Tumgik
#good theorists
phoenix-draws77 · 5 months
Text
Seriously sad about him retiring, but he deserves it after his hard work!
20 notes · View notes
inkskinned · 8 months
Text
it is totally okay to be hurt and tired and fed up with the american schooling system but i need you to understand that we need to be better about loudly and routinely defending public education.
yes, many teachers suck, many schools utterly suck. i also got bullied and was absolutely not given the right support for my needs. i am not defending public education because it was kind to me. i am defending it because it needs to exist.
right-wing republicans do not want an educated population. they want kids to be homeschooled or in private school. there is a huge religious undertone to this.
the most common argument is that despite high costs, the "result" is not "good" enough. they point to failing schools as proof that public education is just never going to work out. there will be arguments made here that you actually agree with: that teachers can be bullies, that we taught online for 2 years and still charged the same amount of tuition, that we have no recourse for students to actually have agency or a voice, and that schools are now unsafe for kids due to risk of illness and gun violence.
these are all placing the blame in a fraudulent way, one intended to get your parents to homeschool you. the less kids in a school, the less federally-awarded funding for that school, the less any school succeeds. they will not mention the fact it is their legislation that takes away important funding opportunities, that teachers are living at or below the poverty line, that buildings are not kept up to code, that administration is overpaid and forces specific curriculums, that corporations like (my personal enemy) Pearson Education control certain classroom goals because teachers can't afford other options. they pretend to be ignorant of the gun violence and say "oh just get a gun" - but these are the same people who will be sending their child to a private school with a bulletproof backpack. they don't care if your kid dies, though. they "don't believe" in covid, but they did get their kid vaccinated, because of course they did.
it is a closed loop. conservative parents hear the fearmongering and remove children from the system. frequently these parents are also deeply religious. the kids are raised without access to other media & learn to parrot their parents. you have now created a new generation of conservatives. additionally, one of the parents/caregivers must stay home and homeschool the children, usually for free. i will give you 1 guess which parent tends to stay home to homeschool the children. these parents are encouraged to have many, many children. those children are most likely not getting access to safe sex ed.
we might laugh at fox news suggesting teachers are forcing children to use kitty litter but: first of all, there is kitty litter in the classroom. it's part of an emergency kit in case children are locked in due to a shooter. so that's fucking dystopian, and the fact they've completely reimagined the scenario to somehow make the teachers look bad when it's instead a fucking huge symbol of our failure as a country to protect our children.... it feels a little intentional.
secondly: don't just dismiss the situation. because, yeah, obviously, no teacher is encouraging kids to be a catboy. but the actual undertone that fox news is trying to sew is an outright distrust of teachers and of public education. they rely on the dehumanization of trans people as a common touchstone to hide the fact they're pushing two agendas at once. (which is ironic. because the thing they accuse teachers of. is pushing. an agenda.)
whenever someone tells you they want you to read less, you should be suspicious of that. when someone tries to separate you and your education, you should be suspicious of that. i don't even like incel rhetoric nor would i want my kids exposed to it - but i would not take away my child's (age-appropriate) access to the internet. i would just provide more educational materials, not less. the difference here is that i believe we can resolve ignorance with knowledge; whereas conservatives believe that ignorance is bliss.
they misappropriate funding and demonize teachers. they pull the same trick each time - the same thing we are seeing with anti-trans rhetoric. they do not want you to have access to safe sex ed, so they act horrified, claim sex ed teaches you how to thrust deep, claim that we have no idea what "age-appropriate" means. since the mid-nineties, the united states has spent at least 2 billion dollars on abstinence-only education, even though to quote the above link: "a preponderance of studies has found no effect of abstinence education at reducing adolescent pregnancy". conservatives want you to think less of any person struggling with addiction so they can continue their racist "war on drugs", so they spend up to $750 million dollars a year on the DARE program which has absolutely no effect. acting like teachers "must" be "grooming" children is just the same thing - so they can demand that funding either goes to their causes or the funding doesn't "exist" ("i'm not paying for our kids to learn that thing!")
and they want you to feel uncaring about this. they are aware that you will hate some parts of your school experience. pretty much everyone does. they want to lean into the parts that you hate so that you don't put up a fight about it when they take it away for not being "good enough."
i know i maybe sound like a conspiracy theorist. but truly. truly. it is beneficial for conservatives to reduce your faith in the american public schooling system.
one of the explicitly stated campaign promises of the conservative party: to axe the Department of Education in 2024.
i know we are all tired and burnt out and there is so much else wrong with their entire platform. but maybe just - pay attention to this one.
