not get much of a point of view or any complex character development. Equally, amy/rory doesn’t drive the plot or get climactic focus - case in point, their own wedding isn’t shown onscreen, the real climax of the season finale is Amy bringing the doctor back! Another good example is the angels take manhattan - Amy choosing Rory over the doctor is not about Amy/rory, they don’t even bother to show them reuniting in the past, the real focal point is the tragedy of Amy/11. Amy/rory is essentially a string of ~big heartwarming moments~ (to make you believe Amy would choose him) with no consistent story arc and most of their relationship development happens offscreen. This is frankly why I never could get emotionally invested in their relationship - they are basically just supposed to be the boring happy couple to contrast whatever’s going on with Amy and 11.

Another reason I’m not buying what the show is trying to sell is that Karen gillan and Arthur darvill do not have a shred of romantic/sexual chemistry, like at NO point do I believe Amy desires Rory, there is such a lack of heat to their relationship it’s so baffling that I even wonder if it was deliberately written/directed like that tbh.

rory is more of an object than he is a character imo. like he exists because amy needs to be conflicted about what she wants, and he’s just a representation of the life she’s running away from. which is why i think it’s so laughable when certain ppl are like “i don’t like amy, rory is the best companion, i want to see rory travel with the doctor by themselves” girl what are you talking about that is bones. that’s nothing.

you’re so fucking right he’s more of a non-person, an opposite doctor. and just because he’s a “nice guy” so many fucking people have fallen for the “true love story” bs that the show tries to pull, when honestly the true meat of the show and the fascination and the devoted love is between amy and the doctor.

and honestly yeah i agree about the karen/arthur thing like not at any point do i believe that they are in a sexual relationship. (this is probably why the 11amy baby fakeout consistently works so well, because as soon as you hear amy is pregnant you’re like oh shoot that’s probably the doctor’s.)

[revclver-jesus]

Oooh, that's an interesting interpretation :o! Especially that I've personally always imagined the exact opposite! As in, physicality tends to be the easiest way to "even out" social "ineptness", for the lack of better word. Most people, when lost on how to form out a positive verbal response (be it thankfulness, sympathy, etc.) AND make it feel unmistakably genuine, tend to just default to simply touching one another. It's also the easiest to "internalize", like, in this particular example, say, recognizing that a child clinging to his forearm seems to find the act somewhat soothing, hence he could probably enhance that, by patting them on the head, or something. And Takaya, specifically, always strucked me as someone who just couldn't care less what is happening to his body, as long as he doesn't feel invaded or threatened, so if hugging somebody gets him out of an emotionally uncomfortable situation, then it's a non-existent price to pay. But also genuinely interesting polar opposite interpretation on your end and I am very glad I sent that ask. Have a nice day :3

(( Hmmm!! Interesting, interesting... I think I see how we're getting the opposite interpretation here! Which is totally valid, because Takaya is just so mysterious in the original game tbh! But unfortunately--- I desperately want to elaborate and you have activated more rambling in me I apologize ahead of time lmao.......

See, I don't think Takaya is socially inept, since apparently Atlus describes him as being "charismatic" and convincing people to his cause, like a politician. He's emotionally inept. And only about his own emotions. Very big difference. He may be weird but he makes it look on purpose if that makes sense lol. He's the cult leader archetype, extremely unusual to most but somehow mesmerizing to the lost and downtrodden. As he says " People hear what they want to hear. " He's emotionally... opportunistic, if manipulative isn't the word, not simply because he's evil but because this is how a traumatized man hides behind 20 layers of smokescreen and emotional disassociation. Takaya holds his head high and aims to be untouchable by tragedy, which basically just means he fears being vulnerable. He does not grieve, he just rationalizes away the need for emotion and calls it acceptance. So basically, his way with words is HOW he gets out of unwanted situations.