5K notes · View notes
notherpuppet · 4 months
Text
My brain keeps wanting to rationalize what Alastor is up to and his true intentions but then I remember zestial saying how stupid that would be so I guess I’ll just watch and see
281 notes · View notes
luzity · 1 year
Photo
Tumblr media
ohhh i already know this scene is going to make me shake in my boots im sooo not ready
2K notes · View notes
indythefandomhoarder · 3 months
Text
so now that MatPat is gone, we have
TomRob - Game Theory
LeeCol - Film Theory
AmeRob - Style Theory
SanMas - Food Theory
All hail the newest victims of shortened names for recognizability.
101 notes · View notes
horse-surgeon-barbie · 5 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
if no one else got me, I know the Rick and Morty Character Guide (2020) got me
124 notes · View notes
theoryandahalf · 1 month
Text
youtube
Holy Shit! This was soooo good! To go from not knowing who Matpat is to making such a detailed short film of his life in like a month is so incredible. I hadn't heard of Sticks before Matt mentioned them on GTLive but damnnn they are so incredibly talented!
Also we get a Matpat short film if these guys get a million subs?!
Tumblr media
55 notes · View notes
haunted-xander · 4 months
Text
Finished the 6.55 MSQ so here's my (very positive) thoughts:
‌Love love LOVE Wuk Lamat she's so fun and her dynamic with Erenville is hilarious. Very excited to see more of her in Dawntrail.
‌Krile is already getting some nice scenes and I'm very happy she's finally gonna get the spotlight in dt. My girls been side-lined for 4 expacs it's about damn time she gets to shine.
‌The inventor of Pictomancy is literally Relm. Like they name drop her. Obv not the same Relm as in VI but still! Relm is real! And she was an Archon! tbh them naming an important character related to this type of magic after her isn't surprising- I just expected it to be something in the job quests rather than the MSQ.
‌Zero made super-spicy dishes popular in Thavnair lol. Wuk Lamat trying to toughen it out was hilarious. God I love her.
‌Wuk Lamat & Erenville being childhood friends was not something I expected! Very fun.
‌The catboy from the dawntrail promotional artwork is probably Wuk Lamat's brother, Koana(Was that his name? tbh I forgot. But she has a Miqo brother that's what's important). He looks smart, and it's possible he's gonna be another candidate claiming for the throne.
‌Based on the artwork, I had figured our main group was gonna be WoL, Krile, Thancred and Urianger, as they are the only Scions featured, but based on the quest it'll probably be Wol, Krile, Alphinaud and Alisaie. G'raha is allegedly staying behind, but since he's shown in Tural in the trailer I think he'll find an excuse to come along anyway lol.
‌Thancred and Urianger are going to be competing against us, which will be interesting. I think it'll be fun to see some of the Scions take on a more rival-y role, if only for a bit. It looks like they were petitioned by someone else participating in the Rite of Succession, so maybe they're working for Miqo boy? They're on his side of the artwork after all 🤔
‌(Also I think the writers know how popular those two have gotten together lol they're like making it a point to have them with each other at all times)
‌Estinien is going to Tural just for the hell of it which I think is hilariously in character. Literally going there at the same time as us purely by coincidence. He really can't escape us can he.
‌Y'shtola is neither seen nor heard of which tbh I think is fair given how much screentime and focus she got during the whole Zero arc. I do wonder why she's going to Tural tho, she's in the trailer too so I'm certain she will be there.
‌(Also, since G'raha, Estinien and Y'shtola aren't aligned with any particular side as of now, I think they'll be a neutral third party in the Succession rivalries going on. That, or they'll end up siding with the 3rd sibling that isn't the Obvious Villain (based on Wuk Lamat and Erenville's accounts) somehow. Will be fun to see in any case.)
‌The little memory dialogue from Emet was nice :) just a reminder of the adventures yet to be had. Also he's finally in the unending codex which I think is nice (ngl I kinda forgot about the codex until he got added to it)
ALSO I almost forgot to include it BUT we have a nice heart-to-heart scene with G'raha alone on a bridge and if the writers weren't COWARDS (and/or worried about romance ambiguity, at least for those relating to the WoL) he could've proposed to us then and there. You know he wants you. Do not hold him back writers let him do what he wants. (I'd have said yes ofc)
‌Backpack :)
76 notes · View notes
derpymidnight · 7 months
Text
matpat pulling an andrew garfield
106 notes · View notes
likealizardyousay · 5 months
Text
i made my mom listen to iDKHOW and she said that she imagines the singer as David Tennant’s Hamlet and i haven’t been able to stop thinking about it
do the vibes weirdly match or am i crazy tumblr help i am going insane over this
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
77 notes · View notes
lloydfrontera · 2 days
Text
y'know what's funny in a 'not really funny at all but i have to laugh or i'll start biting people' kind of way??
the adaptation team working overtime to make the relationship between javier and lloyd look so much less deeper than it actually is in the novel makes the novel look so much gayer than it already did on its own. like. sorry but your attempts to cover up the homoerotism just makes it stand out more in its absence.
because if there truly was nothing remarkable about lloyd and javier's relationship and they were just very good friends and nothing else then why take the time and effort to change it in the adaptation so they look less close than they actually are.
why skip entire scenes that make their relationship deeper. why change their dialogue and thoughts so they're less invested in one another. why give interactions that they had with each other to their romantic interests. actually why give javier a whole new love interest that did not exist in the novel.
why go through so much trouble to change something that is so important in the source material if there truly was nothing else going on in the novel.
what was it about their relationship that made the adaptation team decide they just needed to change everything about it so they weren't as close and attached as they were originally.
if they were truly nothing but platonic with each other in the source material then why change their relationship so much in the adaptation that it's almost unrecognizable.
what about it did they find so unappealing that they simply had to modify it until it was but a shadow of itself.
in trying to cover up something they only managed to call attention to it by the people who knew what was there originally. now we know that they wanted to get rid of it so badly they were willing to butcher the story and plot for it.
it's really funny :)
36 notes · View notes
blueskittlesart · 1 year
Text
tbh possibly the funniest move nintendo has ever made was rereleasing sksw, The Timeline Game, like a year before totk, getting all the new botw fans obsessed with the timeline lore, and then fucking everything up with zero explanation in totk. i hope they never explain it i hope they just leave it like this forever
267 notes · View notes
ghost-in-the-corner · 7 months
Text
No one is allowed to talk to me about computers until January
86 notes · View notes
local-omen · 2 months
Text
guys
guys i—
i don’t think. … . .. i don’t think tech is coming back
Tumblr media
30 notes · View notes
sun-and-moon-mushroom · 3 months
Text
AU where LQG (correctly) guesses that SJ has been replaced by an imposter because of just how OOC his first meeting with SY was. He doesn’t care that the possession tests all come back clear, he knows that something is up!
52 notes · View notes
hondacivicbrain · 4 months
Text
One thing I've been thinking a lot about amid the argument over the Barbie movie's lack of nominations is the aggressive level of hate it gets.
FYI, this is not about whether I think the Barbie movie deserved more nominations or not because it doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if it was a good movie or not. It doesn't matter that it was about feminism either. What matters — and what is at the core of all the hate — is that it's a movie for women. For girls.
Anything whose target audience is young women and teenage girls is inevitably slammed with hate.
It will be called overrated. It will be called basic. It will be shit on. The comments and reviews will be FULL of people saying how stupid or terrible it is, how they've always hated it, and how anyone who watches or listens or consumes it is too.
Again, it does not matter whether x product or y performer is overrated, or not talented, or a thousand other insults people (mostly men, but anyone seeking to set themselves, even subtly, apart from people who like popular, feminine things). What matters is the alarming level to which we've normalized the hate that gets thrown at young women — and especially at teenage girls — for daring to like something popular.
Since when has popular become a bad word? Products that are marketed towards women are hugely profitable, and yet critically shamed. Remember pumpkin spice lattes? I've never seen one girl fawn over them as much as I've seen 100 grownass men spew nonsense about how silly and childish and girly a flavor is. A flavor.
It doesn't matter what Taylor Swift's most adoring fans are like, even the ones who are over the top, because no one attacks men who get too enthusiastic about their favorite sports teams or fantasy football the way people attack her fans for being excited to see her in concerts. It's because her fanbase is predominantly young girls, and anything young women are into must be shamed.
The relative anonymity — or at least, the safety — of the internet has enabled people to be harsher than they might in real life, but bullying young women and girls for their interests is not a new phenomenon.
Romance has occupied the lowest rung of the genre ladder for arguably hundreds of years. Wholly romantic movies (meaning movies in which romance is the primary drama, rather than a subplot within another genre) must be *exemplary* to get critical praise. More male-centric genres like dramas or any movie seen as "intellectual" often only have to be *good* to get the same kind of attention. This is not a dig at Oppenheimer or any of the other movies nominated (nor am I saying Barbie is a romance). The point is that romance is held to a significantly higher critical standard because it is largely not for a male audience.
(As a side note, plenty of romance is genderless the way many other genres' audiences are, but as a society we've boxed it into a 'feminine' box and decided feminine=bad. I could write a whole essay as to why.)
I am absolutely not saying Barbie deserved or didn't deserve this or that, or that Taylor Swift should never be criticized, or that romance is a perfect genre. I am not saying these examples are the most important of their kind.
What I am saying is that anything that is both popular and centered around women is always, inevitably, and extremely harshly attacked by people who do not like it, and this has the potential to be incredibly damaging to teenage girls, especially in an age where social media use starts younger and younger.
What happened to, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all? Or, let people like what they like? You don't have to like something, but you don't always have to voice your hate for it either.
44 notes · View notes