He can talk to a dying child and tell them everything's going to be ok and this was meant to happen because words are just words to him, he'll say whatever you need to hear. But that facade cannot endure real request for closeness. He MUST keep his distance. He's charismatic, convincing. But to be so vulnerable and saccharine as to open his arms to actually embrace the child? Suddenly that's much too real, suddenly they're something tangible that is dying and he is losing them-- that's risking real attachment in a world he won't be in for long. Takaya is the wrong lesson to learn from death and loss, he is apathy, and so he cannot heal someone else in that way touch does, he has to talk them into simply not needing that comfort. He has to talk you into his death cult. He can't be a warm presence in the same way the protagonist learns to be. He doesn't know warmth. He's cold as death. If he tries to hold you now, you will immediately see exactly how cold he is, how bitter it is to be held and then let go. But if he decorates despair in poetry and flowers, he can keep you at an arms length.

Takaya doesn't care about his physical body, very true, he takes awful care of it as evident by his appearance. In fact I even headcanon that he has an apathy based eating disorder, but-- that's all due to his depression and being a reckless masochist tempting death lmao. He'll take a million beatings, smoke since he was 16, skip a few too many meals, but he won't accept a hug. He won't accept the touch of another person unless its to push him away.

.... ANYWAYS thank you for enduring the essay if you read that lol-- I hope you have a good day too !! ))

[kaffeebaby]

wait pls expand on lalo being a yassified chuck!!!!!

Sure thing! Cut just for those who don't wanna read a post about Chuck and Lalo

I was mostly being a bit jokey about it, but I honestly think that Lalo and Chuck have a lot in common when it comes down to the details. It's really no coincidence that as soon as Chuck leaves the show, we're presented with Lalo, who ends up bullying Jimmy into the exact opposite direction Chuck was. They're both incredibly selfish, they're the main man in charge, and they both seem to act like they can't stand not getting their way. They're one-track minded and stubborn to reach their goals, even to the point of their own destruction. They both have this level of emotional coldness, like they feel nothing, even though they have quick tempers. Kinda like nothing matters, except for the stuff that they want to matter.

In my opinion, Lalo is much more extreme in this way, just due to the fact that he actually kills people and puts others' lives at risk without even thinking twice. When he sees Nacho run into the building that's about to be taken down by the DEA, Lalo is just amused and entirely neutral to whether Nacho is going to make it or not. He's happy when Nacho makes it back, but I doubt he'd have cared at all if he hadn't, even though it's a dangerous situation and Nacho is way too high up to be risked at all like that. It's a genuinely high-stakes moment and Lalo is just sitting there humming and whistling, which reminds me a lot of Walt right after Drew Sharpe was murdered tbh. And similarly, I think Chuck used Howard as Jimmy's punching bag for years in this way, completely ignoring any pain or stress it would have caused Howard because that's what Howard was "supposed to be" doing, exactly what Chuck told him to. They both have such callous natures when it comes to playing with other people's lives, right down to casually disrespecting others. Like, they both devalue everyone around them just by the casual nature of their refusal to give a shit about anyone else.

It makes sense that Lalo wouldn't really see the value of other people's lives, given the world he's always lived in, but I always saw the two of them as having similar levels of entitlement, pettiness, spitefulness, and callousness. But Lalo has a lot more likeable traits than Chuck does. He's cooler, he's more composed, the people around him treat him with utmost respect, he's suave and a funny character... Whereas Chuck is genuinely needy and annoying and nagging and "lame." Lalo is a hot guy with blood splattered on his face and Chuck is basically like if a crazy old cat lady was a guy obsessed with his charismatic younger brother that everyone else likes more. This is what I mean by "yassified," like he's more conventionally attractive and ideal even to straight guys, he's what they want to be like, even if his actions are usually considered more monstrous.

The only major difference other than personality traits is that Lalo willingly breaks the law and Chuck refuses to, meaning that all of Chuck's actions are more within reality to viewers, which I think makes him seem more like a real asshole and less like a badass evil cool guy. I think this is a major factor as to why people like Lalo but not Chuck. You can easily view yourself as Jimmy, being berated by a holier-than-thou asshole who thinks you're scum, but how easily can you picture yourself as Fred from Travel Wire, innocently trying to help some stranger and being murdered during your shift at your job that doesn't pay you enough? It's like a classic example of the idea that characters killing people is okay because fictional lives are made up, but characters being annoying is bad because the audience's annoyance is real. Lalo could gruesomely skin someone alive on screen, but people would still hate Chuck more because he's mean and annoying and sucks to the average viewer. It doesn't really matter that his actions never reach the moral lows that most people would agree Lalo's do. Lalo is kinda like the anti-Chuck in the sense that even if Chuck did something great, everyone kinda already made their mind up about him and would still hate him anyways. You know, the sort of behavior that the show advocates against via it happening to Jimmy his entire life.

I hope this makes sense and isn't too rambly lol. TLDR: Lalo is more conventionally ideal and Chuck has too few redeeming qualities, so even though they're both awful, people like Lalo more, thus making him "basically yassified Chuck"

[mrschwartz]

Mojo dojo casa house?

hogging this ask to share my opinions on the barbie film which i had promised i'd do!

i only watched it once so obv i'm gonna catch a lot more in subsequent viewings and might even change my opinion on some things but

at first view what impressed me the most were the production and costume designs! the barbieland set and the barbies' outfits are really impressive and fucking awesome, they helped a lot in the immersive nature of the film and to sell the premise. the commitment to the rules of the doll universe was fucking stellar, the walking on tiptoes, her floating down to the car, there not being any actual liquids or food

and like okay. the plot. phewwwwwww. it's metamodern and i get it, and while it certainly was Extremely self-aware it often seemed like said self-awareness was being actualized by someone with a very specific, not necessarily privileged but oftentimes limited, worldview. for example, america ferrera's speech was great but didn't it feel like feminism 101? i thought the film was going to commit to some more radicalized notions, i guess lmao

but i don't want to judge it based on my expectations, let me judge it for what it is! something that i have to give it credit for is the critic given to barbie dolls themselves, especially the ones from sasha (maybe it's bc i'm zillenial so i've been her lol). i wasn't expecting the film to open that discussion and that gave it a turning point that i think was much needed. what i will say is that i think too much importance was given to the historical significance of barbies lol ("you set feminism back 50 years you fascist!") but i think that's a given since the movie was produced by mattel iself

i would love to analyze this film for what it is and not mostly for the message it's trying to send (bc i'm The Biggest believer that stories don't have to have a moral lesson, and in fact are probably better when they don't tbh) but it truly only works when you take into account the discussion it's trying to sparkle. and good for it! it did its job, people are fucking talking about it lmao. we're in a weird cultural moment where people like me think the film would've benefitted from being more radical (by GOD not in a terf sense, terfs can die and burn lmao, but in a let's free the nipple and grow our body hair and raise boys and girls the same way sense) but conservative people think it IS radical for supposedly sending the message that women should hate men (???)

on that note. i'm Definitely not siding with the conservatives here (my god please god Definitely not) but the film kept hammering on the fact that we should fight the patriarchy (and i've seen people saying that you're missing the point if you don't realize that the film is us vs patriarchy and not women vs men) but i think that's giving too much credit to the film vnfjvnfjv like i said, it's feminism 101, so in the end the barbies still take back barbieland, no? they go back to the beginning of the film, this idyllic world where one gender rules all and occupies all of the space. and like I GET IT, it's a comment on how the opposite is what happens in our world, i'm not stupid lol. i'm just angry that the dichotomy IS there, is all i'm saying. the film criticizes the things women are associated with and the expecations we have to live with, but also plays straight into it when this world governed by women is all pink and glamourous and perfect lmao does my critic make sense? that particular message of the film feels very girl power 2014 tumblr core

speaking of which, anyone else not happy at all with the capitalist recuperation this film brought about? "let girls dress in pink and wear barbie merch to this blockbuster multimillion dollar movie!! this is our moment, if men can cosplay to watch mcu films then the girls can have this one!!" oh honey. "movies for girls" and "movies for men" much? there goes the polarization again. AND the commodification of something that Should be counterculture. thanks for contributing to both <3

all of this not to say that i didn't like the movie! i did it was great i laughed a lot! sometimes its self-awareness bothered me for how "biased" it was but most of the time the film really benefitted from it in its comedy! depression barbie made me HOWL lmao, and the kens serenating the barbies with an acoustic guitar gave me war flashbacks bc literally what woman hasn't been there, stuff like that

and. it did make me cry lol. the final scene when barbie is talking to ruth handler and finally understands what it's like to be human and more specifically a human woman really touched me bc it was a commentary on the personal. it wasn't getting at broad social subjects, it was all about internal conflict and acceptance. reminded me of the epiphany scene from soul and the parking lot scene from everything everywhere all at once. i feel like metamodern films rely a lot on these self-referential and social commentaries, but are also slowly walking towards looking inwards a lot, and that means so much to me. the examples i've observed so far in cinema are fucking beautiful, i hope it's here to stay

[isaacsapphire]

This might be an off the wall and extreme example, and I also haven’t been keeping up with the cultural Christian discourse, but to me a nation that is culturally Christian (or whatever religion tbh) will have laws and practices which reflect this. I have no hard evidence to back this, but you could probably thank Christianity for the fact that people are not executed by cross anymore.

Two words; blue laws.

Mmm, I'm pretty sure that some of the most recent crucifixions were in Japan... And they got the idea of crucifixion from the Christian missionaries, which seems kinda moving in the opposite direction, if probably unintentionally.

People generally aren't executed in intentionally painful or gruesome ways anymore, Russian sledge hammers being a notable recent exception, so I rather doubt that Christianity alone can claim that win. Although I've seen people who weren't otherwise fans of Christianity ascribe the end of colosseum games, with the attendant body count and suffering of humans and animals, to Christian activism, so there's probably some legitimate improvements in the world that can be added to Christianity's ledger.

[mariacallous]

Hi Boss,

I turn to you as the most thoughtful lady around for something I'm... I guess struggling with.

So listening to the Podcast "A Little Bit Culty" and the hosts started talking about how "both sides" in (American) politics "feel a little bit culty" they cited the labels they'd been called for expressing that most softly in the past "Trumper, and what was it? LibTard?" and basically saying "us vs them" is culty and that demonizing other is and how you can agree with some stuff without being 100% on the same side (which I do agree with)

and of course as a dyed in the wool true believing Democratic Democrat, my knee jerk gut reaction was "NO" but I'm struggling somewhat to come up with an intellectual non-emotional response to that. Now maybe it's one of those things where people claim victory because you had an emotional response to being told you're the same as conspiracy theory, white nationalist, homophobic anti-science nut jobs.

I would also point out being called a "Trumper" isn't an insult as such, its saying "you're a support of a former American President" vs LibTard which is saying being a liberal makes you mentally subnormal.

idk what are your thoughts, are there "a little bit culty" elements on the left? are they influential? and how much of the right is... kinda a cult?

I think they're oversimplifying and conflating things, for the most part - that both-sidesism thing is so easy to pull out and point to.

That said...

One of the things that struck me from rewatching The Way Down was when one of the commentators/speakers/experts they had said/argued that a cult is "a group of people who have a common bond or belief which maybe is not mainstream" and then went on to say that what is usually discussed is a "destructive or abusive cult" where, "instead of the group existing to serve the needs of the followers, the followers exist to serve the need of the leader" because obviously that kind of distinction is not made (how cults are defined and whether it is inherently pejorative or negative is a huge debate and is a whole other thing tbh).

The examples that they provided are actually pretty horrible ones to justify their argument - "us vs them" has been around since time immemorial and is actually one of the most consistently mainstream things around. Political polarization is not (inherently) "culty", and the issue of demonizing your opponents is just as mainstream.

Being called a Trumper (or Trumpeter or MAGAhead or whatever) is not the same as being called a libtard for the reasons you point out - like the implication of mental deficiencies or issues with Trumper et. al is implied whereas with libtard that's just explicitly and directly insulting someone's mental capacity.

I think that a lot of the BernieBros or leftists are "a little bit culty", at this point, based on how they've been acting and responding ever since 2015. There's a rigidity and continued fixation on a particular person or particular set of specific legislation or other totemic acts as the key to personal and political salvation and anyone who doesn't believe or follow them the right way is suspect and not worthy of support/deserves castigation, but even they aren't on the same level as the right.

Because the fundamental difference between the culty or ideologically extreme elements of the right versus the left is that the former is actively and loudly arguing for the death of and general violence towards those they oppose or perceive to be in opposition to them, and, for the most part, the left isn't, and certainly not to the same extent or same capacity and capability. It's like saying the chihuahua and the caucasian ovcharka are equally aggressive and equally equipped to attack.